**The Prolonged and Expanding “War on Terror”**
There is both good news and bad news for critics of the United States’ expansive 21st-century war machine. The good news: the “war on terror” appears to be dead. The bad news? It seems to have transformed into a kind of zombie war, continuing to expand even as the original fears and threats that justified it fade from public consciousness.
Several key developments highlight this transformation. Despite evidence released years ago showing the Saudi government’s direct involvement in the September 11 attacks, which was central to justifying the “war on terror,” there has been little stigma attached to associating with or accepting funds from the Saudi regime. The Biden administration’s efforts to support the Saudi government have faced minimal controversy. Additionally, prominent U.S. comedians have accepted money from the Saudi government to enhance its image, while its growing influence in American sports and entertainment continues without significant pushback.
Meanwhile, after spending over a decade combating al-Qaeda, the U.S. government has seemingly come to terms with the group’s ongoing presence in the region. It has supported the installation of Ahmed al-Sharaa, an al-Qaeda-linked militant, as the leader of Syria—a move that contradicts previous U.S. efforts to remove him from power due to his alleged ties to terrorism.
This pattern suggests that both the American public and the national security establishment have moved beyond the original motivations of the “war on terror.” Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Saudi government are no longer seen as existential threats, yet the war itself persists, evolving in new and concerning ways.
**Expanding the War on Terror**
The Trump administration has repurposed the tools and powers used against terrorism to target drug traffickers, launching airstrikes on Venezuelan boats under the claim that they constitute an “armed attack” on the U.S. These actions raise legal and ethical concerns, as they stretch the definition of terrorism to include drug smuggling.
Moreover, the Trump administration has continued the trend of turning the “war on terror” inward, threatening to deploy the military against domestic critics and dissidents, treating them as potential terrorist threats. This represents a dangerous shift toward using the language of war to suppress political dissent, undermining democratic norms and civil liberties.
These developments confirm the warnings of civil libertarians who have long feared that the expansive powers granted under the “war on terror” would eventually be used for purposes far removed from their original intent. The irony is that these expansions occur at a time when the original threats appear to be fading from public memory.
**The Zombie War on Terror**
What we are witnessing is a “war on terror” in zombie form—devoid of its original purpose but more dangerous than ever. It continues to evolve, seeking new targets and justifications, while the original threats that fueled it are increasingly ignored.
Trump may be the first president to use this zombie war for ends it was never meant for, but history suggests he will not be the last unless there is a collective political effort to curb the unchecked growth of executive war-making power since 9/11. Until then, this war will continue to stagger forward, reshaping the landscape of American politics and policy.
**Clean Energy and the Abundance Movement**
The nation’s slow and inconsistent clean energy rollout, exacerbated by President Donald Trump’s opposition to environmental initiatives, threatens economic prosperity, climate stability, and community well-being. Rising temperatures driven by fossil fuels risk devastating ecosystems, disrupting economies, and destabilizing societies.
Some politicians promote the so-called “Abundance” movement, claiming that environmental regulations hinder clean energy development. However, this argument is flawed. Removing regulations does not lead to abundance; instead, it leads to environmental degradation, health risks, and economic harm.
Pennsylvania’s Green Amendment, enacted in 1971, serves as a model for balancing clean energy development with environmental protection. It guarantees the right to a healthy environment and holds leaders accountable for protecting it. This approach supports economic progress while ensuring sustainability.
The Abundance movement, by contrast, risks undoing these balances and empowering a fossil fuel industry focused on profit over people. Regulatory rollbacks allow industries to avoid accountability, shifting the burden of environmental harm onto communities.
**Billionaires and the Concentration of Wealth**
Extreme wealth inequality is reshaping American society in harmful ways. Billionaires shift tax burdens onto the public, distort political processes, exacerbate housing crises, and manipulate media to deflect attention from their actions. They also contribute to environmental degradation, healthcare costs, and the erosion of democratic institutions.
In my book *Burned by Billionaires*, I outline ten ways concentrated wealth and power negatively impact everyday lives. From inflating housing costs to blocking climate action, the influence of billionaires is pervasive and damaging. However, there is hope. Collective action, policy reform, and grassroots resistance can challenge the billionaire class and restore balance to the system.
**The CDFI Fund and the Future of Community Investment**
Amid the government shutdown, the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund has been eliminated, despite its three-decade track record of supporting working-class communities and local economies. This decision reflects a broader shift in how the government views its role, prioritizing enforcement and punishment over investment and opportunity.
The CDFI Fund provided critical capital to small businesses, farmers, and rural communities, often in areas overlooked by traditional banks. Its elimination signals a preference for a government that extracts rather than builds, leaving vulnerable communities without the resources needed to thrive.
If the CDFI Fund remains defunded, the consequences will be felt slowly and locally, eroding opportunities and deepening inequality. Restoring the fund would signal a commitment to shared prosperity and a rejection of the current vision of government as landlord and cop.
Congress faces a critical choice: restore the CDFI Fund and reaffirm its commitment to community investment, or let this vital program remain defunded. The decision will reveal whether rhetoric about helping working people and reviving struggling communities is genuine or merely performative.
The CDFI Fund proved that investing in local economies can succeed when government acts as a partner rather than an overseer. Its elimination marks a loss not only of funding but of a vision for a more inclusive and equitable future.
English 
Arabic