**The End of the “War on Terror” and Its Zombie Legacy**
There is both good and bad news for critics of the United States’ expansive 21st-century war apparatus. The good news: the “war on terror” appears to be dead. The bad news? It has morphed into a kind of zombie war, continuing to expand despite the fading relevance of its original motivations.
Recent developments suggest that the U.S. government has largely moved on from the core threats that once justified the “war on terror.” For instance, despite evidence of Saudi government complicity in the 9/11 attacks, the Biden administration has pledged support for the kingdom, while prominent U.S. comedians have accepted its funding to bolster its public image. Meanwhile, the U.S. has recognized an al-Qaeda-linked leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, as the head of Syria—a move that contradicts past efforts to remove him from power due to his alleged ties to terrorism.
The Trump administration has further repurposed the tools of the “war on terror” against new targets, including drug traffickers in Venezuela, labeling them as terrorists. This expansion raises concerns about the legal and ethical implications of such designations.
Domestically, the administration has also turned its attention inward, threatening to deploy military force against perceived domestic threats, including political dissidents. These actions reflect a broader trend of using the framework of the “war on terror” to justify measures that extend beyond its original intent.
Civil libertarians have long warned that the powers granted under the “war on terror” could be misused in ways that threaten civil liberties. The current situation seems to validate these concerns, as the war continues to evolve without the original justifications that once supported it.
**Clean Energy and the Abundance Movement**
The nation’s slow progress in transitioning to clean energy has been hindered by policies favoring fossil fuels, particularly under the Trump administration. This has raised concerns about economic prosperity, environmental sustainability, and community well-being.
Some politicians promote the so-called “Abundance” movement, which argues that environmental regulations are obstacles to clean energy development. However, this approach risks repeating the mistakes of the past, where deregulation led to environmental degradation and health crises.
Pennsylvania’s Green Amendment offers a model for balancing economic growth with environmental protection. By enshrining the right to a clean environment in the state constitution, it ensures that industries can thrive without compromising public health or natural resources.
Rather than rolling back regulations, the focus should be on advancing clean energy solutions that do not rely on fossil fuels. This requires a commitment to protecting the environment and ensuring that all Americans have access to clean water, air, and a healthy living environment.
**The Impact of Billionaire Wealth on Society**
Extreme wealth inequality has significant consequences for everyday Americans. From tax evasion to the erosion of democratic institutions, billionaires wield disproportionate influence over policy and public life.
In my book *Burned by Billionaires*, I outline ten ways that concentrated wealth negatively impacts society, including shifting tax burdens onto working people, undermining democratic processes, exacerbating housing crises, and blocking climate action. These issues are not isolated but interconnected, reflecting a systemic imbalance that favors the wealthy at the expense of the many.
To address these challenges, individuals and communities must advocate for policies that promote fairness, transparency, and accountability. This includes supporting progressive taxation, investing in public services, and challenging the influence of billionaires in media and politics.
**The CDFI Fund and the Future of Economic Equity**
Amid a government shutdown, the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund was eliminated, marking a significant loss for communities struggling with economic inequality. For three decades, the CDFI Fund provided critical capital to underserved areas, helping small businesses, farmers, and local economies thrive.
Its elimination reflects a broader shift in government priorities, favoring punitive measures over investments in economic development. This decision sends a clear message that certain communities are not considered worthy of federal support, regardless of their needs or potential.
The impact of this cut will be felt gradually, as CDFIs face funding shortages and lose the ability to provide essential services. Over time, this could lead to the decline of entire communities, reinforcing cycles of poverty and disinvestment.
Restoring the CDFI Fund would signal a commitment to building a more equitable economy. It would demonstrate that government can be a partner in fostering opportunity, rather than a tool of exclusion. The choice to reinvest in these programs will determine whether the U.S. remains committed to shared prosperity or continues down a path of deepening inequality.
Arabic 
English