The overt gangsterfication of US foreign policy, formalized through the so-called “Board of Peace,” marks the culmination of a dangerous transformation in the nature of American hegemony.
The United States’ turn toward naked coercion and transactional deal-making represents both a genuine departure from its commitment to the liberal international legal order and the culmination of that order’s internal contradictions.
Amna Akbar interviews Joe Soss and Joshua Page about how the criminal legal system extracts resources from the nation’s most oppressed communities and converts them into public and private revenues.
Corporate diversity practices, long celebrated for driving revenue growth and stabilizing stock prices, are now being targeted as liabilities by conservative shareholder activists, consumer boycotts, and litigation. This shift from rainbow capitalism to today’s anti-woke agenda reveals how diversity’s value in the marketplace has always been politically and legally constructed.
At the core of the U.S. banking system is the public’s choice to delegate money-creation privileges to private actors. But what is the public getting in exchange? An ever-swelling suite of predatory credit products and few basic services. It’s time to reset the terms of the bargain.
Waived overnight in response to a crisis for capital but maintained in the face of protest from former and current territories, the Jones Act has a colonial logic that is impossible to ignore. Yet recent constitutional challenges have done precisely that, refusing to acknowledge the Act’s imperial origins and on-going economic harms.
Unable to realize enough profit from their portfolios to repay their investors, landlords are turning the screws on tenants in the form of rising rents and declining conditions. Understanding this financial distress points us beyond questions of supply to a more nuanced analysis of the political economy of rental housing, revealing the market interventions needed to unlock tenant power.
In Argentina’s recent debt renegotiations with the IMF, the overriding goal has been to ensure the government can meet all future payment obligations. Yet the conditions imposed to achieve this aim have deepened a crisis of social reproduction, rendering life itself unsustainable.
Weeks after pardoning former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández for drug trafficking, Donald Trump ordered U.S. forces to seize Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro on the same charges. How should we make sense of these seemingly contradictory actions? And what do they tell us about the true purpose of the War on Drugs?
Many on the left continue to view cryptocurrency as little more than a grift. Yet the crypto industry aims to achieve something much more dangerous: functional monetary sovereignty. Their infrastructures create new conditions for exchange, wealth, and information. By ignoring these developments, we increasingly live in a dystopian world of monetary fiefdoms, and we find ourselves lacking the legal imagination to meet the moment.
Amid the chaos of the second Trump administration, it is easy to lose sight of a simple, terrifying fact: the American president’s personal wealth is now inextricably linked to the viability of cryptocurrency.
From legislative paralysis to regulatory fragmentation to strategic incoherence, Democrats have spent the past five years squandering opportunities to assert control over the future of digital currencies. To reverse course, progressives need to embrace a coordinated approach that balances innovation, privacy, and systemic risk.
Despite its professed commitment to radical libertarianism and a non-state theory of money, the crypto industry is actively cultivating government intervention in markets on its behalf. From recruiting states to accept cryptocurrency for tax payments to pushing for the establishment of a Bitcoin reserve, crypto interests are partnering with the government to craft demand for currencies that hardly anyone uses.
The story of crypto’s transformation from cypherpunk experiment to Wall Street darling is bleak, but it was not preordained. Where did the left go wrong, and how can it reassert itself in shaping the future of money?
Throughout U.S. history, oligarchs have fettered the tax power of the state to ensure that the government would be too feeble to rein in their power. The Trump Administration’s capricious tariffs and mass firings at the Internal Revenue Service are the latest iteration of this long, anti-tax, anti-democratic tradition.
