Economic Justice

The World Cup Is Here—But Who Is It For?

PUBLISHED 6/23/2026 by

Soccer is one of the most beloved sports in the world, and the 2026 FIFA World Cup—the largest in the tournament’s history—has drawn millions of fans across the globe. This year, for the first time, the event is being jointly hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico, with matches and related events taking place across North America.

FIFA stands to earn billions of dollars from the tournament.

But as the organization reaps record revenues, many host communities are bearing significant costs. Soaring ticket prices, displacement, labor concerns and aggressive immigration enforcement have raised questions about who truly benefits from the World Cup. For many working-class residents—and even lifelong soccer fans—the tournament is out of reach.

To better understand those impacts, I spoke with Jennifer Li, co-director of the Center for Community Health Innovation at the O’Neill Institute and director of Dignity 2026, a coalition of labor and human rights organizations working to protect communities most at risk during the World Cup.

Soccer “is very much an immigrant sport, let’s face it,” said Li, “and by extension, a sport for people of color, diverse communities. It is a sport that’s not expensive to play, but very expensive to watch, apparently. So, the question then becomes: Who is this for?”

Making a Killing: Who Profits From Trump’s Foreign Policy? Trump and His Inner Circle.

PUBLISHED 6/16/2026 by and

As we wait for the details of the Trump administration’s proposed deal with Iran, one thing is already clear: The people benefiting most from U.S. foreign policy are often the people making it.

From Jared Kushner’s role in Middle East negotiations, to the Trump family’s rapidly expanding business empire, this administration has blurred the line between public service and private profit in ways that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

U.S. foreign policy has never been free of criticism or influence from wealthy interests, but Trump has taken those dynamics to new extremes. While Americans face rising costs at home and vulnerable communities around the world suffer the consequences of conflict, the president’s family and closest allies appear positioned to reap financial rewards. The result is a foreign policy that prioritizes enrichment over accountability, and power over the public good.

We need a different vision—one rooted in transparency, peace and shared prosperity rather than personal gain. Foreign policy should serve people, not billionaires. It should reduce conflict, uphold human rights and improve lives, not create new opportunities for those already at the top to grow even wealthier.

America’s Medical Research System Has Been Failing Women for Generations

PUBLISHED 6/11/2026 by and

For decades, women have been systematically excluded, overlooked and underfunded by America’s scientific and medical institutions—and the consequences are measurable. Women were not required to be included in federally funded clinical research until 1993, and even today, no more than 8.8 percent of NIH grant spending goes toward women’s health research. The result is a dangerous knowledge gap that affects everything from cardiovascular disease and autoimmune disorders to drug safety, maternal health and reproductive care.

The problem transcends partisan politics. While the Trump administration’s cuts to women’s health research have intensified concerns, Democratic and Republican administrations alike have failed to prioritize women’s health.

Private philanthropy and venture capital have also fallen short, with women’s health receiving just a fraction of available funding.

As women face rising healthcare deserts, worsening maternal mortality rates and persistent gaps in diagnosis and treatment, meaningful progress will require action on every front—from federal investment and philanthropy to innovative new funding models focused specifically on women’s health research.

How One Haitian Mother Rebuilt Her Life After Gang Violence—with Courage, Determination, Enterprise and a Small Loan

PUBLISHED 6/2/2026 by

Over the past 25 years, I have had the privilege of working alongside communities in Haiti, traveling there 35 times through my work with the Raising Haiti Foundation. I have met many people like Mirlanda Sully—women and men whose resilience, dignity and determination challenge the way we understand hardship. Her story is extraordinary, but it is not unique.

After armed gangs overtook her hometown, Sully fled with her husband and young son, leaving behind their home, business and possessions.

Arriving in a remote mountain community with nothing, she rebuilt her life through a women-focused microcredit program that provided small loans, business training and a network of support.

Today, she runs a thriving market business, mentors other women and helps ensure her neighbors can access essential goods closer to home.

Again and again, I have seen that lasting change does not come from outside solutions. It comes from investing in the strength, ingenuity and leadership that already exist within communities.

Sully’s story is a powerful reminder that transformation often begins with something small—a loan, an opportunity, a belief in what women can accomplish when given the tools to succeed.

Black Women Political Candidates Are Expected to Be ‘Likable,’ Qualified and Tireless. Men Aren’t.

PUBLISHED 5/28/2026 by

What I experienced during my 2014 run for office wasn’t entirely unfamiliar to me.

The year before, I had run for president of the Young Democrats of America (YDA), a national political party office role, against a popular opponent. The opponent was a Black man, so race wasn’t a factor in the election; however, gender was.

Before my campaign, I was vice president of YDA and had heard only good things about my service: my fundraising efforts, the partnerships I had engineered with progressive organizations, and programming coordination for the membership. However, when I decided to run for president, I instantly became ‘difficult to work with’ and ‘mean.’

Research on women candidates confirms that voters are less likely to vote for a woman if they don’t like her; by comparison, voters don’t need to like men to elect them. But when I was running as the Black woman candidate in a seven-candidate primary for public office, with two other women in the race, I noticed almost nothing about my being ‘difficult’ and more about my ability and work ethic.

My experience running for public office reflected the systemic bias and double standards not just for women candidates, but Black women candidates who dare to aspire to any sort of political leadership—and that needed to change.

We need more progressive Black women in public office for a myriad reasons, but we also specifically need the younger generation of Instigators in office, candidates who understand the times in which we live currently.

Electing more Black women will take real investment in changing the biases and attitudes (conscious and unconscious) of mostly white donors, media, campaign staff, consultants and institutional leaders to help shift the culture and systems. But this support needs to be substantively increased so that we can rebuild an inclusive, multiracial democracy with the leaders we want and need.

(Excerpted from The Instigators: How Black Women Have Been Essential to American Democracy by Atima Omara.)

Conservative Justices Resurrect the Comstock Act, Threatening Abortion Access Nationwide

PUBLISHED 5/21/2026 by

On May 1, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the mailing of mifepristone, one of the most widely used abortion medications in the country, threatening access for patients already facing a shrinking number of clinics nationwide. Although the Supreme Court temporarily stayed the ruling earlier this month, Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent revealed something even more alarming: a renewed effort to resurrect the Comstock Act, a 19th-century anti-obscenity law once used to criminalize the mailing of abortion- and contraception-related materials.

The Comstock Act’s history is deeply tied to censorship, moral policing and attacks on marginalized communities. Under its broad and subjective definition of “obscenity,” authorities targeted contraception, abortion information, sexual health materials, queer literature and even works of classical art. Its reproductive restrictions disproportionately harmed poor and working-class women, who were often cut off from the safest and most affordable forms of care.

Today, antiabortion activists are once again looking to Comstock as a tool to restrict abortion nationwide—this time through the courts. Thomas’ explicit invocation of the law in the mifepristone fight signals how far-right legal movements are attempting to revive long-discredited morality laws to roll back reproductive freedom and other established rights.

‘A Warning Shot’: DOJ Indictment of Southern Poverty Law Center Sparks Outcry Across Civil and Women’s Rights Movement

PUBLISHED 4/24/2026 by and

The U.S. Department of Justice’s criminal case against the Southern Poverty Law Center marks a stunning escalation in the federal government’s attacks and aggression toward civil rights organizations. A grand jury has indicted the SPLC on charges of wire fraud, bank fraud and money laundering—allegations the organization has called false and politically motivated.

The charges are rooted in bad-faith characterizations of payments SPLC made to informants in extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan. Trump’s DOJ is attempting to argue these payments counted as financial support. In reality, the SPLC’s work helped dismantle some of the country’s most prominent white supremacist groups.

For feminist and civil rights groups, the indictment is the clearest sign yet of an escalating campaign to intimidate the nonprofit sector, criminalize civil rights advocacy and silence dissent. In their view, the administration is not only attacking outcomes or messages, but working to turn the machinery of government itself against advocacy groups: criminal law, regulatory scrutiny and national security frameworks.

Virginia Just Became the First Southern State With Both Paid Leave and Paid Sick Time

PUBLISHED 4/22/2026 by | UPDATED 5/20/2026 at 11:57 A.M. PT

Advocates fought for paid leave in Virginia for more than eight years. The state’s former governor, Glenn Youngkin, vetoed paid leave bills two years in a row.

But the story changed when Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) took office in January 2026.

She not only called on the Legislature to pass these policies, but campaigned on paid leave as a core part of her platform. She also included paid leave as part of her plan to build “an economy where every Virginian can earn a good living, afford to take care of their families, and know they’ll have a secure retirement.” With the support of a strong coalition, Virginia’s Legislature responded by once again passing paid sick time and paid family and medical leave legislation.

Each year, American families lose $22.5 billion in wages due to a lack of paid leave. At a time when families are already struggling with rising costs of gas, groceries and housing, this is money that they cannot afford to go without.