The Defunct Weaponization of the U.S. Dollar. The SCO Summit and the Decline of the West’s Financial Hegemony.
By Peiman Salehi | Global Research | September 6, 2025
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s (SCO) summit in Beijing, marked by both symbolism and substance, underscored the slow erosion of Western financial dominance. While mainstream coverage focused on China’s military parade, the real significance lies in the economic agenda advanced by SCO members. Discussions of a potential SCO Development Bank, expanded use of local currencies, and closer coordination with BRICS initiatives point to a growing determination across Eurasia and the Global South to challenge the monopoly long exercised by the United States and its allies through the IMF, the World Bank, and the dollar system.
For decades, these Western-controlled institutions have functioned as instruments of geopolitical leverage. Structural adjustment programs dismantled social protections, imposed privatization, and locked countries into cycles of debt dependency.
The dollar, presented as a neutral global currency, has been repeatedly weaponized through sanctions, financial exclusion, and manipulation of international payment systems. In this context, the SCO’s economic discussions must be seen for what they are: not technical proposals, but acts of resistance. By seeking alternatives to dollar-based finance and conditional lending, SCO members are asserting that the age of Western financial coercion is no longer uncontested.
China and Russia, the central actors in this process, have both experienced the coercive use of Western financial power.
Sanctions on Russia and tariffs on China have reinforced the urgency of building parallel institutions. For smaller states, particularly in the Global South, the stakes are even higher. Access to credit that is not tied to Washington’s geopolitical priorities could mean the difference between austerity and investment, between dependency and sovereignty. The SCO’s proposals are embryonic, but they point toward a broader trend: the emergence of multipolar finance as a shield against unilateral domination.
Critics in the West have rushed to dismiss these efforts, portraying them as impractical or politically motivated. But such dismissals miss the point. The very fact that alternatives are being openly discussed and partially implemented signals the weakening of Western monopoly. The creation of the BRICS New Development Bank, the use of local currencies in trade between Russia, China, and India, and now the SCO’s initiatives all mark a shift from rhetoric to practice. Each new mechanism reduces the ability of the United States to dictate terms unilaterally.
This does not mean China or Russia will replace Washington as the new hegemons. Rather, it means that unipolarity is ending. The world is moving toward a multipolar order in which no single state can control the flows of finance, trade, and development. For Global South nations, this creates both opportunities and risks. It offers the possibility of diversifying partnerships and rejecting conditionality, but it also requires vigilance to avoid reproducing dependency under new patrons. Multipolarity is not a guarantee of justice, but it is a necessary precondition for breaking the cycle of Western domination.
The SCO summit should therefore be understood as part of a larger civilizational struggle over the architecture of world order. Western hegemony has rested not only on military alliances and cultural influence, but on financial coercion. By weaponizing the dollar, Washington has sought to enforce compliance far beyond its borders. The SCO’s economic agenda represents an attempt to reclaim sovereignty in the face of this coercion, to create breathing space for states that refuse to align with U.S. geopolitical priorities.
What emerges from Beijing is not a fully formed alternative, but a direction of travel. Multipolar institutions are being built step by step, challenging the illusion that Western institutions are eternal or indispensable. For countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, this is a call to action. It is an invitation to participate in the shaping of a world where development is not dictated from Washington or Brussels, but negotiated among equals.
The mainstream media will continue to focus on parades and symbols, but the real revolution is occurring in the realm of finance. The SCO summit was a reminder that the West’s monopoly on money and credit is cracking, and that the future of global order will be defined not by a single hegemon but by the collective efforts of states refusing to submit. For those seeking peace, justice, and sovereignty, this is a development to be welcomed, nurtured, and defended.
Peiman Salehi is a Political Analyst & Writer from Tehran, Iran.
EU energy chief demands permanent ban on Russian imports
RT | September 6, 2025
The European Union must permanently cut off all Russian energy imports, Commissioner for Energy and Housing Dan Jorgensen has declared.
Most EU countries have halted direct imports of Russian crude and gas under sanctions over the Ukraine conflict. However, Brussels continues to push for a full phase-out of Russian energy by the end of 2027 under its RePowerEU Roadmap. The plan calls for ending spot gas contracts, suspending new deals, limiting uranium imports, and targeting the so-called Russian “shadow fleet” of oil tankers allegedly used to bypass sanctions.
Jorgensen, who has championed the plan for months, said the bloc must urgently agree on its framework and stick to it even after the Ukraine conflict ends.
“For us the objective is very, very clear. We want to stop the import as fast as possible,” he told reporters in Copenhagen on Friday. “And in the future, even when there is peace, we should still not import Russian energy… In my opinion, we will never again import as much as one molecule of Russian energy once this agreement is made.”
Jorgensen noted that the US has backed Brussels’ plans. President Donald Trump, frustrated with slow Ukraine peace talks, urged European allies on Thursday to halt Russian energy imports. The July trade deal between Washington and Brussels also included a pledge that the EU would replace Russian oil and gas with American LNG and nuclear fuel.
Hungary and Slovakia, both heavily dependent on Russian supplies, have been the strongest opponents of the phase-out, arguing it would undermine the bloc’s security and raise prices. On Friday, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto accused the EU of “hypocrisy,” saying many members still buy Russian crude through intermediaries even as they call for a phase-out. Jorgensen said he was in talks with Budapest and Bratislava but noted the plan can be approved without them, as it requires only a qualified majority.
Moscow considers any restrictions targeting its energy trade illegal and has warned that abandoning its energy will drive up prices and weaken the EU’s economy by forcing it to rely on costlier alternatives or indirect Russian imports.
Is the West still capable of keeping its maritime trade routes functioning?

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 6, 2025
The West risks facing an asymmetrical response to its illegal restrictions on shipping. Unlike Russia, most developed countries depend on the stable and secure functioning of maritime trade routes. The application of the measures used by the West against itself could trigger a crisis in maritime supply chains due to disruptions in the delivery of strategically important goods and raw materials.
A difficult dependency to manage
Unlike Russia, the West bases its economy and strategic security on a widely interconnected and stable global maritime trade system, established as a founding principle of the maritime power of sea-faring civilizations (Seapower, in the classical geopolitics of Mackinder and Mahan). Most developed Western countries are heavily dependent on the smooth and secure functioning of maritime trade routes to ensure the continuous supply of strategic goods, raw materials, and energy products. Maritime trade is an irreplaceable and essential pillar of Western supply chains, with the increasing complexity and vulnerability of these systems due to geopolitical and environmental dynamics.
This dependence means that illegally imposed restrictions on navigation, or pressure on key maritime routes such as the Suez Canal or the Red Sea passage, can have significant not only economic but also geopolitical impacts. The West as a whole, unlike Russia, which has developed an autonomous strategy to diversify its trade routes, does not have established and functional alternatives for many of its maritime supply lines. And this is a problem that is not easily solved.
In military science, the term ‘asymmetry’ refers to the use of strategies, tactics, and tools that do not mirror those of the enemy, but aim to exploit differences in capabilities, organization, and objectives to strike at the enemy’s weak points. Applied to the maritime domain, asymmetry describes how an actor, often weaker in conventional terms, can challenge a superior naval power by avoiding a head-on confrontation and instead seeking to destabilize its freedom of maneuver, logistics, and route security.
In the current geostrategic context, in fact, a crucial aspect concerns the risk that the West will face asymmetric responses to its illegal restrictions on navigation. This concept of asymmetry is central to the theory of contemporary maritime threats: Western powers, by unilaterally imposing restrictions on the routes or maritime activities of other states (e.g., through sanctions, blockades, or “no sail zones”), could generate unconventional reactions that are difficult to manage structurally, especially now that dominance of the seas is no longer the exclusive preserve of the old Atlantic empires.
The case of Russia is emblematic: despite being heavily affected by sanctions and restrictions on global maritime traffic, it has developed a maritime strategy aimed at building autonomous infrastructure and new routes—such as the development of the Northern Sea Route—to bypass Western restrictions and ensure internal and external economic continuity. The West, on the other hand, despite having provided important regulatory and military tools to ensure freedom of navigation, finds itself exposed to more damaging forms of retaliation precisely because it is unable to easily circumvent the key routes on which it depends.
The application of the same restrictive measures used by the West against itself would, in perspective, result in a potentially acute crisis in maritime supply chains. Disruptions in access to and passage through key trade routes would cause delays in the delivery of strategic raw materials and essential goods, with knock-on effects on industry, agriculture, energy, and final consumption.
The consequences of blockages or restrictions on strategic passages such as the Suez or Panama Canals include not only higher costs due to longer and more expensive alternative routes (with additional costs for fuel, insurance, and sailing time) but also port congestion, increased emissions, and misalignments between supply and demand in global chains. Furthermore, insecurity in maritime routes can raise insurance premiums, contributing to increased international transport costs and fueling market volatility.
Structural differences between the West and Russia and growing instability
Western vulnerability must be viewed in light of the structural differences in maritime management and strategy between the West and Russia.
Russia is gearing up to become a major maritime power, investing in infrastructure, shipbuilding, and new logistics hubs on its territory, aiming for more direct control of its export routes for resources (natural gas, coal, agricultural products) to non-Western markets such as Asia, which are becoming geopolitical and economic priorities.
For example, the Navy’s key role in Arctic routes is already a global excellence, for which the collective West lags far behind. The West, on the contrary, relies on an international maritime trade network that is increasingly subject to high interdependence and multilateral cooperation, and has not yet developed an equivalent system of autonomous routes and infrastructure capable of circumventing unilateral restrictions. This creates an imbalance that can result in asymmetric risk: while Russia can tolerate or circumvent certain restrictions due to its alternative shipping options, the West cannot do the same without serious disruption in terms of trade flows and costs.
Current geopolitical trends increase the likelihood that illegal restrictions on navigation, applied for political reasons, will translate into significant crises in Western supply chains. The effects manifest themselves in:
- Increased delays and misalignments in the delivery of raw materials and finished products (e.g., critical materials, energy, agricultural products);
- Higher costs for maritime transport and insurance, reflected in higher prices and potential pass-through to end consumers;
- Risk of port congestion and logistical disruptions that can trigger temporary regional or global economic crises;
- Increased geopolitical tensions in key regions, with exposure to maritime conflicts or asymmetric actions by state and non-state actors.
The application of restrictive Western measures on oneself is not only a technical challenge, but also a factor that could trigger chain reactions that are difficult to control, as other maritime powers and regional actors could adopt asymmetric strategies, including the militarization of routes, piracy, and targeted sabotage.
A war of maps
But how did the West construct these restrictions? This corresponds to a ‘war of maps’: whoever controls cartography and security warnings dominates the very perception of freedom of navigation.
Three types of restrictive measures have been applied: economic sanctions, maritime exclusion zones (mainly in areas of open or potential conflict) and the updating of maritime charts. And when sailing, maps are essential.
The map war is a cognitive and regulatory domain, in which the representation of space becomes a weapon, more or less directly. Those who control the maps, i.e., decide what to show, what to obscure, and which routes are safe or prohibited to follow, effectively exercise strategic dominance that influences many actors.
The map war at sea is played out on several levels:
Cartographic: updates to official charts (e.g., NOAA for the US, UKHO for Great Britain) can delimit restricted areas, minefields, and training areas. This forces civilian and military ships to change their routes, even if the sea remains physically free.
Digital: ECDIS and AIS systems, which are mandatory in commercial navigation, receive updates from Western sources (Navtex, Inmarsat, IMO). By adding or removing “digital layers,” the West can channel traffic.
Narrative-legal: maps are never neutral; they reflect a vision of the law of the sea. A NATO map will show as “international waters” areas that Russia or China consider “territorial waters.” It is a form of “cartographic lawfare.”
Operational: navies reinforce on the ground what the map represents. If an area is marked as “restricted” and is patrolled by frigates or naval drones, the cartographic representation becomes reality.
Cognitively controlling space means dominating representation, i.e., conditioning the movements of commercial and military fleets, driving up insurance and logistics costs, legitimizing a certain view of maritime law and, most importantly, transforming the sea into a sort of “mosaic” made up of mandatory corridors and prohibited areas. In other words, it is no longer just the strength of ships that determines control, but also the use of the power of representation, which constrains reality geopolitically speaking.
The problem is that the West, with its maritime powers of glorious memory, cannot be denied, is still convinced that it has immeasurable and unchallenged power. However, this perception does not correspond to the truth. Western leaders have promoted sanctions and restrictive policies, driven by the desire to maintain control that has long since ceased to belong to them, and have ended up compromising their own economies and damaging their interests. The schizophrenia seems never-ending.
Even sanctions have not worked
Economic sanctions and export controls are now the main weapons of US national security. With a simple administrative act, Washington can exclude its adversaries from the dollar-dominated international financial system and limit their access to advanced technology supply chains. These tools, designed to reinforce foreign policy and defense objectives, are often used as an intermediate response: more effective than diplomacy alone, but less risky than direct military intervention. Their apparent low cost and ease of use have encouraged their frequent use, with the risk of gradually reducing their effectiveness and raising doubts about the stability of the dollar as a global reserve currency.
Over the past two decades, these tools have been applied against a growing range of adversaries. The campaign against Iran saw intensive use of financial leverage, in particular through pressure on European banks to sever ties with Tehran, a model that inspired the approach towards Russia after the annexation of Crimea in 2014: targeted sectoral sanctions were introduced, calibrated to affect future growth prospects without causing immediate shocks to energy markets. Subsequently, attention shifted to China, with technological restrictions directed at giants such as Huawei and ZTE in an attempt to slow down the development of advanced capabilities in areas such as artificial intelligence and defense.
After 2022, with the start of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the measures became more complex, with oil price caps and new controls on the export of advanced semiconductors introduced in addition to financial and trade blockades, the result of coordination with European and Asian allies. This combination of instruments showed how economic measures can be integrated into a single strategy, even if they fail to produce positive effects. Arrogant rhetoric clashed with harsh reality: sanctions are no longer as effective a deterrent as they once were, and their effect is much less controllable and predictable.
Behind every sanctions package lie intricate decision-making processes, in which coordination with allies and calculation of the effects on global markets play a decisive role, and, above all, a discreet sense of masochism. Countless hours of work, commissions, discussions, and proclamations in the media have produced only an unprecedented accumulation of disadvantages.
Because, to be honest, the sanctions system simply does not work. On the one hand, sanctions have evolved in response to increasingly sophisticated threats, combining financial, commercial, and technological levers, but entirely in a self-congratulatory sense, as they are not pragmatically effective. on the other hand, they have rarely produced significant political change in the affected states on their own, instead generating side effects on the global economy and tensions with the private sector or with Western partners themselves, creating a disastrous boomerang effect.
If the West does not decide to stop, it will be forced to pay the price for all its misdeeds, a price that is much higher and more painful than it can imagine. And then it will be too late to turn back.
Science-for-hire companies violate scientific norms, degrade public discourse, and facilitate the mass poisoning of society
By Toby Rogers | August 27, 2025
Last week, the New York Times published a bizarre “Guest Essay” on autism by Jessica Steier, a Pharma mercenary who has at least ten financial conflicts of interest and no background in autism research. I submitted a reply to the article to correct her disinformation and the NY Times refused to publish it.
Here are the facts for anyone who wants to read them:
Jessica Steier runs a science-for-hire company, “Unbiased Science.” She uses a number of pass-through organizations to launder contributions from large pharmaceutical and chemical companies. However, one can still figure out a lot of her funders (see article on “Unbiased Science Podcast” in SourceWatch). Steier advises an infant formula company and is an affiliate for a company that makes monosodium glutamate (MSG). Her podcast has taken money from 3M, Procter & Gamble, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Moderna, and CSL Seqirus (a flu vaccine manufacturer).
Steier is cartoonishly evil. From SourceWatch:
Steier’s Unbiased Science Podcast:
• Described the herbicide glyphosate as “safe for use”
• Declared polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) in Teflon to be “non-toxic to humans”
• Called the Environmental Working Group Dirty Dozen list of produce with the most and least pesticide residues “a fear-based marketing ploy”
• Claimed GMOs are “safe,” “nutritious,” and “beneficial to consumers, producers, and the environment” and
• Called hydrogenated oil “a safe dietary fat.”
The Unbiased Science Podcast recorded two episodes on organic food and farming in December 2022 and January 2023 in which they argued that organic pesticides are more harmful than synthetic pesticides used in chemical farming…
Andrea C. Love [Steier’s co-host] defended the artificial sweetener aspartame as “safe,” said in an interview that she has “at least one diet soda a day,” and the Podcast posted on Instagram that “aspartame does not pose a health risk to humans, cancer or otherwise, especially at levels we would consume.”
Love and Steier were critical of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s ranking of the chemicals considered possibly carcinogenic to humans in 2023.
SourceWatch provides even more evidence of Steier’s toxic sophistry here.
For those who are new to these topics, mountains of evidence from The Defender, Beyond Pesticides, and Moms Across America, among others, show why all of Steier’s claims listed above are junk science.
Nearly everything Steier writes in her “Guest Essay” on autism is demonstrably false. For example, Steier:
- Thinks mercury and aluminum in vaccines are fine even though they are known neurotoxicants (see Grandjean and Landrigan, 2014, Supplementary appendix).
- Omits the fact that Mark, Anne, and David Geier sued the Maryland Board of Physicians and won (and then a higher court retroactively granted “absolute immunity” to this private board even though the Maryland legislature never gave it that right).
- Has apparently not read any of the 55 autism prevalence studies in the U.S. since 1970, so she is oblivious to the fact that autism rates have increased 32,158% over that time period.
- Seems unaware that a Danish study she cited favorably recently issued a correction after they discovered, post-publication, 136% more neurodevelopmental events, including autism and ADHD, that changed their research findings.
- Has never read, or just plain ignores, the six vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies that show that vaccines significantly increase autism risk (see summaries in Rogers, 2025).
Science-for-hire companies will say or do anything for money. Steier’s company, “Unbiased Science,” is relatively new. However, it uses the same playbook developed by other notorious science-for-hire firms, including Gradient, Exponent, and Ramboll. They are often referred to as “rented white coats” (see discussion in Rogers, 2019). Anyone citing Steier as a “public health expert” has no idea what they are talking about.
The NY Times devoted considerable resources, including two graphic designers and prominent placement online and in the Sunday print edition, in the attempt to make this trashy hit piece look presentable to its readers. The NY Times’ failure to disclose Steier’s extensive conflicts of interest and its refusal to publish critical comments in connection with this “Guest Essay” make me wonder if this was a paid advertorial at the behest of a pharmaceutical company.
The autism epidemic is a matter of enormous national importance. Yet everything that the NY Times publishes on autism is an attempt to cover up the causes and protect the powerful industries that are culpable. Unfortunately, in the midst of this crisis, the NY Times has abandoned its role as “the newspaper of record” and is now a criminal syndicate that is endangering the health of all Americans.
Toby Rogers has a Ph.D. in political economy from the University of Sydney in Australia and a Master of Public Policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley. His research focus is on regulatory capture and corruption in the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Rogers does grassroots political organizing with medical freedom groups across the country working to stop the epidemic of chronic illness in children. He writes about the political economy of public health on Substack.
Louisiana Surgeon General Warns Parents about ‘Authoritarian’ American Academy of Pediatrics
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | September 6, 2025
In February, I highlighted a statement by Louisiana Surgeon General Ralph L. Abraham, commending it for its pro-freedom tone. I also noted that “I will be watching for follow-up actions.” Well, on Thursday, Abraham came out with a powerful editorial again strongly arguing for employing a pro-freedom approach in relation to medical issues.
In the editorial, Abraham took on squarely the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) — a large and influential organization of pediatricians that Abraham termed an “authoritarian organization” that has been “captured by special interests.” The AAP, Abraham related, “thinks they know better than any parent or doctor in this country and wants you to bend to their will while they hold your child down and give them whatever pharmaceutical product they choose.”
In his editorial, Abraham threw his support behind United States Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who last week strongly criticized the AAP and its “Big Pharma benefactors” after the AAP took yet another step in its over-the-top campaign to maximize the amount of shots injected into children in America.
Abraham’s passionate and informative editorial, published at The Center Square, begins as follows:
By now, virtually every parent in the U.S. understands that COVID-19 shots for healthy children are a very bad idea. Public health authorities in nearly every country on earth abandoned the practice a couple of years ago. Even the World Health Organization (WHO), which admittedly lost whatever credibility it had left during the pandemic, stopped recommending the shot for healthy kids. At no point did the theoretical benefits outweigh the risks of an experimental product that had unknown long-term risks in the pediatric population.
Many are probably wondering why this topic is still being talked about at all, which would have been a valid question until recently, when an organization formerly known as the gold standard for pediatric advocacy defied logic and commanded that all babies, on their 6-month birthday, receive a COVID-19 vaccine. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) made this recommendation in response to the CDC’s credibility-restoring move of removing the COVID-19 vaccine from the childhood schedule. They have even gone so far as to sue Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and the CDC over the very sound decision.
This is not the first time the AAP has done something crazy. In 2023, its board voted unanimously in favor of recommending transition therapy for “transgender” kids. We don’t let kids choose what they eat for dinner, much less make irreversible, life-altering decisions. To put a cherry on top of the insanity, the AAP has also called for religious vaccine exemptions to be outlawed. This authoritarian organization thinks they know better than any parent or doctor in this country and wants you to bend to their will while they hold your child down and give them whatever pharmaceutical product they choose.
Read Abraham’s complete editorial here.
HHS Will Link Autism to Tylenol Use During Pregnancy, Wall Street Journal Reports
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 5, 2025
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to announce that autism is linked to the use of Tylenol during pregnancy in a report expected to be released this month, The Wall Street Journal reported today.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will also likely suggest that low levels of the vitamin folate also contribute to autism. The report will propose that a form of folate called folic acid, or leucovorin, can be used to treat symptoms of the disorder, according to the WSJ.
Acetaminophen, the ingredient found in hundreds of prescription and over-the-counter medicines — including Tylenol products — is routinely recommended for fever reduction and the relief of mild to moderate pain. Pregnant women commonly take it.
The drug has long been linked to liver toxicity, and several studies over the last decade — including one published last month by researchers at Harvard Medical School — have found that children exposed to the drug during pregnancy may be more likely to develop neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or ADHD.
Shares of Tylenol, made by McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a division of Kenvue, declined nearly 11% Friday after the WSJ published its report.
“Nothing is more important to us than the health and safety of the people who use our products,” a Kenvue spokeswoman told the WSJ. “We have continuously evaluated the science and continue to believe there is no causal link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and autism.”
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) says Tylenol is safe to use in pregnancy. In 2021, as more evidence of the link was emerging, the organization published a statement opposing a consensus statement supported by a group of 91 scientists in the journal Nature Reviews Endocrinology. The scientists said that a growing body of research suggests that prenatal exposure to the drug may alter fetal development and increase the risks of neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders.
“ACOG and obstetrician-gynecologists across the country have always identified acetaminophen as one of the only safe pain relievers for pregnant individuals during pregnancy,” the pharmaceutical industry-sponsored medical organization insisted.
An estimated 1 in 31 (3.22%) 8-year-old children had an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis in 2022 — up from 1 in 36 (2.8%) in 2020, and 1 in 1,000 children in the 1990s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in its latest study, published earlier this year.
Studies have also linked Tylenol use in children with permanent impairments in cognition and socialization in susceptible children, including when administered after vaccination.
“The body of evidence around acetaminophen and autism really suggests that the highest risks are not prenatal but neonatal and postnatal,” according to Children’s Health Defense Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker.
“If I were to rank the risk periods, neonatal would be the highest, postnatal next and prenatal the least, given that pregnant women will be able to help detox the acetaminophen, reducing the burden on the developing unborn child,” Hooker said.
Kennedy announced in April that the public health agencies had launched a “massive testing and research effort” to determine what causes autism.
He said the effort involves hundreds of scientists globally and promised results by this month. Kennedy said that once the environmental causes of autism are identified, “We’ll be able to eliminate those exposures.”
Last month, Kennedy told President Donald Trump during a Cabinet meeting that his agency was on track to announce the findings of an ongoing study on the causes of autism in September.
“We’re finding interventions, certain interventions now that are clearly almost certainly causing autism, and we’re going to be able to address those in September,” Kennedy said.
Reuters reported that researchers have submitted more than 100 proposals to participate in the Trump administration’s $50 million study into possible causes of autism. A list of 25 grant winners is expected to be announced at the end of the month.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Washington sanctions Palestinian rights groups for aiding ICC in Gaza war crimes probe
The White House is covering for Israeli war crimes amid its operation to ethnically cleanse and demolish Gaza City
The Cradle | September 5, 2025
The US has imposed sanctions on three Palestinian human rights organizations that previously petitioned the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate Israel for war crimes in Gaza.
“Today, the Trump Administration is sanctioning three NGOs – Al Haq, Al Mezan, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights – for assisting in the ICC’s illegitimate actions against Israel. The United States will continue to protect our own sovereignty and the sovereignty of our allies from the ICC’s overreach,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on Thursday evening on X.
The announcement first appeared as a notice on the US Treasury Department’s website on Thursday.
In November 2023, the organizations requested that the ICC investigate Israel for war crimes in response to its actions in Gaza, including carrying out airstrikes on heavily populated civilian areas, imposing a complete siege to cut off food, water, and electricity to the civilian population, and causing the mass displacement of residents.
On 31 October 2023, Israel bombed the Jabalia refugee camp, killing some 120 people, mostly women and children, in one airstrike with a 2,000-pound (907 kilograms) bomb.
In May of 2024, ICC prosecutor Karim Khan requested that the court’s judges issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-defense minister Yoav Gallant on charges of using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza.
The ICC issued the arrest warrants in November 2024.
The US responded by imposing sanctions on ICC judges and Khan, calling the Hague-based court a “national security threat.”
A smear campaign was also launched, accusing Khan of sexual misconduct in the workplace.
The ICC was established in 2002 to try cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The jurisdiction of the court is recognized by its 125 member countries. However, the US, China, Russia, and Israel do not recognize the court’s authority.
The US Treasury announcement comes as Israel continues its destruction of Gaza City, which Tel Aviv is seeking to ethnically cleanse of its hundreds of thousands of Palestinian residents.
While Israeli leaders say they wish to defeat Hamas, the Israeli military is systematically demolishing Palestinian cities to make way for a mega real estate project backed by Israeli businessmen and the White House.
US President Donald Trump has stated that Palestinians will be forced to leave Gaza, which will be turned into a high-tech smart city and resort hub he has dubbed the “Riviera of the Middle East.”
Israel has issued evacuation orders for Gaza City as the demolition moves forward.
“The Israeli forces, when they mark any area by red color and they request the people to leave, they really will destroy it,” said Gaza City resident Mohammed Alkurdi while speaking with AP.
“It’s not something partial like before. It’s 100 percent,” he said. “The house, I’m telling my friends, it keeps dancing all the day. It keeps dancing, going right and left like an earthquake.”
Another Gaza City resident, Amjad Shawa, the director of a Palestinian NGO network, told AP that “Gaza [City] will be leveled and destroyed,” like other cities in the enclave.
After months of Israeli bombing, “there is no Rafah. Almost no Khan Yunis,” Shawa said.
Some residents of Gaza City are choosing to leave ahead of the Israeli warplanes and bulldozers.
For others, leaving is not possible at all due to age, sickness, and lack of anywhere else to go.
“The elders, they’re saying we will die here,” Shawa said. “This has pushed the other members of the family to stay, not to leave.”
Britain’s Example Vindicates Rand Paul’s Opposition to ‘Kids Online Safety Act’
By Jack Hunter | The Libertarian Institute | September 4, 2025
In July 2024, Rand Paul (R-KY) was one of only three senators who voted against the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), legislation that sought to protect children from harmful material online. The other two were Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR).
Senator Paul said of his decision:
“How would platforms comply with KOSA’s requirement to mitigate and prevent undefined harms such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders? Should platforms stop children from seeing war coverage because it could lead to depression? Should pro-life messages be censored because platforms worry it could impact the mental well-being of teenage mothers? Would sites permit discussion of a teenager overcoming an eating disorder?”
Fair questions, all. KOSA passed in overwhelming bipartisan fashion in the Senate but has not advanced through the U.S. House. Paul’s problem with it, with giving the government this power, was the many potential unintended consequences—ones that his senate colleagues apparently didn’t even consider.
Yet, Senator Paul’s worries are being proven in real time in the United Kingdom where their Online Safety Act (OSA) has just gone into effect, creating all sorts of problems, great, small, and dangerous.
Wikipedia has threatened to throttle traffic coming from the UK due to the law, where the platform is expected to block minors from “harmful” content, including articles covering “Bulimia nervosa” and “Oxford child sex abuse ring.”
A student might need to research eating disorders or child sexual abuse for educational purposes, but if Wikipedia allows this access, the platform could face fines of eighteen million in British pounds, or 10% of the website’s annual revenue.
Companies aren’t going to want to subject themselves to that kind of punishment.
How would—how can—Wikipedia actually police this? How would the many social media companies be able to keep tabs on the endless labyrinth of potentially worrisome material shared by millions on their platforms and the ages of users who have access to them?
The downsides to such laws are almost impossible to predict. Thanks to OSA, British users who did not want to verify their age have lost access to Spotify. The same was true for some Brits and pizza delivery. No pepperoni pie for you, young lad. Don’t worry, it’s for your own good.
The backlash against OSA has been significant. U.S.-UK dual citizen Liz Mair reported at Real Clear Policy:
“VPN apps, which allow a user to disguise their actual location, became the most downloaded apps in the UK—as Brits sought to dodge the restrictions. And in a matter of days, 500,00 Brits—approaching 1 percent of the population of England—signed a petition urging Parliament to debate a repeal of the law (10,000 signatures are all it takes to force an official response from the government; after 100,000 signatures, Parliament must consider a debate).”
So far, Paul’s KOSA worries looks prescient.
But the unforeseen negative effects of OSA get worse than pizza delivery and streaming services. Far worse.
There is a “Grooming Gangs” scandal in the United Kingdom that is a threat to young women and girls. Mair notes that with the OSA:
“… there have also been some really serious, adverse effects that actually could jeopardize, not enhance kids’ safety. It all demonstrates what many of us who criticized the law when it was a bill, and who have criticized the US companion bill, KOSA, have been saying for a long time: One man’s definition of ‘protecting’ children online can easily wind up hurting kids when a well-intentioned rule comes into effect.”
She’s not wrong.
“If you read up on the scandal, you will discover that it’s not really about ‘grooming’ at all, and much more about really horrific mass rape and abuse of kids orchestrated by gangs here in Britain,” Mair writes.
She notes as a practical matter:
“Maybe tween and teenage girls in areas where these gangs have operated don’t need to be exposed to every last detail, but surely they need to have some idea of the fact that if they accept gifts from an older ‘boyfriend,’ the end result may be really, really atrocious, almost unthinkable abuse—and not groping or unwanted kissing (and not just by the ‘boyfriend’ but dozens of his ‘friends’)?”
This is an important point. Shouldn’t young British girls be able to learn about the methods used by men who might harm them? But instead are being shielded by harsh but useful information in the name of protecting them?
In reality, is OSA really just making kids more vulnerable?
These are the sorts of problems Sen. Paul warned about with KOSA.
Politicians in both parties are always quick to support any legislation that is intended to “protect” children. But maybe they should pause and think about what the negative effects could be, for even a second? Thinking is not popular among politicians and this is bipartisan, with KOSA being co-sponsored by Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).
Americans of a certain age will recall the PATRIOT Act ushered in rapidly after 9/11 to supposedly better “protect” us was done so by overwhelming majorities in both parties. But instead of targeting foreign terrorists, that law ended up being used more to go after drug dealers.
Giving the federal government these sorts of extra-constitutional powers is never a good idea, and can be used against political opponents across the ideological spectrum depending on which party is in power. As Paul wrote in opposing KOSA, “This bill does not merely regulate the internet; it threatens to suppress important and diverse discussions that are essential to a free and healthy society. That is why a legion of advocacy groups on the left and the right, such as Students for Life and the American Civil Liberties Union, oppose KOSA.”
Rand Paul is right about KOSA and how it might not only harm liberty but endanger Americans if it passes.
The United Kingdom’s example should be proof enough.
India defies US pressure, doubles down on Russian oil purchases
The Cradle | September 5, 2025
Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman stated on 5 September that New Delhi will continue importing Russian oil, in defiance of US tariffs and repeated demands from President Donald Trump to halt these purchases.
“Where do we buy our oil from, especially since it’s a very expensive commodity, we pay a very high price for it and it’s the highest import, so we’ll have to decide what suits us best,” Sitharaman told News18 TV. “We will definitely buy it,” she stressed.
According to Bloomberg, her remarks indicate that New Delhi views the energy issue as a purely economic decision, with purchases of Russian crude to continue as long as they benefit the country financially.
Earlier in the day, industry sources told Reuters that Indian Oil Corporation, the country’s largest refiner, excluded US crude from its latest tender. Instead, it purchased two million barrels of West African oil and one million barrels from West Asia.
In the past months, Trump has escalated his trade war with New Delhi, raising tariffs on Indian imports from an initial 25 percent in August to 50 percent the same month, after accusing India of bankrolling Moscow through energy purchases.
Trump wrote on his Truth Social account that India “buys most of its oil and military products from Russia, very little from the U.S.” He added that New Delhi had offered to cut its tariffs “to nothing, but it’s getting late.”
India rejected accusations of war profiteering, highlighting the hypocrisy of the US and EU, both of which continue commercial exchanges with Russia.
Russian oil accounted for 38 percent of India’s imports in 2023 and 2024, and remains at 36 percent in 2025. In 2024 alone, New Delhi spent more than $47 billion on Russian crude, making it the largest buyer of Moscow’s seaborne oil.
India disavows ‘Tianjin spirit’, turns to EU
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | September 5, 2025
India found itself in an uncomfortable situation like a cat on a hot roof at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation event in Tianjin, China, with the Western media hyping up its unlikely role in a troika with Russia and China to chariot the world order toward a brave new era of multipolarity.
The plain truth is, the real obsession of the Western media was to vilify the US President Donald Trump for having “lost” India by caricaturing a three-way Moscow-Delhi-Beijing partnership as an attempt to conspire against the United States. The target was Trump’s insecure ego, and the intention to call out his punitive trade tariffs that caused mayhem in the US-Indian relationship. Prime Minister Narendra Modi savoured momentarily in Tianjin the role of a key player at the high table, which plays well before his domestic audience of hardcore nationalists, but a confrontation with the US was the last thing on his mind.
In Tianjin, Modi took a hour-long limo ride in Putin’s custom-made armoured vehicle that created a misperception that the two strongmen were up to something really sinister big. The extravagant display of “Russia collusion” Modi could have done without.
To be fair to Putin, he later made ample amends (after Modi returned to Delhi) to make sure Trump was not put out. In front of camera, when asked about an acerbic aside by Trump in a Truth Social post on September 3 wondering whether Putin was “conspiring against the United States of America,” Putin gave this extraordinary explanation:
“The President of the United States has a sense of humour. It is clear, and everyone is well aware of it. I get along very well with him. We are on a first name basis.
“I can tell you and I hope he will hear me, too: as strange as it may appear, but during these four days, during the most diverse talks in informal and formal settings, no one has ever expressed any negative judgment about the current US administration.
“Second, all of my dialogue partners without exception – I want to emphasise this – all of them were supportive of the meeting in Anchorage. Every single one of them. And all of them expressed hope that the position of President Trump and the position of Russia and other participants in the negotiations will put an end to the armed conflict. I am saying this in all seriousness without irony.
“Since I am saying this publicly, the whole world will see it and hear it, and this is the best guarantee that I am telling the truth. Why? Because the people whom I have spoken with for four days will hear it, and they will definitely say, “Yes, this is true.” I would have never said this if it were not so, because then I would have put myself in an awkward position in front of my friends, allies and strategic partners. Everything was exactly the way I said it.”
Modi has something to learn from Putin. But instead, no sooner than Modi returned to Delhi, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had lined up the most hawkish anti-Russia gang of European politicians to consort with in an ostentatious display of distancing from the Russia-India-China troika.
In the entire collective West, there is no country today to beat Germany in its hostility toward Russia. All the pent-up hatred toward Russia for inflicting the crushing defeat on Nazi Germany that has been lying dormant for decades in the German subconscious has welled up in the most recent years.
The German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently said Putin “might be one of the worst war criminals of our era. That is now plain to see. We must be clear on how to deal with war criminals. There is no room for leniency.”
Merz whose family was associated with Hitler’s Nazi party, has been repeatedly flagging that a war between Germany and Russia is inevitable. He is threatening to hand over long-range Taurus missiles to the Ukrainian military to hit deep inside Russia.
But all this anti-Russian record of Germany didn’t deter Jaishankar from inviting Merz’s foreign minister Johann Wadephul to come to India on a 3-day visit on Monday. Wadephul seized the opportunity to rubbish both Russia and China. He was particularly harsh on China during his joint press conference with Jaishankar.
Wadephul said in Jaishankar’s presence, “We agree with India and many other countries that we need to defend the international rules-based order, and that we also have to defend it against China. At least that is our clear analysis… But we also see China as a systemic rival. We don’t want that rivalry. We increasingly note that the number of areas is increasing where China has chosen this approach.”
Wadephul flouted protocol norms and violated diplomatic decorum by making such harsh remarks from Indian soil so soon after Modi and Xi decided to stop viewing each other as adversaries and instead work in partnership. But Jaishankar didn’t seem to mind and Modi received the outspoken German diplomat.
The sequence of events suggest that Delhi is in panic that Modi went overboard in Tianjin. Trump’s close aide Peter Navarro actually used a crude metaphor that Modi “got into bed” with Putin and Xi in Tianjin. Apparently, the poisoned arrow went home.
Meanwhile, Trump continues to pile pressure on Modi to terminate oil trade with Russia and has threatened that a third and fourth tranche of secondary level tariffs could be expected. He is also putting pressure on the European Union to move in tandem to bring India down on its knees.
Possibly, Wadephul carried some message from Brussels. At any rate, after receiving Wadephul, Modi made a joint call with the President of the European Council Antonio Costa and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen on Thursday to emphasise his government’s neutrality in the Ukraine conflict.
Jaishankar himself called his Ukrainian counterpart Andrii Sybih also to discuss “our bilateral cooperation as well as the Ukraine conflict.”
Dumping the “Tianjin spirit” so soon is a huge loss of face for India. But the blowback from the West unnerves the government. The point is, the future is still being written. The Global South whose mantle of leadership India claims is also watching. Governments in Asia, Europe and elsewhere still have choices to make, and those will be shaped by India’s actions as much as China’s.
Why is India’s diplomacy so clumsy-footed? In medical parlance, such clumsiness and foot drop could actually be a nerve condition. So it could be in the practice of strategic autonomy where nerves of steel are required. The Modi government freely interprets national interests to suit the exigencies of politics. And it takes ambivalent attitudes without conviction or due deliberation that are unsustainable over a period of time.
The Indian policymakers do not seem to have the foggiest idea where exactly the country’s long-term interests lie at the present juncture when an epochal transition is under way in the world order, as five centuries of western hegemony are drawing to a close. The great lesson of history for us is that resolve brings peace and order, and vacillation invites chaos and conflict.
Making Palestinians Go Away
The Trump Administration Seeks to Ignore the Genocide
By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • September 4, 2025
Donald Trump, recently sporting his red ballcap modestly featuring the words “Trump Was Right About Everything,” is apparently in regular contact with Israel’s genocidal Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Per Netanyahu, the most recent telephonic exchange had Trump expressing full support for the establishment of control over all of Gaza and the West Bank by the Israeli Army. Trump observed that Israel has been losing the “PR” (Public Relations) war over the carnage and must push ahead “with full force” to “finish the job” as quickly as possible.
There are also reports of a scheme perhaps launched during a White House meeting including Trump, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner which would give Palestinians willing to be ethnically cleansed a “relocation package” of $5000 and some other benefits to get the hell out. Where exactly they would go to is not very clear but it would eliminate the bad publicity if the Israeli army’s has to kill all of them. Gaza would then be freed up to develop the long-sought Trump Gaza Riviera under US trusteeship over the ruins and the tens of thousands of unburied bodies.
As the slaughter of mostly women and children in Gaza continues, the American public as well as voters in many European nations have turned sharply against Israel, presumably a manifestation of Trump’s “PR problem” for the Jewish state. But Israel is striking back with its own weapons, namely the tools that it has used to corrupt the government and media in the United States and all across Europe. There are numerous Jewish organizations as well as Christian Zionist churches backed by the ample funds contributed by Jewish billionaires that make sure that politicians and journalists know which side their bread is buttered on. But it is generally conceded that the most powerful component of the Israel Lobby is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC openly declares that its principal purpose is to strengthen the relationship between Israel and the United States. That actually in practice means subordinating US interests to those of the Jewish state but no politician or journalist on the make is going to defy AIPAC and cut off both the largesse and the political support. AIPAC says it has five million members, 17 regional offices, and “a vast pool of donors.” In 2022, it had 376 employees, an endowment of more than $10 million plus more than $79 million in revenue. AIPAC’s claims to be bipartisan – at its yearly policy conference in 2016 it featured both major parties’ nominees: Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump.
One of AIPAC’s most prized initiatives is the arranging fully paid for trips by Congressmen and other prominent influencers to Israel, where they are wined and dined and fed the full panoply of lies that the Israelis use to justify their horrific agenda. The trips are in full violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) rules that organizations that operate on behalf of foreign governments must register and provide full information providing transparency both on their funding and their meeting with foreign government officials. As the last president to actually seek to have an Israel Lobby entity register was John F Kennedy, his fate might explain why none of the presidents since that time have attempted to do the same.
AIPAC’s latest trick was to send 22 House of Representative Republicans to Israel over the Congressional recess in August where they were hosted by Benjamin Netanyahu himself during what was dubbed a “week long educational seminar”. Netanyahu’s office said in a statement. “The Prime Minister briefed the members of Congress on the war in the Gaza Strip and commented on the issue of the humanitarian assistance and the mendacious campaign being waged by Hamas against the State of Israel.” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a Christian Zionist know nothing, was leading a separate delegation of five leading Republicans. He was treated to a private dinner with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Meanwhile, waiting in the wings was a group of 23 Democratic Party congressmen who descended on Israel after the Republicans departed, also funded by AIPAC. The Democrat delegation was led by House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar of California and Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland. Steny Hoyer has led 20 Congressional trips to Israel.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald has observed how members of the US Congress travel to Israel more than any other country by a large margin. In fact, they make “more trips to Israel than to the entire Western Hemisphere and the continent of Africa combined.” That fact added to the other blandishments offered by the Israel Lobby to “opinion makers” means that Congress and the Media are dramatically pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian to an extent which the American public does not share. In Israel there is no such problem, with a recent poll indicating that a majority of the Jewish Israeli public believing that Palestinians are little more than animals and “should be killed.”
The non-existence status of Palestinians has in fact been a hallmark of the Trump Administration’s foreign policy. The latest move to place the Palestinians in a separate category when it comes to their being allowed to exist at all has come from the US State Department, which has blocked the issuance of visas for the Palestinian delegation which was expected to attend the opening of the United Nations General Assembly session later this month in New York. The State Department said it was doing this to hold the Palestinian Authority and the PLO “accountable for not complying with their commitments, and for undermining the prospects for peace” and there were also evidence-free claims that some of the delegation might have terrorist connections with Hamas. This was followed a few days later by a decision by the State Department to block the issuance of visas to any holder of a Palestinian Authority passport, even including Palestinians who have family in the United States. The new measures will affect visas for medical treatment, university studies, visits to friends or relatives and business travel.
The visa moves come on top of the ghastly tale regarding the fate of a number of Gazan children who were badly injured or wounded by the Israelis and who had the good fortune to fall into the hands of a US-based charity called HEAL PALESTINE that was able to get them out of the Strip for medical treatment in the United States and elsewhere. The children were in need of major surgery and other complicated treatment and were accompanied by at least one of their parents in most cases as they were unable to function independently. The blocking of the children came soon after a right-wing American Zionist extremist, Laura Loomer, described Palestinians from Gaza being brought to the United States for treatment as “jihadis” and “a national security threat.” Inevitably, after America’s Zionist cheering section learned of the arrival of the sixty or so children in the US and went to work, the US State Department, blocked the issuance of any more visas and is now engaged in a “full and thorough investigation” into how the travel was approved and arranged in the first place.
The moves against Palestinian travelers apparently came after a Netanyahu request to Secretary of State Marco Rubio to lower the profile of Palestinians who are likely to be in a position to protest publicly against behavior of Israel in Gaza and on the West Bank. The visa and travel curbs also follow declarations by a number of US allies, including France, the United Kingdom and Canada, that they plan to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN in the coming weeks. Some Trump officials, including the president himself, have strongly opposed this drive for international recognition, which Israel has condemned.
Palestinian officials have inevitably denounced the US action as a deliberate attempt to silence them at a time when Gaza faces mass displacement, starvation, and what UN and International courts have described as a genocide. The US move has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and international diplomats, who say it violates the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement, which obligates the United States in its role as the host country to facilitate access for all accredited delegations.
This has led to pushback by the United Nations itself, which reportedly has decided to stage the opening session of the General Assembly in Geneva instead of New York. In fact, in 1988, the UN similarly relocated to Geneva because the US denied a visa to Yasser Arafat, then head of the PLO. The current relocation is similarly intended to insure full Palestinian participation, particularly in a scheduled September 22nd segment which will be dedicated to Palestinian rights. President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to address the Assembly in Geneva, where he will call for international protection, recognition of Palestinian sovereignty, and accountability for Israeli war crimes.
The Geneva session is also expected to increase calls for action under the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, which empowers the General Assembly to recommend steps to take when the Security Council is unable to act due to political obstruction through exercise of vetos or lack of consensus. Advocacy groups are urging the UN to consider deploying an international protection force to Gaza and to suspend Israel’s privileges within the UN system until full humanitarian access is restored. It might also be useful to suspend the United States’ privileges, most particularly including its permanent veto rights on the Security Council, but, alas, that is perhaps asking for way too much!
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

A roving reporter who covered Italy’s top politicians explains to The Grayzone how his country was reduced to a joint US-Israeli “aircraft carrier,” and raises troubling questions about an Israeli role in the killing of Prime Minister Aldo Moro.