I wouldn't put it past the US to charge the victims of this the renunciation fee anyway, and keep them on the IRS list as tax persons.

in cases of “unique and special threats to national security.”

Oh, so all the time then.

To your question, this was already really noticeable in his first term. By being brash and uncouth and calling things what they are, rather than using doublespeak or just doing things in the shadows, he made the contradictions of imperialism really uncomfortable for a lot of people. In being direct he created the beginnings of pushback from people who would otherwise be perfectly fine with kids in cages, seizing other countries' natural reources, etc.

The US isn't even the best at that grift. Germany spent about double that over a decade while emissions increased.

The US debt is meaningless so long as the USD remains the global reserve currency. With the current trends of dedollarization that may not last for much longer.

It may be a splitting of hairs as well, but I would argue that domestic US financial policy vis a vis US workers has been austere for fifty years. Expenditures on private industry only grow, while any and all services for the services for the people are ruthlessly cut.

Another straw on the back of the collapsing western financial and monetary system. We'll be glad to see it die.

Pushing Russia into defensive action and blowing up Nord Stream was a really profitable decision for the US oil-weapons-surveillance industry.

Yes. Seymour Hersh has provided everything we can expect to get short of the CIA and Joint Chiefs declassifying their documentation.

A lot of non-profits function as a tax avoidance scheme. They're set up to do, say, some local or international social service as a charity, get donations, and the donors can write these donations off their taxable income. There are also non-profits that produce something and share all proceeds among the workers, but my perception is that those are far less common than the charitable type.

A lot of wealthy people start up their own non-profits as well, so they can "donate" to their own non-profit, write off the donation, and still control where the money is spent.

In any case the workers do typically earn money, but it's often less than they'd get doing a similar job for the state or a For-profit company.

Only because the US commercial real estate market is having a really bad time.

So the US is going to go into Gaza shock and awe style to liberate Gazans. Right?

That's actually not what I meant but is a consideration. What I meant is that it is very problematic that the US DoD has control of a communications system which is being marketed both to individual people in various parts of the world, as well as comprador governments. It's also very concerning that so many of these satellites are being launched and clogging up low earth orbit. Not to mention the intelligence concerns of states whose interests are not aligned with those of the US military and intelligence apparatus. There are also pollution concerns on earth what with a stack of these being launched every week or so and the fact that even when SpaceX are ostensibly done with the buildout they'll have to keep replacing older satellites. Overall it's a project which needs to be met with much more criticism, which it is outside of the cheerleading western media.