In March 2026, the VA and the Department of Justice signed an agreement to put homeless veterans under permanent legal guardianship. They called it protection.
It isn’t.
In March 2026, the VA and the Department of Justice signed an agreement to put homeless veterans under permanent legal guardianship. They called it protection.
It isn’t.
Americans tend to think about the economy in sectors. The defense industry. The oil industry. The banking sector. The tech giants. This is a useful shorthand for what these industries produce — weapons systems, energy, credit, software — but it describes function, not ownership. The question this piece examines is a different one: at the level where the money actually accumulates, do these sectors exist as separate things at all?
The answer the ownership record suggests is largely no. The same concentrated pools of capital sit at the top of the shareholder lists across industries that are supposed to be distinct, supposed to compete, supposed to be governed by separate regulatory frameworks built around their differences. This piece assembles that picture — not sector by sector, but all at once — and asks whether economic activity at that scale is better described as productive or extractive.
I once reposted a meme showing a hospital patient in an ICE mask with the caption “ICE agents still hospitalized after being shot with cell phone.” It was funny.
Facebook deleted it, and I’ve discovered this is common. Reports from civil liberties and digital rights groups show this is a real pattern: content critical of ICE routinely disappears from major platforms.
ICE detention has been restructured into a large-scale system of wealth extraction. Government authority is used to move public money to private corporations, while enforcement practices determine who bears the human and economic costs. In this system, extraction politics—the use of governmental power, budgets, and enforcement authority—works in tandem with extractive capitalism, in which private firms convert public policy into guaranteed revenue.
Ideological brokers provide the narrative framework that makes extractive policies appear reasonable and even necessary. Stephen Miller exemplifies this role by framing immigration as invasion and rights as conditional. His positions supply the justification for enforcement expansion, visa limitations, and resource redirection—enabling wealth extraction through structured policy while limiting political participation for targeted groups.
The Trump administration in 2025 has broken the systemic capacity of the United States federal government. The administration cannot make coherent decisions, execute policy competently, maintain constitutional guardrails, or coordinate across government. Major failures are documented across national defense and public safety, rule of law, public goods delivery, economic regulation, fiscal management, civil liberties protection, social welfare, administrative capacity, data integrity, and international relations. The evidence shows the systemic failure of governmental capacity in the last 12 months.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries claims to be a champion against corporate influence in politics. Last month, he criticized Republicans for prioritizing “MAGA billionaire donors” over everyday Americans. This month he endorsed Democratic proposals to curb “corporate influence in our broken campaign finance system.”
Don’t buy into Chuck Schumer’s latest X post for a second—it’s pure, unadulterated bullshit. It’s a smokescreen meant to fool anyone who isn’t paying attention.
I was noticing some fundraisers when I realized this is just another example of wealth extraction — fundraising for expenses that should be covered by systems we already pay for.
Online fundraising has exploded as a replacement for public systems that collect funds but fail to deliver.
| Title | Price | Purpose | Condition | Build Date |
|---|