Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

A New Year, a New War

As news broke that Iran’s supreme leader had been killed, prominent critic Arash Azizi found himself trying to make sense of a moment he had long imagined.

For years, Azizi studied Iran’s political system and hoped for change from within. Now, with the man who defined that system gone, Azizi was left with questions: What comes next for Iran? And who gets to decide?

This week on Reveal, reporters Najib Aminy, Kiera Butler, and Nadia Hamdan follow the ripple effects of the war in Iran. Expats like Azizi wrestle with what the war could mean for Iran’s future, an influential group of Americans celebrate the conflict as a prophecy foretold, and residents of Lebanon grapple with the spiraling effects of the conflict.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

You Don’t Have to Love Afroman to Like Police Accountability

Cops failed spectacularly at using the courts to clamp down on a critic this week.

That critic was the rapper Afroman, who created music videos mocking sheriff’s deputies who raided his home in August 2022 with a warrant for drug trafficking and kidnapping. Afroman was neither charged nor arrested, and he was not compensated for damages to his family’s Ohio home. But he’s also come under fire for homophobic jokes and possibly backing Donald Trump.

If you missed the details of the case, here’s some brief background: Afroman’s home security cameras captured armed cops breaking down his door and terrifying his wife and children, who were in the house at the time. During the raid, which discovered no evidence of wrongdoing, deputies flipped off security cameras, damaged various belongings, and seized cash that Afroman said was returned short.

According to a VICE interview released in 2023, the rapper, who blew up with the 2000 comedic song “Because I Got High,” said he lost gigs due to the raid, but funneled his anger and feelings of powerlessness at the incident into making viral music videos, including “Will You Help Me Repair My Door” and “Lemon Pound Cake.” Afroman’s videos incorporate his security camera footage, with the latter making fun of one cop who glances down at a cake on the family’s kitchen counter: “They found no kidnapping victims / Just some lemon pound cake.”

In response, seven Adams County deputies captured in the security camera footage sued Afroman in 2023, claiming that he defamed them, used their faces in videos without permission, and caused them to receive death threats and suffer “humiliation, ridicule, mental distress, embarrassment and loss of reputation.”

While there have been countless ridiculous clips of the subsequent court testimony going around, a few struck me as powerful. In one, a lawyer asks Afroman whether he saw one of the officers’ depositions and noted how upset she was about a music video that targeted her.

“She knew I was upset when she was standing in front of my kids with an AR-15 with her hand around the trigger,” Afroman responds, after acknowledging the officer’s hurt feelings. “So I’m sorry for being a victim. Let’s talk about the predators.”

Solomon (@solomonmissouri.bsky.social) 2026-03-18T13:31:14.965Z

Another comes from a podcast interview of Afroman last month, where the rapper explains that as long as cops are not often held accountable for their actions, they will continue to abuse their authority. “It’s my job to give [police officers] a penalty for violating me,” Afroman says. “It’s not their court’s job, it’s not their peers.”

Put together, these two clips demonstrate a power imbalance where it is up to the “victim” to raise the mere possibility of those in power, like cops, being held accountable for their actions. And in this instance, Afroman has a leg-up on most: the police raid made the news because the rapper has an established audience and access to media and legal resources.

The trial began earlier this week. In the lead-up, he released more music videos about the raid. After singing the title in “Randy Walters Is A Son Of A Bitch,” Afroman delivers the bar “that’s why I fucked his wife and got filthy rich” and dances in front of what appear to be photos of one of the sheriff’s deputies involved in the raid and his wife. As of March 20, the music video currently has over 1.1 million views on YouTube.

The rapper’s lawyers argued that the satirical music videos were free speech protected by the First Amendment and that it was unreasonable to believe that the jokes were factual. After less than a day of deliberation, the jury sided with Afroman on Wednesday.

While the case may help enhance legal protections for people who criticize law enforcement, it also has sparked discourse about Afroman as a person, resurfacing discussions of his possible support for Donald Trump and drawing criticism of homophobic lyrics in a video about the raid. Can the outcome be positive if the subject behind it isn’t necessarily?

Regarding Trump, Afroman told Newsweek in 2024 that he wanted to perform a Hunter Biden–themed parody of his hit song “Because I Got High,” with lyrics altered to mock the former president’s son’s drug use and legal controversies, at Trump rallies in the lead-up to the presidential election. Afroman later posted a photo of himself shaking hands with Trump at the Libertarian National Convention and wrote that they laughed together at the fact that they both were raided by police and had “a lot in common” (Afroman also ran for president in 2024).

And one of Afroman’s music videos in response to the raid targets Deputy Lisa Phillips, the same officer whom Afroman acknowledged was visibly upset during her deposition, is blatantly homophobic, transphobic, and misogynistic. The nearly 14-minute video, titled “Licc’em Low Lisa,” features lyrics like “I noticed her voice is a few octaves lower” and “She might whoop out somethin’, somethin’ that’s bigger than mine.” During the latter bar, the music video shows an actor portraying Phillips sitting down and holding what appears to be a large pipe.

But Afroman, whose real name is Joseph Foreman, does not need to be an undeniably good person for people to embrace the outcome of the case: a measure of accountability for institutional wrongdoing. When victims are forced to speak out to try to spotlight abuses against them, the onus does not fall on them to represent any moral standard. Law enforcement officers already benefit from qualified immunity, which allows them to avoid personal consequences unless they violate “clearly established” law, and which, according to the Legal Defense Fund, means in practice that lawsuits must refer to precedents with “nearly identical facts on the record.”

As Afroman said, “Let’s talk about the predators.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Wants $200 Billion for Bombs. Here’s What That Could Buy Instead.

“It takes money to kill bad guys.”

That’s how Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth justified reports that the Pentagon is requesting $200 billion in additional funding to pay for its offensive in Iran, where, as of this writing, more than $18 billion has already been spent to kill thousands, with no end in sight.

Here at Mother Jones, we started to wonder: If the Trump administration weren’t so hellbent on “death and destruction,” at a moment rife with rising inflation and recession concerns, what else could $200 billion deliver? A lot, it turns out. We broke down a few line items below.

2.8 million public school teacher salaries

2,857 luxury 737 jets, bedroom included

378 years of federal public broadcasting funding

500 more White House ballrooms

4 years of a fully-funded National Institutes of Health

2 million Kash Patel trips to Milan by private jet

16.2 years of IRS funding, at pre-Trump levels

40 percent of Greenland, if it were for sale

2,666 Melania sequels

16.9 TSA budgets

2 Warner Bros.

1,779,628 Washington Post salaries

182 million miniature busts of Mount Rushmore with Trump’s face added

2,341 Trump heads on the real Mount Rushmore, space permitting

200 years of free New York City buses

Refund 70 percent of the tariffs the Treasury Department collected illegally

Restore Trump’s cuts to clean energy projects, 6 times over

247 Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus

1.4 billion pairs of Florsheim dress shoes

6.6 years of fully funded school lunches for every public school student in America

3 years of dental coverage, finally included in Medicare Part B

4,347 birthday parades, road repairs included

A lifetime supply of period products more than 100 million Americans

2 Metaverses

1.4 years worth of annual ACA subsidies, which expired in 2025

100 Pentagon name changes

90 percent of Americans’ roughly $220 billion in medical debt

10 years of paid family leave funding

Approximately 1 tank of gas, when this is all over.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Joe Kent’s Resignation Is Tearing MAGA Apart

If you were to invent a politician ideally suited to appeal to the MAGA base, you might come up with something like this: A classically handsome white guy with a tragically sympathetic life story whose service in US special forces during senseless wars led him to embrace America First isolationism—along with a substantial dose of conspiratorial far-right thinking. That is, they might come up with Joe Kent, a former Green Beret who did 11 combat deployments and lost his wife to an ISIS suicide bomber in 2019 before entering politics as a stalwart defender of Donald Trump.

The fact that Kent’s biography is so compelling to the MAGA faithful is what makes his decision this week to resign as director of the National Counterterrorism Center in protest of the Iran war such a problem for Trump and his administration. Unlike others the president has cast aside, Kent can’t be dismissed as a lightweight or a grifter. Instead, he has been built up for years by Tucker Carlson and others on the right as a model of everything the Trump-era GOP should represent. Now by publicly quitting, Kent is fueling a broader confict that is tearing apart Trump’s coalition over the Iran war and the role that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played in pressing Trump into it.

“You wanna rip the GOP apart right to its core and prevent a single America First voter from participating in the midterms? Indict Joe Kent and Tucker Carlson.”

As Kent wrote in his Tuesday resignation letter, “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” On Wednesday evening, he made similar points in a quickly arranged interview with Carlson that has already been viewed more than 4 million times on YouTube and X. (The conversation later veered off into unsupported speculation about the assasination of Charlie Kirk and Trump’s near assasination in Butler, Pennsylvania.)

In response to Kent’s departure, the administration has turned to a predictable playbook with White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt putting out a statement lambasting the “absurd allegation” that Trump “made this decision based on the influence of others, even foreign countries.” In a nod to Kent’s appeal, Trump called Kent a “nice guy” before adding that he was “very weak on security.” Administration officials may also be the source of recently leaked news that the FBI is investigating Kent for potentially leaking sensitive information.

If the investigation is pursued, it would pit Kash Patel, Trump’s cosplaying FBI director, against a special forces veteran who moved on to doing covert operations for the CIA. (Carlson also recently released a video in which he suggested that the CIA and the Justice Department might be preparing to go after him as well because he was in touch with people in Iran before the war.) The idea of going after Kent and Carlson after they spoke out against the war would also likely draw attention to Pete Hegseth, the Defense Secretary who suffered no consequences for accidentally sharing war plans with a journalist and then lying about it.

It’s not hard to guess which side much of MAGA would choose—and to a large extent they already have. The faction of major right-wing influencers who are defending Kent or staying silent is notably louder than the one leaning into attacking him.

It helps that Kent is broadly right about why this war started, although he was wrong later in his resignation letter to portray Trump as a hapless victim of Israeli deception. As reporting from the New York Times and other outlets has made clear, Netanyahu played an essential role in pushing the United States toward war. Secretary of State Marco Rubio all but admitted as much when he said earlier this month the United States attacked Iran when it did because Israel had decided to strike. It is nearly impossible to imagine a scenario in which Netanyahu opposed a war with Iran and Trump started one anyway.

That reality is impossible to stomach for Carlson and other right-wing figures who have criticized the war, such as former Fox News host Megyn Kelly. MAGA is supposed to be a movement of dominance with Trump as its punisher-in-chief. Now, as they see it, the president is being humiliated by a nation the size of New Jersey on the other side of the world that is undermining the isolationism that was key to Trump’s appeal. “This [war] happened because Israel wanted it to happen,” Carlson stressed at the start of the conflict. “This is Israel’s war. This is not the United States’ war.”

There were more MAGA recriminations on Wednesday when Israel struck Iran’s South Pars gas field, which sent energy prices rocketing even higher. In the wake of the attack, which came well after the United States told Israel to stop hitting Iranian energy infrastructure, a senior Israeli official claimed that it had been coordinated between Netanyahu’s office and the White House. Then, later on Wednesday, Trump posted on social media that Israel had struck the gas field “out of anger” and that the United States “knew nothing about” it in advance.

Neither scenario looks good for Trump. Either Israel explicitly ignored a previous US instruction not to attack Iranian energy sites, or the Trump administration green-lit the strike only to realize within hours that doing so was obviously counter to its own interests. The right-wing podcaster Tim Pool responded by sharing the president’s full Truth Social post with some unusually on-point commentary of his own.

This is fucking embarrassing Holy shit https://t.co/Ys2y6M6O66

— Tim Pool (@Timcast) March 19, 2026

Kelly, the former Fox News host, made the stakes for the Trump administration more clear in a post of her own. “You wanna rip the GOP apart right to its core and prevent a single America First voter from participating in the midterms?” she wrote on Wednesday on X. “Indict Joe Kent and Tucker Carlson. See how that works out.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

A Clarinetist, a High School Student, and Some Climate Deniers Write a Science Paper

This story was originally published by Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

It sounds like a bad joke, but last week a press release dropped into my inbox: “Leading Scientists Challenge Foundation of Climate Change Assessments, Revealing Fatal Flaws in Ocean Heat Content (OHC) Measurements.”

The article this email was promoting claims to upend the generally accepted consensus among climate scientists that greenhouse gas emissions are trapping more heat on the planet, and most of that heat is ending up in the oceans. It’s thanks to the Argo program—a fleet of nearly 4,000 robotic ocean floats that collect data on temperature and other ocean properties, like salinity—that scientists have been able to measure and track long-term ocean warming, but the paper casts doubt on those measurements.

As promised, the climate science obliteration has arrived TODAY,” lead author Jonathan Cohler wrote on social media (his emphases). “The IPCC’s central claims have now been torn apart. The oceans are not ‘warming’ let alone ‘boiling.’ That claim is false. The claimed Earth Energy Imbalance is false. It’s no different from zero.”

He added “Full demolition:” followed by a link to the study.

As his provocative post suggests, this would be quite the blockbuster article—if it had scientific validity, which it does not.

“It’s so easy to produce bullshit, and it takes so much energy to refute it.”

“What it’s claiming to show is that these Argo floats, which are one of the main ways that we’ve been sampling the temperature and the warming rates of the ocean, are insufficient in their claim to constrain how much total heat has gone into the ocean,” explained Henri Drake, a professor of Earth System Science at the University of California, Irvine. “They are arguing that we basically don’t have enough measurements of that heat in the ocean and how it’s changing to say that it has changed. Basically, they’re saying that the uncertainties in these measurements are so large that we can’t even tell whether the ocean is warming or not.”

So is there anything to those claims? In short, no. “It gets everything completely backwards,” Drake said. “They’re claiming that they have this new idea that there are not enough Argo floats in the ocean to constrain [assess] the total amount of heat taken up by the ocean. And in fact, this is like the exact opposite of the case.” The scientists who designed the Argo system decided how many Argo floats to put in the ocean, Drake said, precisely because that number was the most cost-effective way of measuring ocean warming within the uncertainty ranges that they wanted.

Kevin Trenberth—an climate scientist who contributed to the 1995, 2001, and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, considered the most authoritative scientific analyses of world climate—was even more dismissive. “It is absolute nonsense,” Trenberth wrote in an email. “I do not want to waste my time on it.”

Unfortunately, plenty of people are wasting time on the article (including this writer, for better or worse). Cohler posted a screenshot showing more than 5,000 posts about the paper on just one social media platform, and one of his posts has nearly half a million impressions.

The question: Is it better to ignore the paper, and hope it dies in obscurity, or to tackle the disinformation head on? That is, if you have the time and energy to do so. This quandary is a perfect example of the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle, or Brandolini’s law, Drake says, “which states that the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”

Lead author Jonathan Cohler is identified by his affiliation with MIT, where it turns out he used to teach clarinet.

And AI is supercharging Brandolini’s law, as this paper and others like it show. “It’s just not worth it for scientists to try to debunk all of the bullshit, because there’s so much more bullshit, and it’s so easy to produce bullshit, and it takes so much energy to refute it,” Drake said.

The Science of Climate Change article certainly has all the trappings of a scientific paper: a list of authors and university affiliations, an abstract, keywords, and a bunch of technical language, numbers, and citations that are virtually impenetrable to a layperson.

But who are the “leading scientists” who wrote the article? Lead author Cohler is identified by his affiliation with MIT—a well-known and highly respected research institution. Surely that means he holds a position in, say, MIT’s Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences department, right? But it appears that Cohler’s connection to the university is limited to being a clarinet instructor. Jonathan Cohler is an acclaimed clarinetist with an undergraduate degree in physics from Harvard, but to call him a “leading scientist” would, in my opinion, render those words meaningless. By the time the paper was published, Cohler was no longer employed by MIT, even as a clarinet instructor.

(The Bulletin reached out to MIT to clarify his role at the university. A representative responded, “We can confirm that Jonathan Cohler held the role of “Affiliated Artist-Private Lessons” in Music and Theater Arts for less than a year, from 10/20/2025 to 2/1/2026. He is no longer affiliated with MIT. In general, researchers should only list MIT as their affiliation in scientific journal submissions if their contribution to that specific research was conducted as part of their role at MIT.”)

What about his coauthors? David Legates is a former professor of geography at the University of Delaware with a long history of questioning climate science. In 2005, he was appointed Delaware’s state climatologist, although in 2007 then-governor Ruth Ann Minner asked him to stop using his title on public statements related to climate change, and he was removed from the position in 2011. During the first Trump administration, he was hired as NOAA’s deputy assistant secretary of commerce for observation and prediction and led the US Global Change Research Program, but was removed from a position at the White House in disgrace after he published a series of papers questioning the validity of climate change science without approval from the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology. The papers included the imprint of the Executive Office of the President and stated that they were copyrighted by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Washington Post reported.

Papers like this are like kindling for anyone “just asking questions” about climate change.

Kesten Green is a senior marketing scientist at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute at Adelaide University, the world’s largest center for research into marketing, who also questions anthropogenic global warming. Ole Humlum is a professor emeritus in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Oslo who has argued that global warming is primarily due to natural causes, as opposed to being caused by human activity, like burning fossil fuels.

Finally, Willie Soon is an astrophysicist and longtime climate change denier who dismisses the anthropogenic causes and impacts of global climate change. In 2015, it was revealed that he received more than $1 million from the fossil fuel industry while working at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics and failed to disclose that funding when publishing his research. Franklin Soon, a student at Marblehead High School in Massachusetts, is also listed as an author. (Cohler declined to address questions about his MIT affiliation or criticisms of the paper, and instead directed readers to the full paper. None of the other authors responded to a request for comment.)

In the acknowledgements of the paper, the authors credit AI tools for substantial contributions to the “drafting, editing, conceptual development, research, logical structuring, literature synthesis, and iterative refinement (including critical independent ‘peer review’) of the manuscript.” They write that they think these AI tools—Grok, Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT—deserve credit but many journals prohibit listing nonhuman entities as authors, because they cannot assume legal or ethical responsibility for the work.

“While we regard this exclusion as an unjustified form of prejudice and discrimination against AI contributions in scholarly work, we respect the prevailing standards to ensure the broadest possible dissemination and indexing of this research,” they write. (This didn’t stop Cohler, Legates, and both Soons last year, when they published a paper questioning anthropogenic global warming—with Grok 3 listed as the lead author.)

This paper is just one facet of a bigger problem. Researchers are increasingly using AI chatbots and other large language models to edit or even write scientific articles. Some uses may seem harmless, but AI tools can introduce errors and hallucinations. And it can be hard to distinguish between AI-finessed and fully AI-generated papers when they look and sound the same.

How serious of a problem is this one paper? After all, it seems likely Cohler is merely tweeting into an echo-chamber of likeminded people, who repost and reply with bot-like synergy. By drawing broader attention to it, I may do more harm than good.

But papers like this are like kindling for anyone just asking questions about climate change, or doing their own research, stoking the flames of climate denial. Climate misinformation isn’t new, but AI tools make it that much easier to produce—and it seems worthwhile to point that out.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Mr. Rogers and the Fight for Public Media

On the anniversary of Fred Rogers birthday, we take a trip to Mr. Rogers’ real life neighborhood in this special episode that celebrates the life and work of public media’s most famous defender.

Reveal’s Michael Schiller visits WQED in Pittsburgh for a look back at how Fred Rogers, the host of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood, championed public television throughout its decades-long struggle to survive Washington politics.

Find Reveal on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Pandora, or your favorite podcast app, and don’t forget to subscribe.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Workers in Colorado Have Shut Down One of the Nation’s Biggest Meatpacking Plants

This story was produced in partnership with the Food & Environment Reporting Network.

On Monday at 5:30 a.m., more than three thousand employees at the JBS beef packing plant in Greeley, Colorado, officially walked off the line. Members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, the union that represents the plant, had begun the first major meatpacking strike in more than four decades, effectively shutting down one of the largest meat processing sites in the country. About 7 percent of America’s beef comes out of this single plant on a normal day. But now, thousands of workers—mostly foreign-born laborers from Haiti, Somalia, Burma, and Mexico—formed a picket line across the street, singing in Haitian Creole, chanting through a megaphone in Spanish, and wearing placards that read PLEASE DO NOT PATRONIZE JBS.

They were walking out to protest stalled wage negotiations and poor working conditions. A recent class action lawsuit brought by Haitian workers at the plant claims that they have been segregated onto a night shift and forced to work at “dangerously fast speeds.” Last month’s strike vote was nearly unanimous—evidence, the union says, of worker frustration.

“I don’t think the American public has a sense that the food on our table is being produced by immigrant workers under conditions that would make Upton Sinclair turn over in his grave.”

By mid-morning outside the plant, just three semis carrying cattle for slaughter sat idling on the side of the highway—a far cry from the usual long line of trucks, known among workers as “Death Row.” The cattle pens north of the plant were virtually empty. Production was at a standstill. But the company seemed to want to downplay the significance of the stoppage. “This morning,” a JBS spokeswoman told me via email, “many JBS Greeley team members chose to report to work rather than participate in the strike called by UFCW Local 7, and we expect that number to continue increasing in the days ahead.”

But the scene outside the plant didn’t seem to support that optimism. JBS had erected fencing around the employee parking lot, and security personnel in company windbreakers stood at entry checkpoints, scanning IDs and waving through any workers who chose to cross the picket. There weren’t many of them. Union members had voted almost unanimously to strike a couple of weeks earlier. Workers on the picket parted to let the cars enter but speculated that these were probably managers at the plant.

“Don’t be late for work,” one picketer jeered.

Another shouted, “Have fun on the kill.”

All morning, the picket line continued to grow as union officials checked in more workers, handed out more picket signs, and called out simple reminders—stay on the sidewalks, keep moving, don’t block anyone trying to cross the picket line. Kim Cordova, president of Local 7, stood by the folding tables where strike placards were being distributed. She wore a winter hat and down jacket with a yellow reflective vest over top. “My toes are frozen,” she joked, “but everything is going well, very organized.”

She was projecting confidence, but the fact is that this strike is a huge gamble. The price of beef has soared over the past year. The work stoppage—choking off slaughtering, butchering, and packaging of some 30,000 head of cattle per week—promised to further constrict supply and likely send prices even higher.

“I think it’s unavoidable,” said Jennifer Martin, an associate professor of Animal Sciences and Meat Extension Specialist at Colorado State University. The only question, she said, is when. “That depends on how much of the kill they can relocate to other plants,” she said. “That’s going to be the thing that really determines the speed at which consumers see price impacts.”

In short, if the strike lasts more than a few days, then what has been a local battle over workplace conditions, healthcare, and wages could turn into a proxy for bigger picture conflicts—inflation and affordability, the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigrants, and corrupt corporate influence.

If the strike continues, it stands to become a national issue, one that might force a reckoning over how our meat is made. “I don’t think the American public has a sense that the food on our table is being produced by immigrant workers under conditions that would make Upton Sinclair turn over in his grave,” said Peter Rachleff, a professor emeritus of history at Macalester College and author of Hard-Pressed in the Heartland: The Hormel Strike and the Future of the Labor Movement. “I don’t think the public has a clue that that’s what’s going on.”

JBS was well aware of the shockwaves such a strike could send through the system. Last week, in preparation for the work stoppage, the company halted slaughtering, canceled cattle shipments, and began redirecting deliveries from feedlots to its plants in Grand Island, Nebraska, and Cactus, Texas—exactly the strategy described by Martin. “By utilizing available capacity at other JBS facilities,” the company spokeswoman said via email, “we can maintain supply, protect the long term stability of the beef chain, and minimize disruption for consumers and retailers.” Still, the price meatpackers pay feedlots for livestock fell 4 percent in anticipation of the strike. (The price of livestock goes down whenever slaughtering slows, since there is more supply and ranchers feel pressure to sell at a lower cost.) “We are operating the facility to the best of our ability,” the JBS spokeswoman wrote. “We will continue scaling operations this week as more team members return.”

Cordova says the company is trying to force employees back to work through implicit threats of firing. On March 9, she says, JBS called workers into a meeting, and managers passed out a form letter addressed to the union, resigning membership. All employees had to do was sign and then show up for work as usual—with no more union representation. I independently obtained a copy of the letter from a worker. On a recording of the meeting made by another employee, a manager can be heard telling workers who declined to sign that they should take all of their personal possessions with them. (The JBS spokeswoman wrote: “This is a legally compliant document that was shared in response to employees asking for direction on how to withdraw their union membership in order to prevent being fined by the union for making the choice to work.”)

Today, the US meatpacking industry is more centralized and monopolized than it was when Sinclair wrote _T_he Jungle in 1906.

On a new website posted to respond to questions about the strike, JBS again hinted that workers could be fired if they don’t return soon—vowing to continue operations “either with workers who choose not to strike, or with replacement workers.” Such language has fed fear among the workforce and fueled speculation that JBS might bus in workers from the recently shuttered Tyson beef plant in Lexington, Nebraska, or from Amarillo, Texas, where, in January, Tyson reduced operations from two shifts to one.

This strategy of trying to turn the workforce against itself, some labor historians observed, is a familiar tactic—one that helped create the industry landscape of today. Rachleff, whose book Hard-Pressed in the Heartland is an insider account of the last major labor stoppage among meatpacking workers, the 1985 to ’86 union strike at the Hormel pork plant in Austin, Minnesota, sees parallels between that stoppage and the dispute unfolding in Greeley. During the Hormel strike, the company reopened the plant with more than five hundred “permanent replacements,” escorted through the picket lines by National Guard troops called up by the governor of Minnesota. Under such pressure, the union unraveled. Nearly five hundred members crossed their own picket lines. A thousand unyielding workers were fired. And, eventually, union leadership in DC stepped in and declared an end to the strike—with almost none of the union’s demands met.

The failure of that strike had far-reaching implications. The nearly all-white, US-born workforce was steadily replaced with immigrant workers. Wage increases were slowed or halted. Skilled work was broken down and automated. Most importantly, meatpacking giants were able to grow and consolidate, until just a few companies gained near-total control over markets for beef, pork, and poultry. Today, the US meatpacking industry is more centralized and monopolized than it was when Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle in 1906, leading President Theodore Roosevelt to break up the so-called Meat Trust.

JBS’s size allows the company to achieve powerful economies of scale. It’s so large, in fact, that JBS and just three other companies (Tyson, Cargill, and National Beef), known as the Big Four, control as much as 93 percent of the market. Other members of the beef supply chain—cattle ranchers, grocery chains, and the fast food behemoth McDonald’s, among others—have argued in multiple lawsuits that the Big Four are working in coordination to depress the market price of cattle, suppress worker wages, and drive up the price of processed beef for their clients, who pass the pain along to consumers. Local 7 is gambling that workers can use the industry’s unprecedented consolidation against JBS: If they can hamstring the plant’s production, maybe prices will rise enough that the government will have to take action against the company.

Beef prices have climbed steadily since the pandemic—but in the last year, they’ve soared.

We’ve already been paying more for beef. Prices have climbed steadily since the pandemic—but in the last year, they’ve soared. Since Trump returned to the White House, the average price of steaks has climbed from $10.87 a pound to $12.51 a pound—a leap of 15 percent. The price of ground beef is 20 percent higher—nearly seven times the increase in overall consumer prices. Then, late last year, Tyson announced its plans to reduce production, cutting the national beef processing capacity by 10 percent and further driving price increases. This led some industry observers to allege that the company was intentionally constricting supply in order to increase profitability. (In a statement, Tyson said it was working to “right size its beef business and position it for long-term success.”)

President Trump took to Truth Social. “I have asked the DOJ to immediately begin an investigation into the Meat Packing Companies who are driving up the price of Beef through Illicit Collusion, Price Fixing, and Price Manipulation,” he wrote. “Action must be taken immediately to protect Consumers, combat Illegal Monopolies, and ensure these Corporations are not criminally profiting at the expense of the American People.” The Department of Justice immediately announced an investigation into JBS and other members of the Big Four. Last week, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer introduced legislation that mandated a breakup of the large meatpacking corporations and specifically called for an investigation of JBS for “corruption” and business practices that “distorted competitive conditions” across the industry.

The union is betting that if it can take another 7 percent of the nation’s slaughter capacity offline, it may drive up food prices enough that Trump and Congress would be forced to follow through on their promises to investigate JBS—and even break up the company.

But it could also backfire. Cordova worries that JBS will be protected by the Trump administration—in part because the company was the single largest donor to his second inauguration. And also because the plant’s workforce is estimated to be 90 percent non-white immigrants, including more than 1,200 Haitian workers, whose visa statuses are on shaky ground. The administration is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that it should have the power to revoke the Temporary Protected Status of hundreds of thousands of Haitian migrants who entered the country legally under the Biden administration. If that happens, Cordova believes there’s a chance that the Trump administration could use the strike as justification for a raid of the plant by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Cordova was a union representative in 2006 when the plant, then owned by Swift & Company, became a central target of the first major ICE action ever undertaken. “Those raids,” she told me in an earlier interview, “were a push by [President George W.] Bush, I believe, to make some sort of political statement—to come in and really go after the industry and these plants for what he believed were undocumented workers.” The situation today is different: All of the plant’s employees, who herald from dozens of countries and speak some fifty different languages, have documentation. At least, for now.

On Monday afternoon, as night shift strikers took to the picket, the threat of an immediate ICE raid dissipated. The Supreme Court had declined to allow the administration to revoke TPS protections for Haitians and begin deportations immediately. But no one could breathe a total sigh of relief: The justices had agreed to hear oral arguments for the case in late April.

Despite their precarious status, the Local 7 membership voted last month nearly 99 percent in favor of the strike—driven, many say, by years of mistreatment. “The chain speed is the main thing,” Robenson Franc told me, speaking in Haitian Creole through an interpreter. Franc is one of more than a thousand Haitian workers who arrived at JBS in 2023 as part of what Local 7 describes as a human trafficking scheme, aimed at undercutting the union and forcing new employees to work on the night shift at unfair speeds. The suit claims that the line on the daytime shift usually averages 300 head of cattle processed per hour. But the night shift, when many of these newly recruited Haitian workers are on the line, runs at 370—and has reached as high as 440 head per hour. “They put up the speed as fast as they need,” Franc told me. And regardless of the speed, he said, workers are expected to keep pace.

Last month, Trump’s Department of Agriculture removed all restrictions on the speeds of poultry and pork production lines—a move that will increase output and help stabilize JBS’s profits through its pork operations and Pilgrim’s Pride, which is majority-owned by JBS and one of the largest poultry producers in the world. Cordova says JBS is now pushing to lift restrictions on beef production lines. The prospect of government oversight being removed has made documentation and negotiations over staffing to safely match line speeds a central issue at the Greeley plant, where workers say that lines currently run so fast that there’s no time to sharpen their knives, leading to debilitating repetitive stress injuries.

On the new website posted by JBS, the company says it is “false” that “UFCW Local 7 is striking over worker conditions.” The website claims that JBS “and the union resolved all non-economic items in bargaining” and says that the company has implemented “a process to provide newly sharpened knives frequently throughout the day”—with new, state-of-the-art knives to be installed soon. JBS says that the only remaining disagreement is over hourly wages and other “economic considerations.”

“They’re just trying to push that this is an economic strike,” Cordova said, which she believes is an effort to paint workers as only concerned about money. “That’s not true,” she said: Unresolved issues include disagreements over who should have to pay for worker personal protective equipment; the amount of sick time and paid leave benefits workers receive; and accurate accounting of line speeds, in order to make sure there’s enough staff to keep up with the pace of sped-up lines. While those issues may be strictly economic considerations for JBS, she said, for workers “it’s a staffing issue, it’s a safety issue, it’s a transparency issue.”

It remains to be seen whether this strike is short-lived or stretches on for weeks or months in the way of historic strikes of the past. Jennifer Martin emphasized that the length of the strike will determine the future for consumers. “If the strike continues, would we expect to see higher prices? Yes. And would we expect that to be compounded by higher input costs, fuel prices, all of those sorts of things? Yes.”

“Is this the final straw where all of these pressures have been building, and this is the thing that sends it over the edge?”

What she couldn’t predict is who would feel the impact of those changes the most. Would it be the workers, who are forced to risk their livelihoods or accept what they consider unsafe conditions; the ranchers, who will have to sell their cattle at a lower price; the company, which says its razor-thin margins are “pressuring profitability”; or the American people, who are struggling to put food on the table?

“Is this the final straw,” she continued, “where all of these pressures have been building, and this is the thing that sends it over the edge, where prices move far enough that consumer behavior changes in a meaningful way?”

“That’s an unknown. It will really depend on how long this strike continues.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Military Families Brace for What Comes Next

This article first appeared on The War Horse, an award-winning nonprofit news organization educating the public on military service. Subscribe to their newsletter.

Caryl Banks dragged a kitchen chair beneath the overhead light and climbed onto it with a bucket of warm, soapy water balanced on the countertop. She wrung out a sponge, lifted it toward the ceiling, and began working it in slow, deliberate circles. Water slid down her forearm and dripped onto the kitchen floor.

It was close to 1 a.m.

Across the room, her friend Russell stood quietly in the doorway, watching her scrub the same patch of ceiling. “Do you want me to help you scrub,” he asked gently, “or do you just want me to stay here?”

Banks didn’t look down. She squeezed the sponge once more and pressed it against the ceiling.

“I don’t want help,” she remembers saying in a calm but sharp voice. “I just want to scrub my own ceilings.”

The ceiling wasn’t even dirty. All she could think about was her son, Sgt. Dominick Banks, who was somewhere in the Red Sea on a deployment with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit. It was October 2023. The war in Gaza was heating up, and U.S. forces were countering Houthi missile and drone strikes at Israel. Days had passed without a message. In the absence of anything she could control, Banks looked for something to do with her hands.

So she started scrubbing.

This is how military families live inside the wait for war.

Sgt. Dominick Banks and his mom, Caryl, pause for a predeployment photo in 2023. For military families like theirs, these snapshots often become the images they return to while waiting for the next phone call home. Courtesy of Caryl Banks

They feel the tremors of global conflict long before the rest of the country notices. But the wait for war rarely looks the way people expect. It doesn’t usually happen with big, dramatic moments, and no clear beginning or end. Instead, it settles into daily life, with a phone kept within close reach throughout the night, or one more glance at the news before bed, and a question from a child that parents suddenly realize they don’t know how to answer.

In recent weeks, another war in the Middle East has once again placed U.S. forces on heightened alert across the globe, leaving many military families like the Banks in Maryland, the Pretes in Germany, the Grants in New Mexico, and the Baginskys in Virginia anxiously watching for signs of what might come next.

Dominick finished his active duty tour and is back home in Bowie, Maryland, but he still has two years left on his Individual Ready Reserve contract, which means he can be recalled for deployment until then. His childhood best friend is now deployed to the Middle East, so Caryl Banks said she is reaching out to offer her mom-to-mom support.

“The grief and the worry, the emotions I have for the families going through it,” she said, “it’s like, it just makes me sick.”

An F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft, attached to Strike Fighter Squadron 213, lands on the USS Gerald R. Ford on day three of Operation Epic Fury in the eastern Mediterranean.US Navy photo

When the House Goes Quiet

A few weeks ago, Air Force service member Desiree Grant got the call that her husband, Brayton, who is also serving in the Air Force, would be the one to deploy with Operation Epic Fury. The last chance they had to talk, they didn’t spend any time talking about the US-Israeli surprise attack on Tehran or the death of Iran’s supreme leader.

The main topic of their 10-minute call was how she had to rush their 1-year-old son, Bennett, to the emergency room at Cannon Air Force Base in Clovis, New Mexico, when he was feverish and wheezing from RSV, the respiratory syncytial virus. They talked about how he was doing, the little milestones he was hitting, and the funny moments that happened during the day. “Sharing those everyday moments helps keep us connected.”

Only 3.2 percent of Americans live with an active-duty service member in their immediate family. While nearly half of all military members are married, only 7 percent are part of dual-military couples like the Grants, where both spouses serve.

For Desiree, when her husband Brayton deploys, the structure of daily life changes quickly, affecting everything from daycare drop-offs to bath time, feeding the dogs, household chores, yard work, and dinner.

“I take on more of the day-to-day responsibilities at home,” she said.

“Knowing he’s part of such a dedicated and capable team gives me a lot of confidence and peace of mind.”

No matter the level of resilience, there are times when the absence becomes impossible to ignore. Like after Bennett finally falls asleep and the house grows quiet.

“I miss having my spouse there to talk about the day with,” she said. Those silent, lonely hours are also when she reminds herself why he serves and the mission he and his fellow air commandos carry out. “That sense of pride helps balance those moments,” she said.

When the news cycle becomes overwhelming, Desiree tries not to follow every update. But it’s hard to ignore the stories of 13 US service members who have lost their lives in the first weeks of the war. Information changes quickly, she said, and speculation can spiral. Instead, she focuses on staying connected to Brayton, exchanging messages whenever possible, and trusting the training and professionalism of the airmen he serves beside. “Knowing he’s part of such a dedicated and capable team gives me a lot of confidence and peace of mind,” she said.

A US Marine Corps carry team transfers the remains of Marine Lance Cpl. Kevin Melendez of Fort Worth, Texas, at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. He was one of 13 US service members killed in the first weeks of the war.Photo by Jason Minto, U.S. Air Force

Holding More Than One Worry

Sabrina Baginsky understands more than most people the weight of worry. She has two sons serving in the Navy. Nate is stationed in Jacksonville, Florida, and Michael, an aviation machinist’s mate, third Class, is currently deployed with the USS Gerald R. Ford in the thick of Operation Epic Fury.

Communication had been shut down as the ship became integral to flight operations from the Red Sea for air strikes against Iran. But a fire that burned for 30 hours last week in the ship’s laundry facility, displaced hundreds of sailors and crew members from their sleeping “racks” and is forcing the world’s largest aircraft carrier to sail to Crete for repairs.

The one silver lining? Michael was able to quickly call home, Sabrina said, to tell his mom he is safe and that he loves her.

The aircraft carrier has been at sea for more than 260 days after departing Norfolk, Virginia, in June 2025. Deployments at sea typically last six months. But Navy officials have indicated the USS Ford’s deployment could stretch to roughly 11 months, or about 334 days, as the carrier continues operating in response to the war.

If the ship remains deployed that long, it would surpass the historic 332-day deployment of the USS Midway during the Vietnam War from April 1972 to March 1973. That’s still the record for the longest US aircraft carrier deployment.

The extended timeline means even more months of uncertainty, living in the wait for war, as the ship has traversed the Atlantic, Northern Europe, the Caribbean, and the Mediterranean, and now around the Red Sea.

Back home in Virginia Beach, Sabrina has another worry: Her partner, the boys’ stepfather, is undergoing treatment for cancer.

“My heart and head are very full,” she said.

Aviation Machinist’s Mate 3rd Class Michael Baginsky has been deployed since last summer on the USS Gerald R. Ford.U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Mariano Lopez

Homefront Agility

Destinee Prete is also juggling to prepare for what comes next in her military household. She is an Army veteran and military spouse stationed in Wiesbaden, Germany. For her family, readiness looks like an ordinary office binder resting on a shelf in her home. It’s their “go binder,” and inside it are the important documents that allow life to keep moving if everything suddenly changes: birth certificates, Social Security cards, passports, and copies of military orders. The most important documents are the powers of attorney.

Years ago, during another deployment, Prete tried to make a simple change to the family’s cell phone plan but couldn’t. Her husband, Lt. Col. Ryan Prete, was the name on the account, and without the proper authorization, even a simple administrative task became impossible.

“It was a huge wake-up call,” she said.

Now, the go binder contains what Prete says is among the most important documents they need, a general power of attorney for everyday decisions, and others tailored for specific responsibilities. Living overseas adds another layer of complexity. In Germany, Lt. Col. Prete is the family’s official sponsor for nearly all services tied to the military community. That means planning ahead for bureaucratic hurdles that might appear if he suddenly isn’t there to sign something.

Ryan works in a “manning cell,” a special unit primed to increase operations to 24 hours a day at any moment; ensuring readiness meets the military’s operational needs of getting the right people to the right places during campaigns like Operation Epic Fury.

With years of experience, Destinee is already ready with what she calls “home front agility.” But she knows all too well that logistical preparation is only a part of it. Preparing for the emotional impact of deployment is just as critical. The wait before a deployment carries what Destinee describes as a “constant, low-grade hum of anxiety just under the surface of everything you do.”

Twins Aiden and Landon, 14, and Ethan, 13, line up on the opposite side of the Leichtenstein-Swiss border from their parents, Ryan and Destinee Prete. The family is stationed in Germany, and for many military children, growing up means building a sense of home wherever the military sends them. Courtesy of the Prete family

Parenting Through Uncertainty

At home, the uncertainty often shows up in conversations with her sons, twins Aiden and Landon, 14, and Ethan, 13. Teenagers absorb news more quickly than anyone, especially through social media, where rumors can travel faster than facts, she said. The Prete family has developed a nightly ritual to manage what’s real and what isn’t.

At dinner, the table becomes what she calls their “debriefing zone.” The boys share what they heard that day, maybe something they heard at school, something they saw on TikTok, or something a friend repeated without knowing whether it was true or not.

“You know, you often hear about military spouse resilience,” she said. “But the real heroes are the kids.”

When that happens, Prete says she and her husband walk through it with them. “OK,” she might say, “that sounds like an opinion, not a fact.” Or: “Why do you think that person wants you to feel angry?” The goal isn’t to hide reality, she explained. It’s to keep uncertainty from taking over their children’s world. Helping them understand what’s real and what’s not is their priority. Even in tense moments, Prete says the thing that surprises her most is how quickly military kids adapt.

“You know, you often hear about military spouse resilience,” she said. “But the real heroes are the kids.”

An E-2D Hawkeye aircraft, attached to Airborne Command and Control Squadron 124, lands on the flight deck of the world’s largest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford, days into the start of Operation Epic Fury in the Mediterranean Sea.US Navy Photo

The Mouthpiece

The first real shock of military life for Caryl Banks didn’t happen during a deployment. It was the summertime, June 2019, when it hit her like a ton of bricks. Dominick left for Parris Island, South Carolina, the home of Marine Corps boot camp.

Caryl says she didn’t volunteer to become a Marine Corps mom. It was her son’s choice, and for that reason, she pledged her unconditional support to honor his call to serve. Dominick’s communication with home suddenly became rare.

For the first time in his life, calls with his mom had to be brief, and they were unpredictable. In the early stages of specialty training, privileges—like phone calls, civilian clothes, and time off base—had to be earned.

Dominick wrote to his mom to report that if he could knock his opponent’s mouthpiece out during drills, he would earn a phone call home. Caryl didn’t hold back: Do whatever, she told him. She needed a phone call from him more than anything.

She was sitting in a nail salon a couple of weeks later when a strange number popped up on her phone. She almost let it go to voicemail.

It was Dominick.

“As soon as I heard his voice, I just kept repeating, ‘I love you, I love you, I’m proud of you, I love you…a thousand times,’” she said through heavy tears. “It was so hard and so beautiful, right, that moment of like, thank God I’m hearing from him, but oh my God I have to get off because he has to hang up.”

Months later, after his training had ended, Dominick came back home with something he needed his mom to have.

The mouthpiece.

It didn’t matter that she never knew the original owner of that mouthpiece. Banks kept it anyway. It represents the moment she realized how much military life changes the way families stay connected, Banks said, and just how much that connection means to her.

Sgt. Dominick Banks gives his mom, Caryl, an embrace before leaving for the Middle East in July 2023.Courtesy of Caryl Banks

Somewhere Out at Sea

Before Dominick Banks deployed on an eight-and-a-half-month mission with the 26th MEU in July 2023, he was supposed to go on a European tour, but plans changed quickly for his unit when Iran began seizing oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and the surrounding waters, like the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has now locked down following the latest attacks by the US and Israel.

Dominick was part of a special operations-capable Marine expeditionary unit assigned to the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group, similar to the one ordered to the Middle East from the Pacific late last week. The forward-deployed, rapid-response Marine air-ground task force is designed to respond to missions ranging from humanitarian aid to combat operations within six hours’ notice.

“That deployment changed my life,” his mom said, weeping. “People wanted me to care about work and these trivial things when my kid was fighting for his life and others.”

These are the “boots on the ground” that commanders in chief are asked about in news conferences and that experts on CNN and Fox News debate the necessity of as war drags on.

Back at home, his mom, Caryl, was sick with worry. She knew the USS Carter Hall, the amphibious warship her son was deployed with, was the middle ship in the escort lineup meant to lead other warships through the Strait of Hormuz. “That deployment changed my life,” his mom said, weeping. “People wanted me to care about work and these trivial things when my kid was fighting for his life and others.”

She asked friends and neighbors to leave their porch lights on to help light her son’s way home.

A friend gave Banks two glass jars and a bag of beads before Dominick deployed that fall. One jar started full. The other sat empty. Each day he was gone, she moved a single bead from the full jar to the empty one. Slowly, with each bead, the days remaining dwindled down.

“[I just needed] tangible things, like he’s one day closer,” Banks said.

On a small table in Caryl Banks’ home sit the things she’s kept from her son’s time in uniform: letters he mailed home, dried roses from his graduation, and a mouthpiece he once knocked from an opponent’s mouth in training, earning the privilege for a call home.Courtesy of Caryl Banks

The Things We Hold On To

In Caryl Banks’ home, that mouthpiece Dominick brought her isn’t tucked away in a drawer. It sits in plain view on a small wooden table as part reminder, part proof that the years her son has spent serving were real, and that they both survived. A stack of letters Dominick mailed home rests beneath it, the pages covered in tight handwriting that traveled across oceans like the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Aden before reaching her mailbox.

Now, even more, as the war in Iran stretches through a third week with no clear end in sight, Banks feels the same familiar tightening in her chest, remembering when her son was deployed in the region, during attacks on Bahrain in September 2023.

While watching the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet Headquarters in Manama, Bahrain, fall under missile attack this month, just as the war began, the levee holding back Caryl’s fears broke, and all at once, they came rushing back.

She is painfully aware that Dominick’s contract extends far beyond his discharge papers. In a time of war, he can be recalled. Caryl says the feeling isn’t just worry. It’s closer to something she recognizes from what she’s experienced in the past.

“Not almost PTSD,” she said quietly. “It is.”

Caryl Banks tries not to dwell on the chance her son, Dominick, could be recalled for deployment.Courtesy of Caryl Banks

When the Phone Finally Rings

On the morning of March 11, Dominick called his mother at 7:45—much earlier than usual. She braced for the news. Was he bound again for the Middle East?

He just wanted to talk about basketball. The night before, Miami Heat center Bam Adebayo had scored 83 points, surpassing Dominick’s all-time favorite player, Kobe Bryant’s famous 81-point performance.

“I’m just like, you’re calling me at 7:45 a.m. for this,” Banks said, laughing.

But she answered the phone on the first ring, and she always will. In military families, even the most ordinary conversation can feel like the comforting reassurance that everything, at least for the moment, is still OK.

Banks knows that living inside the wait for war means carrying uncertainty day after day, while the rest of the world moves on around you. And sometimes, in the middle of the night, it means standing barefoot on a kitchen chair, a sponge in your hand, scrubbing the same spot on the ceiling while someone you love is somewhere across the world, and there is nothing else you can do.

Natalie Oliverio is a Navy Veteran, an entrepreneur, and an award-winning journalist whose reporting focuses on defense policy, military news, veterans affairs, and military family life to uncover human stories behind service. She can be reached at natalie@militarytalentpartners.com.

This War Horse story was edited by Mike Frankel, fact-checked by Jess Rohan, and copy-edited by Mitchell Hansen-Dewar. Hrisanthi Pickett wrote the headlines.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Democrats Urge Windfall Tax as Oil Firms Prepare to Cash in on the Iran War

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

With big oil companies poised to reap billions of dollars in profits from the war in Iran, Democratic lawmakers and progressive groups are calling for a windfall tax on major fossil fuel companies.

The US-Israeli strikes on Iran have triggered the largest ever disruption to fuel supply, according to the International Energy Agency, sending crude costs surging over $100 per barrel in recent days. Those high prices have hit US pocketbooks, with average domestic gas prices topping $3.70 a gallon, and Americans spending more than an additional $2 billion to fill their tanks in the past fortnight according to one estimate.

“Surges in energy prices exacerbate inequality in our societies.”

As ordinary people struggle, corporations are seeing windfall gains. Since the war began last month, share prices for US oil giants ExxonMobil and Chevron have climbed by more than 5 percent and 7 percnt respectively, while their market values have soared.

With oil prices continuing to rise, the Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) have proposed taxing big oil’s windfall profits from the Iran war-fueled crisis. “Trump’s war of choice in Iran is not just a moral mistake but an economic blunder that is skyrocketing gas prices for working Americans,” said Khanna in a statement.

The Guardian has contacted the American Petroleum Institute, the top US oil lobby group, for comment.

Hours before the bill’s release, dozens of consumer and environmental advocacy organizations sent a formal letter to Congress backing such a proposal. “Revenue from a windfall profits tax should be returned directly to struggling American households to help offset rising costs,” says the letter, which was signed by the Make Polluters Pay campaign, the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, and more than 70 other state and national groups.

The time to impose the tax is now, supporters say. If oil prices remain at their current level, gas prices will continue to rise while US fossil fuel firms could collect an additional $60 billion this year, analyses from consultancy firm Rystad Energy and investment bank Jeffries show.

“Energy producers and commodity trading firms benefit from volatility in energy prices,” Isabella Weber, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told the Guardian last week. Windfall taxes, she said, can “raise money to cushion the more vulnerable sections of society from cost-of-living pressures.”

Though the United States has not imposed a windfall tax on oil companies since the 1980s, the sector has profited from various fuel crises since. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, oil companies recorded historic profits—profits that one 2025 study co-authored by Weber found were 13 percent higher than total investment in the US’s green energy transition that year.

“The only reason Congress won’t pass it is because too many politicians are bought and paid for by big oil.”

Donald Trump has insisted that such excess profits benefit ordinary Americans.

“The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,” Trump posted on Truth Social last week.

The post only holds true if by “we” Trump meant to refer to wealthy people, according to another 2025 analysis co-authored by Weber. Oil firms’ profits flow to those who own shares in them, either directly or via retirement funds, pensions, or other investments. Those people tend to be well-off, the study found.

During the 2022 fuel crisis triggered by Russia’s war on Ukraine, 50 percent of the profits of US oil and gas firms went to the wealthiest 1 percent of individuals, while the bottom 50 percent only obtained 1 percent of profits. “Since stock ownership is so heavily skewed towards the richest people in our societies, record profits for energy firms means record income for them,” said Weber. “The evidence clearly shows that surges in energy prices exacerbate inequality in our societies.”

A windfall tax could help “contain inequality and raise money to cushion the more vulnerable sections of society from cost-of-living pressures,” said Weber.

In their Tuesday letter to congressional leaders, supporters cited a University of Massachusetts Amherst study indicating that if a similar tax had been enacted during the 2022 price shock, roughly $1,715 could have been returned to each American household. “Other countries have already demonstrated that this approach works,” the letter says, noting that after the 2022 fuel shock the United Kingdom imposed a windfall tax on oil and gas companies, raising $3.3 billion in its first year and $4.5 billion the next.

Khanna and Whitehouse previously proposed a windfall profits tax during the 2022 energy crisis. At the time, one poll showed some 80 percentof Americans supported the move.

“A windfall profits tax is overwhelmingly popular,” said Jamie Henn, director of the anti-oil and gas nonprofit Fossil Free Media, which helped organize support for the current and earlier proposals. “The only reason Congress won’t pass it is because too many politicians are bought and paid for by Big Oil.”

Ultimately, the US should quickly move toward a managed transition away from “volatile fossil fuels,” said Collin Rees, US policy manager at the climate research and advocacy nonprofit Oil Change International, which signed the Tuesday letter supporting a windfall tax.

“That could deliver huge potential benefits there in terms of decreased conflict, in terms of ending the deadly wars for oil that the US keeps waging,” he said. “In the meantime, we need to stop the oil billionaires from profiteering.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

ICE Is Ignoring Rules Put in Place to Avoid Family Separations, Researchers Say

In November, a 22-year-old woman disembarked from her deportation flight in Honduras, five months pregnant and distraught. Immigration officers in the United States had flown her out of the country without asking her an important question: Did she have any kids? Her 2-year-old daughter was left behind.

“They didn’t ask me anything,” she said in Spanish, according to a new report from the Women’s Refugee Commission and Physicians for Human Rights.

The two nonprofits recently visited Honduras to speak with newly deported parents there. Over five days in November, researchers interviewed 29 people, as well as staffers from a Honduran reception center who had interacted with hundreds of other deportees.

Researchers in Honduras interviewing mothers ICE had deported “witnessed many women arriving in acute emotional distress.”

The vast majority of parents said ICE had not asked them if they had kids, contrary to the agency’s own rules. “We’ve been tracking significant levels of family separation, in violation of the policies that the US government has to protect family unity,” says WRC’s Zain Lakhani.

ICE has long had guidelines for detained immigrant parents. Under the Biden administration, the rules required officers to record whether detainees had minor children at home, and to ensure the kids had someone to care for them. This is still true under the Trump administration, even though ICE weakened the guidelines significantly last July.

While the majority of interviewed parents told WRC and Physicians for Human Rights that ICE had never asked if they had children, some tried to volunteer that information to the agency—but it didn’t make much difference. According to the report, a mother of four whose husband had previously been deported told officers that her children would be alone if she was detained. They took her anyway, and the kids had to fend for themselves until their grandmother, who lived in another state, could travel to meet them.

A father, meanwhile, said he begged officers to let him notify the babysitter that he was being arrested; they declined to give him the opportunity, though thankfully the sitter stayed with his daughter for 11 days anyway.

When the Trump administration revised the guidelines for detained parents in July, it made a crucial change: Previously, deported parents could decide whether they wanted their children to join them abroad, and ICE was supposed to facilitate that choice. Now, ICE will only facilitate it if doing so is “operationally feasible.”

The result is more separations. Four of the women interviewed in Honduras had recently given birth, and all were separated from their infants. Researchers “witnessed many women arriving in acute emotional distress, including uncontrollable crying and visible panic,” according to the report. “Many had had no contact with their children or their caregivers for days or weeks.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Dolores Huerta Worried Her Abuse by Cesar Chavez Would Hurt Farmworker Movement

United Farm Workers co-founder and labor activist Dolores Huerta went public Wednesday with her own account of being raped by Cesar Chavez, following a stunning New York Times investigation that uncovered decades of sexual abuse, including of young girls, by the civil rights icon.

Prior to speaking with the Times, Huerta had never publicly disclosed the allegations against Chavez, who died in 1993.

Huerta, now 95, said in the statement that she kept the secret for the last sixty years because, “I believed that exposing the truth would hurt the farmworker movement I have spent my entire life fighting for.”

She told the Times about two separate encounters with Chavez that turned sexually violent, one in 1960 and another in 1966. In the first one, she explained feeling pressured to have sex in a hotel during a work trip. In the second, she recounted Chavez driving her to a secluded area, parking, and raping her inside the vehicle. Both instances, Huerta said, resulted in pregnancies.

“I chose to keep my pregnancies secret and, after the children were born, I arranged for them to be raised by other families that could give them stable lives,” her statement, shared on Medium, reads. Huerta added that, over the years, “I have been fortunate to develop a deep relationship with these children.” But, she continued, “no one knew the full truth about how they were conceived until just a few weeks ago.”

Huerta would ultimately be in a domestic partnership with Chavez’s brother, Richard. They have four children.

The Times investigation, published Wednesday, is based on interviews with more than 60 people, hundreds of pages of union records, confidential emails and photographs, as well as hours of audio recordings. Reporters Sarah Hurtes and Manny Fernandez spoke with Ana Murguia and Debra Roja, now adults who told, in detail, about how Chavez groomed and sexually abused them as children in the 1970s. Other women were propositioned by Chavez and made to feel unsafe or uncomfortable, the Times reports.

Huerta told the Times and repeated in her statement that she was not aware of Chavez abusing children.

“I am telling my story because the New York Times has indicated that I was not the only one — there were others,” she said. “The knowledge that he hurt young girls sickens me. My heart aches for everyone who suffered alone and in silence for years. There are no words strong enough to condemn those deplorable actions that he did.” When the Times told Huerta about specific reports of Chavez abusing children, she broke down and sobbed, according to the outlet.

Huerta is a lifelong activist for workers’ and women’s rights. In her statement, she included a link to a list of resources for sexual abuse survivors curated through her eponymous foundation. The women who spoke with the Times shared a common sentiment. They didn’t want their testimonies of abuse to tarnish a movement that they believed in so wholeheartedly, pointing to an era where sexual abuse was handled through private pain instead of by public disclosure.

“I had experienced abuse and sexual violence before, and I convinced myself these were incidents that I had to endure alone and in secret,” Huerta’s statement read.

“I have never identified myself as a victim,” she added. “but I now understand that I am a survivor — of violence, of sexual abuse, of domineering men who saw me, and other women, as property, or things to control.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

DHS Waited Until It Was Sued to Remind ICE Agents About the First Amendment

The Trump administration is scrambling to cover its tracks amid legislative pressure and a First Amendment lawsuit over its alleged “domestic terrorist” database, new legal filings and emails reviewed by Mother Jones reveal.

A federal class action lawsuit filed last month against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleges that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents unlawfully targeted and intimidated Maine residents who were observing immigration operations. The complaint details incidents in which federal agents collected biometric data and license plate information from two legal observers—Colleen Fagan and Elinor Hilton—and warned the women that they were being added to a domestic terrorist database.

“’Cause we have a nice little database,” the ICE agent replied when asked why he’s taking an observer’s information down, “and now you’re considered a domestic terrorist.”

“Why are you taking my information down?” Fagan asks an ICE agent in one viral video. The 31-year-old social worker had been observing and documenting ICE agents as they descended on her hometown of Portland—part of a statewide immigration enforcement surge dubbed “Operation Catch of the Day” by the Trump administration.

“’Cause we have a nice little database,” the ICE agent replies, “and now you’re considered a domestic terrorist.”

Fagan laughs as the agent walks away. “For videotaping you?” she shouts after him. “Are you crazy?”

That exchange, captured on video by Fagan and posted to X on January 23, has since been viewed more than 7 million times. The ICE agent’s remark has sparked concerns among activists that the government is building a watchlist of its critics—especially as DHS expands its use of mass surveillance technology and Trump administration officials publicly condemn peaceful protesters and legal observers as “terrorists.”

DHS has repeatedly claimed that such a database does not exist. Appearing before the court on Monday, an attorney for DHS said a review of federal records did not turn up any data on Fagan or Hilton—and the government doesn’t know what happened to the photos that were taken of them.

Records show that DHS emailedthis policy to its ICE Boston Field Office on March 10, mere hours before submitting the emailto the court .

“Defendants acknowledge that officers on the ground suggested otherwise, however, those statements were contrary to DHS policy,” government attorneys wrote in a March 10 brief. “Indeed, agents throughout Maine have recently been reminded of this First Amendment policy and requested to adhere to the guidance within.”

But records show that DHS emailedthis policy to its ICE Boston Field Office on March 10, mere hours before submitting the email to the court as proof of the government’s documented commitment to protecting First Amendment activity.

“This email is entirely self-serving and for purposes of this litigation alone,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued in a reply. “It is not probative of any observed ‘policy,’ especially in light of record evidence showing that DHS agents in Maine and across the country have engaged in an undeniable pattern of threatening and harassing lawful observers.”

In fact, the policy in question is a 2019 memo that appears to have been rescinded—until defense lawyers needed to marshal it as proof that ICE agents are prohibited from “profil[ing], target[ing], or discriminat[ing] against any individual for exercising his or her First Amendment rights.”

At the time of the government’s March 10 filing, the 2019 memo was listed as “Archived” on the DHS website, and a page at the top of the document stated it “contain[ed] outdated information that may not reflect current policy.” That page was not included in the government’s submission to the court. The Wayback Machine, an internet archiving tool, shows that the policy was moved from active to archived status sometime between March 6, 2025, and April 2, 2025.

While DHS claims that the threats made by ICE agents in Maine “were not approved or condoned by DHS,” there is no evidence that the agents—who remain unknown to the public—have faced disciplinary action.

Last week, on the morning of March 12, I asked DHS if it has a current, active “policy for personnel regarding First Amendment protected activities.” The press team replied quickly, asking if I could be more specific. I explained that I was curious about whether DHS could point me to its current policy that “governs agencies’ storage/collection/usage of information related to how individuals exercise their First Amendment rights.” At the time of these emails, the 2019 memo was still listed as archived on the DHS website.

A day later, the DHS spokesperson got back to me with a link to the 2019 memo. “Archive” had been removed from the URL, which now redirected to DHS’s active publications library. The first page of the document no longer had a disclaimer about possible outdated material. The DHS website showed the page had been updated that same day, March 13. DHS did not respond to follow-up questions about why the policy had been unarchived.

While DHS claims that the threats made by ICE agents in Maine “were not approved or condoned by DHS,” there is no evidence that the agents—who remain unknown to the public—have faced disciplinary action. An ICE special agent said in a sworn declaration that he was still determining whether to discipline the agents who had violated DHS policy, despite those events having occurred more than six weeks prior.

Other developments in recent months have fueled fears that the government is targeting people for exercising their First Amendment rights. In September, Trump issued an executive order designating “antifa” a domestic terrorist organization, despite the fact that antifa is not a single, cohesive group. In an accompanying national security memorandum, the White House claimed that “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity” and “hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality” are ideological threads found in many violent antifa terrorists. Civil liberties experts fear the directive could be use to squash legitimate dissent in the name of counterterrorism.

The Privacy Act of 1974 “absolutely forbids” the government from maintaining a mass database of US citizens’ biometric data, says a Biden-era ICE official, while “the First Amendment forbids this domestic terrorism bullshit.”

Meanwhile, ICE agents have been using Mobile Fortify, an AI-powered facial recognition app, to scan the faces of citizens and immigrants alike. It remains unclear how that biometric data is being used, though the government is retaining it for 15 years. And in January, CNN reviewed an internal memo directing ICE agents in Minneapolis to “capture all images, license plates, identifications, and general information on hotels, agitators, protestors, etc., so we can capture it all in one consolidated form.”

Scott Shuchart, who served as assistant director for regulatory affairs and policy at ICE during the Biden administration, said that the Privacy Act of 1974 “absolutely forbids” the government from maintaining a mass database of US citizens’ biometric data, while “the First Amendment forbids this domestic terrorism bullshit.”

“But it’s not just some technical thing,” Shuchart added. “It is just a complete affront to centuries of American values that hold it is not the place for the federal government to be keeping a panopticon database of everybody. Congress, as fucking ineffective as it is, hasn’t said much as clearly as it has said that.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

DHS Keeps Attacking Americans.  Trump’s Nominee Loves Duels. What Could Go Wrong?

“Tell the world why you believe I deserve to be assaulted from behind, have six ribs broken, and a damaged lung. Tell me to my face.”

“You told the media that I was a ‘freaking snake.'”

The explosive remarks, from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), were directed at Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) during his confirmation hearing to be the new Homeland Security Secretary on Wednesday, following Kristi Noem’s firing earlier this month. They came as Paul, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security committee, repeatedly questioned Mullin’s temperament to lead DHS.

The animosity stems from Mullin’s remarks at a February event in Tulsa over why the Oklahoma senator had voted against Paul’s appropriation bill amendment seeking to eliminate funding for welfare programs for legally approved refugees and people seeking asylum. Mullin reportedly explained that if Paul’s amendment was accepted, it would kill the other appropriation bills and lead to a government shutdown—and “the president made it very clear he wanted appropriation bills passed.”

“Rand Paul’s a freaking snake,” Mullin continued, arguing that Paul had proposed the amendment to kill the bill intentionally.

“I understand completely why his neighbor did what he did,” Mullin added, referring to the 2017 assault on Paul by his neighbor. “And I told him that to his face.”

The neighbor was sentenced to a total of nine months in prison for assaulting a member of Congress. Paul has described the neighbor as anti-Trump.

“I just wonder if someone who applauds violence against their political opponents is the right person to lead an agency that has struggled to accept limits to the proper use of force,” Paul said at Wednesday’s hearing.

wow! Rand Paul begins Markwayne Mullin's hearing by confronting him about comments he made describing Paul as a "freakin' snake" & "celebrating" Paul getting assaulted"I wonder if someone who applauds political violence is right to lead an agency that has struggled to accept proper use of force"

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-03-18T13:42:34.250Z

Mullin refused to apologize, though he did express willingness to set aside the “snake” accusations to do an effective job as DHS secretary.

“I’m not perfect. I don’t claim to be perfect. I make mistakes just like anybody else. But mistakes—if you own them—you can learn from them, and you can move ahead.”

Paul, unmoved, brought up Mullin’s threats to fight Teamsters union president Sean O’Brien during a 2023 hearing, to which Mullin countered that he is now friends with O’Brien.

“I get it. It’s about character assassination,” Mullin said after Paul showed the Senate committee recordings of his confrontation with O’Brien and, later, instances where he celebrated his actions in media interviews. “That’s the way this game is played. I understand it, and you are making this about you.”

“It’s character assassination when you were the one lauding the assault?” Paul shot back.

At another point in the heated exchange, Mullin said that dueling was acceptable between “consenting adults.” Paul refuted the claim by stating that dueling had “been illegal for 170 years.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The World Is on Fire. Gas Prices Are Rising. Republicans Are Trying to Make it Harder to Vote.

The world is on fire. Gas prices are rising. The US economy is in shambles. President Trump has bulldozed through his promise of “no new wars” and 6 in 10 Americans believe the country is worse off than it was a year ago.

But instead of addressing the issues that Americans actually care about, Senate Republicans are spending the next week or more attempting to further what has become the central organizing principle of Trump’s presidency: making it harder to vote.

On Tuesday afternoon the Senate began debating the Save America Act, which voting rights advocates describe as the worst voter suppression bill that Congress has seriously considered passing.

At its core, the bill is a solution in search of a problem, predicated on the lie that non-citizens are systematically voting in American elections.

“Americans are watching in horror as Donald Trump bumbles this country into war,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said at a press conference on Tuesday. “He’s tanking our economy and driving up costs for families. But what are Republicans prioritizing in the Senate this week? They’re conspiring with Donald Trump to undermine democracy and disenfranchise millions of Americans.”

Trump calls the bill his “No. 1 priority” and claims it will “guarantee the midterms” for Republicans.

It won’t. The centerpiece of the bill is a “show your papers” requirement mandating proof of citizenship, such as a passport or a birth certificate, to register to vote. That could impact Republican-leaning constituencies more than Democrats. The ten states with the lowest levels of passport ownership all voted for Trump. Sixty-nine million women who took their partner’s last name and do not have a birth certificate matching their legal name could find it harder to register to vote under the bill. Republican women are twice as likely as Democrats to change their last name. And because voters would need provide this documentation in person at an election office, rural voters, who also lean Republican, could be forced to drive up to eight hours to register to vote.

“The SAVE America Act wouldn’t turn blue states red, and it can’t save Republicans from voter anger at unpopular policies,” the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page wrote on Tuesday. In the MAGA era, the bill could even marginally hurt the GOP. Kamala Harris in 2024 won college graduates and voters earning over $100,000 a year. Mr. Trump carried those with no degrees and lower salaries. Which coalition is most likely not to have passports and birth certificates handy?”

On top of the proof of citizenship measure, Republicans added a photo ID requirement to vote, likely for messaging purposes, so that they can trot out the usual talking points about how you need ID to buy liquor, get on a plane, etc. That is intended to distract from how many Americans would be burdened by the bill’s core provisions.

For example, the bill’s requirement that voters provide citizenship documents in-person at an elections office would effectively end online registration, mail registration, and voter registration drives, methods that accounted for 1 in 3 registrations during the 2018–2022 election cycles. This requirement would apply not just to new registrants but every time someone updates their registration. Roughly 80 million people register or re-register every election cycle, and less than 6 percent registered at an election office. In addition to making it harder to register to vote, the bill would also require states to hand over their voter rolls, which includes sensitive personal information, to the Department of Homeland Security, which could lead to voters being wrongly purged based on faulty data.

When Kansas passed a proof-of-citizenship law in 2011, it blocked 1 in 7 people from registering to vote. If that happened on a national scale, 11 million Americans would be prevented from registering to vote every cycle. Suffice it to say there would be a national outcry if that happened, undercutting the alleged support for the legislation.

To appease Trump, Senate Republicans plan to go further, introducing amendments to outlaw mail-in voting, which even many Republicans oppose doing, and ban transgender women from participating in women’s sports, which just reinforces how the entire Senate debate is a political stunt.

At its core, the bill is a solution in search of a problem, predicated on the lie that non-citizens are systematically voting in American elections, which every major study has found to be an exceedingly small-to-nonexistent problem. At a news conference on Tuesday, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) couldn’t cite a single example of fraud to support the legislation.

But that doesn’t mean we should simply dismiss the inevitable failure of the bill. The Republican Party’s repeated lies about the voting process have undermined the public’s confidence in elections. And the bill’s demise could embolden Trump to take more extreme actions to control elections, such as declaring a national emergency in an attempt to seize voting machines and ban mail voting, which right-wing election deniers are urging him to do.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

This Is Your Kid’s Brain on AI Slop

This story was co-published with The 74_,_ a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on education in America. Sign up for their early learning Substack.

In a video that has been played almost 50,000 times since it was posted five months ago, two cartoon children sing along as they guide viewers through the experience of riding in a car amid a vividly colored, utopian backdrop.

At first, the video seems harmless. The song is upbeat and informative. The animation aligns with the promised subject.

Except, hold on a second, did those lyrics just say, “Red means stop, and green means right”? And why are the characters changing in every frame—different hairstyles and colors, slightly different outfits for the girl and boy?

Worst of all, for a video that purports to be “educational,” the visuals are sending precisely the wrong message about riding in a car.

The video opens with the children riding, without seatbelts, in the front row of a moving vehicle. The next scene shows the girl defying physics, floating alongside a moving car, while the boy is seated in what appears to be the hood of the vehicle as it travels backward down a busy street.

The third and fourth scenes show the children walking in the middle of the road with moving cars behind them.

In a video called “Vroom Vroom! Car Ride Song,” the cartoon children sing, “Red means stop, and green means right.” YouTube

It’s not hard to imagine how the video could have gotten so many views.

Maybe a parent needs to complete a task—fold some laundry, get dinner ready, hop in the shower—and is searching for an age-appropriate video on YouTube to entertain their toddler during that short time. Perhaps that toddler, increasingly independent and prone to running off, needs a better grasp of road safety. “Vroom Vroom! Car Ride Song | Educational Nursery Rhyme for Kids” presents itself as a win-win solution.

But children’s media experts say this is AI-generated “slop,” and that it has infiltrated the internet, preying on young children and their unsuspecting caregivers.

“We’re at the beginning of a monster problem, and we have to get hold of it quickly,” said Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Temple University and senior fellow at Brookings Institution who studies child development.

“We’re at the beginning of a monster problem, and we have to get hold of it quickly.”

She and other researchers, including Dr. Dana Suskind, a professor of surgery and pediatrics at the University of Chicago, have warned that AI-derived products for babies and children need to be reined in.

“This is not neutral content,” said Suskind, author of the forthcoming book Human Raised: Nurturing Connection, Curiosity, and Lifelong Learning in the Age of AI. “I think of this as toddler AI misinformation at an industrial scale. It’s very risky for the developing brain.”

YouTube creators who publish AI-generated videos are producing content for children at a breathtaking speed, as seen on the time stamps from Jo Jo Funland’s account.YouTube

It’s hard to say just how pervasive this type of content is, but it’s clear the problem is widespread and getting worse. One report published by video-editing company Kapwing in November 2025 found that about 21 percent of YouTube’s feed consists of low-quality, AI-generated videos.

Jo Jo Funland, the creator of the “Vroom Vroom! Car Ride Song,” has posted more than 10,000 videos since its first release just seven months ago, in August 2025. That’s an average of about 50 new videos each day. Sesame Street, meanwhile, has published about 3,900 videos on YouTube in its entire 20 years on the platform.

The cognitive decline associated with the consumption of AI slop—such as a shortened attention span, decreased focus, and mental fog—is sometimes referred to as “brainrot.” But when the audience is children, there’s not much to rot, Suskind said. Because a child’s brain is still in its early development, still being built, what you get instead, she said, is “brain stunt.”

“Every experience is building a million new neural connections,” Suskind said of children who are still in their early years. “You will be unintentionally wiring the brain in incorrect ways.”

That comes at a cost. A child may absorb the implicit messages of something like the Vroom Vroom video and end up mimicking the “downright dangerous” behaviors they saw depicted there, said Carla Engelbrecht, who has created digital experiences for children’s media brands such as Sesame Street, PBS Kids, and Highlights for Children and considers herself an AI educator and creator.

Engelbrecht is also something of a whistleblower when it comes to child-targeted AI slop. She has found countless examples of AI-generated videos that could cause real physical harm.

“The more content I find,” she said, “the more horrified I get.”

They include videos of a scared child being chased by a T-Rex; a crawling baby biting into an apple that appears bloody, swallowing whole grapes (a major choking hazard), and eating honey (which carries the potentially fatal risk of infant botulism) and a teacher eating raw elderberries (which are toxic when uncooked).

Screenshot from one of the YouTube videos where a child is being scared by a T-Rex.

In a video called “Dinosaur at the Window,” a T-Rex scares a small child.YouTube

But there’s another category of AI slop in kids’ media, she said, with consequences that are more difficult to capture. These videos claim to pertain to learning and development, focusing on topics like literacy and numeracy, but due to the speed with which they are produced and the lack of quality checks, they end up introducing or enforcing the wrong lessons. And sometimes, the errors don’t come until midway through the content. That means if a parent previews the first few seconds of a video, they may miss the unreliable information that appears later in the clip.

A video about vowels includes visuals of consonants. It also depicts letters on screen that don’t align with the audio overlay. A video promising to teach about the 50 US. states sings along as butchered state names appear in text at the bottom of the screen — Ribio Island, Conmecticut, Oklolodia, Louggisslia. A video about the seven continents frequently shows a compass with more than four points and indecipherable symbols where the “N,” “S,” “E” and “W” should be.

These may seem like silly slips from a machine, but for a child, every “input” is part of their learning process, Engelbrecht explained. “Mixed signals means you are delaying them learning the cause and effect of a thing,” she said. “If you learn that red is blue and blue is red, that’s a delay.”

“If you’re inconsistent, it takes that much longer to learn,” she added. “Every delay they have means everything else gets pushed back. That’s taking their executive function offline to go learn nonsense.”

Amid all of this internet muck, the question of responsibility is a tricky one.

“Fundamentally, everybody has a responsibility,” Engelbrecht said, including platforms like YouTube; companies that operate large-language models, like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic; the people creating and publishing these poor-quality videos intended to reach kids; and parents.

YouTube’s current policy requires creators to disclose videos that have been generated by or altered with AI when that content “seems realistic.” This does not apply to cartoons and animated content—which seems to be the majority of what’s reaching children—because it has long been assumed to be fictional content, Engelbrecht explained.

The platform does have stricter “quality principles” for content targeting children than it does for its general viewership, said Boot Bullwinkle, a YouTube spokesperson, in a statement. It also has a “child safety policy.” (These web pages, however, do not specifically address the use of AI.)

Due to the volume of content on the platform, YouTube does not catch every video that violates its policies. (It did take action against at least seven channels on the platform in response to The 74’s reporting, including terminating two.)

“The trust that parents and families put in YouTube is a responsibility we take very seriously, and we’ve invested deeply in age-appropriate environments that empower parents.”

“The trust that parents and families put in YouTube is a responsibility we take very seriously, and we’ve invested deeply in age-appropriate environments that empower parents,” Bullwinkle wrote in the statement. “YouTube Kids, for instance, offers industry-leading parental controls and rigorous quality principles designed to provide a safer experience for families.”

YouTube Kids is a distinct version of the platform with content that has been curated for children from birth to 12. Many families continue to use the main YouTube platform to view children’s content, though, which means many creators still have an audience and earning opportunities there. None of the AI-generated videos reviewed for this story were found on YouTube Kids, although recent reporting in The New York Times found AI videos had penetrated that space as well.

Sierra Boone, executive producer of Boone Productions, a children’s media production company that makes original content for children ages 2 to 6, noted that kid-friendly competitors to YouTube, such as Sensical by Common Sense Media and Meevee, do exist. But they have struggled to break through to families.

“Overcoming that juggernaut is extremely difficult,” Engelbrecht said of YouTube. “There’s a graveyard full of failed attempts to create a safe YouTube alternative.”

Boone suggested that some effective labeling would go a long way, not unlike the “content credentials” LinkedIn is phasing in, which aim to disclose when media has been created or edited by AI, in part or in whole.

Engelbrecht thinks labels are a good idea, not least because they would be important for AI literacy, but she also believes they would penalize creators like her who use AI “thoughtfully” in their work. (She is developing, among other projects, an AI tool that detects AI slop in children’s videos on YouTube.)

In a video called “50 States Song for Kids,” the voiceover sings, “Alabama warm, Louisiana jazz,” while the subtitles read, “Alaboama warm, Louggisslia jazz.” YouTube

As for who’s behind the videos, some of it is coming from overseas, but plenty of it is home-grown, created by Americans with access to phones or computers who are just trying to “make a quick buck,” as Boone put it.

These people are often using AI at every step of the process — to develop themes and scripts for children’s videos, to generate the videos, and to automate the process of publishing the content regularly on “faceless” YouTube channels, in which the creator is anonymous and has no on-camera presence, Engelbrecht explained.

A little over a year ago, a popular content creator posted a video to YouTube in which she raves about a “huge opportunity” that would lead to “many millionaires.” The opportunity? AI-generated animated videos that inexperienced users could create with a simple prompt in just minutes. The target audience? Young children.

That video has been viewed more than 335,000 times.

“AI in general isn’t inherently good or bad, but it exposes people’s intentions,” said Boone, whose production studio is responsible for The Naptime Show.

The flood of AI-generated content, she added, reveals how many people have “no regard for children or how they’re impacted,” as long as it benefits them.

In a video called “Learn ABCs at Breakfast,” a small baby eats a fistful of whole grapes, which are a major choking hazard for infants.YouTube

For Boone, who works painstakingly with her team on every episode of The Naptime Show — researching, writing the script, editing the script, placing props, doing table reads, going to set, filming, editing the video, publishing and promoting the final product — creating children’s media is an “honor” that should be taken seriously.

“The very foundation of creating children’s media is you are creating something that a child, in their core developmental years, is going to be consuming,” Boone said. “So what is the level of intention that you’re bringing to that? I think we need to be holding the people who are uploading this content more accountable.”

Ultimately, though, in the absence of more regulation or content moderation, the burden falls on parents.

Parents are likely putting YouTube videos in front of their children in the first place because “they are already so stretched,” said Suskind, who still sees patients in her pediatric practice and interacts with families often. So it’s inherently challenging to ask them to more closely monitor the content that is coming through their children’s screens.

Yet that is what must be done, Hirsh-Pasek said. Until a better solution emerges, the onus is on parents to separate the slop from “the good stuff.”

“We owe it to our kids to protect them,” said Hirsh-Pasek. “That’s what they look to parents for, to keep them in safe spaces. If we don’t deal with that or do anything about that, we’ve absconded [from] our responsibility.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Global Heating Accelerated Rapidly Over the Past Decade, a New Study Claims

_This story was originally published b_y Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

For years, scientists have been keeping a wary eye on the massive system of currents that carry water and nutrients across the ocean from Greenland to Antarctica. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation plays a large part in stabilizing the global climate, but it appears to have been weakening in recent years as the Earth warms. Should it collapse, drought would spread across the Southern Hemisphere and the Eastern Seaboard of the United States would see catastrophic sea level rise. It could also trigger a series of other tipping points, from which the Earth would likely not recover.

“We are basically moving faster into high risk territory now.”

To avoid this scenario, 195 countries signed onto the Paris Agreement in 2015—a landmark treaty that aimed to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times. Beyond that threshold, scientists say, the Earth’s climate could begin to deteriorate in unpredictable and irreversible ways. The past few years have been the warmest on record, and the importance of staying within this limit has been driven home as deadly heatwaves and rampant wildfires have become routine.

A recent study published in Geophysical Research Letters claims that warming has accelerated rapidly over the past decade, with temperatures rising almost twice as fast as they did between 1970 and 2015. The study echoes the findings of a report published last year, authored by the scientist James Hansen, who famously testified about the dangers of global warming in front of the US Congress in 1988. Should warming continue on this trajectory, the latest study says, the planet could cross the 1.5 degree threshold before 2030.

The authors arrived at this conclusion after isolating the “noise” from the climate system—controlling for the El Niño weather pattern, which warms the earth, as well as for volcanic eruptions and solar flares. What they found was that while the Earth warmed by 0.2 degrees each decade between 1970 and 2015, it has warmed by 0.35 degrees in the decade since—a 75 percent spike.

This puts us on a collision course with the climate’s tipping points, said Stefan Rahmstorf, an author of the study and head of Earth system analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he said, “has concluded that the risk of crossing such tipping points increases from moderate to high between 1.5 and 2.5 degrees of warming. So we are basically moving faster into high risk territory now.”

Over the past few years, scientists have warned that we’re entering a period of overshoot, in which the world pushes past the 1.5 degree Paris limit. How bad things get, Rahmstorf explained, all depends on how long the planet stays above 1.5 degrees. The Greenland Ice Sheet, for example, might be salvageable if people figure out how to bring emissions down and actively cool the planet, limiting that overshoot period to two or three decades. But if it reaches a tipping point, it will enter a feedback loop that’s impossible to stop—ultimately causing 24 feet of global sea level rise.

“I think that it is actually quite tragic that the US government has decided to put their head in the sand and pretend there is no problem when the data are showing exactly the opposite,” Rahmstorf said.

“I think it’s really important for the public to understand what we know, but also what we don’t.”

Outside experts cautioned that the situation might not be accelerating quite as fast as the study makes it seem. “They don’t consider underlying uncertainties that you might refer to as structural uncertainties in the reconstruction of global temperatures,” said Sofia Menemenlis, the lead author of a study on satellite-era readings of sea surface temperatures published in Nature Climate Change last summer. The study found high variability within satellite sea surface temperature readings, which are often used to reconstruct the last century of climate data. While there has been a clear and dramatic warming trend since the 1950s, a decade is a very short timescale when it comes to the climate.

“I think that trends calculated over a short period of time have to be understood as a somewhat provisional way of looking at the rate of global warming,” said Menemenlis, a doctoral student at Princeton University’s atmospheric and oceanic sciences program.

Daniel Schrag, a professor of environmental science and engineering at Harvard University, put it a little more directly. The authors say “they’ve corrected for the El Niño, but that’s almost impossible to do, because every El Niño is different,” he explained. “That’s a very shaky thing to do, so I don’t really buy that analysis.” Schrag said climate models rarely capture the Pacific Decadal Oscillation—a 20- or 30-year routine shift in sea surface temperatures sometimes described as a “long-term El Niño.” Without accounting for that, it’s difficult to remove enough “noise” from the climate data to ensure you’re getting a clear warming signal over a period as brief as a decade.

“I think it’s really important for the public to understand what we know, but also what we don’t,” Schrag said. “This whole phenomenon is terrifying. It doesn’t need to be exaggerated, and when you exaggerate, you lose credibility.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Exploding Pintos, Imploding Politics: Celebrating 50 Years of Fearless Journalism

Fifty years ago, in a small San Francisco office above a fast-food restaurant, a handful of plucky journalists started a new magazine. It was a time not that dissimilar from today. Corporations were growing more powerful. Massive social movements were transforming the country. Journalism—under a political microscope following the Watergate scandal—seemed more important than ever. But to the writers and reporters in that tiny office, America’s newsrooms weren’t properly holding politicians and those in power to account. And so, they founded a magazine they hoped would do so and called it Mother Jones.

Over the last half-century, the nonprofit magazine has broken some of the era’s defining stories, including some of the earliest reporting about the dangers of Big Tobacco, its investigation into the exploding Ford Pinto, and Mitt Romney’s now-infamous line about 47 percent of Americans viewing themselves as “victims” who are “dependent on government.”

Monika Bauerlein has been part of Mother Jones’ story for half of its existence, first as an editor and now as the CEO of the Center for Investigative Reporting, which produces Mother Jones, as well as the public radio show Reveal and its sister podcast, More To The Story. “Mother Jones was always kind of at the tip of the firmament for me of an independent, fearless news organization that would tell it like it is,” she says.

On this week’s More To The Story, Bauerlein joins host Al Letson to look back at the magazine’s Bay Area origin story. Plus, they examine how the politics of the 1970s are strikingly similar to today and look forward to what the next 50 years holds for independent nonprofit news in the US.

Find More To The Story on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Pandora, or your favorite podcast app, and don’t forget to subscribe.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Tennessee Teens Sue Elon Musk’s xAI Over Child Sexual Abuse Images

Tennessee teenagers are suing Elon Musk’s company xAI over allegations that its artificial intelligence tool Grok undressed photos of them as minors—the latest challenge against the wealthiest living person’s chatbot.

The three plaintiffs, two of whom are currently minors, are seeking damages after AI-generated images of them spread across Discord and Telegram and were eventually used as bartering tools for users to obtain other child sexual abuse material, according to the complaint detailed in new Washington Post reporting.

“xAI—and its founder Elon Musk,” the complaint reads, “saw a business opportunity: an opportunity to profit off the sexual predation of real people, including children.”

One of the plaintiffs said she received a link to a Discord server “which contained images and videos of at least 18 other minor females, many of whom Jane Doe 1 recognized from her school,” the lawsuit alleges.

Some of the images stemmed from her homecoming or yearbook photos.

The lawsuit comes after months of backlash against Musk’s chatbot after the company allowed Grok to undress people nonconsensually using the “Imagine” tool. The complaint argues that a “model that can create sexualized images of adults cannot be prevented from creating CSAM of minors.” According to earlier reporting from the Post, Grok’s previous leniency towards fulfilling users’ sexually explicit requests was a marketing technique, meant to increase the popularity of the chatbot.

A poster on a bus stop reads "WHO THE HELL WOULD WANT TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA WITH A BUILT-IN CHILD ABUSE TOOL."

Activist group ‘Everyone Hates Elon’ placed this anti-Musk and X poster in a bus stop on January 14, 2026, in London.Kristian Buus/In Pictures via Getty Images

Musk and his company didn’t respond to the Post in their coverage of the Tennessee lawsuit. Musk has repeatedly placed responsibility onto the individual users requesting such content and has held that Grok “will refuse to produce anything illegal,” despite the chatbot itself, in at least one instance, posting that its actions might have violated the 2025 TAKE IT DOWN Act, legislation criminalizing the nonconsensual publication of intimate images, including AI-generated deepfakes.

According to an investigation by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Grok generated approximately 3 million sexualized images in just an 11-day period, from December 29 to January 8. Around 23,000 of those, according to researchers, appeared to depict children. In a January 14 post, Musk claimed that he was “not aware of any naked underage images generated by Grok. Literally zero.”

Later than month, 35 state attorneys general penned a letter to xAI demanding the company “take all necessary measures to ensure that Grok is no longer capable of producing” this kind of nonconsensual sexual imagery and child sexual abuse material. The European Union and regulators in the United Kingdom and California have launched investigations into Grok.

Related

Black and white diptych of Elon Musk paired with the GROK logo.Grok Deepfaked Renée Nicole Good’s Body Into a Bikini

In January, following rising international ethical and legal objections to the mass spread of nonconsensual sexual imagery, some of Grok’s Imagine image generation features were limited to paid X users. Yet Grok image tools are still seemingly offered for free on the standalone website and application. And even if restricting elements of the service to paying users could limit the quantity of material, introducing a nominal fee for those hoping to create nonconsensual sexual imagery of people, including minors, doesn’t answer a key legal question: Will Grok be meaningfully changed to protect women and girls from this kind of digital abuse?

The Tennessee teens are just some of the scores of girls and women impacted by Grok’s undressing, reportedly including at least one woman who Musk knows personally.

Ashley St. Clair, a conservative content creator who has a child with Musk, said that Grok created nonconsensual sexual imagery of her. Some of the images, according to an interview she did with NBC News, were from when St. Clair was a minor.

Annika K. Martin, the lead counsel in the suit, had a question for Musk as a father:

“Your child’s voice on video screaming. Can you imagine that as a parent?” she asked. “Can you imagine that for your child and feel okay with what you’ve done?”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Dr. Oz Calls Medicare Fraud an Epidemic. Trump Keeps Pardoning the Culprits.

On Tuesday, the oversight and investigations arm of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing to discuss alleged Medicare and Medicaid fraud—a major talking point of the Trump administration and Robert F. Kennedy’s Department of Health and Human Services, which have deployed fraud claims to help justify cuts to critical funding and programs used by a huge swath of aging, disabled, and low-income Americans.

“For too long, states have been permitted to run Medicaid programs with weak guardrails, making them easy targets for criminals to exploit,” subcommittee chair John Joyce (R-Pa.) said in his opening statement. “Under the leadership of Dr. Mehmet Oz, this administration is taking bold steps to stop this fraud more than any other presidential administration before it.”

There are false and exaggerated claims in systems the size of Medicare and Medicaid—both Republican and Democratic members agreed that fraud from providers does exist. But only Democratic members raised concerns that withholding Medicaid funds from Minnesota, for example—where investigations into large-scale social services fraud have become a major conservative talking point—will hurt disabled and aging people, as well as children. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, who has made similar allegations about “ethnic” fraud in the Los Angeles area, was not present, something Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) took offense to.

“I think he’s just a grandstander who likes to go on TV but doesn’t really do anything substantively that’s meaningful to help Medicare and Medicaid recipients,” Pallone said.

In Oz’s absence, CMS deputy administrator Kimberly Brandt claimed that the agency’s “fraud war room” was using artificial intelligence to root out alleged Medicare and Medicaid fraud, particularly increased rates of home and community-based services billing in New York and California.

“We are constantly using heat maps and data analysis to be able to look and see where we think the largest shifts are,” Brandt said.

A recent article published in the Health Affairs journal by four academics focusing on health and disability warned that such a focus by the Trump administration could lead to HCBS, an optional Medicaid program, being further dismantled. “Growth in HCBS spending does not reflect evidence of systemic corruption but rather bipartisan federal policy choices, demographic change, and structured statutory evolution,” they wrote. It is also not an easy process to qualify for HCBS, with each process slightly different per state, and over half a million people on waiting lists to even qualify.

Rep. Kevin Mullen (D-Calif.) said that he was very concerned that his constituents could lose access to Medicaid services if California came under the kinds of attacks that Minnesota now faces from federal agencies.

“My constituents deserve better than to have their lifesaving health care used as a pawn,” Mullen said.

During her turn on the floor, Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) raised doubts that the Trump administration actually cares about rooting out Medicaid and Medicare fraud.

“Donald Trump unilaterally fired the HHS inspector general immediately after taking office, contradicting his claim that combating fraud is a central goal of this administration,” Trahan said. “Not only did the President move the leading official for detecting fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, but he left the role unfilled for almost an entire year to then fill it with a partisan loyalist.”

Trahan also listed the names of convicted fraudsters of Medicaid and Medicare fraud who were pardoned by Trump, including Philip Esformes.

“These cases involve large-scale fraud against taxpayer funded health care programs intended to serve seniors, people with disabilities and low income families—and the President of the United States freed every single perpetrator of those crimes,” Trahan said.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Joe Kent Resigns From Trump Administration Over Iran War

Joe Kent has resigned as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center in protest of President Donald Trump’s ongoing war against Iran. Kent, a twice-failed Washington congressional candidate aligned with the isolationist MAGA right, is the highest-ranking Trump official to quit because of the war.

But Kent didn’t portray the president as the real villain in the lengthy resignation letter that he posted on X on Tuesday. That distinction goes to Israel and its supporters in the United States. “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation,” Kent wrote, “and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

Kent went on to argue that in the letter “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” launched a “misinformation campaign” early in Trump’s current term that undermined his America First agenda. Writing directly to Trump, Kent argued that this “echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States.” He added the Israelis had used the same approach to “draw us into the disastrous Iraq war.”

Trump, of course, is the president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world—not some hapless victim of Israeli deception. He willingly joined Israel to initiate the current war, despite the apparent reservations of some of his senior advisers. It was his responsibility to determine what was in the best interests of the United States, and he failed spectacularly in that task.

It is certainly true that Israel played a major role in pushing Trump towards war. Netanyahu has wanted the United States to attack Iran for decades, and he finally found a willing accomplice in the second-term version of Trump. It was not for nothing that a New York Times article headlined “How Trump Decided to Go to War” began with Netanyahu walking into the Oval Office in February determined to keep Trump “on the path to war.” The Israeli leader was particularly concerned that the Trump administration’s efforts to reach a diplomatic solution with Iran would prevent the battle he longed for.

After the war began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio all but admitted that the United States had been dragged into the war by its ally. “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” he explained on March 2.

Still, Trump could have easily said no to that pressure. He chose not to.

On a political level, Kent’s resignation is one of the most significant public splits thus far over Israel among the president’s supporters. In one camp are traditional neoconservative hawks like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas). In the other is a more isolationist faction that includes Tucker Carlson and, at times, antisemitic figures like Nick Fuentes.

The energy within the GOP base—particularly among younger voters—is clearly with Carlson, who is known for being close to Vice President JD Vance. Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly’s recent decision to respond to criticism from hawkish conservative commentator Mark Levin in notably crude terms is another sign of how things have turned. Where that leads remains to be seen. But it is increasingly clear that should Trump’s second term turn out to be a bust, much of the far right is prepared to make Israel a convenient scapegoat for the president’s own incompetence. Some, like Fuentes, will no doubt extend the blame to Jewish Americans.

For Kent, seeing the United States launch itself into another poorly planned war has a deeply personal dimension. As I reported in a 2022 profile, Kent is a former Green Beret who did 11 combat deployments in the wake of 9/11. Serving in what came to be called the Global War on Terror was a radicalizing experience. “Was it worth it for our nation?” Kent said in a 2020 interview. “Was it worth it in terms of what we gained? It’s just hard to justify.”

Most tragically, Kent’s wife Shannon, a Navy cryptologist and the mother of his two boys, was killed by an ISIS suicide bomber in 2019. As I reported, Kent later said that he and fellow veterans lost so many comrades that putting their names on memorials became “one big numb.” He continued, “It’s still very surreal that Shannon is now one of those.”

In his resignation letter, Kent blamed Israel for drawing the United States into Iraq two decades ago. That contrasts with a 2024 interview he gave to the podcaster Shawn Ryan, in which he did not single out Israel when assigning responsibility for the senseless wars in which he served. “Where do you think the big push came from?” Ryan asked Kent about the Iraq War. Kent blamed “moneyed interests in Washington, DC,” before citing Vice President Dick Cheney’s ties to Halliburton. Iraq, as he put it, was “good for business.”

Kent’s populist anti-interventionism was always the area where he was most likely to overlap with some on the left. On domestic politics, though, there was far less common ground. As I wrote after Trump picked Kent last year:

The Black Lives Matter and antifa protests in Portland during the summer of 2020 triggered fears for him that the United States could similarly implode. Everything, he felt, was crumbling. He and his two young boys quickly left the city for rural Washington.

“We need to treat antifa and BLM like terrorist organizations. We need to use the tools of the federal government, the FBI, the US Marshals—go after them like organized criminals and terrorists,” Kent said in a 2021 conversation with the podcaster Tim Pool about the group’s leaders. “So, when we start arresting these guys and charging them with federal terrorism charges, that’s going to take away a lot of the incentive to go out and riot.”

That is part of what makes putting Kent in charge of the National Counterterrorism Center so unsettling. He is a trained counterinsurgent who is now far more attuned to threats from within than those from overseas.

Last May, the Times reported that Kent had pushed intelligence officials to rewrite an assessment of the relationship between the Venezuelan government and the criminal organization Tren de Aragua. The move came after Trump sent more than 200 Venezuelans to an infamous Salvadoran prison based on the false premise that they were all members of Tren de Aragua, and that the group was controlled by the Venezuelan regime.

Referring to Trump and his boss, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Kent wrote, “We need to do some rewriting” and an additional analysis “so this document is not used against the DNI or POTUS.” In essence, Kent was pushing to twist intelligence to justify the indefinite detention of innocent men in horrific conditions. Unlike the Iran war, that, apparently, wasn’t a red line.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Minneapolis “Dirtbag Lawyer” Challenging ICE Detentions—and Winning

On January 7, Daniel Suitor raced the less than half a mile from his home to the spot where a federal immigration agent had just killed Renée Good in Minneapolis. He had heard from a local group chat that someone had been shot, and he wanted to bear witness. At the scene, Suitor, a lawyer, started talking to witnesses. One observer who had recorded the incident shared the video with Suitor, who sent it to local authorities and the press and posted it on social media. Soon, the images were everywhere.

For most Americans, the shocking killing of Good, followed by government officials’ “domestic terrorism” claims, brought into stark relief the brutality of the immigration enforcement operations the Trump administration unleashed in cities across the country. In the weeks after the shootings of Good and then Alex Pretti, public sentiment has reportedly turned against the crackdown and the actions of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

That watershed moment proved to be a catalyst for Suitor, who, until now, primarily represented Minnesota tenants in various disputes. A couple of days after Good’s death, while recovering from emergency gallbladder surgery, he started to consider how to best employ his University of Minnesota law degree. He put his sole practice on hold and stopped taking on new cases. “It’s all hands on deck for the legal community,” Suitor declared on LinkedIn, issuing a call to action to other legal practitioners. “When this is over, will you be able to say you were one of the helpers? Which side are you on?”

Earlier this year, the self-described “nobody lawyer” and “dipshit with a 7-year-old laptop and a bad attitude,” Suitor turned to helpingimmigrants in Minnesota who have been swept up in the immigration enforcement dragnet and detained by ICE. Undeterred by his lack of immigration law experience**,** he has joined the ranks of attorneys nationwide filing so-called habeas corpus petitions in a massive legal counteroffensive to the Trump administration’s aggressive mass detention and deportation practices.

Here, Suitor describes his own experiences in this work. His observations have been edited for length and clarity.

I grew up in New Hampshire and spent most of my first few decades in New England. I moved here [to Minnesota] to go to law school. It was 2018, I was 29 years old, and I didn’t like my corporate job [as a financial analyst]. It was kind of boring. I was not living my values. It was the middle of the first Trump administration, and I’m like, what should I do? I really wanted to do employment law and fight for workers.

I wound up starting my career in tenants’ rights**,** working for a nonprofit called HOME Line, which I found suited me very well. Any tenant in the state can call and get free advice. Eviction is a huge deal in every state, but particularly in Minnesota. Keeping somebody in their home is one of the most powerful things you can do.

The first case I ever did [involved] a single mother. I think she had just had her third kid, and she sued for her security deposit herself and won. She got her security deposit back, but the landlord wouldn’t pay and hired a lawyer to get the judgment undone. It was a pretty simple case and a couple of grand, but it was such a lifeline for that person. Helping people, even in a small way, to claw back against these historic harms means something to my clients. And if it means something to my clients, it means something to me.

I left the nonprofit in September 2024 and did a year at a plaintiff employment law firm. I was fired in September 2025 for my pro bono work. I took a campaign practices case for two Democratic socialist candidates. I told my boss that I was going to take it on my own time. They told me not to file the case, and I said, I’m sorry, I filed it two days ago, and I was fired. I have no regrets. The next day**,** I started my solo practice [focused on landlord-tenant cases.]

Starting in December and January, as ICE really ramped up enforcement, a lot of people started responding. There was this loose coalition of movement lawyers who were starting to do habeas petitions and doing them really fast and dirty, and trying to just get as many people out of jail as possible. At that time, people were being moved out of state within hours. I got tapped into that.

After Renée Good was murdered, that was the moment when the legal community was like, “This is no longer just for the activists and the dirtbags around the edges.” I always joke that I’m probably like a bunch of respectable lawyers’ dirtbag lawyer friend, and then I’m a bunch of activists’ lawyer friend. I have a foot in both worlds. I put my practice on pause. My wife has a good job, but especially after I was fired, we were pretty paycheck-to-paycheck, and we didn’t have a lot of savings because she had cancer two years ago.

I was trying to make money and trying to take cases, and balance paid work with being committed to my community. I love tenants’ rights. There’s nothing I love more than going to housing court. If I could be a rat who lived under the stairs at that courthouse, I probably would. But my heart wasn’t in it. If I’m not going to give people my best, I don’t think I can take their cases. I just realized that’s what I had to do in that moment. There are times your skills really are needed and vital. What am I supposed to do? Work out retainer agreements while I feel like I could be helping people?

“What am I supposed to do? Work out retainer agreements while I feel like I could be helping people?”

This [Minnesota] law firm organized a habeas training, and 300 attorneys showed up on Zoom. There was another one within a week that I think over 250 people attended. There was this outpouring of support from the legal community. I was still a little worried about doing it because I’m not an immigration attorney. What held me back for a week or two was wondering, What if I screw it up? What if I keep someone in jail?

I started doing the trainings, and a case landed on my lap that needed emergency help. Somebody gets grabbed**,** and you start burning up your social network and every resource you have available. No one could take the case right away. I can’t just sit around waiting for the right time. There is no right time. There is no perfect time. I was in the Costco parking lot**,** and then I wound up filing the case at 1 or 2 a.m. the next morning.

People are working at 1,000 percent capacity right now. The nonprofits only have so many resources, and the private firms are taking a lot of these [cases]. A lot of the immigration firms have to make money. They can’t do this for free, so they’re charging. I’m taking a very specific subset of cases that aren’t getting help from other resources. I do them all for free. I haven’t charged anyone a dime for this work. I’ve filed 20 cases. I think I’ve been successful in 14 so far.

A lot of my clients have had criminal histories. Some of them were just one incident, 25 or 30 years ago, and they’ve had entire lifetimes since then. In all cases, they’ve paid their debt to society through imprisonment, through probation, through all sorts of penalties. The government can deport them the right way if they want. But they’re not doing it the right way. Due process in immigration is pretty thin to begin with. If the government can’t even bother to do that, then all these people deserve to be out of detention.

My first client was a Hmong man. He was on an order of supervision, and he got scooped up. They didn’t revoke his supervision until he was already detained. When he was released from jail, he brought with him a handwritten list of people’s names and alien numbers. He said, “This is the same story as what happened to me.” Of those 18 people**,** I personally filed on behalf of 10, a friend filed on behalf of another one, and we’ve gotten eight released. A few are waiting. Two were denied. I’ve represented people in three different jails in Minnesota—in Freeborn, Kandiyohi, and Sherburne [counties]. My clients have mostly been released without incident.

“I grew up like a New England Protestant. I believe that you toil and then you die, and you dig a ditch every day of your life**.** And at the end of your life**,** there’s the ditch. That’s how I treat this work. It’s gotten me to this point where I can help people and that’s enough for me.”

I’m a really small-time guy. Doing 20 cases in the last month was a lot. I can do these pretty quickly, and with every single one, I get better. But there are enough cases in Minnesota to keep me busy. I don’t think I’m a special talent in any way. I grew up like a New England Protestant. I believe that you toil and then you die. And you dig a ditch every day of your life. And at the end of your life, there’s the ditch. That’s how I treat this work. It’s gotten me to this point where I can help people, and that’s enough for me.

I don’t even want the attention for this work. I’m just one guy. There are so many people doing so much more than I. I just have one small corner. The reason why I’ve talked to people about habeas work is because I want to encourage people to do it. What I want to do is get the people who are on the fence, or maybe they have a lot going on, but they see that this work is really important. I think it’s good propaganda to show that we’re winning, that when you fight, you win. You can stand up to bullies. You don’t know when you’ll be next, but prepare your own community.

The level of enforcement activity is down, but it’s still very active. There’s still this long ripple effect because they put so many people in detention. I’m cleaning up the messes of people who were arrested a month ago or two months ago. They’re still arresting more people every day. Last week, I filed for somebody who had been detained two or three days before. They’re still throwing more people on the pile.

We got all these people out on habeas, but ICE is going to try to deport them. I always say I’m not an immigration attorney; I can’t stop your deportation. How do we train non-immigration attorneys to do removal defense? That’s the next battle. There’s a level of camaraderie right now in the state bar that I haven’t felt before in my relatively short career. As things slowly go back to normal, I hope we remember this moment.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Warming Oceans and Waterways Threaten a Key Human Protein Source

_This story was originally published b_y Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

In the world’s waters, fish are making a quiet, biological retreat. The once simple rules of the ocean—grow larger than potential predators—are being rewritten as temperatures reach record highs. Desperate to survive, fish are hitting the fast-forward button on life in a biological shift that will soon impact what ends up on dinner tables globally.

“There are simply no real winners here.”

Fish are getting smaller and dying at higher rates as they adapt to warming waters, researchers warn in a report released Thursday in the journal Science. This evolutionary change will reduce global fish yields by one-fifth under current warming predictions, and up to 30 percent in high-emissions scenarios.

This will trigger potentially irreversible evolutionary processes, shaking up entire ecosystems and food webs, with consequences for the billions of people who rely on seafood for protein—a demand expected to increase.

“What I found frightening about this work was that it was difficult to identify winners and losers—there are simply no real winners here,” said Craig White, the study’s co-author and an evolutionary physiologist at Monash University in Australia. “The combination of warming and evolution was always bad for fisheries.”

Fish mortality rates have already been rising as waters warm. Although fisheries management often assumes fish are evolutionarily inert when it comes to overcoming such environmental changes, this is false. Instead, fish are maturing at a younger age and at a smaller size to improve their chances of surviving long enough to reproduce, according to the report.

Fishery yields were already expected to reduce by 14 percent when global temperatures reach 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. However, when incorporating evolutionary impacts, the researchers’ new model predicts this reduction worsens to 22 percent.

For the Alaska pollock—a key species for human consumption in North America—this would equate to a reduction of half a million metric tons harvested per year.

“This is a loss of over 1.1 billion meals of high-quality protein per year as a consequence of the effects of global warming on just one species,” said David Reznick, a professor of evolutionary ecology at the University of California, Riverside, who was not involved with the study but co-wrote a new piece about it in Science. “Climate change represents an immediate threat to the earth’s capacity to sustain human life.”

Decades of decreases in size, age at maturity and abundance in species like Atlantic salmon and Baltic cod appear to validate the model’s predictions. In total, the life histories of nearly 3,000 species of fish were tested to corroborate the model’s accuracy.

“What we can’t do is assume that species will evolve their way out of trouble in a way that suits us.”

Researchers noted impacts will vary by geography. Freshwater systems are predicted to warm more than oceans and will therefore see the most severe size reductions.

There will also be consequences beyond harvesting. “Much of what happens in the ocean in terms of who eats whom is based on body size: Big things eat smaller things,” said Joseph Travis, a biologist and former dean of Florida State University’s College of Arts & Sciences. If the size of harvested species decreases, they will become vulnerable to predation by other fish, said Travis, who co-wrote the Science piece about the study.

“The entire ecosystem could be thrown into an alternative configuration as the system moves past its tipping point,” said Travis, highlighting the example of the reconfiguration of Canada’s western Scotian shelf in the late 20th century. Here, the average size of 53 top predators—like cod and haddock—dropped 40 percent in 40 years. As a result, former prey increased by 300 percent as they became predators for young cod.

Increases in fish death frequency from disease, deoxygenation, or overfishing will only add further pressure. “If people try to compensate for smaller fish and less revenue per fish by harvesting more fish, then the problem worsens quickly,” said Travis, warning of potential stock depletion.“The net effect, in the long run, will be less protein available.”

“If humans, as predators, cause the fish to evolve, as do predators in natural ecosystems, then they also cause changes that will not spring back to their former state,” said Reznick. Indeed, as fish decrease in size, populations are losing the genetic variations that encode large bodies. And, as ecosystems shift, populations might be locked into new food chain states they cannot reverse.

“What we can’t do is assume that species will evolve their way out of trouble in a way that suits us,” said White, highlighting that effective climate policy could preserve roughly 18 million metric tons of fishery yields each year.

His message to policymakers is clear: While fish can adapt to survive, the only way to protect people who rely on fisheries for their protein and their livelihood is to reduce warming.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump: Help, the Iran War Is Going Great

Donald Trump painted his military campaign in Iran with the same gold shine as his plans for the new Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in remarks on Monday—but despite his assured posturing, he is asking for help.

The president’s comments came at a press conference prior to a Monday vote among Kennedy Center board members on whether to close the institution temporarily for repairs. Trump previously insisted the building was in disrepair and that its programming was “woke,” pushing Congress to appropriate $257 million via the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to fund renovations.

In Iran, the president has created more serious problems. In the same Monday remarks, despite claiming that the US military had bombed Iran’s mine-laying ships to the extent that vessels could safely transit the Strait of Hormuz, an essential passageway in the Persian Gulf where roughly 20 percent of global crude oil and natural gas flows, Trump reiterated calls on allies to help reopen the shipping lane.

“Every one of [the mine-laying ships] is gone, but it only takes one,” Trump stated. “It’s a little unfair [given] you win a war.”

“You need people to watch and people to see,” he added.

On Monday, Trump said that some nations were “enthusiastic” to help. But that appears to be an overstatement, as many NATO countries have refused Trump’s request for naval and other military support. And on receiving a tepid response, Trump warned allies on Sunday about a “very bad” future if they did not help, and complained at his Monday press conference that the US was not receiving reimbursement for providing protection.

“This war has nothing to do with NATO,” Stefan Kornelius, a spokesperson for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, said on Monday. “NATO is a defensive alliance, an alliance for the defense of its territory.”

As Trump’s military campaign in Iran enters its third week, US and Israeli strikes have killed over one thousand people in the country and led to bombings across the region. The White House seems to have no set goal—let alone a plan—despite costs now well into the tens of billions of dollars.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Top Architecture Firm Won’t Design More ICE Prisons After Employees Revolt

For three years, Andrew Osborne helped his bosses promote the idea that good design could make imprisonment more humane. As a public relations specialist at DLR Group, one of the largest architecture firms in the world, he crafted campaigns for multimillion dollar projects, like the construction of a “youth campus for empowerment” in Nashville. Or the rebuild of San Quentin state prison—former home of California’s death row—into a “rehabilitation center.” It wasn’t about simply adding more windows, he argued in marketing material. Prisons could be revamped to prioritize education; jail space could be set aside to help people through mental health crises instead of booking them into the system.

“I was selling the shit out of it,” Osborne says. “I genuinely was a convert.” A 34-year-old creative type, he’d taken the job at DLR Group after earning master’s degrees in philosophy and English literature. He truly believed the design firm, which has over 30 offices and rakes in at least $500 million in annual revenue, was committed to the stated ethos of its Justice+Civic division: to pursue “healing, equity, and transformation for the individual and community” as “stewards of the built environment.”

“I think what ICE is doing is the worst thing America has probably done since the internment camps during World War II.”

So when he found out on February 4 that DLR Group held a current contract to turn an old private prison in Oklahoma into a new detention center used to hold the immigrants swept up in the Trump administration’s escalated, increasingly deadly ICE operations—the sense of betrayal was instant. “I think what ICE is doing is the worst thing America has probably done since the internment camps during World War II,” he tells me, comparing the agency’s use of racial profiling in arrests to the mandatory incarceration of Japanese Americans. “It’s horrific, they’re shooting people, and here I am hating that in my heart of hearts. And it turns out my company is involved in it.”

Osborne was working from home that day, and he felt “the maddest I’ve ever been in my life.” So he picked up the phone, called his supervisor, and said he intended to quit. He gave notice two days later.

His wasn’t a lone act of protest. That week, it had become widely known among DLR Group’s 1,800-some employees that the firm had connections to ICE through its deals involving the private prison company CoreCivic. The resulting outcry has thrown DLR Group into turmoil, according to interviews with three current employees—all of whom requested anonymity for fear of retaliation—as well as a review of posts on the firm’s internal message board and a recording of a mid-February call between executives and hundreds of workers, provided by an anonymous employee. In an emailed response to questions, senior principal and brand communications leader Andy Ernsting disputed that there has been “unrest” among DLR Group workers. “A small group of employees had questions and we had a firmwide, open dialogue about our justice work,” he wrote.

Yet amid the turmoil, on February 9, CEO Steven McKay wrote to employees that “moving forward, DLR Group will not do work—be it upgrades, modernization, or new construction—for ICE detainment or deportation facilities.” DLR Group wouldn’t walk away from its existing contract, or commit to ending its relationship with private prisons, executives communicated to employees. But it would donate the estimated $300,000 in profits from the Oklahoma job to immigration-related causes.

McKay might have been expecting the announcement to appease disgruntled workers and close the door on the controversy. But employees say the revelations about the firm’s business ties have caused them to lose faith in company leaders and thrust them into an ongoing crisis of conscience—and more are considering departing.

The uprising within DLR Group isn’t the only example of workers pushing back on their employers’ business dealings with ICE—but it may be one of the more successful ones. Since the surge of ICE enforcement in Minneapolis, more than two thousand tech workers at companies like Amazon and Microsoft have petitioned their White House-cozying CEOs to cancel ICE contracts, to no avail. A Minneapolis Hampton Inn refused to rent rooms to ICE agents, only for its parent company Hilton cut ties with the location. In March, hundreds of employees at the media and research company Thompson Reuters reportedly asked their employer to stop providing ICE with investigative software. (The company told the New York Times in a statement that it was committed to ensuring “our products and services are used in accordance with our contractual terms and applicable law.”)

But such organized pushback is rare in architecture, a “tight-knit profession” where “job security is a contradiction in terms,” says Joshua Barnett, a veteran construction project manager at the New York City Housing Authority and shop steward in his municipal union. “We’re taught to think of ourselves as art_eests_,” Barnett says, putting a flourish on the last syllable. “Collective action is very often anathema to how the profession is.”

The number of people in ICE custody in a given night hit a record high of 73,000 in January, up from 40,000 a year earlier.

But these are not typical times. The scale of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown has produced a proportionate boom in the ICE detention system, the nationwide network of lockups that hold people waiting to see a judge or to be deported. The number of people in ICE custody in a given night hit a record high of 73,000 in January, up from 40,000 a year earlier. (Three quarters of them had never been convicted of a crime.) The agency, in search of beds and photo ops, sent detainees to Guantanamo Bay, CECOT prison in El Salvador, and Alligator Alcatraz. But the headline-grabbing measures weren’t enough to meet ICE’s demand, says Silky Shah, executive director of the nonprofit Detention Watch Network, and last summer, Congress approved $45 billion for new immigration detention centers. So, in addition to setting up immigrant tent camps and warehouses, ICE has also pursued its traditional strategy: making deals with private prison companies and local jails to hold detainees in their existing lockups.

The empty Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma, owned by the private prison company CoreCivic, was prime real estate. So, last September, ICE cut a deal with CoreCivic to hold detainees in the 2,160-bed prison, using the Oklahoma Department of Corrections as a middleman. Such deals have become a regular part of the business model for private prison companies, which are generally paid a nightly fee for each person they incarcerate. As state prison populations have fallen in recent years, these companies have looked to ICE detention to bolster their business. In 2025, CoreCivic received 35 percent of its $2.2 billion total revenue from the agency as it operated at least 19 immigration detention centers, including Diamondback, according to its annual report.

But the vacant, hulking prison needed some remodeling before it could reopen—$30 million worth of “upgrading the pumps, the security systems, the doors, the locks,” Oklahoma Department of Corrections executive director Justin Farris testified at a February budget hearing. To transform the building, CoreCivic turned to subcontractors including DLR Group, which formally signed on to the job in October. By late December, ICE was shipping detainees to Diamondback.

By early February, word of the detention center job had gotten out beyond DLR Group’s Justice+Civic division. Some workers started circulating a Google Form that gathered opinions on whether DLR Group should try to terminate the contract and avoid ICE work going forward.

In response, Justice+Civic leader Darrell Stelling posted on the company message board. “I need to address and clarify misunderstandings,” he wrote. For one thing, he emphasized, the primary contract for Diamondback was with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, not ICE. Second, the firm had accepted the Diamondback job in August, he wrote, “well before anyone understood the aggressive approach ICE would take in cities across the nation.”

“To be crystal clear,” he added, “if a contract hit my desk today for direct ICE work, we would not sign it, as ICE’s current approach to facilities conflicts with our guidelines, DLR Group’s core values and Justice+Civic ethos.”

At first, company leaders responded to Stelling’s post with praise. But soon, other workers started raising questions: How did working on ICE detention ever align with the company’s code of ethics? What had really changed between October, when DLR Group signed the Diamondback contract, and February? “I think we’re not being fully honest about the situation,” Osborne wrote in a reply to Stelling’s post. “If there was any indication that ICE would be involved, how did we arrive at the decision to move forward?”

“I was shocked that we ever signed this project,” an engineer tells me. They assume that the evolution in the firm’s thinking between October and February was largely based on fears about a changing public perception—”how negative the public reaction has been toward ICE since everything that’s happened in Minneapolis.”

Within a week, more than 75 different employees had spoken out against the Diamondback project, work on ICE detention centers, or DLR Group’s relationship with CoreCivic on the company’s message board. Some of them had surfaced more examples of DLR Group’s connections to ICE: a past contract to expand Otay Mesa, a CoreCivic-owned ICE detention center in California; renovations at a Texas ICE detention center named after a CoreCivic founder.

Reading over these examples on the message board rattled the employees who spoke with me. “By the time I got to ‘This isn’t even our first detention center,’ that’s when the cold sweat hits,” says a second engineer. “One of my greatest fears in life—and this is going to sound dramatic—but I don’t want to be one of the people in the village who said they didn’t know. This has turned me into one of those people. I am now actively profiting off making people disappear.”

“I don’t want to be one of the people in the village who said they didn’t know.”

As he read the posts, an architect says he couldn’t stop thinking about a picture taken during Trump’s first term, of a toddler sobbing at an ICE agent’s feet as her mother is detained at the border. “Picture how you were feeling, looking at that photo the first time you saw it, just having your heart ripped out through your chest,” he says. “It was like feeling that all over again.”

In his emailed statement, Ernsting emphasized that DLR Group’s Justice+Civic work is broader than ICE detention and private prisons, and focuses on rehabilitation and making conditions more humane. “We work to engage with a system that is not always equitable or just to improve conditions and outcomes,” he wrote. “This work would be abandoned, not improved, if responsible design firms walked away from the sector entirely.”

Part of the reason the revelations cut so deep, according to Osborne and the three current employees, is because DLR Group’s workers believed their company was genuinely committed to the idea that design could change the world for the better. “The major reason I pursued getting a job there aggressively is because they had a solid code of ethics,” one of the engineers tells me. Osborne says when he interviewed for his PR job, he was specifically told the company no longer worked on private prisons. (One of the engineers I spoke with said he was told the same thing.)

Other employees held the same belief—though information about DLR Group’s longstanding ties to CoreCivic wasn’t hard to find online. “I recognize that it was my responsibility to have done the research [but] it wasn’t in me to be suspicious about this,” the architect says. “I personally told myself that I have nothing morally against federal prison work, as long as it’s under the auspices of trying to improve conditions.” But for him, working for private prisons was a step too far. “I find CoreCivic to be a gigantic, insidiously evil corporation that profits off people’s misery.”

“Our detention facilities are purpose-built to ensure that our staff can care for each person respectfully and humanely while they receive the legal due process that they are entitled to,” CoreCivic senior director of public affairs Ryan Gustin said in a statement. “CoreCivic does not enforce immigration laws, arrest anyone who may be in violation of immigration laws, or have any say whatsoever in an individual’s deportation or release.”

About a week after the Google Form came to light, the firm held a pair of “fireside chats” with McKay, Stelling, and the firm’s diversity, equity, and belonging leader. During one of them, Stelling said the Justice+Civic division would be “discussing” its connection to CoreCivic. “We will be having those discussions to see how that relationship might transform,” he said. “That not an easy decision with somebody that you’ve worked with for over 30 years.”

According to Ernsting, DLR Group has made an “explicit, firmwide” commitment limiting its work for private prison companies, which are obligated to act in their shareholders’ interests by maximizing profits.“We will not do work to expand the portfolio of facilities that private providers own and operate with a fiduciary interest in promoting actions that increase the use of incarceration,” he wrote.

The field of architecture has long debated the morality of prison design. In 2020, the American Institute of Architects adopted new ethics rules banning members from designing execution rooms or solitary confinement cells. “There is a spectrum within the profession,” explains Rand Lemley, an architect on the administrative committee of the Architecture Lobby, a nonprofit that pushes for better working conditions in the field. Some firms specialize in public safety design and pursue jail and prison contracts without qualms. Other architects like Lemley—himself formerly incarcerated—reject the idea of building prisons entirely. “If we imagine and believe that prisons are part of a system that should be dismantled, we shouldn’t be constructing things that 50, 75, 100 years down the road are obsolete,” he says. In the middle are those who believe they can improve outcomes for prisoners. “They focus on bringing in natural light, warmer materials, more places for activities,” Lemley says. “It sounds great, but it doesn’t ultimately challenge the system that’s in place.”

DLR Group—recently ranked by a trade publication as the country’s top “justice facility” architecture firm—has tried to walk that middle road, at least publicly. “We’ve always been a detention firm,” McKay emphasized to employees during one of the fireside chats in February. “We’ve never tried to hide that. And in fact, what we’ve always tried to do is say we can make a difference.”

He apologized for the strain employees had gone through since the Diamondback contract came to light. But now, he said, the company had made its response. “Now every individual must make their own decision as to whether they’re committed to work that the firm holistically does,” he closed the call. “I’ll leave you to think about that.”

For Osborne, the choice is already made. He says he’s speaking out because he has lost faith that management will stick to its promises to no longer work on ICE detention, especially if the firm remains willing to work with private prison companies. “Even if this is the most progressive design in history, if you give it to CoreCivic, they have no problems re-contracting their space out to ICE,” he says. He and others also want the company to overhaul how it chooses Justice+Civic projects, with more oversight and input from employees.

“Something design people always try to say—and I think they’re right—is that every single thing that happens in the country needs a building,” Osborne says. “So every time you hear about a kid being removed from his parents, somebody had to make that choice, and somebody had to produce those plans and those blueprints.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s DOJ Is Helping a Convicted FBI Informant Tied to Russian Intelligence

A version of the below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land_. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial._

For a year, the Trump Justice Department has been on an odd mission: to assist a mysterious former FBI informant with ties to Russian intelligence who ended up in prison for passing disinformation about Joe Biden to the bureau. His crime deeply affected American politics. The false claim he slipped to the FBI—that Biden and his son Hunter each were paid a $5 million bribe by a Ukrainian energy company—became the main evidence in the House Republicans’ reckless and ill-fated impeachment drive against the 46th president.

For pushing this phony tale, Alexander Smirnov, who pleaded guilty of lying to the FBI, was sentenced a year ago to six years of incarceration. (The punishment also covered failing to pay taxes on more than $2 million in income.) But for some strange reason, Trump’s DOJ has been helping him to get out of prison. On March 4, in a move that has drawn no media attention, the department quietly filed an unusual brief—submitted by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche—supporting Smirnov’s attempt to throw out his sentence and withdraw his guilty plea.

The Smirnov saga has the feel of a spy thriller.

This was not the first time the Trump Justice Department sided with Smirnov in his ongoing legal battle. It has forged a curious alliance with this convicted Russia-connected fabricator whose lies were embraced by Trump, MAGA Republicans, and right-wing media and cited as smoking-gun evidence for Biden’s impeachment.

The Smirnov saga has the feel of a spy thriller. A fortysomething Israeli American businessman who grew up in Ukraine, he was a longtime confidential informant for the FBI. Court filings do not reveal the details of his work for the bureau, but they note he participated in operations in which he was authorized to engage in illegal activity as part of FBI criminal investigations. He apparently shared information about oligarchs and the business contacts he made around the world, possibly including some shady characters. He made millions of dollars through activity federal prosecutors could not identify.

During the 2020 campaign, Republicans—most notably, Rudy Giuliani—were promoting the debunked allegation that Biden, when he was vice president, had threatened to withhold a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine unless its government quashed an investigation of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that had recruited his son Hunter to be a well-paid board member. As that conspiracy theory was being hyped by the right, Smirnov told his FBI handler that in late 2015 or 2016 the CEO of Burisma had said to him that Hunter, through his father, could end an investigation of Burisma if the two Bidens each were paid a $5 million bribe.

The FBI handler dutifully recorded Smirnov’s account in what the bureau calls an FD-1023 form. The FBI reviewed this information—which was much at odds with previous statements Smirnov had made to his handler about Burisma—and decided there was nothing to it. (There was no active probe of Burisma at the time of the supposed bribe.) And that was that.

Yet three years later, someone in the FBI passed the FD-1023 to congressional Republicans, and they went to town, claiming this was the proof President Biden had pocketed a huge bribe and was leading a crime family.

The document clearly stated there was no confirmation of the hearsay information Smirnov had provided. But for months, through that summer and fall and into 2024, House Republicans—led by Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, who chaired the House oversight committee—hailed the FD-1023 (which redacted Smirnov’s name) as Exhibit A for their baseless impeachment inquiry targeting Biden. Fox News aired scores of segments about it. Kash Patel and other MAGA stalwarts cited it as evidence of Biden criminality.

His new allegations about Hunter Biden were also false. It appeared he had been trying to plant anti-Biden information within the bureau.

With Republicans raising a fuss about this once-confidential report, the FBI brought Smirnov in for questioning. He stuck to his story. He even added new allegations about Hunter Biden that he said he had received from four Russian officials, including two associated with Russian intelligence, telling the bureau the Russians had made incriminating recordings of the president’s son.

The bureau dug into all of this—reviewing Smirnov’s travel records and other information—and concluded that he was lying and that he had never even had those conversations with the Burisma CEO outlined in the FD-1023. His new allegations about the younger Biden were also false. It appeared he had been trying to plant anti-Biden information within the bureau.

On February 14, 2024, as Smirnov arrived from an overseas trip at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas, FBI agents arrested him. The next day, David Weiss, a Justice Department special counsel who had been appointed to investigate Hunter Biden, announced that Smirnov had been indicted for making false statements to the FBI. His indictment was later expanded to cover the tax charges. Smirnov’s arrest outed him as the confidential informant cited in the FD-1023—and essentially ended the GOP impeachment crusade. The Republicans had been duped.

In subsequent legal filings, federal prosecutors stated that Smirnov professed to have contacts with multiple foreign intelligence agencies, including the Russian spy services. The feds characterized Smirnov’s interactions with Russians as “extensive.”

“Smirnov’s contacts with Russian officials who are affiliated with Russian intelligence services are not benign,” the prosecutors said—a suggestion that Smirnov had actively been in cahoots with the Russians.

One filing revealed he had numerous contacts with a Russian official “who has been described by Smirnov in a number of ways, including as the son of a former high-ranking Russian government official” and someone “who purportedly controls two groups of individuals tasked with carrying out assassination efforts in a third-party country,” a reference to Ukraine. “Smirnov’s contacts with Russian officials who are affiliated with Russian intelligence services are not benign,” the prosecutors said—a suggestion that Smirnov had actively been in cahoots with the Russians.

The Justice Department’s filings in the case depicted Smirnov as having “spread misinformation” about Biden, adding “the misinformation he is spreading is not confined to 2020. He is actively peddling new lies that could impact U.S. elections after meeting with Russian intelligence officials in November [2024].” It looked as if Smirnov had been part of a Russian operation to tarnish Biden in both 2020 and 2024.

On January 8, 2025, after Smirnov accepted a plea agreement, federal Judge Otis Wright of the Central District of California sentenced him to six years. “In committing his crimes he betrayed the United States,” Weiss stated in court papers.

A scamster tied to Russian intelligence who had promoted disinformation to the FBI to harm Biden in two elections was behind bars. A win for the Justice Department. Case closed.

Not quite. Shortly after his conviction, Smirnov requested he be released on bail from prison pending an appeal he had filed. The Justice Department, now tightly controlled by Trump, joined Smirnov in supporting this request. Smirnov and the feds filed a joint stipulation asking he be freed while his appeal was underway.

This was weird. The Justice Department had just locked him up. But with Trump in the White House, it was under new management.

What was different now—and peculiar—was that that the Justice Department had flipped and was supporting the request of a man who had tried to deceive the FBI and who, as Weiss said, betrayed the United States.

During Smirnov’s criminal case, Justice Department lawyers had argued that because he had access to $6 million in funds (the origins of which he hadn’t been able to explain), was an Israeli citizen who could easily obtain an Israeli passport, and claimed to have contacts with multiple foreign intelligence services, he was a flight risk. They requested he be kept in prison prior to his trial. Smirnov’s lawyers contended at that time that he ought to be released on bail because he had a serious medical condition related to his eyes that required continuing care. The court didn’t buy that and imprisoned him while he awaited trial.

Following his conviction, Smirnov made the same argument: Due to his eye condition, he should be let out on bail while his appeal proceeded. What was different now—and peculiar—was that that the Justice Department had flipped and was supporting the request of a man who had tried to deceive the FBI and who, as Weiss said, betrayed the United States.

The government had once said Smirnov was a flight risk; now it argued the opposite. During a hearing last April, a department prosecutor pointed out that Smirnov had “the lowest incentive that he would ever have to flee the country…when he has a receptive ear to people who are willing to look anew” at his case. A “receptive ear”? That was a surprising statement, indicating that the Trump Justice Department was considering reviewing the case of this suspected Russian agent. The Trump administration was advocating for him.

On April 30, 2025, Judge Wright turned down the joint Smirnov–United States request for his release, noting that nothing significant had changed since Smirnov was determined a flight risk and “the fact remains that Smirnov has been convicted and sentenced to seventy-two months in prison, providing ample incentive to flee.”

That was not the end of the Trump Justice Department’s cooperation with Smirnov. And the former informant did catch a break after losing the fight for bail.

In November, independent journalist Jacqueline Sweet discovered that Smirnov had been released from FCI Terminal Island, a low-security prison in Los Angeles, where he had been fulfilling his sentence. A process server who had been trying to serve Smirnov with papers related to a civil lawsuit had been informed that Smirnov was “furloughed.” David Chesnoff, Smirnov’s lawyer, told the New York Post that his client had been released on a “medical furlough” due to his eye condition, which required surgery. A health-related furlough from a federal facility can last up to 30 months. Chesnoff said at the time he expected to request multiple furloughs for Smirnov.

With Chesnoff, Smirnov had a high-powered and widely connected lawyer who was part of the Trump administration. A well-known celebrity attorney based in Las Vegas, he was appointed in June to serve on an advisory council for the Department of Homeland Security.

Several years ago, Chesnoff represented Republican political operative Corey Lewandowski, when Lewandowski was accused of harassing and inappropriately touching a Trump donor at a fundraising event. Chesnoff obtained a plea agreement in which Lewandowski admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to impulse control counseling and 50 hours of community service. When Chesnoff was named to the DHS council, Lewandowski was serving as the chief adviser to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Other members of this advisory board include Giuliani, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, right-wing commentator Mark Levin, Bikers for Trump founder Chris Cox, and Lewandowski.

It’s unclear how long Smirnov was out of prison for the medical furlough. Chesnoff did not respond to an inquiry. On Friday, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Prisons confirmed Smirnov was currently in custody at Terminal Island.

This month, the Justice Department continued to go all-out for Smirnov. On March 4, with no fanfare, it submitted a filing supporting Smirnov’s appeal of his conviction.

Smirnov had agreed to a plea deal in which he acknowledged lying to the FBI and committing tax evasion. But following his conviction, he filed an appeal that hinged on a technical point. He claimed Judge Wright had not stuck to the deal’s provision regarding a reduction in Smirnov’s sentence to match his pretrial detention.

The Trump administration appears to be bending over backward to help him escape his sentence and win another trial—or perhaps avoid one.

The plea agreement between the Justice Department and Smirnov stated that Smirnov was “entitled” to a credit for time served. But at sentencing, Judge Wright said he would not “get involved” in the calculation of the credit and would leave that to the Bureau of Prisons.

In the appeal, Smirnov’s lawyers argued that even though Smirnov ended up being credited by BOP with time served, Wright, by not directly recommending the time off to BOP, had not adhered to the plea agreement. Consequently, they contended, the sentence should be revoked and Smirnov permitted to withdraw his guilty pleas and return the case to the pre-agreement stage. The Justice Department filing supports Smirnov’s argument and his requests.

The Trump administration appears to be bending over backward to help him escape his sentence and win another trial—or perhaps avoid one. There’s no guarantee the Justice Department would continue the prosecution if Smirnov succeeds with his appeal. One government official who has followed this case tells me he wonders if the ultimate plan of the Trump administration is to let Smirnov go free.

Judge Wright has challenged this argument advanced by Smirnov and the DOJ. In a ruling last year, he said that Smirnov’s claim that he had not followed “all of the stipulations” of the plea agreement was “factually and legally incorrect.” Wright cited the exact language of the agreement: “The parties also agree that the defendant is entitled to credit…for the period of his pretrial detention…and that credits that the Bureau of Prisons may allow…may be credited against this stipulated sentence.”

Wright pointed out the agreement did not “provide that the Court would order that Smirnov receive credit for time served…This provision regarding credit requires nothing of the Court.”

Smirnov’s case does not seem a strong one, turning on the question of whether the provision that he was “entitled” to credit for time served compelled Wright to make an explicit recommendation to the BOP. It certainly doesn’t come across as a matter that would call for the participation of the deputy attorney general. Yet Blanche signed this filing. Deputy attorneys general usually don’t get involved in such matters.

I asked the Justice Department why it decided to back Smirnov’s appeal. A spokesperson replied, “We have no comment.” I also asked if the DOJ would renew its prosecution of Smirnov if he wins his appeal. I received the same response.

Trump’s Justice Department has shown an unusual amount of consideration for Smirnov, a confessed criminal tied to Russian intelligence who betrayed the FBI and who perpetuated a fraud that roiled American politics. But he did make trouble for Biden and the Democrats. This case warrants scrutiny as Smirnov’s appeal proceeds.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Middle East Desalination Plant Attacks Highlight Risks of Relying on “Fossil Fuel Water”

_This story was originally published b_y Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Recent attacks in the Middle East on desalination plants, facilities that remove salt from seawater, raise the potential for a humanitarian crisis if the region’s freshwater production facilities are subjected to more widespread destruction. The attacks also underscore the region’s heavy reliance on an energy-intensive method of producing drinking water that is powered almost entirely by fossil fuels.

On Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the United States of striking a desalination plant in southern Iran. The US has since denied any role in the attack. The next day, Bahrain accused Iran of damaging a desalination plant in a drone attack. The targeting of freshwater production facilities follows attacks on schools, airports, hotels and refineries since Operation Epic Fury began in February. Attacking desalination plants is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which established humanitarian laws for the treatment of non-combatants in war.

The CIA has previously warned that widespread disruption of desalination plants through sabotage or military action could lead to a “national crisis” for certain Gulf nations.

“It has erased previous red lines about attacking energy infrastructure, civilian infrastructure, and then the final red line of attacking desalination infrastructure,” Michael Christopher Low, director of the Middle East Center at the University of Utah, said of the Iran War. “It’s the most grievous kind of war crime that you can dream up.”

Of the world’s nearly 18,000 desalination plants, nearly one-third are located in the Middle East, with 2,382 facilities in Saudi Arabia alone, according to a recent study published in the journal npj Clean Water.

In the Middle East and North Africa, 83 percent of the population already faces severe water scarcity, a figure projected to rise to 100 percent by 2050, according to the World Resources Institute’s Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas. The Middle East is home to 6 percent of the world’s population and holds less than 2 percent of the world’s renewable freshwater. The rapid growth of the region’s cities has increased reliance on desalination.

“All of these great Gulf cities, Riyadh, Doha, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, they’re not possible without man-made, fossil fuel water,” Low said.

However, desalination, which typically uses a process called reverse osmosis to push seawater through ultra-fine membranes to remove salt and other contaminants, is a costly and energy-intensive process powered, and indirectly funded, by the region’s oil and gas wealth.

“You can’t step away from fossil fuels and fossil fuel production, because your water production is so closely linked,” said Low, who is currently writing a book titled “Saltwater Kingdoms: Fossil-Fueled Water and Climate Change in Arabia.”

The connection between desalination and fossil fuels has long-term implications beyond the immediate attacks. “It’s not just the vulnerability of desalination to military campaigns or sabotage, but it’s also the embedded risk that is climate change,” Low said.

Such heavy reliance on desalination facilities makes cities in the Middle East particularly vulnerable. As early as 1983, the CIA warned that widespread disruption of desalination plants through sabotage or military action could lead to a “national crisis” in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain.

During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq intentionally destroyed much of Kuwait’s desalination capacity. In 2016 and 2017 a Saudi-led coalition bombed desalination plants in Yemen. In 2019, Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for attacking a desalination plant in Saudi Arabia. Israel destroyed or otherwise shut down much of Gaza’s desalination capacity following Hamas’ attack on Israel in October 2023.

“Unless you go to solar or a nuclear solution, you’re most likely contributing to more fossil-fuel use.”

Erika Weinthal, chair of the Environmental Social Systems Division at Duke University’s School of the Environment, monitors attacks on desalination plants and other infrastructure in the Middle East and North Africa. The Targeting of Infrastructure in the Middle East project, a database maintained by Weinthal and colleagues, focuses on water, sanitation, energy, health and transportation infrastructure in conflict zones throughout the region since 2011.

Weinthal said the initiative is an attempt to provide a more complete understanding of warfare’s impacts by moving beyond immediate casualties.

“You are also harming civilians and the environment over the long term in ways that can’t be counted immediately,” Weinthal said. “If people don’t have access to clean drinking water, you will see more waterborne illnesses and infectious disease among the population.”

Weinthal said the frequent coupling of large desalination facilities and the power plants that feed them makes such facilities particularly vulnerable. “You don’t even have to destroy a desalination plant or a water treatment plant if you take out a power plant,” Weinthal said.

As the planet warms, the region will likely become increasingly dependent on desalination. Precipitation across the Middle East and North Africa is anticipated to decrease by 10 to 30 percent over the next century. By 2050, the region is projected to incur economic losses equal to 6 to 14 percent of its gross domestic product due to climate-induced water scarcity, according to the World Bank.

Climate change will also increase coastal water temperatures and salinity, reducing the efficiency of desalination plants, concluded a 2022 report by the Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment, an intergovernmental organization of eight Persian Gulf states.

Currently, almost all the Middle East’s desalination plants are powered by fossil fuels, with 93 percent of the required electricity coming from burning natural gas and 6 percent from burning oil. Some countries, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have begun to develop renewable energy or nuclear power to drive desalination. However, only about one-third of Middle Eastern countries employ renewable energy for that purpose or have immediate plans to integrate it with freshwater production.

Globally, reverse osmosis desalination uses an estimated 100 terrawatt hours of energy per year, equivalent to approximately 0.4 percent of global electricity consumption. Emissions associated with that energy use were approximately 76 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2014, a figure projected to increase to 400 million tons of CO2 by 2050, according to a recent report by TRENDS Research & Advisory, an independent think tank based in Abu Dhabi. That 2050 figure is equal to the annual greenhouse gas emissions of 93 million automobiles, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.

“Unless you go to solar or a nuclear solution, you’re most likely contributing to more fossil-fuel use [and] more carbon forcing,” Low said. “It’s kind of a vicious cycle.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Hegseth’s Pentagon Is Trying to Turn a Newspaper for Troops into Propaganda

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon has come up with a plan to limit the independence of Stars and Stripes, the news publication for members of the US military that has been published continuously since World War II.

Under the new policy, Stars and Stripes, which has historically operated with a large degree of editorial freedom, reports that it will generally be blocked from carrying news stories from wire services like the Associated Press, as well as from publishing comics. It is also being directed to publish material from the Defense Department’s own public affairs offices.

The memo is part of a broader pattern of the Pentagon under Hegseth trying to shape and limit the amount of information the public receives about US military operations. It comes as the Trump administration wages an unpopular war in Iran that has sent oil prices soaring.

The “interim” requirements for Stars and Stripes are included in an eight-page memo that is dated March 9. The news outlet was not notified about the memo. Instead, a staff member at the publication found the memo on DoD’s website. Stars and Stripes reported on Friday that the document was written without any input from the publication.

The memo follows a January post on X from Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell announcing that DoD was planning to “refocus” the content of Stars and Stripes “away from woke distractions that syphon morale.” The newspaper, which receives much of its funding from the Pentagon, would also shift to being a digital-only outlet, which would bring to an end to its more than 80 years in print. (The paper was first published by Union soldiers during the Civil War and later revived.)

Stars and Stripes editor-in-chief Erik Slavin told NPR that he was especially concerned about a requirement in the memo that the publication’s articles “must be consistent with good order and discipline.” That phrase comes from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the foundation of US military law.

“If they were to complete a story that the Defense Department did not like, and did not find ‘consistent with good order and discipline,’ would they be in legal jeopardy?” Slavin said in the interview with NPR. “We don’t know the answer to that.”

The paper’s ombudsman Jacqueline Smith, who is tasked by Congress with protecting Stars and Stripes’ editorial independence, said in an interview with the Washington Post that the memo “threatens Stars and Stripes’ continued editorial independence, and it does so at the detriment of the troops who rely on the newspaper for complete coverage and continued accurate coverage that is not propaganda.”

The memo also states that Stars and Stripes “should” republish content from the DoD’s public affairs offices, which would be labeled as coming from the Pentagon rather than Stars and Stripes‘ own reporters. Slavin, the editor-in-chief, said he has “no plans to commingle military public relations offerings with our independent reporting.”

In a further effort to kneecap the paper’s reporting, the memo bars reporters at Stars and Stripes from submitting Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the publication. Stars and Stripes reporters are also prohibited from publishing “controlled unclassified information.” A related push to restrict the work of reporters at other outlets led to dozens of members of the Pentagon press corps turning in their press badges last year.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

FCC Chair Threatens to Revoke Broadcast Licenses Over Iran War Coverage

Amid surging oil prices and an unpopular war of choice in Iran, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr is threatening not to renew the licenses of broadcasters for “running hoaxes and news distortions.” The Saturday post from Carr on X is not subtle: It explicitly warns broadcasters that they “have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up.”

Carr’s missive came in response to a Truth Social post on Saturday from President Donald Trump, which the FCC chair included in full as a screenshot. The post from Trump focused on coverage of the war in Iran by outlets like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, along with “other Lowlife ‘Papers’ and Media.” (Unlike networks such as ABC and NBC, which broadcast over public airwaves, newspapers do not have licenses that the FCC can go after.)

The broader context is clear: Trump and senior administration figures are trying to coerce independent news outlets into parroting the government line. The effort comes as poll numbers show most Americans do not approve of the war in Iran and oil prices top $100 per barrel.

Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions – also known as the fake news – have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up.

The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they… https://t.co/7bBgnsbalw

— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) March 14, 2026

Trump’s Truth Social post fixated on a short update from the Wall Street Journal reporting that five refueling planes had been damaged in recent days during an Iranian strike against an air base in Saudi Arabia. The more fundamental issue is that Trump seems to recognize that he is now stuck in a poorly planned and unnecessary war of his own choosing that has upended the global economy. Rather than admit that, Trump administration officials—in a classic authoritarian move—are trying to use state power to get news outlets to obscure their incompetence.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has not been subtle about that. During a Friday news conference focused on the war in Iran, Hegseth said that he was looking forward to CNN being taken over by David Ellison, the son of the Trump-supporting Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, who is worth roughly $200 billion.

One day later, Carr tried to subvert the editorial independence of broadcasters. Nor is it the first time Carr has tried to do so. Last year, Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show was “indefinitely” pulled off the air after the FCC chair threatened to target ABC. Kimmel only returned to the air following a massive backlash.

With the likely takeover of CNN by Ellison, who installed Bari Weiss at the top of CBS News after purchasing the network last year, the administration is pursuing what may prove to be a more effective track. Instead of trying to coerce outlets, it is working to put friendly billionaires in charge. From there, the oligarchs can do the administration’s bidding without even being told.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Nature’s Ability to Adapt to Human Activities Seems to be Slowing Down

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Nature is slowing down, and its ability to regenerate is failing in the face of climate change, according to the authors of a new analysis of the speed of species turnover in ecosystems across the world.

The finding comes as a big surprise to many ecologists. They have long predicted that nature will respond to climate change and humanity’s other assaults by ramping up the rate of turnover, with existing species moving out and new ones moving in. Some studies have appeared to confirm this is happening.

But the latest and largest analysis, published last month by researchers at Queen Mary University of London, has found the opposite. And the slowdown is big. Measured as comings and goings over a time frame of up to five years, species turnover is down by a third since the mid-1970s, when the current trend of rapidly rising global temperatures began.

This is bad news, says the lead author Emmanuel Nwankwo. “Nature functions like a self-repairing engine, constantly swapping out old parts for new ones. But we found this engine is now grinding to a halt.”

Species turnover, most ecologists now agree, is a sign of “the ongoing back-and-forth of a healthy ecosystem.”

Nwankwo and his Queen Mary University colleague Axel Rossberg analyzed research assembled in BioTIME, a unique global database of hundreds of separate studies of the composition of ecosystems. Encompassing everything from North American birds to terrestrial plants, freshwater ecosystems, and fish on the seabed, it contains records from more than half a million locations, gathered over the past 150 years.

“We were very surprised at the discovery,” says Rossberg. “We did not expect at all to see the slowdown.” Such findings are “the opposite of existing expectations,” agrees ecologist Christopher Terry of the University of Oxford, who in a separate study with Rossberg found short-term turnover decline in the data on North American birds in habitats modified by humans.

Most ecologists contacted by Yale Environment 360 endorsed the new findings. “The results look quite convincing to me,” says Ryan Chisholm, a theoretical ecologist at the National University of Singapore.

These scientists suggested that, by concentrating on changes on a short timescale of five years rather than the longer periods of other research, the new study had identified an important phenomenon of slowdown in natural “intrinsic” species turnover that could influence how ecosystems are able to respond to external forces such as climate change.

Yet the head of BioTIME’s leadership council, biologist Maria Dornelas, says her analysis of data from two large, long-term studies in her database—the North Sea International Bottom Trawl Survey and the 60-year old North American Breeding Bird Survey run by the US Geological Survey with Canadian and Mexican counterparts—found an increase in species turnover in recent decades. Comparing her work with that of Nwankwo, she says: “I am finding it difficult to reconcile the two findings.”

Other researchers attributed any discrepancies in estimates of the rate of species turnover to the time frames of the different studies.

“You might get pushback from people who have observed a net increase in turnover rates using a long time window,” says Jacob O’Sullivan, an ecology modeler at Forest Research, an agency of the British government. “But slowdown does appear to be the correct interpretation [of] their results.”

The new research findings have rekindled a long-running argument among ecologists about how communities of species in natural environments function. At root is the question of whether changes in the composition of natural ecosystems are prevalent, and whether they should be seen as good or bad for the ecosystem.

Most ecologists once believed that healthy ecosystems are naturally stable, with a low turnover of species. Left to themselves, they reach a perfected equilibrium that the influential 19th-century American botanist Frederic Clements termed a “climax ecosystem.” After any disruption, they return to this stable state, a process called succession.

This stability was seen as vital, because the functioning of the ecosystem—whether tropical rainforests, temperate grasslands, or polar tundra—depended on tight living relationships between species that had evolved together and were mutually dependent. Predators and prey, and plants and the insects that fed on them and pollinated them, were inseparable. Species turnover disrupted those associations and could lead to ecological breakdown.

Echoing this idea, many ecologists still quote the “rivet-popper hypothesis,” first articulated in the 1980s by biologist Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University. He likened an ecosystem to an aircraft, in which each part, down to the smallest rivet, is vital for the plane to fly safely. Removing a single apparently insignificant species from an ecosystem might be like popping a rivet in the aircraft. It could cause the aircraft to crash—or the ecosystem to collapse. In this framing, species turnover looks like a bad thing.

In an ecological sporting analogy, there are fewer players “on the bench” to make tactical substitutions.

But detailed long-running studies of unperturbed ecosystems have shown that even the most pristine ecosystems are not so unchanging. In a famous long-term tracking of nature on an island in Lake Superior, Daniel Botkin at the University of California, Santa Barbara, documented ecosystems constantly changing their composition. “Species in ecosystems are not fixed entities, even without human-induced change,” says Anne Magurran of St Andrews University, the founder of BioTIME. “All ecosystems experience natural turnover.”

Ecologists call this natural churn within unstressed ecosystems “intrinsic turnover.” And most now agree that this turnover is a sign not of fragility and imminent breakdown, but, as Terry puts it, “the ongoing back-and-forth of a healthy ecosystem.” It can be driven by internal dynamics such as natural fire regimes that periodically wipe out forests, cycles in predator-prey relationships, or periodic outbreaks of disease. Or it can be essentially random.

Many species, from lemmings to jellyfish, have boom-and-bust cycles with no obvious external cause. Whole ecosystems can also be made up of mosaics of habitat patches that spontaneously shift, such as the regular switches between woodland and grassland seen in some savannah regions of Africa.

Rossberg likens these internal dynamics to a giant, unending game of rock paper scissors. And far from being a sideshow, he says, they appear to be the dominant cause of short-term species turnover. Moreover, in a world of growing external pressures such as a changing climate, increased turnover may indicate that the ecosystem is responding and adapting, with some species going locally extinct or migrating out, while other colonizers move in. Which makes it a positively good thing.

If those who adhere to the rivet-popper hypothesis are right, then the new evidence of slowdown might be good news. For it would suggest that most ecosystems are growing more stable, and remain largely uninfluenced by human activities, including climate change. But if, on the other hand, significant species turnover is the healthy norm for ecosystems, a sign of resilience rather than fragility, then any decline in turnover is bad news, especially when turnover is increasingly needed as a survival strategy in a world of widespread human interference in nature.

So, what is causing this unexpected slowdown? Terry says it likely shows that “humans are disrupting the background [intrinsic] turnover of these systems.” Rossberg says the central problem is probably that natural landscapes are increasingly fragmented. So, as some species disappear, there are fewer opportunities for replacement colonists to migrate from nearby. This “slows the pace at which species replace one another,” he says, reducing the ability of the isolated ecosystems to conduct running repairs and threatening their long-term survival.

O’Sullivan agrees. His own research has found that species turnover “increases with both the size of the regional species pool and the connectivity of the landscape. The new study makes the case that a regional decline in [species] richness may explain the local decline in turnover.”

“Once we accept natural turnover as a force, we must accept change as natural and not to be fought against.”

In a sporting analogy popular with some ecologists, there are fewer players “on the bench” to make tactical substitutions if things are not going well on the field. A less fragmented landscape will have a larger species pool “on the bench,” ready to replace those disappearing, and allowing increased species turnover if the situation demands.

Something like this is suggested by a major study published in January on tree-species diversity in the Amazon and Andes. Covering more than 400 forest plots surveyed over four decades, the study found that plots in areas with less fragmented forest had faster turnover rates, as lost species were replaced by new colonists. Their biodiversity held up. But more fragmented forests lost biodiversity, because they were less able to recoup losses with new arrivals from surrounding forests.

The bottom line, most ecologists contacted for this article agree, is that ecosystems in the 21st century need to change faster, with more turnover of species, in order to cope with human impacts, whether local land degradation or global climate change. Staying the same is no longer an option. But if the new study is right that turnover is declining sharply in most places, then they are in even more trouble that we thought.

So, what does this mean for conservation? One implication is conceptual. The prevailing assumption among conservationists today remains that, as Jacob O’Sullivan of Forest Research puts it, ecological communities “turn over predominantly in response [to] environmental change and direct anthropogenic pressures.” That assumption makes ecosystem change synonymous with ecosystem degradation and suggests that halting species turnover—keeping the ecological rivets in place—should be conservationists’ primary task.

But if, as the new ecology appears to demonstrate, species churn is a routine and necessary feature of healthy ecosystems, then protecting the rivets makes much less sense. “Once we accept natural turnover as a force, we must accept change as natural and not to be fought against, despite our intuition to the contrary,” says James Rosindell at Imperial College London.

Allowing rare and endangered species in some cases to disappear from ecosystems in the expectation that other perhaps more common and adaptable species will take their place, may be a stretch for most conservationists. But Rosindell and other ecologists say we should be more relaxed about the possible local disappearance of species.

“Trying to freeze communities in stasis may well be pushing against the tide,” says Terry. It may simply be putting another wrench in the “engine” of species turnover, blocking the processes of adaptation that ecosystems require in order to survive. It may end up trying to save ecosystems from themselves.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

First Trump Scrapped “DEI” Coins. Now the New Dime Is Losing the Olive Branch.

When Charles Thomson and William Barton designed the Great Seal of the United States more than 200 years ago, they were unambiguous about its meaning. A bald eagle would clutch arrows in one set of talons, symbolizing war, and an olive branch in the other, symbolizing peace. In 1945, President Harry Truman officially declared that the bird’s head should always face toward the olive branch—denoting America’s preference for peace.

Now, the administration of the self-proclaimed “president of peace”—who claims to have ended eight wars, even as he starts new ones—will mint dimes without the olive branch at all. It’s part of the US Mint’s semiquincentennial line, a one-year-only redesign of US coinage commemorating America’s 250th birthday.

The new designs were unveiled in December, but the absence of the olive branch on the back of the dime came under renewed scrutiny this past week after it was highlighted by Fortune. News editor Catherina Gioino wrote that the “omission is hard to read as accidental,” calling it a “cultural signal” of our war-torn times.

The medallic artist behind the dime, Eric David Custer, told Spotlight PA in February that the lack of the olive branch is a reference to the American Revolution, when colonists were striving for peace but hadn’t yet achieved it. But Frank L. Holt, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Houston, said in an interview with the Washington Post that the controversy over the dropped olive branch “condemns the whole design.”

“Money talks, but it should speak plainly and with clear purpose,” Holt said.

The commemorative coin line is just one of many ways that the Trump administration has used America’s 250th anniversary as an opportunity to crusade against diversity, equity, and inclusion and rewrite America’s history in Trump’s image.

Indeed, it’s difficult not to see the new dime within the context of other coinage decisions at the US Mint. All of the semiquincentennial designs had to receive final approval from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who axed several recommendations developed under President Joe Biden’s administration by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee. The rejected designs included coins that featured renowned abolitionist Frederick Douglass and ones commemorating women’s suffrage and school desegregation. In December, US Treasurer Brandon Beach decried those designs as part of Biden’s “DEI and Critical Race Theory policies.”

“The new Semiquincentennial Quarter designs will celebrate American history and the founding of our great nation,” Beach told Fox News. “The Trump administration is dedicated to fostering prosperity and patriotism.”

The commemorative coin line is just one of many ways that the Trump administration has used America’s 250th anniversary as an opportunity to crusade against diversity, equity, and inclusion and rewrite America’s history in President Donald Trump’s image. Scowling next to portraits of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, Trump’s face has graced National Park Service passes and massive banners draped from federal buildings.

And, naturally, Trump’s face was one of the designs proposed by the US Mint for a semiquincentennial $1 coin.

In December, Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced a bill, titled the “Change Corruption Act,” to block any living president from appearing on US currency.

“While monarchs put their faces on coins,” Cortez Masto said in a press release, “America has never had and never will have a king.”

Continue Reading…