Showing a little spine on crypto

About time. And I know of no guarantees that the ridiculously titled CLARITY Act won’t become “law” in any case.

Last week, in the background of the Senate’s desperate scramble to get through the backlog of agenda items that have been piling up all summer, a dramatic showdown of money and power took place over the cryptocurrency industry’s top legislative priority, the CLARITY Act, which would sort digital assets into different categories and split regulation—though regulation is a strong word for the proposed framework in the bill—between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the smaller and more industry-friendly Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)...

But amidst outrage over the $1.4 billion crypto windfall (and counting) that President Trump has taken in during his second term, along with concerns over insufficient safeguards against illicit finance and a stablecoin yield loophole threatening bank deposits, even the most historically reliable allies for the industry within the Senate Democratic caucus—who still support the CLARITY Act’s broader vision—were steadfast in their opposition to the bill in its current form. Despite the industry’s desperation for a vote last week, Democrats managed to delay it until after the recess, and duck for now the scorched-earth revenge campaign from the industry’s political spending arm that might have resulted from voting no.

Though the CLARITY Act isn’t dead yet, the delay is a bad sign for the crypto industry’s legislative agenda, and for their tight relationship with a small, but up to this point sufficient, faction of the Democratic Party. There are even indications that support for crypto is starting to be a hindrance for Democrats in primaries, even with all the campaign cash it brings along. - The American Prospect

The Cuba blockade has always been a vicious, disgraceful disaster

We have got to get the warmongers out of government, once and for all.

The Cuban revolution against the U.S.-backed Batista dictatorship has survived 64 of its 67 years under what U.S. officials call an “embargo.” Cubans call it “el bloqueo” (the blockade), arguing that its impact has been just as physically isolating as a military blockade. Suffering aside, the amount of money that the United States has spent on enforcing this policy of economic isolation—the longest blockade in history—could instead have been used to address pressing social needs throughout the United States. This raises the question: Was the blockade worth the cost? And if so, for whom?

…Most countries have consistently supported U.N. resolutions opposing U.S. actions against Cuba. U.N. experts call the blockade an “extreme form of unilateral economic coercion” that violates international law. They say it obstructs the “Cuban people’s right to development while undermining their rights to food, education, health, and water and sanitation.” For 34 consecutive years, since 1992, the U.N. General Assembly has overwhelmingly passed resolutions demanding an end to the U.S. economic blockade of Cuba, citing the violation of international law. Annual votes consistently see over 180 countries opposing the U.S. stance, with only the United States and Israel typically voting against.

The U.S. public has been skeptical of the blockade for decades. A 2016 Pew Research Center poll revealed that 73% of Americans favored ending the blockade. More recently, a February 25, 2026 poll by YouGov shows that not even a third of people in the United States approve of the blockade, and only 13% support attacking Cuba. Just 5% of Americans view Cuba as a serious threat. To put this in perspective, 4% of Americans view Canada as a threat, too. A 2024 Data for Progress poll shows that only roughly a quarter of Americans oppose lifting travel restrictions to the island. - CounterPunch

How cyclospora got going

And how outbreaks of food contamination will keep going, until corporations are forced to change their ways.

To maximize returns, these companies aggregate and process harvests from multiple farms in a few central production and distribution hubs, before shipping across the U.S. This process, where contaminated produce from potentially just one field was mixed into thousands of fresh-cut salad bags, is likely how the outbreak has affected so many people, while the scale of the relatively uncompetitive distribution market resulted in it reaching so many states. In this cyclospora outbreak, the scale and concentration of the contemporary produce market has become a public health hazard.

In the United States, money translates to political power, and the produce industry has used that to kill food safety regulation and monitoring across administrations. The Food Traceability Rule passed by Congress and scheduled to be implemented at the start of this year would have enabled a much quicker and surgical public health response but was delayed to 2028 following coordinated industry lobbying by the Global Cold Chain Alliance, the Food Industry Association, and the National Grocers Association. In 2024, regulations requiring the testing of irrigation water for pathogens like cyclospora were replaced by what is essentially an honor system. During the Obama administration, fierce lobbying by the United Fresh Produce Association (now the International Fresh Produce Association) killed the Microbiological Data Program. This was a cheap and effective program run by the USDA from 2001 to 2012 for about $5 million a year, which pulled and tested samples of high-risk produce. In its last two years alone, this trip-wire triggered 23 product recalls.

In sum, the way that this outbreak has spread through a concentrated production and distribution network that has steadily eroded federal safeguards indicates a systemic problem of a few larger corporations controlling market governance itself, with the ability to cut costs and get rich at peoples’ expense. - IATP

More Trump anti-immigrant viciousness

This is also another way of trying to demonize immigrants in the public mind.

The Trump administration finalized a new “public charge” rule set to take effect (June 25) that gives immigration officers broader authority to deny permanent residency to immigrants lawfully present in the country who have used certain public programs, such as Medicaid, food, or housing assistance…

Under the outgoing policy, established in 2022 by the Biden administration, immigration officers could only consider whether green card applicants had used cash assistance or had gotten nursing home care through Medicaid.

By removing that concrete language, the finalized rule opens the green card review process to arbitrary denials and political bias. It also allows DHS to reject green card applications based on obesity or any other personal characteristic the administration elects to consider.

A similar Trump public charge regulation, implemented in 2019, was ruled illegal by a federal court and struck down. While that rule’s technical application was limited to a small number of lawfully present immigrants applying for green cards, its chilling effect was far broader, leading millions of immigrants and their family members to avoid seeking assistance and care they were legally eligible to receive. - CIPC

Trump and explosive diarrhea

How very fitting.

A big problem for trust in government is that high-quality governance is usually invisible. When the various agencies designed to protect the American people from all manner of threats are working perfectly, most potential disasters are detected and prevented before they happen. A lot of highly trained government workers do diligent and difficult work for little pay and less recognition, heading off crisis after crisis, and the ignorant swing-voting layman assumes that all his tax dollars are being squandered.

So one hopes that the voting public is learning a hard—or I should say watery—lesson about how important good government is, by way of the manifold consequences of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Robert Kennedy hacking away at American state capacity. The latest consequence can be heard in the groaning emanating from thousands of bathrooms across the country: the worst cyclosporiasis outbreak in American history. It deserves a name, so I’m calling it the MAHA Trots. - The American Prospect

New Medicaid rules published

As this notes the intent is clearly to kick as many people with serious health issues off of Medicaid as possible. They can die in agony for all that the Trumpers care.

Frail. That’s a word that a lot of people use to describe people like me who use wheelchairs.

That’s not a word that I would apply to myself. It sounds like I’m made of delicate glass or something, and if the wind blows the wrong way, I’ll fall to pieces. And that just ain’t me.

But the day is coming when all sorts of people may be scrambling to dig up any bit of evidence they can to support their claim that they are frail—because they have to in order to be exempted from the federal government’s Medicaid work requirements.

On June 3, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register that spells out the specifics of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act…

Under the new regulations, according to KFF Health News, “having a medical condition alone isn’t sufficient to exempt someone from the work requirements. States must assess ‘the severity of an individual’s condition’ to determine whether they can stay on Medicaid without working—a standard that makes it more difficult for enrollees to meet the criteria.” - The Progressive

Of course Trump is politicizing disaster aid

I suppose one could argue that red states’ need is vastly greater, as their governance is so incompetent and corrupt. But that’s clearly not what this is about.

Lawmakers are condemning President Donald Trump for politicizing disaster aid after he denied Democratic-led Rhode Island’s request for blizzard recovery assistance last week while approving millions in funds for Republican-leaning states.

In a series of Truth Social posts on June 30, Trump announced more than $846 million in disaster aid to states that voted for him in the 2024 presidential election. Such aid — granted in response to several extreme weather-related disasters, including wildfires, severe storms, and flooding — is generally approved by presidents and administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on a nonpartisan basis.

According to an Urban Institute analysis examining disaster aid approvals since Trump began his second term in office, over 84 percent of requests from states that voted for him in the 2024 election have received approvals, while only 41 percent of requests from states that voted for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris have been approved. Red states also appear to receive approvals twice as fast as blue states do, the analysis found. - Truthout