This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
A Palestinian child named Osama El Rakab struggles for his life at Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis, located in the southern part of Gaza, due to malnutrition-related body weakness on April 24, 2025 [Doaa Albaz/Anadolu Agency]
Gaza’s government issued a dire warning, Friday, that Palestinians in the besieged enclave are “on the brink of mass death” from widespread famine due to Israel’s nearly two-month aid blockade and the total collapse of essential services, Anadolu Agency reports.
In a statement, the Government Media Office held Israel and its backers responsible for a “genocide documented in sound and image”.
We warn of the worsening humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza as the complete Israeli siege and closure of crossings enters its 55th day, leading to the spread of famine and endangering the lives of over 2.4 million people
the office said.
The office added that famine in Gaza is now “a grim reality, not a threat”, with 52 recorded deaths due to hunger and malnutrition including 50 children, describing the situation as “one of the most horrifying forms of slow, deliberate killing.”
It added that more than 60,000 children suffer from acute malnutrition, while over a million children are facing daily hunger, leading to visible wasting and frailty.
Calling it “a final call before the catastrophe”, the office stressed that any delay in response would amount to “clear complicity and active participation in the crime, a stain on the conscience of humanity and history.”
It demanded the urgent and unconditional opening of a safe humanitarian corridor “to save the lives of over 2.4 million Palestinians in Gaza before it’s too late.”
The office also called for independent international investigation of “the crime of starvation and slow killing committed by the Israeli Occupation.”
On 2 March, Israel shut all three Gaza Crossings to humanitarian aid and fuel, resuming its onslaught. The blockade has plunged Gaza’s 2.4 million residents, already dependent on aid after nearly 19 months of war, into extreme poverty, according to World Bank data.
Nearly 51,400 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza in a brutal Israeli onslaught since October 2023, most of them women and children.
The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants in November for Netanyahu and his former Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its war on the enclave.
Lauren Sanchez, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Priscilla Chan, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg attend President Donald Trump’s inaugural ceremony on January 20, 2025. (Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
Families including Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg now control a combined $2.6 trillion in wealth, according to renowned economist Gabriel Zucman.
A new analysis by a leading chronicler of the United States’ exploding inequality shows that the 19 richest American households added $1 trillion to their collective fortunes last year and saw their share of the nation’s wealth jump at a record-shattering pace.
The analysis by Gabriel Zucman, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, estimates that the 19 wealthiest U.S. families now control 1.8%—or $2.6 trillion—of the nation’s total household wealth.
In 2024, those ultrarich households saw the largest single-year wealth increase on record.
The Wall Street Journal noted in its Wednesday write-up of Zucman’s analysis—based on data from Forbes, Fortune, and the Federal Reserve—that the families in his “research on the top 0.00001% in the U.S. are worth at least $45 billion per household and include Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and private-equity investor Stephen Schwarzman.”
Their wealth is largely tied up in the U.S. stock market, which rose more than 23% in 2024. The richest 10% of U.S. households control 93% of stock market wealth, according to the Federal Reserve.
(Source: Gabriel Zucman via The Wall Street Journal)
Zucman, whose analysis dates back to 1913, told the Journal that the U.S. has recently seen a “dramatic acceleration in the rise of the share of wealth owned by the truly superwealthy”—a trend that would continue if President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress pass tax legislation largely benefiting the rich.
“There is a strong anti-oligarchic current in America, and it has a formidable champion,” Zucman added. “Fight!”
The Journal reported Wednesday that “a household in the top 0.1%—roughly 133,000 households each worth at least $46.3 million—accumulated an average of $3.4 million a year since the third quarter of 1990, in 2024 dollars.”
“In comparison, the wealth of the rest of the top 1%—roughly 1.2 million households each worth at least $11.2 million—grew by an average of $450,000 per household, per year,” the Journal added.
Meanwhile, families at the bottom of the U.S. income and wealth distribution have struggled due to what the Economic Policy Instituterecently described as “policy-induced wage suppression.”
A February working paper by the think tank RAND estimated that the bottom 90% of U.S. workers would have earned $3.9 trillion more in 2023 alone had the income distribution been more even rather than flowing disproportionately to the top.
“Since 1975, nearly $80 trillion in wealth has been redistributed from the bottom 90% of Americans to the top 1%,” Sanders said last month in response to the paper. “The massive income and wealth inequality in America today is not only morally unjust, it is profoundly damaging to our democracy.”
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
People participate in a rally to call on Congress to protect funding for US public broadcasters, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR), outside the NPR headquarters in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2025. (Photo by Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images)
Anything representing the idea that the state could in any way contribute to the greater good is horrific and must be crushed.
The Trump Administration has announced its intention to withdraw over $1 billion in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the organization that supports public broadcasting in the United States in the form of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).
Although federal funding makes up only a small portion of the overall budgets for these organizations—a combination of private donations, corporate sponsorship, state financing makes up a larger part—the funding is vital for public television and radio in smaller local markets where public or corporate support is difficult to obtain. The cuts would likely kill off those smaller stations and weaken those in larger markets.
In effect, the last traces of public media would disappear from large sections of the United States, leaving them entirely in the hands of corporate media.
This attack on U.S. public media is perhaps the least surprising news imaginable. When I was interviewed last month here in Sweden after Trump effectively shut down Voice of America (VOA), I was asked what could be next on the Republican media agenda. I didn’t hesitate in my response: next would be the de-funding of the nation’s public broadcasting system. To me, it wasn’t a question of if…but when.
In its classic form, public service broadcasting of the type we have here in Europe treats the inhabitants of the country not as potential consumers, but as actual citizens.
The threat to kill public broadcasting in the U.S. is not the same as the killing of Voice of America. Through stations such as Radio Free Europe, VOA had always had been the mouthpiece of the U.S. state. It was part of global U.S. soft power, promoting the nation’s foreign policy and economic interests. It was anything but objective, independent journalism.
PBS and NPR, on the other hand, are something entirely different. They represent an alternative model for how media in the U.S. could be…or, at least, could have been. Created in 1967 under President Lyndon Johnson, and decades after private media giants ABC, NBC, and CBS had been allowed to take near-complete control over U.S. broadcasting, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was meant to provide U.S. citizens with a non-commercial media alternative.
Unlike their European counterparts, however, which began as well-financed monopolies in the 1920s and 1930s, U.S. public media were born weak. They were never meant to challenge the power of U.S. corporate media.
For the past half century, U.S. public broadcasting has existed at the margins of the national media ecosystem, producing high-quality educational programming and decent news that attracted a predominantly well-educated, urban audience. Low levels of federal funding meant that U.S. public broadcasting, again unlike European counterparts such as Sweden’s SVT or the UK’s BBC, was forced to take money from corporations in order to survive. When I lived in the U.S., PBS took so much “sponsorship” money from oil companies such as ExxonMobil that it was jokingly referred to as the “Petroleum Broadcasting System.”
So, why kill off the last remnants of a media system that attracts only a tiny fraction of the U.S. audience and gets the majority of its financing from non-government sources?
Simple. Because of what it represents.
The Trump administration and its oligarchy of advisors have as their central goal to destroy or undermine any and all institutions in U.S. society that either suggest an alternative to private, corporate control or provide a counter-argument to the myth that the “free market” is the best option for structuring U.S. society: from education to health care to media. The very idea that the state could in any way contribute to the greater good is horrific and must be crushed.
In its classic form, public service broadcasting of the type we have here in Europe treats the inhabitants of the country not as potential consumers, but as actual citizens. In modern societies, absolutely soaked in the logic of consumption, there needs to be at least a few spaces where your value is seen as inherent and not related to how much disposable income you have.
Here in Sweden, for example, that includes not just public broadcasting, but things like universal healthcare and university education. The logic is simple: being informed, being healthy and being educated should not be privileges restricted to those who can afford it. And, a well-informed, healthy and well-educated society benefits everyone.
Public broadcasting in the U.S. is in need of serious reform. And, public broadcasting in Europe isn’t perfect. But, despite their various flaws, their value can be found not only in what they produce in terms of content, but in what they tell people about how society can be structured. That working alternatives exist and can co-exist. That it’s possible to have a free market, but at the same time recognize there are some elements of society too important to be left to the mercies of corporations, billionaires, and profit margins.
For people like Trump and Musk, these non-commercial spaces of citizenship are viruses eating away at profits. But they aren’t the virus.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Guests including Mark Zuckerberg, Lauren Sanchez, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai and Elon Musk attend the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda on January 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Julia Demaree Nikhinson – Pool/Getty Images)
Major media outlets from CBS to The Washington Post have “bent the knee” to President Trump’s specious demands.
U.S. President Donald Trump is following the authoritarian’s handbook that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán used to consolidate power in Hungary. He is attacking the independent institutions that comprise the infrastructure supporting democracy—universities, law firms, culture, and the media.
And he is winning.
Major media outlets have “bent the knee” his press secretary’s preferred phrase for capitulation to Trump’s specious demands. His latest conquest is CBS.
CBS
Days before the 2024 election, Trump filed a frivolous lawsuit accusing the network of bias in broadcasting a “60 Minutes” interview of then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Seeking $10 billion in damages, the complaint claimed that the edited interview and associated programming were “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference” intended to “mislead the public and attempt to tip the scales” in Harris’ favor.
Prominent First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams said that “the First Amendment was drafted to protect the press from just such litigation.” Harvard Law School Professor Rebecca Tushnet called it “ridiculous junk and should be mocked.” Attorney Charles Tobin warned, “This is a frivolous and dangerous attempt by a politician to control the news media.”
A few days later, Trump won the election. And now CBS’ parent company, Paramount, wants to settle the case.
Whatever money CBS pays Trump to settle his frivolous lawsuit is extortion.
Through her family’s holding company, Shari Redstone who is “friendly with Trump” is Paramount’s controlling shareholder. If the Federal Communications Commission approves its pending merger with Skydance Media, Redstone will reap millions.
On February 6, Redstone told the Paramount board that she wanted to settle Trump’s lawsuit. The next day, Trump doubled his damages claim to $20 billion. As the media reported Redstone’s desire to resolve the case, Trump pounced. On April 13, he asserted on social media that the FCC should impose “the maximum fine and punishment” on CBS and the network “should lose its license.”
The parties have agreed on a mediator, but whatever money CBS pays Trump to settle his frivolous lawsuit is extortion. The more profound cost is the loss of CBS’ journalistic independence, which became apparent on April 22 when the producer of “60 Minutes” resigned.
In the program’s 57-year history, Bill Owens—who became the “60 Minutes” executive producer in 2019 after 30 years at CBS—was only the third person to run it. Owens’s memo to his staff should be a warning to all of us:
“[O]ver the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for ‘60 Minutes,’ right for the audience.”
CBS wasn’t Trump’s first media victim.
The Washington Post
In early November 2024, The Washington Post editorial board had signed off on an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris for president. But it never ran. Owner Jeff Bezos personally killed it and, for the first time in decades, the paper did not endorse a U.S. presidential candidate.
A few hours after Bezos’s “no endorsement” decision became public, officials from his Blue Origin aerospace company, which has a multi-billion dollar contract with NASA, met with Trump.
After Trump won the election, Bezos flew to Mar-a-Lago where he and his fiancée dined with the president-elect. Shortly thereafter, Amazon donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund. And another Bezos company—Amazon—paid $40 million to license a documentary about Melania Trump, who personally will receive $28 million.
On February 26, Bezos announced a new rightward shift for the Post: It would now advocate for “personal liberties and free markets” and not publish opposing viewpoints on those topics.
The paper’s opinion section editor, David Shipley, resigned in response to the change. Prominent columnists followed him out the door, and more than 250,000 readers canceled their subscriptions.
The Los Angeles Times
The Los Angeles Times had an established record of presidential endorsements too—until 2024. Its 2020 endorsement of Joe Biden blasted Trump. But in 2024, billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong quashed an editorial that would have endorsed Vice President Harris. As at the Post, columnists and editorial board members resigned in protest, and the paper lost thousands of subscribers.
After the election, Soon-Shiong killed another editorial set to run with this headline: “Donald Trump’s cabinet choices are not normal. The Senate’s confirmation process should be.”
Self-censorship is the most effective, enduring, and dangerous method of abridging free speech.
Facebook
More than one-half of Americans “often” or “sometimes” get their news from social media. One-third of all adults in the U.S. get their news from Facebook (operated by Meta). Meta’s president Mark Zuckerberg was among the billionaires who traveled to Mar-a-Lago after the election, met with Trump, and donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund. (With the help of corporate and billionaire megadonors like Zuckerberg and Bezos, Trump raised a record $239 million for the fund.)
Then Zuckerberg gave Trump a bigger gift: Meta abandoned third-party fact-checking of Facebook posts. As his rationale, Zuckerberg repeated Trump’s false talking points that fact-checking was “censorship” and reflected an “anti-Trump bias.”
Asked if he thought Zuckerberg was “directly responding to the threats” that Trump had made to him in the past, Trump answered: “Probably.”
Meanwhile, Meta invited Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White, a longtime Trump supporter, to join its board of directors.
PBS and NPR
On April 26, Trump will send Congress his request to halt all funding for public media—including NPR and PBS.
Viktor Orbán’s Playbook—The Trump Sequel
Since his return to power, Hungary’s prime minister has used “muscular state policy to achieve conservative ends,” according to conservative activist Christopher Rufo. Orbán is “attempting to rebuild its culture and institutions, from schools to universities to media.”
Orbán began “working with friendly oligarchs to purchase and transform media companies into conservative stalwarts; directing government advertising budgets to politically-aligned outlets;… and pressuring the holdover state media… to provide more favorable coverage.”
Rufo insists that Hungary “has a media environment at least as competitive as that of many Western nations.” Experienced observers disagree:
Human Rights Watch found that the government is using its near media monopoly to strengthen its hold on democratic institutions… The government’s increased control over the media market is linked to its broader assault on rule of law in Hungary, including undermining judicial independence and state capture of public institutions…
Trump’s attacks on universities, law firms, culture, and the media are all of a piece. Viktor Orbán’s Hungary provides a roadmap of his battle plan and a preview of his end game.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
U.S. ambassador to the UK Warren Stephens. Credit: Arkansas Inc / YouTube
Warren Stephens made the donation alongside big tech firms and oil giants.
Donald Trump’s ambassador to the UK donated $4 million to the new U.S. president’s inauguration on the same day he was nominated for the diplomatic position, DeSmog can report.
Billionaire Warren Stephens gave $4 million (just under £3 million today) to the Trump Vance Inaugural Committee on 2 December, according to the official record of donations. The committee is appointed by the president-elect to arrange the inauguration ceremony, when a U.S. president is formally sworn into office.
“It’s not so surprising that a transactional president hands out favours to people who give him money, but that doesn’t make it any less outrageous,” said Agustina Oliveri, head of campaigns and communications at the Good Law Project.
There is no direct evidence that Warren secured the position due to this donation. However, U.S. presidents have a long history of handing out diplomatic roles to major donors, while the Trump administration has bestowed his patrons with a number of senior positions. Of the 37 people who gave $1 million or more to the inauguration committee, six have either been given a role in the administration or have been nominated for a role.
Tom Brake, a former Liberal Democrat MP and the director of the transparency campaign group Unlock Democracy, urged the UK government not to follow Trump’s lead.
“Whatever approach the U.S. administration adopts towards the appointment of its ambassadors, the UK government should make it clear that when it comes to appointing UK ambassadors or high commissioners, donating substantial sums of money directly or indirectly to the party of government will block an appointment not facilitate it,” he said. “There must never be a question mark over whether UK appointments are made on merit, or driven by a donor’s deep pockets.”
As DeSmog revealed on 5 December, Warren Stephens holds significant oil and gas interests. Prior to his appointment as Trump’s UK ambassador, he ran Stephens Inc. – one of the largest privately-owned investment banks in the United States. Stephens has since stood down as CEO, but remains its chairman.
The firm’s portfolio includes a number of companies that make their money from oil and gas exploration and production — including one, Stephens Natural Resources, which “has a rich history of drilling and producing both oil and natural gas”, according to its website.
The UK’s ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson also co-founded a public affairs agency with major fossil fuel clients.
Trump’s inauguration committee – which raised almost $240 million – received donations from fossil fuel giants Chevron ($2 million), ExxonMobil ($1 million), the U.S. branches of BP and Shell ($500,000 each), and Valero ($250,000).
It also accepted donations from major tech platforms including Amazon and Meta, whose founders Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg received a front row seat to the event.
Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and others at Donald Trump’s 2025 inauguration. Credit: WSJ / YouTube
The inauguration committee received a further $1 million from the Heritage Foundation, a hard-right U.S. research and lobby group which drafted the “autocratic” Project 2025 blueprint for Trump’s second term.
Trump denied knowledge of Project 2025 during the election campaign but has subsequently appointed Russell Vought, one of its advisory board members and co-authors, as director of the Office for Management and Budget (OMB), a key department within the president’s office that helps to oversee and co-ordinate policy.
Project 2025 urged Trump to “dismantle the administrative state”, slash restrictions on fossil fuel extraction, scrap state investment in renewable energy, and gut the Environmental Protection Agency.
Since his inauguration on 20 January, Trump has announced a series of policies that have mirrored these demands.
The new president, who received more than $75 million from oil and gas interests for his re-election campaign, has pledged to once again withdraw the U.S. from the flagship 2015 Paris Agreement, which set an international target for limiting global warming. He has also declared a “national energy emergency” to allow the U.S. to “drill, baby, drill” for new fossil fuels.
“When we look at the dumpster fire of U.S. government policy – from trashing the planet to attacking basic human rights – there’s no point in asking ‘What are they up to?’. The question we need to focus on is ‘Who paid for that?,’” said Oliveri.
The U.S. embassy in London referred DeSmog’s enquiry to the U.S. State Department. The Heritage Foundation was approached for comment.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an insane, xenophobic Fascist.
