Officials say country currently has a competitive advantage but urgently needs funds to stay relevant

The tech giant is funding one of the nation’s largest “virtual power plants,” which would pay homes and businesses to adjust their energy use when grids are strained.

© Bizuayehu Tesfaye/Las Vegas Review-Journal/Tribune News Service, via Getty Images

New projections by the Snowy Hydro company show tunnelling work is now 65% finished, but the completion date has been pushed back to 2029

• Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast

The cost of Snowy Hydro 2.0 has blown out to as much as $25bn, with a major reassessment finding the long-delayed renewable energy project will not be completed until the end of the decade.

First touted by the Turnbull government in 2017 with a price tag of $2bn, the cost of the project in the Kosciuszko national park has increased dramatically over time. In 2023 it was revised to almost $13bn, with construction due to completed by the end of 2028.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Snowy Hydro

© Photograph: Snowy Hydro

© Photograph: Snowy Hydro

Nuclear power has historically been a divisive issue: During the Cold War, an entire generation feared annihilation at the hands of the same basic technology that some want to use to power their homes.

That's unfortunate, because nuclear energy has considerable benefits—a reliable source of power with very few greenhouse gas emissions—with increasingly lower risks.

Thankfully, it seems that message is catching on with people from both major political parties.

"About six-in-ten U.S. adults now say they favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity," Pew Research reported in October 2025. "That's up from 43% in 2020, driven by increasing support among both Republicans and Democrats." The authors noted that "Republicans are more likely than Democrats" to favor the policy, with "roughly seven-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents" expressing support, but it still included 52 percent of Democrats and independents who lean in that direction.

Gallup found similar results earlier this year. The pollster "asked whether the U.S. should put more emphasis, less emphasis or about the same emphasis as it does now on producing domestic energy from each of six sources," wrote Megan Brenan. The six sources were solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas, oil, and coal.

"Nuclear energy is the only one of the six sources to see support grow since 2021, rising seven points to 46%," Brenan added. "This shift is notable given that preferences for nuclear energy had historically been more evenly divided among responses of more, less and the same." Instead, those favoring more emphasis on nuclear power outranked both those who want less and those who wish for it to stay the same, by about 20 points each.

It seems the consensus has been building: In 2024, a poll of first-time voters in The Wall Street Journal found overwhelming support for nuclear energy as a means of fighting climate change.

The trend is welcome, and it marks a major reversal of anti-nuclear sentiment that goes back decades.

The China Syndrome, a film about a possible meltdown at a fictional California nuclear plant, premiered in the U.S. in March 1979. One character in the film warns that a meltdown could "render an area the size of Pennsylvania permanently uninhabitable, not to mention the cancer that would show up later."

Less than two weeks later, in a disastrous bit of timing, a malfunction caused a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Thankfully, Three Mile Island was not a disaster. "Some radioactive gas was released a couple of days after the accident, but not enough to cause any dose above background levels to local residents," according to the World Nuclear Association. "There were no injuries or adverse health effects."

But those details were lost on the public. Several recording artists formed Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE), an activist group that opposed nuclear power. Just six months after Three Mile Island, MUSE held a series of "No Nukes" concerts at Madison Square Garden, plus a rally in Central Park that drew nearly 200,000 attendees.

That populist support spilled over into politics, particularly among Democrats. Running for president in 1980, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D–Mass.) called for a two-year moratorium on new nuclear plants. In its national platform, the Democratic Party pledged to "retire nuclear power plants in an orderly manner."

After the Three Mile Island incident, 39 planned nuclear plants were canceled.

That's a shame, for many reasons. As Reason's Ronald Bailey wrote in 2018, in a theoretical world where the development of U.S. nuclear power continued at its previous pace, "by 2015 it would have replaced all coal-burning and three-quarters of gas-fired electric power generation….Cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions would be about 18 percent lower, and annual global carbon dioxide emissions would be one-third less."

Yet even decades later, plenty of people—again, particularly Democrats—still opposed nuclear energy.

"Of all the Democratic divides on climate," Politico wrote in 2019, "the role of nuclear power may be the biggest. Progressives and some environmental groups have long lumped it into a category with fossil fuels, and some have spent decades opposing it."

At the time, a number of people were running to be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, and many of them had strong opinions on nuclear energy. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) said that she would not license any new nuclear reactors; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) pledged to go one step further and not renew the licenses of any existing reactors.

But things have changed in just a few short years, and nuclear energy is now an issue with potential bipartisan support. When did this pivot take place, and why?

"It was really around 2021, 2022, I would say that things really began to shift," James Walker, CEO of Nano Nuclear Energy, tells Reason. "A lot of the popular support looks like it's coming from younger people….It is a zero-carbon-emission power, and they have been raised to [be] more climate goal-focused" than older generations.

It's not just Gen Z either: Lawmakers are more keen on nuclear power now too. Earlier this month, the MORE American Fuel Act, sponsored by Sens. Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.) and Mark Kelly (D–Ariz.), passed the Senate unanimously. The bill "modernizes outdated Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing requirements for uranium enrichment facilities and aligns them with the process already used for other nuclear facilities and reactors," according to a press release from Lummis. It also "lets enrichment companies begin construction at their own risk instead of waiting years for a construction license before breaking ground, while preserving public participation and the NRC's rigorous safety standards."

"What we've seen up in Washington is that there is a nervousness around keeping pace with AI development," Walker adds. "There is a concern that rivals that are also investing very heavily into AI, such as China, are building nuclear reactors like crazy, and one of the reasons they're doing that is just so they have baseload power that allows them to scale up their systems. They are building two gigawatt-scale nuclear power plants every year at the moment, and a lot of it is to try and catch up with the U.S. tech industry."

The post Nuclear Power Now Has Bipartisan Support appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Prime Video's 'The Lord of the Rings' series is back with a new trailer and premiere date.

With polls showing Democrats in good position to retake at least one chamber of the US Congress, several Pentagon insiders are reportedly lining up to offer up damaging information about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in hopes that a new Democratic majority will impeach him. According to a report published Wednesday by The Telegraph, current and […]

The post Pentagon insiders will ‘spill their guts’ to see Hegseth impeached appeared first on Asia Times.

Last July, President Donald Trump imposed 50 percent tariffs on various Canadian goods, a list he subsequently expanded to include additional imports, some of which he banned outright. His legal justification was Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which Congress approved in 1930. Section 338 authorized tariffs in response to discriminatory trade practices. But in the 96 years since it was enacted, no president had ever used it to impose tariffs.

Why is that? According to a lawsuit that the Liberty Justice Center (LJC) filed on Tuesday in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), the answer is clear: Section 338 was superseded by subsequent legislation that likewise targeted discriminatory trade barriers, beginning with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 and culminating in Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 301, the current remedy, includes requirements that Trump apparently sought to dodge by invoking Section 338 instead.

That maneuver is illegal, the LJC argues. "Congress already gave the executive branch a tool for responding to unfair foreign trade practices: Section 301, which requires an investigation, public comment and other safeguards," says Jeffrey M. Schwab, the LJC's director of litigation. "The administration cannot skip those protections by reaching for a 1930 statute that no president had ever used to impose a tariff."

Why not? "Where provisions in two acts are in irreconcilable conflict, the later act, to the extent of the conflict, constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one," the lawsuit says. "Where a later act covers the whole subject of an earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it operates similarly as a repeal. And a specific policy embodied in a later federal statute controls the construction of an earlier one even absent express amendment."

Even if Section 338 somehow survived congressional approval of contrary laws, the LJC adds, Trump's tariffs exceed the authority it grants. And if Trump's interpretation of Section 338 were correct, the lawsuit says, the provision would violate the nondelegation doctrine, which bars Congress from delegating its tariff power to the president without providing "an intelligible principle" to guide and constrain his exercise of it.

Trump's Section 338 tariffs, in short, are "the Administration's latest attempt to exercise, through a statute never designed for the purpose, the tariff power that the Constitution assigns to Congress." That pattern should be familiar by now.

Shortly after taking office in 2025, Trump claimed to have discovered a previously unnoticed delegation of extensive tariff authority in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that does not mention import taxes and had never been used to impose them. That claim was rejected by every court that considered it, and last February the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs at all.

Trump responded to that decision by immediately announcing similarly broad tariffs under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which addresses "fundamental international payments problems" caused by "serious United States balance-of-payments deficits." In May, the CIT ruled that the new tariffs were illegal because Trump had failed to "identify balance-of-payments deficits within the meaning of Section 122."

Trump then switched to Plan C, invoking Section 301 of the Trade Act, which authorizes tariffs in response to a foreign "act, policy, or practice" that is "unreasonable or discriminatory" and "burdens or restricts" U.S. commerce. He claimed that provision justified tariffs on 86 trading partners, accounting for nearly all U.S. imports, because they had failed to "impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor." The CIT is currently weighing challenges to those tariffs, including an LJC lawsuit.

Trump's Section 338 tariffs have now added to the CIT's caseload. The LJC represents Gellert Global Group, an importer that was hit hard by those taxes after Trump added cheese to the list of disfavored Canadian goods. The lawsuit asks the CIT to certify a class of importers, numbering in "the hundreds, if not the thousands," that likewise have been clobbered by Trump's 50 percent tariffs.

Since Trump obviously is aware of Section 301, why did he resort to a never-used, seemingly obsolete provision to justify the tariffs on imports from Canada? As the LJC notes, Section 301 requires an investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, "consultation with the foreign country concerned, notice, public comment, a hearing, and determinations within statutory deadlines." It also requires "that action be equivalent in value to the burden imposed, that duties be preferred over other import restrictions, and that actions terminate after four years absent a request for continuation and review."

Can Trump avoid those constraints by invoking Section 338 instead? The LJC thinks not: "Congress did not intend to leave in place a parallel authority that would allow the President to impose the same remedies, for the same conduct, free of every one of those safeguards."

Section 338 has been "impliedly repealed," the LJC argues. "At a minimum, Section 301 controls where, as here, the President seeks to respond to foreign practices within Section 301's scope, and the President may not impose duties in response to such practices while disregarding the procedures and limits Section 301 imposes. Because the President did not proceed under Section 301, the Section 338 Tariffs are unlawful whether or not Section 338 survives."

Even if you ignore subsequent legislation, the LJC argues, the Canadian policies that Trump cited when he announced the tariffs do not qualify as "discrimination" under Section 338. "Canada's motor vehicle surtax and its provinces' alcohol purchasing decisions are responses to tariffs that the United States imposed on Canada, not discrimination by Canada against the United States," it says. Trump also complained that Canada treats European cheese imports more favorably than U.S. cheese imports. But "when Congress enacted Section 338, a preference granted under a reciprocal agreement was not 'discrimination.'"

Section 338 "addresses discrimination: measures that single out United States commerce for worse treatment than the commerce of the world at large," the lawsuit says. "It is not a general authorization to impose tariffs whenever the President disagrees with a trading partner's policies, or whenever a trading partner responds to tariffs the United States has imposed on it."

Trump also was unfazed by Section 338's requirement that the president set duties to "offset" the costs imposed by discriminatory practices, which implies proportionality. Rather than attempt that, the LJC notes, Trump imposed "the statutory maximum rate of 50 percent without tying it to any measured burden."

As interpreted by Trump, the lawsuit warns, Section 338 authorizes the president to "impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on any products of any country that extends better treatment to any other country in any respect—including through any of the hundreds of preferential trade agreements to which the United States is not a party—or that responds to tariffs the United States has imposed on it." Yet Section 338 "contains no clear statement authorizing that power," contrary to the "major questions" doctrine, which applies to assertions of executive authority with "vast economic and political significance."

If Section 338 conferred the sort of unfettered authority that Trump is claiming, the LJC says, it "would supply no intelligible principle constraining the exercise of Congress's power to lay duties." His reading "would convert a narrow, fact-dependent provision into an effectively unrestricted delegation of Congress's tariff power," which would be "an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power."

This case "is not about the president," says LJC CEO Sara Albrecht. "It is about the presidency. No president should have the power to pull a dormant statute off the shelf and use it to impose sweeping tariffs or import bans without the limits Congress required."

The post Trump's 50% Tariffs on Canadian Goods Illegally Rely on a Superseded Statute, a Lawsuit Argues appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Today, the Liberty Justice Center (LJC) filed Gellert Global Group Corp. v. Trump, the first lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's massive Section 338 tariffs against a variety of Canadian imports. The case was filed in the US Court of International Trade (which has jurisdiction over tariff-related cases); Gellert Global Group is an importer of Canadian cheese subject to the tariffs. LJC is the same public interest group that I worked with on the case challenging Trump's earlier IEEPA tariffs, which ultimate resulted in their invalidation by the Supreme Court. I am not directly involved in the present case. But I support it and believe it deserves to prevail.

LJC has also filed cases challenging Trump's massive Section 122 and Section 301 tariffs. They have become America's premier public interest law group standing up for free trade and enforcing constitutional constraints on executive power over trade restrictions.

Section 338 was part of the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff act of 1930, which gravely exacerbated the Great Depression. It has never been used before, likely because it was superseded by later laws.

I have previously written about why Trump's Section 338 tariffs are harmful and illegal. See my recent Montreal Economic Institute paper on this topic, and earlier pieces here, here, and here. To briefly summarize, the tariffs on Canada are illegal because 1) Section 338 has been superseded by later legislation, 2) even if Section 338 is still operative, Trump's tariffs do not meet its requirements because the Canadian actions they supposedly respond to do not "discriminate" against US goods, as the law requires, 3) Trump's tariffs do not "offset" the Canadian actions (as Section 338 also requires), but go far beyond that, 4) the administration's interpretation of Section 338 runs afoul of the "major questions" doctrine, and 5) if Section 338 is operative and does authorize the Trump actions, it would violate the constitutional nondelegation doctrine (which restricts delegation of legislative power to the executive).

The LJC complaint advances all five of these arguments. To prevail, they need win on only one. They also add a few more technical points that I will not try to cover here. LJC further seeks a class action certification for a class of all those importers subject to the Section 338 tariffs. If this succeeds, it would block all enforcement of Section 338 tariffs, not just those paid by Gellert.

This lawsuit does not directly challenge Trump's extension of the Section 338 action to categorically ban some Canadian imports, in addition to imposing tariffs. As far as I can tell, Gellert does not import goods subject to the ban (as opposed to the tariffs). However, as I explained here and here, the legality of the bans is dependent on that of the initial tariffs. In a recent Lawfare article, I outline the reasons why executive-imposed import bans are subject to most of the same legal constraints as executive-imposed tariffs.

Like the IEEPA, Section 122, and Section 301 tariffs, Trump's use of Section 338 is an attempt to convert a limited delegation of authority into a blank check enabling the president to impose tariffs whenever he wants. Courts should reject all of these power grabs.

I commend LJC for bringing this important case. And I hope and expect it may not be the last lawsuit challenging the Section 338 measures. Future cases might well challenge the import bans directly, as well as the tariffs.

The post Liberty Justice Center Files First Lawsuit Challenging Trump's Section 338 Tariffs Against Canadian Imports appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Under the Harvest Fuel Relief program, the Agriculture Department will provide economic aid for farmers hurt by high diesel prices.

© Doug Mills/The New York Times

You can never have too many portable chargers, especially when they’re this discounted.

We take a look at the human face of America’s utility bill crisis.

© Erin Schaff/The New York Times

The president on Sunday justified his reversal of almost five years of sanctions against Russia as part of peace negotiations. He did not name any hostage.

© Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times

Record heat and a rising demand for electricity are closing in on Oklahoma families trying to keep the lights on and the AC running.

 

Georgetown law Professor Steve Vladeck is one of the leading critics of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. But in an insightful recent post on his substack, he outlines key reasons why "court expansion" is a bad response to its flaws. The cure is likely to be worse than the disease:

[I]t seems to me that those who are fully onboard the expansion-or-bust train should have to do more than simply assert that having four new Democratic appointees on the Court in 2029 would be a self-evidently "good" thing. If nothing else, proponents of expansion should have to answer the following four questions:

1. How do we avoid touching off a race to the bottom, where each time one party controls the House, Senate, and presidency, it expands the Court to ensure an ideologically and politically sympathetic majority?
2. If a race to the bottom is unavoidable, how do we avoid further (and potentially fatal) erosion of public confidence in the Court—which will quite transparently be little more than a lever of power for whichever party last had such a trifecta?
3. If eroding public confidence in the Court is a feature, and not a bug, how do we insulate against the same erosion of public confidence in lower federal courts?
4. What is the case for why expansion is a better way to achieve the desired reforms than alternatives that would (or, at least, should) avoid many of these forward-looking concerns?

He adds that court-packing could easily "permanently undermine judicial review as an institution." The rest of his piece (which is behind a paywall) offers far from reassuring answers to these questions.

I have offered similar criticisms of court-packing in a long series of articles and blog posts, most recently in a June Lawfare article  where I explained (among other things) why the Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais doesn't justify packing, and in a July UnPopulist article critiquing a court-packing proposal advanced by Andy Craig. In these pieces, I explain why the Court's record of checking dangerous abuses of government power - though not without serious flaws - is considerably better than many critics claim. In addition, I argue that court-packing is likely to undermine effective judicial review - not only by the Supreme Court, but also by lower courts.

Like Vladeck, I think some of the issues that concern critics of the Court can be more effectively addressed in other ways. For example, in the Lawfare article, I explain how Congress can fix the flaws of the Callais decision by banning or restricting gerrymandering. It could also enact a binding ethics code for the justices. Justice Alito was wrong to suggest otherwise, back in 2023. That said, if your main goal is a sweeping reversal of much of the Court's recent jurisprudence, there may be no easy way to achieve that quickly without court-packing or something like it. I would argue that any benefits that might achieve are outweighed by the enormous costs of destroying judicial review.

In addition, if your objection to the Court's recent decisions is that they often don't do enough to constrain unconstitutional actions by other branches of government or by the states, court-packing is likely to make that problem worse, not better. Destroying judicial review won't enforce tighter constitutional constraints on the executive or bring back Roe v. Wade. To the contrary, it would largely destroy any hope of doing so.

In another recent piece, I assessed "non-packing" rationales for increasing the size of the Supreme Court. There, I argue that these rationales are mostly weak; and, to the extent they have merit, there are better ways to address them than an expansion that amounts to court-packing. I even outline possible ways to increase the size of the Court without creating an opportunity for court-packing (this would require allowing the party that doesn't hold the White House to pick some of the new justices).

The post Steve Vladeck's "Hard Questions About Court Expansion" appeared first on Reason Magazine.

French shipowner LD Armateurs has completed the installation of six towering rotor sails aboard Spirit of Toulouse, a new roll-on/roll-off vessel being built to transport aircraft components for Airbus across...

Cuba has stated that, despite recent contacts with Washington, it sees no progress toward a serious dialogue, while denouncing U.S. restrictions on oil supplies as a form of collective punishment against the island’s population. This statement was made by Tanieris Diéguez, Deputy Chief of Mission at the Cuban Embassy in the United States, in an interview with EFE.

RELATED:

Cuba Expands Renewable Energy Use Amid U.S. Fuel Blockade

Diéguez explained that Havana has maintained contact with the administration of President Donald Trump, but that it perceives no movement toward substantive negotiations. “We truly do not see any progress toward a serious dialogue—which is what we are willing to engage in,” the diplomat stated.

In March, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel confirmed that talks were taking place with the U.S. government. Since then, Washington has pushed for political and economic changes in Cuba.

When asked about potential threats of U.S. military intervention—like to the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores in Venezuela—Diéguez noted that Cuba takes any statement from U.S. authorities seriously, given that the United States is the world’s foremost military, nuclear, and economic power.

When asked about potential threats of U.S. military intervention—similar to the operation that took place in Caracas—Diéguez noted that Cuba takes any statement from U.S. authorities seriously, given that the United States is the world’s foremost military, nuclear, and economic power.

Nevertheless, she emphasized that Havana considers the defense of its independence to be its highest priority. “Our people will never allow that to be sidelined or subjugated under any circumstances,” she affirmed.

As has become customary, the US government has imposed a new aggressive measure against Cuba, this time against BICSA, an absolutely legitimate bank whose transactions in Cuba and the world are also absolutely legitimate.

It is an evidence of the criminal determination to apply… pic.twitter.com/fRs6onus4a

— Bruno Rodríguez P (@BrunoRguezP) October 15, 2026

Impact of energy restrictions

The diplomat linked the worsening of Cuba’s energy crisis to the restrictions imposed by Washington on oil supplies—a situation exacerbated following the events in January involving Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, the island’s primary fuel supplier.

According to Diéguez, fuel shortages and power outages are affecting essential services, including hospital care and surgical procedures. “This is a form of collective punishment; it is entirely contrary to international law and directly harms the Cuban people,” she denounced.

The official presented figures attributed to the impact of the situation: infant mortality has reportedly risen to nine deaths per 1,000 live births; 96,500 people are awaiting surgery, and 32,000 pregnant women are waiting for an ultrasound.

Diéguez also rejected U.S. criticisms regarding Cuba’s economic management. “It is not a matter of ineptitude; rather, we have managed to put our scarce resources to work thanks to our organization,” she maintained.

🇿🇦 At the Human Rights Council, #SA delegate highlighted harmful impact of unilateral coercive measures against #Cuba & warned of its humanitarian consequences.

Delegation also addressed the extraterritorial & deterrent effects of the #blockade, which hinders trade & investment. pic.twitter.com/70wM404eyO

— Southern Africa Eye (@eye_southern) September 10, 2026

International support

The Cuban representative expressed confidence that the international community will once again support the lifting of the U.S. blockade during the annual vote at the United Nations General Assembly, scheduled for late October.

“Cuba does not feel alone. We have received the support of the vast majority of the international community,” Diéguez stated, noting that for more than three decades, resolutions against the blockade have secured overwhelming majorities.

In 2025, the Cuban-sponsored resolution received 165 votes in favor, seven against, and 12 abstentions in the General Assembly—though the text is non-binding.

Diéguez further asserted that the restrictions also harm U.S. citizens by limiting their access to products from the Cuban biopharmaceutical industry. “Cuba deserves to live in peace,” she concluded.

The Ukrainian president’s defiant decision to continue attacking Russian refineries underscores President Trump’s inability to end a war he had promised to resolve.

© Doug Mills/The New York Times

 

di Alessandro Bartoloni 

 

La Guerra fredda non è stata solo una questione di missili, spie e sbarramenti militari. Quello che la storiografia ufficiale spesso dimentica — o finge di non vedere — è che la battaglia più feroce e decisiva si è combattuta direttamente dentro le teste delle persone. Gli Stati Uniti non si sono accontentati di dominare il mondo con la forza delle armi e il peso del dollaro: hanno voluto plasmare le categorie stesse con cui le società occidentali interpretano la realtà, ridefinendo da cima a fondo ciò che è desiderabile, accettabile o anche solo pensabile. Questo articolo è frutto della lettura di alcuni testi che hanno trattato direttamente questo tema, come Perché l’occidente odia la Russia di Hauke Ritz, La guerra fredda culturale di Frances Conor Staunders, e Who paied the pipers of western marxism, di Gabriel Rockhill.

Fabbricare il consenso in Europa

Nel secondo dopoguerra, Washington aveva un problema enorme. La sua travolgente superiorità economica non bastava a garantirgli un’egemonia automatica sul piano culturale. L’Europa devastata dal conflitto non guardava all'America come a un faro indiscutibile: i partiti comunisti e socialisti avevano un radicamento di massa, i sindacati erano forti e il marxismo costituiva l'ossatura teorica dei principali intellettuali del continente. Per molti europei, dalle macerie del fascismo non doveva nascere un capitalismo all'americana, ma una società profondamente diversa.

Per la Casa Bianca e per gli apparati di sicurezza statunitensi, questo scenario era una minaccia intollerabile. Se un'intera sponda dell'Atlantico continuava a mettere in discussione il libero mercato, il progetto di dominio globale americano rischiava di crollare sul nascere. La risposta fu immediata e spietata: trasformare la cultura, la ricerca universitaria, il giornalismo e l'arte in vere e proprie prolunghe della propria politica estera.

La CIA e il mercato dell'intelligence intellettuale

L'operazione più plateale di questa ingegneria del consenso fu il Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), fondato nel 1950. Sotto l'ipocrita bandiera della "difesa della libertà intellettuale" contro l'autoritarismo sovietico, gli Stati Uniti costruirono una sterminata rete di copertura finanziata in gran segreto dalla CIA. Attraverso fondazioni fantoccio, Washington ha pompato milioni di dollari per finanziare mostre, saggistica, convegni e riviste prestigiose in mezza Europa — come Encounter nel Regno Unito, Preuves in Francia o Tempo presente in Italia.

Il punto centrale non era fare propaganda becera, che avrebbe insospettito chiunque. Il metodo americano è stato ben più raffinato e perverso: cooptare gli intellettuali, stabilire quali temi fossero dignitosi da dibattere e premiare chiunque indirizzasse la propria critica esclusivamente contro Mosca. Quando nel 1967 lo scandalo dei fondi CIA venne a galla, la maschera cadde, ma il danno era ormai fatto. L'America era riuscita a dimostrare che l'egemonia non si impone con i carri armati, ma comprando gli spazi di visibilità e distribuendo prestigio a chi fa il gioco del potere.

L'astrazione come dottrina e la trasformazione della sinistra

Lo stesso meccanismo fu applicato alle arti visive. Prendiamo l'espressionismo astratto di Jackson Pollock: il governo americano e le sue fondazioni sponsorizzarono ed esportarono in tutto il mondo questa pittura priva di contenuti sociali espliciti. Perché? Perché serviva come perfetta arma ideologica. La totale assenza di critica sociale nella pittura astratta veniva sventolata come l'emblema della "libertà occidentale", in contrapposizione al grigio realismo socialista sovietico. L'arte smetteva di contestare la realtà e diventava un manifesto pubblicitario dell'american way of life.

Ma il capolavoro politico degli apparati statunitensi è stato un altro: la domesticazione della sinistra occidentale. Capito che era impossibile eradicare l'aspirazione alla giustizia sociale, gli strateghi di Washington lavorarono per separare la critica sociale dalla contestazione del capitalismo. Si doveva finanziare e promuovere una sinistra "compatibile": una sinistra ferocemente antisovietica che finisse per accettare la proprietà privata e l'impianto liberale come orizzonti unici e insuperabili.

Contemporaneamente, il linguaggio politico venne sistematicamente manipolato. Attraverso un'accorta selezione di concetti filosofici e opere letterarie, il fascismo e il comunismo vennero infilati nello stesso calderone del "totalitarismo". Il risultato ideologico fu perfetto: l'ordine capitalistico e liberale non veniva più percepito come un sistema storicamente ingiusto e pieno di contraddizioni, ma come l'unico baluardo possibile contro la barbarie. Chiunque provasse a mettere in discussione le basi economiche del modello americano veniva automaticamente bollato come complice del totalitarismo.

L'eredità coloniale del pensiero unico

Con il crollo dell'Unione Sovietica, la narrazione occidentale ha decretato la "fine della storia", ma le tecniche di manipolazione culturale affinate dagli Stati Uniti durante la Guerra fredda non sono affatto andate in pensione. Oggi assistiamo allo stesso identico schema: la complessa realtà geopolitica globale viene costantemente ridotta a un manicheo e infantile scontro morale tra "democrazie" e "autocrazie".

Dietro questa patina etica si nascondono gli stessi identici interessi strategici ed economici di sempre. Ogni paese che rifiuta l'allineamento ai desiderata americani viene squalificato sul piano morale prima ancora che politico, rendendo impossibile qualsiasi analisi seria delle responsabilità e degli imperialismi occidentali.

La vera tragedia della guerra culturale condotta dagli Stati Uniti è che ha finito per sterilizzare il pensiero critico anche a casa nostra. Trasformando la cultura in un’arma di distrazione di massa e in uno strumento di propaganda geopolitica, l'Occidente ha perso la propria autonomia intellettuale. Abbiamo importato le categorie concettuali di Washington, finendo per scambiare la nostra subordinazione culturale per libertà di pensiero.

 

 

The president’s arrangement to import Russian diesel fuel is one more example of how he has sold out American democracy.

© Photo illustration by Kim Hoeckele for The New York Times

President Donald Trump promised that his tariffs would usher in a "golden age" by prioritizing the interests of American workers.

Those workers, however, are now turning against Trump's tariffs.

Support for the Trump administration's tariff policies has fallen by 25 percentage points among blue-collar workers over the past year, according to new polling data from Echelon Insights and the Economic Innovation Group (EIG).

A poll conducted by the two groups in August 2025 found that blue-collar workers supported the tariffs by a narrow margin. Now, that same segment of the population has turned decisively against Trump's tariffs: 58 percent oppose them, compared to just 36 percent who support them.

Overall, support for the tariffs has declined from about 43 percent last year to only 34 percent. Opposition to the tariffs has grown from 50 percent to 59 percent. Elsewhere in the same survey, 68 percent of respondents said the tariffs have made the cost of living higher.

It's not hard to figure out why people have turned against the tariffs: They have contributed to rising prices across the economy.

The annualized inflation rate ticked upward to 3.7 percent in September, according to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). More BLS data released Thursday morning shows that the producer price index, which often operates as a precursor to inflation, is up 6.3 percent over the past year.

America's war with Iran has been a major factor in rising inflation, but the tariffs have played a significant role as well. In a study released last week, the New York Federal Reserve concluded that consumer prices would have declined slightly over the past year if not for the economic effects of the tariffs.

The tariffs have become so unpopular that not even partisanship can save them. "Among GOP-voting workers, only 3 percent select tariffs as their top priority," note Jordan McGillis and John Lettieri, policy experts from the EIG, in their write-up of the poll.

Other parts of Trump's economic agenda are not faring much better. The Trump administration has bought or seized shares of more than 30 private businesses over the past two years—ranging from major firms such as U.S. Steel to small mining companies with few customers. "The federal government's state corporatism is unprecedented," reports the Cato Institute in a new analysis of those deals.

Large majorities of workers across both major parties and all generations said they opposed the federal government taking equity stakes in American companies in the Echelon/EIG poll.

In short: This economic populism sure isn't very popular.

All of this is likely to be a major factor in next month's midterm elections. Regardless of how that shakes out, however, there are lessons to be drawn from this poll for both sides of the political divide.

For conservatives, these polling data should end the tariff experiment. It has proven economically damaging, and it is no longer a political winner (if it ever was).

Remember, the idea to hike tariffs and start trade wars with all of America's biggest trading partners was not some grand plan backed by careful study and thoughtful analysis. It sprung, half-baked, from the head of one man. Yes, there have been various attempts to support, in a post hoc way, Trump's desire for tariffs. All of that can, and should, be easily discarded. There is no reason to allow a lame duck president to continue to set such a politically and economically destructive path for the country.

Undoing the tariffs might also put a meaningful dent in rising prices. That should be a no-brainer after the midterms, no matter which party controls Congress.

On the left, this poll should be a reminder that Americans do not look favorably on the mixing of government and business. Democrats should promise to unwind the "equity stakes" that the federal government has taken under Trump's watch. Heading toward the 2028 presidential cycle, Democrats might want to borrow some old Republican talking points about how government shouldn't be picking winners and losers—they may find that message is still quite popular.

Yes, it's probably right to be skeptical that those things will happen. Trump's efforts to centralize economic power in the executive branch are likely to outlive his presidency—that's how these things always seem to go.

But there is a glimmer of hope here. Americans are soundly rejecting the Trump administration's big government policies.

The post Even Blue-Collar Workers Have Turned Against Trump's Unpopular Tariffs appeared first on Reason Magazine.