Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

John Fetterman Accuses “Disgruntled Staffers” of Spreading “Lies”

Sen. John Fetterman responded angrily this weekend to a recent _Wall Street Journa_l report, which quoted former staffers and the senator’s own alleged text messages to demonstrate his waning interest in performing basic job duties. The Pennsylvania Democrat, per the report, declined to meet with constituents, balked at attending a funeral for three slain police officers shot in York County, and asked why he had to keep meeting with representatives from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

In an exclusive response to CNN, Fetterman called the reports about his attitude the work of “disgruntled staffers,” adding, “Per usual — lies, half-truths, innuendos, smears and anonymous.” An anonymous Twitter account claiming to represent former staffers was also created on Friday, promising that the WSJ story was, in the Twitter account’s words, “just the tip of the iceberg.”

Fetterman, a first-term senator, has become, as one ex-staffer told Mother Jones last year, “Trump’s favorite Democrat.” He’s sided with Republicans on a myriad of issues, including voting against limiting Trump’s attack on Iran and taking a hard-line approach to immigration. He has rejected calls to shut down ICE and instead favors what he describes as “commonsense reforms.” (This despite the fact that his own wife, Gisele Barreto Fetterman, was herself previously undocumented.) He’s also a strident backer of the Israeli government at a time when many Democrats are no longer defending Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank; the WSJ report charged that he’s spent time courting conservative media and the pro-Israel advocates at the expense of many other constituencies.

Much of the discussion about Fetterman has centered around how much his decision-making has been impacted by a stroke he suffered in 2022 while on the campaign trail. A May 2025 story in New York magazine reported on what staffers said was an alarming series of personality changes over time. His former chief of staff Adam Jentleson wrote in a 2024 memo quoted by the magazine that Fetterman was, in his words, “on a bad trajectory,” and outlined apparent impacts on his approach to work and policy: “Conspiratorial thinking; megalomania (for example, he claims to be the most knowledgeable source on Israel and Gaza around but his sources are just what he reads in the news — he declines most briefings and never reads memos); high highs and low lows; long, rambling, repetitive and self centered monologues; lying in ways that are painfully, awkwardly obvious to everyone in the room.”

Fetterman has rejected reports from former staffers that he’s not fit to serve. In his response to CNN this weekend, he called the WSJ report “the third hit piece from disgruntled staffers” targeting him and claimed the cited text messages were “stripped of any context and circumstances.” He said that while he hadn’t attend the police officers’ funeral, he did express his condolences on Twitter, had flowers sent, and, in June, “privately attended a Tunnel to Towers fundraiser in York for the families.” In response to the allegation that he expressed distaste about meeting with the children’s hospital representatives, he said he had met with them “virtually and in person,” pointing to a photo he posted on Twitter flashing a thumbs-up in their presence. Staffers had reportedly told him the meetings were necessary because hospital officials were “worried about Medicaid cuts,” to which Fetterman reportedly responded, “Well I’m not.” In his CNN response, Fetterman said that comment had been “a dumb joke, and for that, I sincerely apologize.”

The new anonymous Twitter account—calling itself Former Fetterman Staffers—is, according to The New York Times,“authentic” and “a group effort.” The bio for the account describes it as a group of former staffers who are “disgusted with what he’s become” and are “here to share our stories & make sure Pennsylvanians know exactly who he is.” The account said it would share its first “drop” on September 14th, the day the Senate reconvenes for its next session.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Wants to Make Sure Every Voter Knows the Midterms Are a Referendum on Trump

Republican politicians are heading to Texas next week—some of them, anyway. At Donald Trump’s behest, the party is holding a special midterm convention in Dallas to celebrate what the president calls “our Tremendous Victories and Success.” On Saturday, he once again hyped the event, writing on Truth Social: “The Greatest RALLY of them all! I’ll be speaking on night one, and hanging around for an earlier closing, and lots of music, on night two!!! See you in Dallas.”

In other words, despite his record-low approval ratings, Trump has determined that the midterms must be about him and a referendum on his second presidency—even as GOP lawmakers have made it clear that they desperately do not want that to be the case.

Trump’s poll numbers have sagged as the midterms approach, due in large part to the unpopularity of the war in Iran and the cost of consumer goods; that’s true even among Republican voters. And that’s presumably why many GOP lawmakers and candidates would rather not hold a big party celebrating the success of the administration and tying themselves to it just before voters head to the polls. But, as the New York Times recently noted, they also “cannot afford to snub” Trump, or, as a person identified as a “top Republican campaign official” told Axios, “We have no choice. We’re stuck on the boat with him whether we like it or not.”

For his part, as is his wont, Trump seems convinced that having a rally where he’s a keynote speaker will solve everything. While many Republican candidates are reportedly skipping the Dallas convention, plenty will be attending. On Saturday, the Republican National Committee released a list of speakers for the Dallas event, heavily featuring Trump’s own family and current cabinet, including Vice President JD Vance, Donald Trump Jr., HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., House Speaker Mike Johnson, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, among others. In the release, the RNC also articulated what’s meant to be a unifying message for the proceedings, declaring, “Republicans represent the mainstream, practical values of everyday Americans, while the modern Democrat Party has embraced a fringe, extremely liberal ideological agenda that harms Americans.”

Even one attendee struck a rather non-psyched note on the matter. On Sunday, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Rep. Mike Lawler—a New York Republican facing a competitive reelection battle—about his decision to speak at Trump’s convention and align himself “so closely with the president.”

“It’s not a function of alignment” with Trump, Lawler responded, but rather “a function of doing the job. In order to get anything done, you have to be able to reach across the aisle, and also work within your own party.”

GOP Rep. Lawler on why he’s speaking at Trump’s midterms convention: “Part of what I will be highlighting in my remarks is the ability to not only agree when we must, but disagree and deliver for my district and stand up for the people that I was elected to represent.” pic.twitter.com/GtAHF9Xa0s

— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) September 6, 2026

A ringing endorsement, to be sure. As the Dallas Morning News noted, there will be one prominent absence among Trump’s inner circle: Melania Trump is not expected to attend.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Wind Power Has Benefitted North Dakota. So Why Have Residents Soured on It?

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

George Wolff offered a cautious greeting through the window of my rented F-150. He was fresh from tending livestock, which explained the dried mud on his forehead and shirt. His boots and jeans were soiled with barnyard muck, his ballcap tipped back to cool his brow.

It was a warm, breezy May day in Wishek, North Dakota, with wind speeds hovering around 20 miles per hour, gusting to the low 30s. Angus cattle foraged on a hillside pasture behind Wolff’s barns. Two John Deere tractors sat idle off the driveway. Planting season was over, but a dry spring had slowed the arrival of this year’s wheat, corn, and soybeans.

“What can I do for you?” asked Wolff, a fourth-generation farmer. The answer was about a half mile behind him, rising above his land like an enormous pinwheel.

That 3-megawatt turbine, one of two on Wolff’s 3,500-acre property, is part of Badger Wind Farm. The 92-turbine, 250-MW project was brought online in January by the Danish energy giant Ørsted and is the newest such installation in North Dakota, which ranks ninth in the US for producing wind energy.

Badger Wind Farm is the largest economic development project in the history of Wishek, an 850-person city about 90 miles southeast of Bismarck in McIntosh County. In exchange for hosting turbines on their property, Wolff and other local farmers and landowners receive lease payments from Ørsted—and the county will see an influx of tax revenues based on the project’s annual generation.

Wind turbines in a field with clouds in the background.

Wind turbines stand over fields in McIntosh County.Erica Dischino

But for many in Wishek, early optimism about the economic benefits has given way to regret and resentment, according to Larry Wald, a lifelong resident and the city’s former mayor and council member. “We used to live in open country, right?” Wald said. ​“Now, these towers are the first thing you see when you come into Wishek and the last thing you see on your way out.”

This notion—that the costs of wind power outweigh the benefits—is not unique to Wishek or McIntosh County. Large swaths of rural America are reevaluating their relationships with commercial-scale clean energy. While states such as California and Iowa are retooling their energy economies around carbon-free power, others are tapping the brakes as renewable energy development faces withering attacks from conservatives.

In North Dakota, many have soured on wind power after embracing it for most of the last 20 years as part of the state’s ​“all of the above” energy policy. Once a common thing, newly completed projects like Wishek’s Badger Wind Farm have become rare.

Anchoring a Wishek park is a 9-foot-tall concrete statue of Barney the Badger, the town mascot, with a bright blue varsity sweater emblazoned with the letter ​“W.” The statue helps explain Badger Wind Farm’s name, and is but one example of the kind of small-town charm that suffuses Wishek.

Lila Raile, another lifelong resident, is among those who feel that charm is at risk because of the wind turbines. Her recently built ​“dream home,” atop a low hill about a mile west of Wishek’s town center, is surrounded by turbines—a backdrop she never imagined just a few years ago.

A man and woman stand in front of a house with a large field and wind turbines in the background.

Lila Raile and her husband, Lloyd, stand in their home’s backyard, which now includes a prominent view of wind turbines.Erica Dischino

“Welcome to my nightmare,” Raile said in an email before my visit to her home, which used to offer views of rolling farmland.

Raile said the installation has fundamentally changed the agricultural character of Wishek, where farming has sustained generations of her own family. She blames Ørsted for what she characterized as a dollar-waving appeal to landowners.

But she also blames county and state elected officials for leaving the community to fend for itself against a multinational energy company. ​“They claim to protect rural communities from these outside energy companies, but people around here don’t feel protected at all,” she said.

Wald said much of the local ire is directed at absentee landowners who signed leases with Ørsted. Many of them inherited land, he said, but have no personal connection to Wishek.

“When [Ørsted] came looking for land leases, it was like light in their eyes,” Wald said of the nonresident property owners. ​“They were going to get their $10,000 per lease, or whatever it is, and never have to look at these towers.”

A man in a blue polo shirt and baseball cap stands in an open doorway.

Larry Wald, a lifelong Wishek resident, former mayor, and volunteer firefighter, at the new firehouse in Wishek. The firehouse was constructed partially with funds from a direct goodwill donation from Ørsted.Erica Dischino

Ørsted declined a formal site visit or an interview.

Even Wolff, whose two turbines sit at the eastern edge of the wind farm and are not visible from the town center, says county officials could have mitigated the Badger project’s visual impacts through more robust planning and zoning.

“I understand why there’s a lot of strong feelings about the turbines,” he said. ​“They should have stayed further away from some of the nonparticipating residences, particularly the ones close to town.”

The wind turbines are here. “You have to change your mindset…You can’t light them on fire, you can’t kick them over. “

Wishek had no siting authority over the Badger turbines. It did, however, receive $150,000 in direct goodwill donations from Ørsted, according to the city auditor. The money went toward constructing a new firehouse and public swimming pool and making repairs to the community center.

“Ørsted was very much like, ​‘Let us know what you need help with…because we want to have a good relationship with the city,” said Brenda Dohn, the former Wishek mayor who led the city through the project’s planning and construction phases. ​“They wanted to make sure there was some payback to the community.”

In McIntosh County, ​“wind generation taxes” from Badger Wind Farm will yield roughly $1.3 million in tax revenue each year, according to estimates from the county auditor’s office. Those dollars will go to roads and bridges, schools, hospitals, senior care facilities, and fire and ambulatory services for the county of roughly 2,500 people. Statewide, wind energy has generated a total of more than $10 billion in economic activity, according to industry estimates.

Nevertheless, in April—a few months after Badger Wind Farm went online—McIntosh County adopted a one-year moratorium on new wind projects, citing concerns about how another Ørsted project, proposed for the south part of the county, would impact nonparticipant property owners. Badger is the second wind farm in the county; the Merricourt wind farm went online in 2020.

Dohn, who stepped down after clashing with Wishek council members over a proposed data center at the edge of town, said she hopes the community can mend its strained social fabric now that Badger Wind Farm is operating.

“It’s here. You have to change your mindset,” she said. ​“You may not like what’s happened, but OK, now what? You can’t light them on fire, you can’t kick them over. So how do we move forward from this?”

A woman lifts the shades of a window to reveal a view of a field and wind turbine.

Lila Raile at the window of her home in Wishek.Erica Dischino

North Dakota got its first large-scale wind farm in 2003, when NextEra Energy Resources completed its North Dakota Wind I and II installations in LaMoure County, about 50 miles east of Wishek.

In the years that followed, the state pursued an energy policy inclusive of coal, oil, natural gas, and carbon-free energy sources like wind. The boom times continued from there. Developers were attracted to North Dakota for its wide-open, windswept land and proximity to Minnesota, which needs clean energy to meet its decarbonization goals.

“We had such an escalation in numbers with new wind farms coming online, and so much interest in the state, that we basically saw a new industry [established] within just a few years,” said Tom Oakland, energy research and development manager at the North Dakota Department of Commerce.

But now, North Dakota lawmakers and public officials, including many who once touted that all-of-the-above policy, are asking whether the state has reached its carrying capacity for wind turbines.

North Dakota saw 38 wind farms come online between 2005 and 2020—but only four, including Badger, have been completed in the years since.

The pipeline is not exactly robust. The state Public Service Commission is currently considering just one other project: the 67-turbine Homestead Wind Farm, proposed for Williams County. On August 12, the commission approved the nearly $800 million Longspur wind project proposed by Minnesota Power for north of Bismarck—the first approval since Badger and only one so far this year.

The commission is increasingly wary of wind, despite the Longspur approval. Chair Randy Christmann has repeatedly asserted that the expansion of wind power will advance environmentalists’ agenda to close more than a half dozen legacy coal plants in the state.

During public testimony in May over the Longspur project, Christmann challenged Richard Schirado, a rancher and inventor who hosts turbines on his property, over Schirado’s belief that wind energy ​“has not eliminated or significantly harmed traditional energy sources like coal.”

“Would it surprise you to know that in about the last 20 years, about 35 or 40 percent of the coal capacity in America has come off the grid?” Christmann asked.

“No, it wouldn’t surprise me, but I think they need to work together,” Schirado answered.

“But one is being added and the other one is being pushed out,” Christmann responded. ​“That’s how they’re working together, is it?”

While coal-fired power generation has declined nationally with the rise of natural gas and renewables, North Dakota’s retirements have been more modest than some other states. Minnesota-based Great River Energy closed its 50-year-old Stanton Station in 2017, while Montana-Dakota Utilities retired two small coal units at its R.M. Heskett Station in 2022 as part of a natural gas conversion project.

“Some of the farmers here, they think if you don’t make your money off of a bushel of wheat or a pound of beef, it’s not right.”

Although North Dakota produces immense amounts of wind power, much of it is exported to neighboring states. Seventy-six percent of the electricity consumed in-state comes from five coal plants concentrated in North Dakota’s mining region. All those plants burn lignite, which emits more air pollution per unit of energy than any other form of coal, as well as significant quantities of toxic mercury.

The argument that wind is hampering the state’s coal sector has been around at least since 2017, when then-Sen. Dwight Cook, a Republican who chaired the powerful finance and taxation committee, proposed legislation to impose a two-year ban on wind farms, citing the wind industry’s disruption to the state’s coal economy. The bill was withdrawn, and Cook retired in 2020.

More recently, Republican state Rep. Anna Novak, interim chair of the North Dakota Legislative Assembly’s Energy Development and Transmission Committee and vice chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has asserted that wind is a bad deal because of its potential impacts on coal.

“For many years, it was kind of like, ​‘We can do everything, we can have it all, and it’s more economic activity for our area,’” said Novak, who represents what North Dakotans call ​“coal country.” ​“But there has been the realization that more wind on the line, specifically in coal country, means that there’s less coal that’s mined and used for electricity generation.”

North Dakota’s sole member of the US House of Representatives takes the same pro-coal, anti-wind stance.

In 2025, freshman Republican Rep. Julie Fedorchak sponsored a bill to phase out long-standing federal tax credits for wind and solar energy, something achieved in the 2025 Republican tax and spending bill known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Fedorchak has also been one of President Donald Trump’s strongest supporters for reviving the nation’s coal industry—a push happening alongside Trump’s all-out war on wind energy.

Fedorchak’s office did not respond to requests for comment. But in a recent interview with Axios, she echoed wind critics like Christmann and Novak, who argue that North Dakota’s wind power growth is not serving the state itself and is instead driven by outside interests.

“It’s for that very reason—the expansion has been designed to help bring in the power needed for states like Minnesota to meet their goals,” Fedorchak said. ​“And those aren’t the goals in my state of North Dakota.”

Wolff, for his part, still supports the state’s all-of-the-above energy policy, though he was careful to emphasize that he is not a ​“green freak.”

“If someone came out here and said they wanted to put an oil well on the farm, I’d listen,” he said.

“Some of the farmers here, they think if you don’t make your money off of a bushel of wheat or a pound of beef, it’s not right,” Wolff said during a conversation at his kitchen table. ​“I don’t feel that way. I think, well, they’re producing electricity, and that’s something we all use. So if you can make it work, then do it.”

A few days after my visit, Wolff received his first quarterly check from Ørsted. Each turbine netted about $5,000, money that will help him meet the rising costs of fuel, fertilizer, and feed. It may also allow him and his wife, Janet, to spend more time away from the farm—and possibly escape North Dakota’s bone-chilling winter.

If the wind boom is truly over for North Dakota, so, too, are its opportunities for farmers like Wolff. All told, landowners have netted between $25 million and $30 million annually since 2020, according to industry officials.

“I’m kind of on my way out here,” Wolff said. ​“It will eventually be my son’s decision on how to handle it. Either way, I plan to do what my forefathers did, which is pass this on to my kids. They’ll figure out the best way forward.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

“I’m Walking Through the Streets… Carrying Shame and Humiliation”

The family of Pierre Damas Bel, a 20-year-old Haitian immigrant in Springfield Ohio, says he died by suicide August 31 after losing Temporary Protected Status.

Bel, an avid soccer player and JROTC member, was beginning his freshman year as an honors neuroscience student at Wright State University. But in July, Bel became one of about 340,000 Haitians in the US whose Temporary Protected Status expired, after the Supreme Court ruled not to intervene. In late July, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement fitted Bel with an electronic ankle monitor, one of the ways the agency tracks people who it may soon deport.

As the device interfered with and stigmatized his day-to-day life, Bel’s family says he became withdrawn. “After my son was outfitted with this ankle monitor, he felt like he was treated like an animal,” Bel’s father, Pierre Ronal Bel, wrote in a statement.

Pierre Damas Bel uploaded a picture of the ankle monitor on Instagram in late July. “I came to this country to pursue my education. I didn’t come here to commit a crime or hurt anyone,” he wrote in the caption. “Yet now I’m walking through the streets of the United States with a GPS monitor on my leg, carrying a feeling of shame and humiliation that I never imagined I would experience.”

“I came here to study, to build my future, and to live a better [life] not to be treated like criminal,” he wrote. “So now, how am I supposed play college sports with a GPS monitor on my leg?”

Bel’s next asylum court hearing was scheduled for October. Vilés Dorsainvil, executive director of the Haitian Support Center in Springfield, is working to support the family. As Dorsainvil told Mother Jones in June, deportation to Haiti can be a matter of “life and death.” The State Department maintains a “do not travel” advisory for risk of kidnappings, sexual assault, and robbery in Haiti. Haitians will face the same dangers if deported back, Dorsainvil said: “There is no safe place in Haiti.”

“No one is required to stay in the United States illegally and wear a monitor,” an ICE spokesperson said. “Any attempts to blame ICE for the death of Pierre Damas Bel are false.”

“These policies are what caused his untimely death,” Guerline Jozef of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, an Ohio legal aid nonprofit, told The Washington Post.

Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, called Bel’s death a “horrible, horrible tragedy” and said that ending TPS for Haitian residents was “misguided and wrong,” Capital B reported.

The Trump administration has sent two deportation flights to Haiti since TPS for Haitians was canceled. Meanwhile, another large group of TPS-holders may see their protected status expire in the coming week: About 180,000 people from El Salvador have held TPS status since 2001, but that could end on Sept. 9. The Department of Homeland Security has not yet announced whether that designation will be extended or terminated.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

You Don’t Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

On Friday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against the city of Jackson, Mississippi, which alleged the city knowingly let residents drink lead-contaminated water.

The lawsuit, first filed in 2022, says the contamination violated Jacksonians’ constitutional right to bodily integrity. Donald Trump-appointed judge Kurt Engelhardt disagreed. “The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing,” Engelhardt said. “Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.”

That may be true in Mississippi—but on the state level in at least nine US states, and in more than a dozen other countries, clean drinking water is in fact a protected right. In countries including Uruguay and South Africa, a right to clean water is enshrined in the constitution. New York’s state constitution, as of a 2021 amendment, states that “each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.” So too in Massachusetts, where “the right to clean air and water” has been constitutionally protected since 1972.

But according to the Fifth Circuit ruling, the US constitution is too narrow for such a claim. The Jackson plaintiffs alleged that their city government deliberately withheld information about the water’s toxicity, and exacerbated the problem through a series of boil-water notices—a practice that can eliminate some bacterial contamination, but also concentrates lead in water. Engelhardt stated there is no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.”

Jackson is more than 80 percent Black and has a poverty rate that is more than double the national average. The city’s water system has long been in dire need of upgrades. In 2015, officials from the Mississippi State Department of Health found elevated lead levels in the water supply. Instead of immediately informing citizens, they remained silent about the issue for six months, according to reporting from Grist, while residents continued drinking toxic water.

EPA officials ran a series of tests in 2020 and found “persistent and concerning violations” of water safety policy, including leaks, corrosion, and high lead levels throughout the system.

But no city, state, or federal agencies fixed the problem. Meanwhile, people including Jackson plaintiff Priscilla Sterling continued drinking water with unsafe levels of lead. According to the 2022 lawsuit, several of Sterling’s children have since been diagnosed with lead poisoning, which can cause permanent brain damage. A quarter of Jackson’s residents are children, who are particularly vulnerable to the life-long effects of lead poisoning.

The Fifth Circuit ruling comes as the Trump administration moves to weaken clean-water-related protections. Also on Friday, Trump’s EPA released a supplemental rule to further dilute the Clean Water Act, quickly condemned by environmental watchdogs.

“The administration is clearly struggling to craft a rule that will hold up in court while satisfying their donors’ desire to effectively scrap these protections wherever possible,” said Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation. “One thing is clear: If we don’t protect our streams and wetlands, the cost of dirtier drinking water and increased flooding will flow downstream to households at a time when most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

More Than 1,200 Food Packaging Chemicals Can Pose Serious Health Risks

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

Most people decide if it’s safe to eat an old tub of yogurt in the fridge or canned tuna in the back of the cupboard by checking its sell-by date. But no label indicates that pesticides, phthalates, PFAS, or other hazardous chemicals could be seeping from those containers into your food.

Of more than 15,000 chemicals that come in contact with food, a new peer-reviewed study found, 1,222 pose serious health risks such as cancer and reproductive harm. And the vast majority—87 percent, or more than 13,200—lack enough accessible information to even estimate their risks.

The fact that there’s not enough publicly available information for independent scientists to assess the safety of chemicals that can contaminate food is “the elephant in the room,” said study co-author Jane Muncke, managing director at the nonprofit Food Packaging Forum Foundation, which led the research, published Tuesday in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

In the new paper, they analyzed that “jaw-dropping” number of chemicals, Muncke said, to flag the most problematic.

Consumers trust that when regulators allow chemicals in products like food packaging, it’s because it’s been through safety testing, Muncke said. “But that’s not the case,” she said. “And it doesn’t make sense.”

The team has done a “very, very good job” highlighting how little is known about the risks of substances that affect everyone, said Maricel Maffini, an independent chemical safety and regulation expert who was not involved in the study but has collaborated with Muncke in the past.

Because the study focused on a list that people in industry and regulators regard as reliable, it’s looking under the proverbial lamppost, Maffini said. While there’s plenty of information suggesting that many of these chemicals should not be on the market or should have stronger regulations, she said, there’s so much information beyond that list that’s missing.

In previous work, Muncke and her team identified more than 15,000 chemicals used in food processing or packaging from lists of substances approved by regulators in the United States, China, Japan, and countries in Europe and South America or that had been identified in studies. In the new paper, they analyzed that “jaw-dropping” number of chemicals, Muncke said, to flag the most problematic.

To maximize the utility of their priority list, the team used only data obtained from governmental and regulatory agencies linking a chemical to human health hazards such as cancer, reproductive harm ,or ability to concentrate in the body.

That yielded a priority list of 1,222 chemicals that they ranked into four tiers, with the highest to lowest evidence of human exposure from food-contact materials. Ninety-four chemicals known to seep into food and detected in breast milk, blood, or other human samples were assigned to Tier 1, the highest priority for regulators and companies to consider phasing out.

These chemicals include liver- and immune system-damaging PFAS “forever chemicals,” which make food wrappers grease- or water-resistant; the likely carcinogen styrene, used to produce takeout packages and refrigerated dairy food containers; hormone-disrupting phthalates, added to make plastics like those that hold vegetable oils flexible; and bisphenol A, added to hard plastics and can linings and a poster child for endocrine disruptors’ ability to impair development at low doses.

Studies have found these and other chemicals leaching from containers into a diverse array of food and beverages, including water, infant formula, orange juice, ice cream, yogurt and cream, oils, cake, and fatty foods.

The next highest priority list, Tier 2, included an additional 264 hazardous chemicals that leach into food but have not been detected in biomonitoring studies. At least, not yet.

Muncke is particularly concerned about babies’ exposure to plastic chemicals in pouches that hold juices and pureed food.

The chemicals in Tier 1 provide the most reliable evidence that materials that come in contact with food are a source of people’s exposure to these chemicals, Muncke said. The chemicals are in people, they’re in food and they’re in food-contact materials, she said. “What more proof do you want?”

Inside Climate News asked the American Chemistry Council and Food Packaging Coalition, trade groups that represent the chemical and food-packing industries, if their members would release hazard information about the chemicals they use and phase out those known to be hazardous. Neither responded, but the Food Packaging Coalition maintains that packaging is designed to prevent the transfer of its components to food and to ensure that they are safe and suitable for their intended use.

The paper offers a practical and transparent roadmap for using the best available evidence to prioritize food-contact chemicals for regulation, said Sara Lupolt, an expert on exposure assessment at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who was not involved in the research.

Though not addressed in the paper, she added, more research is needed to determine which foods and chemical combinations result in more chemicals moving into food.

Many of the chemicals that migrate into food are so-called non-intentionally added substances, or NIAS. Their identity is often obscure because existing tools can’t identify every chemical in use, especially when researchers don’t know what to look for because producers keep proprietary chemical ingredients secret.

Muncke is particularly concerned about babies’ exposure to plastic chemicals in pouches that hold juices and pureed food. Earlier this year, her team found evidence that more than 330 chemicals leach from pouches, including nearly 80 known to be hazardous. They presented the findings at an event at the House of Lords in the United Kingdom in June.

At a minimum, the paper argues, chemicals that have structural similarities with others known to be hazardous should be priorities for regulation.

A greater volume of chemicals get into baby food because the ratio of packaging to food is much greater in a small serving size, Muncke said. And the pouches are sterilized using heat, which drives chemicals to migrate and forms microplastics.

Several peer-reviewed studies, including a 2023 Chemosphere study, also found chemicals, including NIAS, in baby food packaged in pouches. The paper’s authors believed the NAIS, which lacked adequate information to assess risk, were impurities and raw materials from producing plastic. “Infants may be constantly exposed to NIAS via consuming pouched food products,” the authors warned.

For the 87 percent of chemicals that lack hazard data, it’s primarily a question of the data not being public, said study co-author Helene Wiesinger, a chemist and Food Packaging Forum scientific officer.

That delays regulatory action, Wiesinger said, because governments and independent scientists must first figure out which chemicals are safe. She believes a product or chemical should not be allowed on the market until a company can prove that it’s safe.

At a minimum, chemicals that have structural similarities with others known to be hazardous should be priorities for regulation, the paper argues. Seventy percent of the more than 4,200 chemicals the team classified into 38 priority groups—including PFAS, phthalates, and organophosphates (used as flame retardants and pesticides, among other applications)—lack enough data to assess potential harms.

Just because something isn’t yet known to be hazardous doesn’t mean it’s not hazardous, said Wiesinger. Time and again, chemicals found to present unreasonable risks are replaced with others that have similar properties and ultimately similar risks.

“We hope this work provides practical guidance on how to at least not make the very obvious mistakes,” she said.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

More People Have Died From 9/11 Than on 9/11

When Mia Farina got seriously ill in 2014, she thought she had a bad case of pneumonia. But it turned out to be far worse: It was the start of chronic lung disease related to the months she spent working in and around ground zero after 9/11.

Back then, Farina was a rookie cop, present when the second Twin Tower came down. She and her Brooklyn squad ran to escape the burning debris. “At one point, you couldn’t run because the stuff that was collapsing was so deep,” she said. “So it would go up to my thigh, and you would feel people’s hands and feet because…they’re all under the rubble.”

Farina lives on Long Island, surrounded by other responders who also are sick and dying from their work at ground zero 25 years ago. She and tens of thousands of other 9/11 responders and survivors were promised care through the World Trade Center Health Program, a federally funded lifeline meant to treat the long-term medical consequences of that day. But funding has never kept up with the number of people who continue to get sick.

This week on Reveal, reporter Lynn Hallarman, a Long Island doctor turned journalist who once treated 9/11 responders, explores the community of responders around her, their reliance on a program that’s been unstable for decades, and the science behind why people are still getting sick.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The White House Made an Arcade Game Out of Deporting People

As of September 3, the official White House website features a page titled “arcade,” where users can play games like Rio Run, in which the player—a pixelated, white, and balding Border Patrol agent—collects “border crossers” and adds them to a line of orange-jumpsuited figures trailing behind him.

It’s a retro-cutesy version of the nightmarish and very real scenes of ICE agents forcing immigrants, chained in a line, onto deportation planes. Other games in the “arcade” include Build the Wall, a Tetris rip-off in which the user builds a wall to “protect the border from the coming horde.” (Tetris, in response to Build the Wall, has posted on Instagram that the company takes copyright infringement “very seriously.”) There’s also an eagle-themed game called Flappy Bill, and a MAHA-oriented school lunch game.

It’s no surprise, considering the “wartime recruitment” framing of ICE’s current hiring push, that gaming as macho-fantasy agitprop would make its way from the military into the world of immigration enforcement.

A White House spokesperson told CNN the arcade is “an effort to further contrast between a culture of fun and winning and the dark socialist vision Democrats have for America.” It’s also part of a long American history of gaming as propaganda.

As Jesse Robertson wrote for the Nation in 2024: “It’s hardly an exaggeration to say that today’s global gaming colossus is the offspring of the Pentagon; by some measures, the nearly $350 billion gaming industry is one of the Defense Department’s most significant innovations since the end of the Cold War.” Recruitment-by-gaming is a project that the Pentagon has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on, and it’s one that has paid big dividends.

In fact, one of the world’s first video games, Spacewar!—launched in 1962 on punch-tape computers at MIT—was funded by a DOD grant.In 2002, the US Army launched a free-to-play computer game called, fittingly, America’s Army; a 2008 study found that the game “had more impact on recruits than all other forms of Army advertising combined.” The game proved incredibly popular with US soldiers and wannabe soldiers, who were enamored of its realistic first-person-shooter gameplay. Members of the Army’s brass floated the idea of shipping computers to Afghanistan so enlisted men could play America’s Army while serving in the real American Army.

The game ran for 20 years and reached millions of potential recruits before shutting down in 2022. “As time has passed and AA has fulfilled its mission, it is time to shift our focus to other new and innovative ways to assist the Army with comms and recruitment,” the game’s developers wrote in a statement at the time. Today, the ideas behind America’s Army live on through the military’s sponsorship of esports tournaments and Twitch streamers. Most recently, an Army unit offered soldiers early access to Grand Theft Auto VI as an incentive for re-enlistment.

It’s no surprise, considering the “wartime recruitment” framing of ICE’s current hiring push, that gaming as macho-fantasy agitprop would make its way from the military into the world of militarized immigration enforcement.

More games, the White House website says, are coming soon.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Why Is Trump’s DOJ Still Helping the Russian-Linked Liar Who Smeared Biden?

On September 17, prosecutors from the Justice Department are scheduled to appear in a federal courtroom in Pasadena, California, for a rather odd event. They will argue that a mysterious former FBI informant with connections to Russian intelligence—who was convicted of lying to the bureau to spread the false accusation that Joe Biden and his son Hunter each received a $5 million bribe from Ukraine—should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and get a new trial.

That allegation about the Bidens was embraced and weaponized by Donald Trump, right-wing media, and House Republicans, who in 2023 and 2024 cited it as smoking-gun evidence for Biden’s impeachment—until the informant, Alexander Smirnov, a Ukrainian-born Israeli national and businessman who acknowledged he had ties to Russian intelligence, was indicted for lying to the FBI. He pleaded guilty and was subsequently sentenced to six years in prison. (The punishment also covered failing to pay taxes on more than $2 million in income that was not fully explained.)

The Trump Justice Department’s effort to assist Smirnov, a longtime confidential source for the bureau, has been puzzling. In March, I broke the news that the DOJ was helping him get out of prison by supporting his appeal, in which Smirnov is trying to throw out his sentence and withdraw his guilty plea.

Smirnov’s false report to the FBI fueled the GOP’s absurd effort to impeach Biden and provided ammo for the ludicrous MAGA mantra that Biden was the head of a crime family.

The appeal hinges on a technical point: Smirnov, who is represented by an attorney with multiple connections to the Trump administration, claims the federal judge who presided over his trial did not stick to a provision of his plea deal regarding a reduction in his sentence to match his pretrial detention. The judge denies this. What’s highly unusual is that Todd Blanche, then the deputy attorney general, intervened in this case on the side of this Russia-connected fabricator whose lies, according to the federal prosecutors in his case, were concocted to impact the 2020 and 2024 elections—that is, to hurt Biden.

Which they did. Smirnov’s false report to the FBI fueled the GOP’s absurd effort to impeach Biden and provided ammo for the ludicrous MAGA mantra that Biden was the head of a crime family. When Smirnov was indicted in early 2024, that impeachment campaign fizzled. The whole Smirnov episode looked like a Russian covert action waged to hurt the Democrats and aid Trump. (For more background on the Smirnov saga, see this previous Our Land issue.)

It was not shocking that Moscow would try to insert a phony allegation of Biden bribery into the American political discourse, given that Vladimir Putin had mounted various clandestine operations to help Trump in 2016 and 2020. But most surprising was that there was no public investigation of the Smirnov caper after it turned out this Russian-linked informant had peddled lies to the FBI. Was this truly another Russian assault on American politics? What was the extent of Smirnov’s ties to Russian intelligence? What were his connections to other intelligence services? (Prosecutors feared he might flee to Israel.) Why did his lies to the FBI go undetected for so long? How could he fool his bureau handlers for years?

In my forthcoming book How Russia Won: Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and the Fight for America, which will be published on September 15, I examined these important and unanswered questions about Smirnov. Here’s a brief excerpt:

Though Smirnov’s criminal case would be resolved, left unanswered was a crucial question: Why did he do this? Smirnov tried not once but twice to insert into the FBI disinformation that could possibly influence a US election: first, in 2020, with his claim he had been told about a $10 million Biden bribery scheme, and then in 2023, with an allegation that Hunter Biden had been secretly recorded by the Russians. The FBI didn’t bite either time. But Smirnov managed to provide the Republicans with a fabricated charge they weaponized and used for nine months to threaten impeachment and sully Biden’s image.

Had the Russians put him up to this? His false stories aligned with the Biden-­Ukraine corruption narrative pushed by Russian intelligence. Yet there were no investigations of this episode. No inspector general reports on how the FBI had handled him. No congressional inquiry. “It was a matter of great curiosity where Smirnov had come from and who he was reporting to,” Representative Jamie Raskin, the senior Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, later said.

Within the Biden White House, officials were frustrated that no deeper digging into the Smirnov case occurred. “It was maddening,” recalled Jake Sullivan, the White House national security adviser. “Because it was an FBI investigation, we were walled off from it. Biden was absolutely convinced it was a Russian operation.” But neither the president nor the American public ever got the full story.

The White House decided not to raise a fuss about a possible Russian active measure undergirding the GOP’s crusade against Biden. His political advisers insisted that it was best not to talk about the Republicans’ impeachment drive. American voters were not taking it seriously. There was no need to direct more attention to this stunt. “The intelligence people were uncomfortable being drawn into this,” Sullivan recounted. “The political people were uncomfortable. It was hard to dial it up to ten.”

Biden had repeatedly told his aides he believed much of the right-wing attack on him over Ukraine had come straight from Moscow. But the administration never pressed the Ukrainian government for the intelligence it had on the efforts to malign Biden. “You could have gone to Ukraine’s leadership and intelligence and asked for all the files,” Sullivan said. “Who were the Russians involved? Who put [Russian agent Andriy] Derkach up to it? But no one wanted to touch any of this with a ten-­foot pole.” [Derkach was a Ukrainian legislator who claimed to possess evidence of Biden corruption in Ukraine. He produced no such proof, but he worked with Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, to smear Joe Biden.]

Such a move could backfire politically if it became public. After all the controversy over Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI’s investigation of contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia, the last thing the intelligence agencies wanted was to become mired in another to-­do over Russia and Ukraine.

Smirnov’s lies were uncovered. The Republicans were shown to be reckless and irresponsible. Still, this operation, with all the markings of a Russian covert action, had achieved a measure of success. For months, Republicans had waved that FD-1023 [the FBI document that contained Smirnov’s phony allegations] and referred to the “Biden bribery scheme” and the “Biden crime family.”

Conservative media spread this message to millions of viewers and readers. Impeachment was off the table now. But all the noise about the FD-1023 buttressed the impression that Trump had pushed in 2020 and was reviving for the 2024 campaign: Biden was crooked. Smirnov’s lie—­a Russian operation?—­had been of great value to Trump and the GOP.

With its current shenanigans in the Smirnov case, Trump’s Justice Department is helping Smirnov erase his sentence and withdraw his guilty plea. Typically, that would lead to a new trial. But in this instance, if Smirnov wins his appeal, the DOJ might drop the matter and not pursue another trial. Its prosecutors have already suggested in court that the Justice Department is reviewing his case.

Should that occur, the Trump administration would allow a possible Russian agent to escape punishment for conning the FBI and attempting to interfere in two US elections. Moreover, such a move would allow Trump acolytes to cite the phony Biden allegations without having to acknowledge they originated with a convicted liar. Is that the goal of Trump’s DOJ—to buttress what might have been a secret Russian operation to tarnish Biden?

You can find a full accounting of the bizarre Smirnov case in my soon-to-be-published How Russia Won: Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and the Fight for America. Readers of Our Land can still take advantage of a special pre-order offer to purchase a signed edition of the book. Just click here. As regular readers of this newsletter know—because I’ve been such a pest about it—pre-orders are essential to the success of How Russia Won_. (I explained that here.) So if you have any inclination to buy this book, please do so now. Many thanks._

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

This “Supersized” El Niño Is Only Just Beginning to Wreak Its Havoc

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

The world’s leading weather organization is sounding the alarm about this year’s super El Niño, issuing its most certain forecast in the history of the organization.

In an update issued early Thursday, the World Meteorological Organization predicted a “nearly 100% likelihood” that the El Niño will last through February. The strong language from the WMO—the UN’s weather and climate agency—underlies just how historic this El Niño is shaping up to be.

“This is the first time that a WMO El Niño/La Niña Update has been so unequivocal,” the agency says, noting that certainty reflects “the strong agreement within WMO’s extensive network.”

“This is probably one of the larger, if not the largest, climate events…that anybody alive is potentially ever experiencing.”

El Niño is a naturally occurring weather phenomenon defined by warmer-than-normal ocean temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific, a pattern that disrupts weather patterns around the world. Scientists have been warning since the start of the year that a particularly strong El Niño was set to develop. The latest forecasts indicate it will be the strongest on record by a wide margin, and impacts are already being felt throughout the world—and they’re likely to intensify in the coming months.

“El Niño is being supersized before our eyes,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement. “The science leaves no room for doubt: The planet is in uncharted waters, and those waters are heating up. Sea surface temperatures are rising, temperatures keep climbing, and the world is in the danger zone of extreme weather.”

In addition to affecting regional weather, El Niño also tends to bump up the global average temperature by roughly 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.2 to 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by releasing heat into the atmosphere. But this year’s iteration could provide an even bigger boost. The intensity of this El Niño means this year is likely to be the hottest on record; because it takes a while for the added heat to work through the climate system, 2027 is forecast to be even hotter.

This extra warming is a red alert when compounded on top of the warming caused by manmade climate change. The UN warned in a separate report this week that the world will likely cross 1.5 degrees C of warming over the next few years.

Daniel Swain, a climate scientist with the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources research network, says this El Niño will be so big, “with consequences that are so large, I’m not sure we fully understand them.”

The intensity of the El Niño, Swain says, means that it may cause unexpected and extreme weather, and he cautions against making certain predictions about what, exactly, is going to happen over the next year. But the impacts, he says, will almost certainly be massive.

“This is probably one of the larger, if not the largest, climate events—aside from long-term warming, which really isn’t a singular event—that anybody alive is potentially ever experiencing,” he says. “That’s a very big deal. And I think there’s certainly going to be dramatic outcomes from this.”

While the El Niño won’t reach its full strength for another few months, the world has already seen some impacts: The US just lived through the hottest summer on record, and the heat was almost certainly juiced up by El Niño. Regions that are typically dry during El Niño have also seen drought emerge. In Sudan, low water levels in the Nile are exacerbating a yearslong hunger crisis, while Puerto Rico has turned to water rationing due to dry conditions and infrastructure failures. Fisheries in the eastern Pacific have also been thrown into disarray by the hotter-than-normal waters there.

“The race now is between rising risks and our commitment to take climate action and protect people,” Guterres said in the release. “We must win that race.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Flock Is Cancelled—And Their Competitors Are Profiting

“If you want to get in your car and you want to go down to Buc-ee’s in St. Augustine, it’s really none of the government’s damn business if you’re doing that, right?” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said Monday at a news conference. He announced that Florida will revoke all law enforcement license-plate-recognition camera permits on state highways, with all such cameras to be removed by the end of September.

“What we don’t want in the state of Florida is to have a digital AI surveillance state where everything we’re doing is being tracked at all times,” DeSantis added, referring to the recent expansion of ALPRs—automated license plate reader cameras—across the country. The cameras are supposed to catch people committing crimes, and sometimes they do. But they’re also ripe for abuse. Each camera forms part of a nationwide network, and by sharing vehicle information between and within police departments, ALPRs can enable officers to track what are called “patterns of life”: where a person is likely to be, who they spend time with, and what they’re doing in a given moment.

Police officers nationwide are taking advantage of that surveillance ability. In dozens of cases, officers have lost their jobs or faced criminal charges for doing things like searching an ex-girlfriend’s license plate information 2,000 times, searching an estranged wife’s license plates 700 times, or tracking an abortion-seeker across state lines.

Florida is not alone in cancelling Flock contracts. Texas, last week, ordered state agencies to stop funding Flock cameras. The Oakland-based advocacy group Secure Justice, which tracks automated license plate reader use on the municipal level, says that in the month of August more towns and cities cancelled their Flock contracts than ever before: of the 214 cities that have dropped Flock since 2021, 90 did so in August 2026. (At least three towns have reported that Flock reinstalled or reactivated their cameras after local officials ended their contracts.)

Strictly regulating data retention might be one solution. A police department can’t do as much to share data with ICE, for example, if state laws mandate that the data be deleted quickly. In New Hampshire, ALPRs must delete all data after three minutes; Flock’s current default retention period is seven days.

Corinne Worthington works as the advocacy manager with the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, a nonprofit focused on litigation and research on discriminatory surveillance technology. To Worthington, the backlash against Flock is “putting a name to people’s fears.”

“I think that because of how public Flock has been, people have woken up to the harms of ALPRs in a way that maybe, previously, they weren’t aware of,” Worthington said. While Flock has over 120,000 license plate readers across the country, it is far from the only ALPR company. Motorola, the AI roadway safety firm Rekor, and Axon, the police tech firm behind Tasers, all sell similar cameras to police. Those companies aren’t household names in the way that Flock is, nor have they been subject to the same backlash.

“That’s the problem with targeting specifically the vendor, not the technology as a whole,” Worthington said. When states and cities cancel their contracts with Flock, they’re likely to end up replacing those cameras with ones made by one of the other ALPR companies. And those other companies are certainly aware of the backlash. Rekor, another company that sells ALPRs, is calling for national regulations on the cameras to “preserve ALPR’s public safety value.” Those regulations would include “anonymizing non-hotlist plate data” which could then be re-identified with a valid warrant or court order.

“The fight over whether ALPR should exist has stopped being useful to anyone,” Rekor vice president Charlie Degliomini told me. “The rules are the real argument.” As far as he is aware, Degliomini added, his company is the only ALPR vendor calling for a warrant requirement on at least some plate searches.

But Rekor’s cameras can be abused, too:activistsin New York are suing the Westchester County Police Department for allegedly using Rekor’s tools to log their locations thousands of times. And the CEO of Axon, another camera manufacturer, floated the possibility of changing the shape of Axon cameras so they look less similar to the Flock cameras Americans are lately so fond of destroying.

“We’ve had some people say they’d like to see us make just a different camera, because our ALPR camera looks like an ALPR camera,” Axon CEO Rick Smith said in a now-deleted webinar, as 404 Media first reported.

Whether cameras that look different, but perform the same surveillance function, will eventually inspire the same backlash remains to be seen.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Everybody Wants to Rule the World (of AI)

On Thursday, Nvidia, the tech giant that develops chips that power AI tools like ChatGPT, announced its acquisition of Hugging Face for nearly $13 billion amid an arms race to dominate every level of the industry.

Well, specifically, the cost was $12,930,300,000, with 129,303 apparently being the character encoding for the 🤗 emoji, which the startup Nvidia acquired is named after.

Hugging Face is the venture that broke into AI safety discussions when OpenAI’s advanced system breached its platform while undergoing a test. Since then, Hugging Face CEO and co-founder Clément Delangue has propelled a publicity campaign to support open-source AI. His startup is a community platform for millions of open-source AI models that anyone can use, modify, and share (many models are free to download).

Per a chart Delangue posted on X, Hugging Face’s library skyrocketed with almost 60 percent more data uploads in the first two weeks after news of the breach by OpenAI became public, and last month, Meta released its new open model on Hugging Face.

It certainly looks like it pays to be breached by OpenAI.

For Nvidia, the acquisition is another move toward vertical integration. The company is also throwing money into data centers, offering up to $105 billion to help OpenAI lease an Ohio data center, which is still under construction but is expected to be the world’s largest.

Nvidia CEO and co-founder Jensen Huang has also positioned the company as a proponent of open-source models—such as the millions Hugging Face shares—for what it calls ensuring safety with the technology. This stance is opposed to startups like OpenAI and Anthropic who have lobbied Washington against open models over fears of losing the ability to protect against misuse of their products and preserving their economic value.

Exciting day for NVIDIA and @huggingface.

Open models strengthen safety and cybersecurity, accelerate innovation and diffusion, and enable sovereignty. They allow every developer, startup, university, industry and country to build with, customize and benefit from AI.

Thank you…

— Jensen Huang (@JensenHuang) September 3, 2026

As AI providers like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google try to make their own AI chips to reduce their reliance on Nvidia, Nvidia looks to add open-source models that compete with the AI providers.

“Together, we will make A.I. more open, more capable and more accessible to people and institutions around the world,” wrote Huang in his announcement of the acquisition. What his ideas of “more capable” and “more accessible” mean for the future is anyone’s guess.

Disclosure: The Center for Investigative Reporting, the parent company of Mother Jones, has sued OpenAI for copyright violations. OpenAI denies the allegations.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Other 9/11 Memorial

The 9/11 memorial park that John Feal helped build is not far off exit 59 on the Long Island Expressway, about 50 miles northeast of Ground Zero. It abuts a busy intersection in an unremarkable part of Nesconset, flanked by a gas station, a takeout joint, and a strip mall parking lot. The memorial itself sits on a cozy acre of grassy land nestled by pear trees, thoughtful flowered landscaping, and custom-built seating courtesy of a local Boy Scout troop. The park is especially nice in the evening, after the traffic dies down, the kind of space you might seek for a few moments of contemplation about irreparable loss.

The memorial’s design is three panels, 63 feet long and 6 feet high, faced with polished granite. The names of almost three thousand 9/11 responders are inscribed in tightly spaced rows from top to bottom on both sides, and it reads like a ledger recording debts to the dead. Not long ago, the panels ran out of room for new names, setting off a scramble among board members to find additional space in time for the 25th anniversary of the attacks this September 11th.

This story will be part of the Reveal episode, “Why More People Have Died From 9/11 than On 9/11” on Saturday, September 5. Subscribe to Reveal here or wherever you get your podcasts

A photo of three middle-aged men , one in a suit, two in zip-up jackets, standing at attention out doors.

John Feal (center) attended the design unveiling of 9/11 memorial to honor rescue workers in 2018. Astrid Stawiarz/Getty

The founders of the Nesconset memorial, whose official name is 9/11 Responders Remembered Park, claim it is the first space in the country honoring those whose lives were cut short from illnesses linked to their work at Ground Zero. These often fatal consequences continue, so the number of those honored keeps increasing.

“I don’t think any of us fathomed how many names were going to be on this wall,” Memorial Architect Mark Mancini said.

“I don’t think any of us fathomed how many names were going to be on this wall.”

Dedicated on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, it has been maintained through private donations and local volunteers. Nesconset and the surrounding Long Island communities have many 9/11 responders, perhaps because of historically affordable housing, and, as longtime resident and Suffolk County Comptroller John Kennedy put it, “firefighters follow firefighters and cops follow cops.” Memorial construction was mostly done by volunteers, including the pro bono work of a nearby architectural firm. It is a project born from the simple desire of a local community to raise up the people lost and those still dying of 9/11 toxic dust.

The memorial board is composed of a firefighter’s widow, two 9/11 responders, and several community members. Along with police and firefighters, the board includes responders who have historically been overlooked for recognition in state and federal memorials. They include, for instance, already-retired firefighters who came to help during the rescue and recovery, and non-uniform volunteers, tradesmen, and professionals, such as sanitation, construction, plumbers, electricians, ironworkers, bricklayers, and medical personnel. And those who died from PTSD-related suicides.

For Feal, the Nesconset memorial has become a touchstone for his advocacy work in protecting responder health care. “After a traumatic event, two things usually happen: advocacy or conspiracy,” he told me. “I choose advocacy.” The park represents more than a list of individuals; it is a historical document for posterity of the people who have been harmed by the toxic dust cloud in a way that, according to Feal, “history can’t distort.”

A photo of a man in uniform ringing a bell under a blue sky. Dozens of people are seated in the background.

A bell is tolled at the 2025 Nesconset 9/11 Memorial Ceremony. Steven Zaitz

I first met Feal, himself a severely injured 9/11 responder, in person in the fall of 2025. He has devoted most of his adult life to protecting the health care program for 9/11 responders and survivors that had been set into federal law in 2011. I had followed him to DC, where he and his band of aging 9/11 responders were hell-bent on securing additional legislation to fix the funding formula for the World Trade Center Health Program. The program brings together medical care and research designed for responders and the local community exposed to the toxic dust cloud in the aftermath of the Twin Towers’ collapse.

The adjustments they lobbied for included accounting for medical inflation and serving a new wave of sick responders. Without it, the program would have reportedly had to stop taking new patients in 2028. For the rest of us, the program serves as a national learning laboratory about the health impacts of urban environmental disasters.

At the time, I was reporting a story about the bodily impacts on 9/11 responders after breathing in or swallowing “World Trade Center Dust”—a cakey and caustic amalgam that burned its way into the nose and throat, and deep into the tissues. I learned that when cement is pulverized, as it was that day, it reverts to its elemental components, transforming into a poisonous swill with the pH of Drano or lye. Some who were in the environs of the dust cloud now live with chronic inflammation of the lungs or digestion: smoldering in the pipes and tissues, never quieting, capable of turning a cold into a life-threatening illness. Some suffer repeated infections from burnt-out sinuses, or perpetual heartburn.

For others, microparticles of dust were absorbed into the bloodstream from the lungs, taking root in the bone marrow and other organs, and sometimes kicking off a cascade of health problems. Even now, the people who worked in the rescue and recovery, along with those who lived and worked in the vicinity of Ground Zero, are getting sick. Some are being diagnosed with lung, thyroid, or skin cancer, others with blood cancers like lymphoma or multiple myeloma. And the rates of these cancers are higher than what might be expected to occur without ground zero dust exposure. As of June 2026, just over 57,000 responders and survivors are certified by the World Trade Center Health program with cancers related to 9/11. More people have now died related to exposures to toxic dust at Ground Zero than died in the attacks themselves.

Feal is fifty-nine. He is wiry and compact, with broad shoulders and arms sleeved with tattoos. Feal usually wears t-shirts, jeans, work boots, and headgear, most often a baseball cap, that he favors even inside, with sunglasses forever perched at the rim. He walks with a slight swagger, purposeful and a little defiant, like the high school wrestling champion he once was, and speaks with the unmistakable cadence of a Long Island drawl—flattened vowels and clipped consonants, fast, edgy, and laced with expletives— “fuck” being his favorite when his words are directed at hypocrites and government officials. Feal is known for sending politicians diving for cover—sometimes on camera—with his audacious potty mouth. You can never be sure if he is about to hug you or bring you down in a half nelson.

Feal’s injuries at Ground Zero changed his life. For five days immediately after the attacks, he worked there as a demolition foreman. “I would drive my excavator or payload too close to the pile, and the windshields would melt, that’s how hot it was,” he said. “And that smell, it engulfed you; it became a part of you.” His work became more of a forensic deconstruction than demolition—untangling a grayscape of twisted steel from pulverized concrete, insulation, plastics, metals, glass, and human remains. When a several-ton steel beam crushed his foot, the firefighters around him saved him from bleeding to death.

A photo of a man in a sleeveless jacket that reads on the back "Blue Knighs New Jersey VIII" stands in front of a wall with hundreds and hundreds of names. The names are broken up by an American flag emblem.

A visitor pauses to read the names inscribed on the 9/11 Nesconset Memorial.Steven Zaitz

The following months were spent in a haze of hospitals, multiple surgeries, and the partial amputation of his left foot. Then followed the black hole of PTSD. He said that the experience of working the pile haunts him today as a phantom smell—both unmistakable and incomprehensible.

In 2002, he joined a support group for sick and injured responders. It was there he realized he was not alone. He met people, mostly from the trades, who helped at Ground Zero, but were now too sick to work. Some had lost their jobs and medical insurance. Others who had been in his group just vanished. “Whether it was six people or 15 people in the group, I’d be like, ‘Yo, where’s what’s-his-name?’ ‘Oh, he died,’” Feal said. “‘Hey, where’s what’s-his-name?’ ‘Oh, he’s in the hospital with stage four cancer.’”

“Whether it was six people or 15 people in the group, I’d be like, ‘Yo, where’s what’s-his-name?’ ‘Oh, he died,.’ ‘Hey, where’s what’s-his-name?’ ‘Oh, he’s in the hospital with stage four cancer.’”

In 2005, he started a nonprofit, the Feal Good Foundation, both to lobby elected officials for responders’ health needs and to offer practical help for responders to get back on their feet: Financial assistance, for instance, for everyday expenses like medication or prescriptions, or perhaps transportation to and from medical appointments.

Feal tells me he has made countless trips to Washington through the years to battle legislators who are skittish about the cost: $955 million for the upcoming fiscal year administered by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The program is set to end in 2090, when most responders and survivors have likely died. Like a B-52 bomber, he’s deployed first by fellow health program advocates to soften the field before the ground troops go in. His strategy is to show up over and over again, moving from congressional office to office, sometimes pushing a sick responder’s wheelchair, refusing to let urgent issues, like continuing the funding for research, disappear behind a wall of lip service.

One wall of Feal’s office in New York City is a clutter of photos, awards, and 9/11-related memorabilia: his personal history as a 9/11 activist in tchotchkes. His notoriety in the 9/11 community grew over the years as he brought attention to responders through extensive media appearances, such as, say, with Jon Stewart. The advocacy work on Capitol Hill also made him a celebrity in the local Long Island 9/11 community.

A photo of two middle-aged men in dark blue and black jackets. Stewart, left, has salt-and-pepper hair and a light beard. Feal is wearing a blue baseball cap with sunglasses sitting on top.

John Feal, right, and Jon Stewart, visited Capitol Hill offices to call on Congress to make permanent the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund in 2019. The fund provides financial assistance to responders, victims and their families, who suffer from health maladies in the aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attacks. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/AP

In 2008, local officials and a small group of determined 9/11 widows began to discuss turning a small piece of land in Nesconset into a memorial. Feal was asked to join the project to help raise funds. He did, but also brought to the table a broader vision for the project, using his firebrand style to help move it forward as an embodied metaphor for those lost to illness, but also for those who were still suffering with 9/11 related illnesses.

While Feal is the first to recognize the initiative as one built from a local collective, for him, the memorial is meant to enshrine the advocacy work itself, his and others’.

“Everybody wants to leave a legacy,” Feal said. “I left that park for the 9/11 community in the town of Nesconset.”

Displayed on a clock tower placed in the grassy part of the memorial is a plaque. On it are the words: “I can tell you that I did not want to be anywhere else but Ground Zero when I was there.” That’s part of the testimony of 9/11 responder Detective Luis G. Alvarez before the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. Alvarez died of cancer in 2019, within a month after delivering this testimony. He had gone to Congress to advocate for financial compensation for sick 9/11 responders.

“After a traumatic event, two things usually happen: advocacy or conspiracy,” says John Feal.

“I choose advocacy.”

Firefighters make their way over the ruins of the World Trade Center through clouds of smoke at ground zero in New York a month after the terrorist attack.Stan Honda/Pool/AP

I recently spoke with Marita Sturken, a historian and New York University professor, on a Zoom call. Her 2007 book, Tourists of History: Memory, Kitsch, and Consumerism from Oklahoma City to Ground Zero, examines the way Americans engage with traumatic historical events—how we use memorials to process our grief and direct our mourning using memorials.

On a shared screen, we studied an architectural drawing and a few photos of the Nesconset Memorial. Sturken noted the memorial’s similarity to the design of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC, where there also are layers of names engraved on the granite slabs, with a clutter of small objects left by families and friends at the memorial’s base.

“The Vietnam memorial was a grassroots project begun by veterans, not government-led,” Sturken said, and was the first one at which people began leaving things. “No other memorial in Washington has been conducive to that.” It was embraced immediately by veterans themselves as a place where they felt recognized and seen. She considers the Nesconset memorial to be similar to others built from advocacy, such as Alabama’s National Memorial for Peace and Justice, dedicated to those who were lynched or victims of racial terror, or the AIDS Memorial Quilt.

Sturken notes that timeframes are, in general, “an ingredient” to the memorial’s form. Usually, built memorials are tied to historical moments, coded with the viewpoints of their makers and of the times/specific moment in time when they were created—literally chiseling our memories into a singular object of contemplation. In the final form, who or what is embodied in bronze, or marble, or granite can tell us as much about who is not depicted as who is. Sturken explained that the best memorials represent an array of voices, honoring and naming individuals, as with the Nesconset memorial. “It creates a very different kind of interaction for visitors,” she said.

A photo of a man who has removed his cap wears a T-shirt aht reads "FEALGOOD FOUNDATION." A man in the background plays the trumpet.

A moment of reflection about loved ones lost.Steven Zaitz

In her book, Sturken points out that memorial culture in the United States is seen as a therapeutic way to make peace with difficult memories. “American mythology clings tenaciously to the belief that one can always heal,” she wrote, “move on and place the past in its proper context.” The Nesconset memorial points to the dissonance in this pursuit. Momentous events rarely have simple endings, especially when there are casualties.

Usually, built memorials are tied to historical moments, coded with the viewpoints of their makers and of the times/specific moment in time when they were created—literally chiseling our memories into a singular object of contemplation.

The New York City 9/11 Memorial and Museum built on the site of Ground Zero has been slow to recognize those who died because of that day, and only formally did so in 2019 with the dedication of an appendage to the main memorial known as the Glade. Set in an arboretum placed adjacent to the main memorial—the one that honors the people killed on 9/11 and in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center—the Glade is a series of granite monoliths infused with steel salvaged from the Twin Towers. It sits just west of the Survivor Tree, which was recultivated after being the only green thing found alive amid the debris.

Unlike the Nesconset Memorial, the designers of the Glade chose not to inscribe the names of individuals who died from 9/11-related illnesses. Ben Chevat, Executive Director of 9/11 Health Watch, was heavily involved with the push to build the Glade. The decision not to inscribe the ever-expanding number of names of the dead was simply too resource-heavy and time-consuming for a government-run entity, he told me.

For Feal, the New York City 9/11 museum, which in recent years added a special exhibit dedicated to those impacted by the toxins, “was a gut punch,” he said. “To me it’s a clean, organized crime scene.” He insisted that he is not downplaying “the significance of what happened that day, innocent lives lost—and the violence,” but believes the city memorial and museum should grow and evolve as more is learned, through research, about the long-term health impacts of the dust.

A photo of people standing in front of memorial panels.

Mourners pay their respects at the 2025 Nesconset Memorial Ceremony.Steven Zaitz

One broiling morning in July, I toured the Nesconset memorial with its architect, Mark Mancini. He remembered going to community meetings about the design and being shocked at the number of sick responders. “One year at an event there are a couple of guys in a wheelchair,” he said, “and the next year they’re gone.”

“One year at an event there are a couple of guys in a wheelchair, and the next year they’re gone.”

The granite wall, he explained, divides the space into two distinct areas: an open grassy area facing the front side of the structure where the public can congregate for ceremonies, and a partially enclosed space around the back for those who want to sit and reflect, which Mancini referred to as “the sanctuary space.” Thinking that they would be able to accommodate all the names, the original design left the front blank with only the words: “Courage, Honor, Sacrifice,” and the other side inscribed with the names of responders. Mancini has resisted requests to encircle the site with additional panels for them. Instead, they faced the cement back of the cantilever bench with granite in the sanctuary, making more room without losing the integrity of the space.

“I’ve come here with nobody around and run into families just sitting here,” he said, his voice cracking with emotion as he pointed to “little things that keep popping up.”

We looked at a small statue of a fireman and a rescue dog placed under a tree. He added, “The space has taken on a life of its own.”

As for Feal, he’s focusing these days on screening which responders’ names are candidates for inscription. In his office in New York City, I looked over his shoulder as he leaned into his laptop, demonstrating his approach. On any given weekday, he can spend a few hours scouring union and other databases and social media sites, as if on a search and rescue mission, identifying recently deceased responders whose names he can bring forward. For a responder to make the cut, they must have died from a 9/11-related illness, as certified by the WTCHP. “It’s uncomfortable all the time to keep track of fatalities,” he said. “It’s kind of morbid.”

Ask Feal about the park, as I did on another visit, and he uses words of endearment, as if it were part of his family. “That park is my baby,” he said. “Now it’s being run by mothers, uncles, and aunts.”

A photo of an elderly man with a mustache wearing a uniform rubs his right hand on a bench with inscriptions.

A firefighter in a moment of reflection at the Nesconset memorial. Steven Zaitz

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Global Heating Will Hit at Least 1.8 C, UN Warns, With “No Good Outcomes”

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

Global heating will reach at least 1.8 C under even the most optimistic future, well beyond the Paris agreement goal of 1.5 C, according to a UN report that warns every fraction of temperature rise intensifies destructive extreme weather, glacier melt, ecosystem loss, and island and coastal city submersion.

The report by the Nairobi-based UN Environment Programme confirmed overshooting the 1.5 C goal inscribed in the landmark Paris agreement of 2015 was now “unavoidable” and, despite some progress in addressing the human-caused climate crisis driven by burning fossil fuels, likely in the next few years.

It said: “There are no good outcomes above 1.5 C.”

“We need to see an urgent and unprecedented increase in political will and investment in a climate safe future.”

Heating of up to 3 C above preindustrial levels could lead to glaciers losing more than a quarter of their mass by 2100, raising sea levels by up to 13 cm. Global food production could decline by up to 14 percent by 2050 if there are not effective strategies to adapt.

Human health, water supplies, nature, cities, infrastructure and economies could all be severely damaged. Some losses would be irreversible. Many communities may have to relocate or change their livelihoods.

The report said the best hope for humanity to limit damage was to adopt an “overshoot, peak, and decline” pathway that required immediate and sustained greenhouse gas emissions cuts combined with steps to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

It described the goal of net zero emissions—increasingly politically contentious in some countries—as “an essential milestone that cannot be skipped” and stressed carbon dioxide removal through steps such as establishing vast new forests must occur alongside, not as an alternative to, deep cuts in fossil pollution.

Crucially, the authors of the report, titled Limiting Overshoot, said the average global temperature could be returned to 1.5 C this century only if heating stayed below about 1.8 C. They warned nature’s capacity to store carbon was uncertain and would shrink the more the planet heats.

The president of Palau, Surangel Whipps Jr.—this week hosting regional leaders including Australia’s Anthony Albanese for a Pacific Islands Forum meeting focused on security and climate—said the report was “a fork in the road moment for the planet.”

“It is hard to overstate the depth of emotion for those of us living on the frontline after having fought so hard to put the 1.5 C limit at the heart of the Paris agreement,” Whipps said. “We need to see an urgent and unprecedented increase in political will and investment in a climate safe future. Nobody can read this report and conclude otherwise.”

“We now have to reconfigure our climate governance around dealing with an overshoot pathway.”

Vishal Prasad, from Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, said the report was terrifying for young people from the Pacific. “The International Court of Justice has made it clear—keeping to 1.5 C is not a choice, it is a legal obligation,” he said. “We are not asking for your goodwill. We are not begging you. We are telling you what international law requires of you. End fossil fuel expansion. Your corporate profits cannot be allowed to extinguish our future.”

The UNEP executive director, Inger Andersen, said the future would “bring many unknowns”, but extreme heatwaves—such as those that smashed records and exacerbated wildfires and droughts this northern summer—were already proving climate impacts would “strike faster, hit harder and last longer.”

“We have to act with urgency and determination. Every fraction of a degree avoided, every year by which overshoot is shortened, and every adaptation action taken will save lives, will protect ecosystems, and reduce economic losses,” she told reporters.

Debra Roberts, a report author and co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said a key message was that “the rules of the game are now changing.”

“Existing approaches are no longer fit for purpose,” she said. “I think, for me, that’s the clarion call. We now have to reconfigure our climate governance around dealing with an overshoot pathway.”

She said that meant not just pollution cuts and carbon removal, but “bold adaptation” to protect infrastructure and livelihoods, help sustain political and social support for reducing emissions, and prevent resources being diverted to crisis response.

Climate Analytics, a science and policy institute, applauded the report for clearly describing the problem, but said it did a poor job of “showing us that there is a way out.” Its chief executive, Bill Hare, said UNEP had barely mentioned the need to phase out fossil fuels or evidence showing “real zero” emissions was possible in many economic sectors by mid-century.

The report’s authors cited earlier work that found limiting heating to about 1.8 C required global emissions to be halved by 2035. They said existing national policies were projected to lead to at least 2.3 C heating, but it would still be possible to limit stay below 2 C if countries delivered on net zero emissions commitments by mid-century.

Professor Richard Betts, from the University of Exeter and UK Met Office and another report author, said the flooding catastrophe caused by the collapse of rock and glacial ice in Nepal and China was a demonstration of why the world needed to limit overshoot and come back to 1.5 C.

“That specific event obviously is very complicated [but] we are committed to glacier loss,” he said. “We can stop them getting much worse by reducing emissions and limiting the amount of warming.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

We Got Max Miller’s Old High School Yearbook

For the past few months, Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) has been embroiled in a growing list of scandals and allegations of harm. Miller’s ex-wife, the daughter of Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), has accused the Republican congressman in legal filings of being an absentee father, abusive husband, and having a history of violence and misconduct towards women dating back to his high school days. Miller has repeatedly denied these allegations.

As Mother Jones’ Abby Vesoulis reported in July:

For instance, one of [Emily] Moreno’s legal filings in their ongoing child custody case asked Miller to comment on the accusation that he pushed a female peer down a set of stairs during his high school years.

“Why did you not pursue a defamation lawsuit against [redacted] for alleging you pushed her down a flight of stairs?”

Miller’s response: “OBJECTION; relevance, scope of admissible evidence.”

According to Politico’s 2021 report, “Miller pushed a girl out the door of his room and she fell down some stairs after he became enraged when she resisted his attempts to touch her, according to three people who were there and many more who heard about the incident in the aftermath.”

Miller categorically denied to Politico that the altercation took place. But reached for comment this month, the woman in question told Mother Jones that while the event “happened 20 years ago,” it remains “one of the more traumatic nights of my life.”

Vesoulis recently traveled to Ohio where she and our producer got a chance to speak with Miller directly following a family court hearing between him and his ex-wife. While visiting, Vesoulis made a stop at the public library in the town that Miller grew up and attended high school in. She wanted to see if there was anything more to be learned from his old high school yearbooks.

“We’re going to flip through all these yearbooks and we could find nothing,” says Vesoulis, sitting in one of the library’s study rooms. “We could find something interesting.”

Interesting, indeed. Here’s what she saw:

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Mamdani Issues AI Moratorium In NYC Schools

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced a one-year moratorium on AI use for elementary and middle school students on Wednesday.

The decision, which comes a week before New York City public schools begin the year, “includes all software that uses student-facing generative AI.” Elementary and middle school students—about 600,000 students in total—willreceive screen-timerestrictions that loosen over advancing grades, ranging from zero to 45 minutes per day. Companion chatbots will also be prohibited for all grade levels.

The city is also introducing biannual AI critical thinking training for high schoolers that cover determining what is and is not AI, impacts on careers and future skills, and AI-related biases, among others, along with limited pilot programs for a few classes per high school that incorporate AI tools into students’ learning “under the direct supervision of a trained educator.”

“Children need their teachers and human connection in order to learn and in order to grow. And they need to develop skills alongside their peers, build relationships with their teachers, and wrestle with tough problems on their own,” Mayor Mamdani said in a Wednesday press conference. “The tech industry wants us to believe that AI in early education is not only inevitable, but that it is necessary. We do not see it that way.”

The new policies will not apply to cases such as assistive tools to help students with disabilities, those who are multilingual learners, and students in career programs like computer science.

Other school districts have considered AI policies and guidance—such as screening AI tools prior to incorporation into the classroom—but, according to Tech Policy Press, few so far include enforceable, school system-wide rules.

New York City’s policies permit teachers to use AI to plan lessons and operational tasks.

United Federation of Teachers president Michael Mulgrew expressed support for the policy’s limits to screen time but told the Associated Press that it left “many questions unanswered,” including around the implementation of“AI safeguards” in software.

“Let’s start at the source, rather than expect school communities or individual educators to figure out after the fact if what their school uses fits the new policy,” he said.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Pete Hegseth’s Year of Blowing Up Boats

On September 2, 2025—a year ago today—the Trump administration first drone-bombed a small boat in the Caribbean Sea. That strike killed 11 people. Then, according to members of Congress who saw classified footage of the attack, the drone circled back for a “double-tap” strike, killing two survivors as they clung to the wreckage.

Administration officials claimed without evidence that the attack was a necessary measure against alleged drug-smugglers.

As justification for the strikes, the administration has relied on and publicly cited a memorandum prepared by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. But it has kept the memo secret, despite pressure from lawmakers and civil society groups. And the bombs haven’t stopped: in the year since, the US military has launched 68 “boat strikes” that have killed at least 227 people.

The most recent strike, on August 25, killed four people the administration claimed were “narcoterrorists.” The military, according to the Associated Press, again offered no evidence that the vessel was carrying drugs.

“The United States is simply killing individuals unilaterally without any legal basis or process.”

The UN Human Rights Office released a statement on Wednesday condemning the strikes and stating trafficking drugs, even with evidence, would not justify extrajudicial murder.

“Drug trafficking is a law enforcement matter governed by international human rights law on the use of force. Calling it war does not make it one,” the statement reads. “No armed conflict exists with the United States under international humanitarian law, since there is no military combat between two sides. The United States is simply killing individuals unilaterally without any legal basis or process.”

While many of the strikes’ victims remain unidentified, some victims have been identified by their families as ordinary fishermen with no relationship to the drug trade. The families of Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo, two Trinidadian men killed in a US boat strike on October 15, 2025, are suing the Trump administration under the Death on the High Seas Act and the Alien Tort Statute.

“For a year now, the Trump administration has engaged in a terrifying, lawless killing campaign at sea and has yet to provide the public with anything beyond the most threadbare justifications,” said Jeff Stein, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “These strikes have devastated countless families, terrified communities, and, by the administration’s own admission, failed to achieve their purported goal of stopping drugs from entering into the United States.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said two weeks ago that he intends to expand his campaign to land in Latin America.

It will be “like you saw with the strikes on the drug boats,” Hegseth told reporters during an August military drill in the jungle in Panama. “Same effect on land. And so we’re working with Ecuador. We’re working with Colombia. We’re working with partners to bring the fight to the designated terrorist organizations on land. Anywhere you traffic drugs, or you threaten the American people, or our partners, you are a target, just like ISIS or Al-Qaeda.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

We Toured Trump’s DC Vanity Projects. It’s a Mess.

Donald Trump’s beloved White House ballroom is moving ahead—at a reported cost of $900 million and counting—thanks to a 5-4 ruling Monday from the Supreme Court.

The ballroom is just one of a slew of active or would-be construction sites where the president is hoping to leave his mark on Washington. But for now, it’s an exception. Many of Trump’s other pet projects are in limbo, stalled by botched construction and legal challenges. Congress has declined to appropriate billions of dollars the administration wants for so-called “beautification” efforts in DC, but the White House has used money from elsewhere in federal budget, including roughly $100 million collected as National Park entrance fees, to pay for the work.

A mile west of the White House, the Kennedy Center remains closed—a tarp obscuring the facade where a federal judge ordered Trump’s name removed. Trump’s plans for the performing arts center, including custom marble armrests, more shows like “Cats,” and his name on the wall, have so far failed. His dismay seemed to animate a recent court filing in which the Justice Department threatened that the center could be demolished if Trump’s plans remained blocked in court.

A mile or so south, the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool sits drained and fenced off—months after the president trumpeted its grand reopening. Following its renovation, the pool closed due to algae blooms and peeling “American flag blue” liner. In late July, the Justice Department acknowledged the peeling resulted from flawed work by a contractor that had received a no-bid contract, worth more than $15 million so far, from the Trump administration. That admission came in a court filing dropping felony charges against an alleged vandal who Trump had blamed for the damage. Trump recently claimed the reflecting will re-open, again, within weeks. But his track record on this topic suggests skepticism is warranted.

Across the Potomac River via Memorial Bridge, the administration hopes to construct what critics have dubbed the “Arc de’ Trump.” The plan for that 250-foot monument, which Trump has said is for “me,” received initial approval this summer from a key federal commission packed with Trump allies, and backing from the Trump-controlled National Park Service. But the proposal has faced stiff legal opposition, in part because the arch would block views of Arlington National Cemetery, leaving its future is uncertain.

Even less likely to be built is the so-called “National Garden of American Heroes.” That’s the statue garden featuring sculptures of 250 Americans that the president hopes to plant along the Potomac near the Jefferson Memorial. Trump first floated the statue garden in 2020 as a sort of anti-woke answer to the removal of statues of Confederates, slave owners, and other historical figures around the country. Congressional Republicans allocated funding for the project, and the administration initially hoped to complete it by July 4 of this year—in time for the semiquincentennial. Trump’s team also set up a nonprofit and began seeking corporate donations for the plan. The same foundation is also raising funds to build a luxury golf course on a flood-prone island in the Potomac, where Trump has claimed construction will start soon.

But July 4 has come and gone, and the statue garden is nowhere close to ready. Sculptors have called the plan “unworkable” due to limited statue-making capacity. And the site also sits in a location where new “commemorative work” cannot be built without additional congressional approval. Congress has not approved this specific plan for the garden, meaning a lawsuit seeking to block the effort might well succeed.

Trump has, however, planted statues elsewhere. He put a new statue of Christopher Columbus on the White House grounds—take that, Indigenous Peoples’ Day. And in Freedom Plaza, a park just southeast of the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue, the administration in April installed 14 statues. These include a large equestrian depiction of Caesar Rodney, a signer of the Declaration of Independence. That statue had sat in storage since 2020, when it was removed from a perch in Wilmington, Delaware, due to Rodney’s status as a major slaveowner. We reported in July that Trump’s Interior Department paid $527,000 for rushed construction of the pedestal on which it now stands. That’s around twice what the department had estimated the statue base should cost. “The work was expedited to ensure it is done before our nation’s 250th,” an Interior Department official told Mother Jones.

Back by the White House are other public works projects the administration rushed to complete by July 4. The National Park Service spent $17.4 million through a no-bid contract to repair two ornamental fountains. The contract, first reported by the New York Times, was secretly awarded to Clark Construction, the same firm that is building the ballroom. The fountains now work. But they are hard to see because of the 13-foot steel fences the administration installed around Lafayette Park. That fencing was supposed to be temporary, but the administration has now proposed permanently fencing off the park. For now, the whole park, including the refurbished fountains, remains closed to the taxpayers who paid for it.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

US Forest Service Chief With Industry Ties Pushed for More Logging on Public Lands

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

Donald Trump this month announced plans to rescind a landmark rule that has protected old-growth forests in the US for 25 years. If finalized, the rollback is expected to benefit the companies that Tom Schultz, chief of the US Forest Service, represented in his previous roles as a timber industry lobbyist and executive, according to research by consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Citizen.

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule, more commonly known as the “roadless rule,” was adopted in 2001 to limit development in roughly 45 million acres of national forest. Industry interests and Republican representatives have long lobbied for the rule’s rescission, which would open up those swaths of untouched land to road construction, drilling and logging.

In a statement, Schultz described the move as “the best way to restore the balance, reduce wildfire risk, and secure the long-term health of our forests and neighboring communities.” But studies suggest it could put 400 threatened and endangered species at risk and imperil ecosystems.

Industry interests will be the main beneficiaries of the change, advocates fear.

In an emailed statement, a Forest Service spokesperson, who did not provide their name, noted that Schultz had also held positions in Idaho and Montana government.

“Active forest management is central to the Forest Service’s multi-use mission—not an industry agenda,” says a Forest Service spokesperson.

“Chief Schultz’s appointment reflects the administration’s recognition that the Forest Service’s current challenges require leadership with broad federal land management experience, not just internal tenure,” the person said.

Schultz is the first-ever Forest Service chief who did not previously work within the agency itself. Before Trump tapped him for the job, he served as president of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, a trade association representing companies that purchase timber from the federal government, and was also vice-president of resources and government affairs at Idaho Forest Group, a major lumber manufacturer.

He is one of dozens of former extractive industry insiders Trump has placed in key environmental positions. Energy secretary Chris Wright was CEO of fracking company Liberty Energy, while interior official Tyler Hassen was an oil executive. Forty-three former fossil-fuel employees and 29 former corporate executives held administration positions, an October analysis from Public Citizen and corporate watchdog Revolving Door Project found.

Schultz has long been critical of the roadless rule. As it was being considered in 2000, he said: “It’s going to be very difficult to actually generate revenue from state trust lands that could be encompassed within a roadless designation.”

The American Forest Resource Council (AFRC), a timber industry trade association on the West Coast that includes the Idaho Forest Group, has recently directly advocated for the rescission of the roadless rule. In comments to the federal government last year, the lobbying group said the “one-size-fits-all” policy unnecessarily prevents “active forest management”—intentionally thinning forests through practices including logging—which it says is the best way to mitigate wildfire risk.

Since his appointment, Schultz has echoed these calls. “Active forest management is not an option. It’s essential,” he said in the announcement of the proposal to rescind the roadless rule, which also referred to the policy as “one-size-fits-all.”

“Active forest management is central to the Forest Service’s multi-use mission—not an industry agenda,” the Forest Service spokesperson said.

In a statement, Nick Smith, spokesperson for the AFRC, said: “There is broad bipartisan support for increasing forest health treatments—thinning, prescribed fire, and even logging—to reduce the size and severity of wildfires and make forests more resilient to climate change.”

A recent analysis of the Forest Service’s own data found that wildfires were nearly three times as likely to start near roads, raising questions about the administration’s claim that expanding road access will reduce wildfire risk, said Lois Parshley, climate research director at Public Citizen. “But from the industry’s perspective, it will also open up new possibilities for logging,” she said.

Asked about Parshley’s concern, the Forest Service spokesperson said that repealing the roadless rule “allows safer use and maintenance of existing roads that first responders have long said they need to reach fires quickly.”

“Forest‑treatment science is clear: thinning plus prescribed fire reduces wildfire severity by more than 60 percent—and up to 72 percent compared to untreated areas,” they said. “Access enables treatment; without access, prevention and response suffer. Gates and seasonal closures can be used to manage public traffic while preserving routes that firefighters and forest managers may need.”

The AFRC’s comments say that “strategically placed and maintained roads are essential for safe and effective wildfire response,” and that in “nearly every major wildfire over the past 15–20 years,” the Forest Service has identified a lack of road access as a key barrier to effective response, Parshley said. That argument also appears in Schultz’s rationale for repealing the rule, she noted. In the administration’s announcement, he said the roadless rule “has frustrated land managers and served as a barrier to action—prohibiting road construction, which has limited wildfire suppression and active forest management.”

Smith of the AFRC said that “millions of roadless acres have burned across the west since the rule’s adoption in 2001.”

“Federal lands are far more likely to burn than private lands, which typically have far more roads,” he said. “According to the congressional budget office, a wildfire on federal land is on average five times the size of one on nonfederal land nearby.”

Critics dispute the logic that the roadless rule is bad for wildfire management, arguing that roads can increase the risk of human-caused fires.

Since Schultz came into the Forest Service in February 2025, the American Forest Resource Council has spent more than $210,000 advocating to expand harvesting in national forests, lobbying records show. Meanwhile, the Idaho Forest Group increased its spending on lobbying in 2026 and reported advocating to support “efforts to advance forest management,” including with the agency now run by its former executive, Parshley found.

Smith of the AFRC claimed that “the amount of money AFRC spends lobbying Congress and federal agencies in support of policies to improve the health of federal forests and nearby rural communities is dwarfed in comparison to the many anti-forestry NGOs.”

In an earnings call, one lumber company CEO boasted that, “We know the new Forest Service chief.”

Idaho is exempt from the roadless rule; it has its own regulations on roadless areas developed with the federal government. But the proposal to kill the roadless rule is just one industry-backed change to forestry that the Trump administration has put forth. As the head of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, Schultz in July 2022 delivered testimony before Congress in which he suggested roadless areas were limiting the industry, saying: “nearly half of the National Forest System [is] off limits to management.”

Though he did not call to overturn the policy specifically, he advocated allowing states to manage more Forest Service timber sales, expanding exemptions from environmental review processes, and changing stewardship contracting rules to support logging and wood-processing infrastructure.

The Trump administration has since adopted or advanced each of those proposals, Parshley found in a report earlier this year. And Schultz has directly helped implement them, she found. For instance, in December 2025 he personally signed an agreement with Idaho’s governor to double federal timber sales from the state’s national forests. “That directly benefits his former employer the Idaho Forest Group,” she said.

Idaho Forest Group has been contacted for comment.

Under Schultz, the Forest Service has ramped up timber sales. In June, he told senators that the agency had exceeded its timber-sale target. He has also overseen a historic and widely criticized structural reorganization of his agency, moving the agency’s headquarters from the nation’s capital to Salt Lake City, eliminating regional offices and staff and shifting authority over forests to states.

Schultz has made it clear that he aims to weaken regulations. In April, he told Congress that he is “trying to cut through regulation.”

In a company earnings call after Schultz was confirmed, lumber company PotlatchDeltic CEO Eric Cremers confirmed that industry executives maintain direct familiarity with Schultz in his new role, saying: “We know the new Forest Service chief.”

“It’s pretty clear that the industry was excited by their reactions to Schultz’s nomination and then confirmation,” said Parshley.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Fight for America’s Future Is Happening in the South

Tennessee Rep. Justin J. Pearson first caught national attention when he was expelled from the state’s House of Representatives after demonstrating in support of gun law reforms. Today, he’s the Democratic candidate for Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District. It’s an area newly transformed by redrawn voting maps and sprawling data centers, putting Pearson at the center of some of the country’s biggest national fights.

“The litmus test for America’s future is what happens in the South,” Pearson tells host Al Letson. “And so we need to be paying attention to what’s going on here, because here is where the test cases for autocracy happen. Here is where the billionaires have their testing ground for what else can go on in other parts of the country.”

On this week’s More To The Story, Pearson talks about how redistricting has upended Tennessee and the many ways gun violence has become a deeply personal issue for him. He also looks back at the opposition to his 2023 demonstration for gun law reform, when he was dubbed part of “the Tennessee Three.”

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

Lawmakers Push DHS to Cancel Its Shock Gloves Contract

Last week, DHS finalized its $16.7 million purchase of 6,650 pairs of electric shock gloves from the Kentucky-based company Compliant Technologies. That comes out to about $2,400 per pair, plus some accessories like glove fresheners in case the ICE agents wearing these direct contact electroshock weapons get sweaty.

Almost as quickly as the contract was finalized, pushback reached the legislative branch in a classic Congressional form: a whole bunch of open letters. A group of Senators wrote to interim ICE director David Venturella on August 27, asking him whether there will be any tracking of how these gloves are used. Members of the House Committee on Homeland Security wrote a similar letter August 31. And on that same day, a group of 49 Democratic members of Congress led by Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) wrote a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin demanding that he cancel the shock gloves contract.

“The decision to equip civil immigration enforcement agents with electric shock gloves continues a deeply disturbing escalation in the militarization of DHS — as well as sustained efforts to shield itself from accountability,” the lawmakers wrote. Their letter cites Mother Jones reporting on how police departments use the gloves to inflict pain while avoiding legal liability. “This Administration continues to outfit ICE and CBP with the tools of an occupying paramilitary force—despite widespread human rights violations carried out by its agents during immigration enforcement actions.”

As I reported last month, human rights organizations suggest that the gloves are not, as Compliant Technologies says on its website, “humane.”

The technology is unregulated “despite the clear human rights risks associated with its use,” Amnesty International researchers wrote in a 2025 report detailing instances in which electric-shock devices have been used for torture. The report ends with a recommendation that countries “cease use of, decommission and destroy any stockpiles of such prohibited electric shock weapons.” Yumna Rizvi, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Victims of Torture, called the gloves “inherently abusive equipment that facilitates torture.”

On the state and local level, police departments are facing angry communities demanding they cancel their contracts with Compliant Technologies. In Nebraska’s largest school district, after reporting by Nebraska Public Media revealed that school resource officers had used the devices on students, Omaha police were forced to stop wearing shock gloves in the halls of middle and high schools.

In California, meanwhile, a bill banning law enforcement operating in the state from using wearable electroshock devices passed the legislature Monday night. The ban extends through 2030 and requires the state Department of Justice to study the weapons’ safety.

“Imagine your family, your friends and loved ones or even yourself being incapacitated by federal, state or local law enforcement who do not have the necessary training to ensure that you don’t suffer from adverse health effects due to being shocked,” said California Democratic Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, who sponsored the bill, in an Aug. 26 Senate committee hearing.

The Sacramento Sheriff’s Department is the only California agency known to have purchased Compliant Technologies’ shock gloves. In August, it spent $35,000 on 10 pairs, as well as 10 shock bands to be placed on a detained person’s arm or wrist, as the Sacramento Bee reported. That sheriff’s department opposes the ban, as do numerous other law enforcement agencies. “This is a bad policy from a California law enforcement perspective, and it’s really only gonna be a message to the feds that’s going to fail to land,” California State Sheriffs’ Association lobbyist Cory Salzillo said at an August 26 hearing.

The bill is expected to face legal challenges from the federal government. “Sanctuary politicians attempting to ban our federal law enforcement from any safety equipment is despicable and a deliberate attempt to undermine and endanger our officers,” a DHS spokesperson told Mother Jones. “To be crystal clear: we will not abide by unconstitutional bans. The Supremacy Clause makes it clear that California’s sanctuary politicians do not control federal law enforcement.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

It’s Just Too Late for John Roberts to Say He Doesn’t Like Trump’s Ballroom

On Monday, the same Supreme Court justices who helped Donald Trump return to the White House, gave him criminal immunity, and greenlit dozens of his illegal actions, gave the president yet another gift: a massive ballroom. Though it seems clear that the destruction of the East Wing and its replacement with a 90,000-square foot ballroom atop a new military bunker is illegal, the court’s Republican appointees have cleared the way for its completion.

All, that is, but one. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Democratic nominated-judges in dissent. Writing for the dissenters, Roberts called the construction “likely unlawful” and a trampling of Congressional authority. Given the unpopularity of the project, perhaps Roberts thought it best to keep his name off of it. But while Roberts clearly doesn’t want to be blamed for the ballroom, he wrote many of the precedents that undergird the majority’s decision to let it go forward.

Though Roberts had the sense to dissent, in similar cases he has been on the other side.

Monday’s emergency docket order again giving Trump the go-aheadhalts a district court order that could have stopped above-ground work while allowing construction to precede on a secure, below-ground facility. Instead, the Supreme Court order allows all construction to continue until the litigation is complete. Because a final ruling on the merits of the case by the Supreme Court is probably months if not years away, Monday’s decision will likelyallow the project to reach completion.

The majority’s argument—and Roberts’ dissent—focus on the issue of standing, the technical question of whether the plaintiffs challenging the ballroom have the right to do so in federal court. Standing generally turns on whether the plaintiff is injured by the policy they are challenging. In this case, the plaintiffs are the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States and one of its members, Alison K. Hoagland, an architectural historian who passes by the White House frequently and claims a personal and professional interest in not seeing the former East Wing replaced with Trump’s new ballroom. Hoagland claimed she had the same basis to sue that the Supreme Court has afforded to people in environmental cases who allege an injury if, for example, the government kills off a species so that they no longer have the pleasure of viewing it.

But in Monday’s unsigned order, five GOP appointees found that isn’t enough to obtain standing. In his dissent, Roberts disagreed,defending the idea that Hoagland and the trust had asserted a viable claim, just as an environmentalist could challenge the pollution of a river that would kill off the fish she liked to watch. As Roberts put it, after Monday, “I want to look at a crocodile” is enough to get standing but “I want to look at the White House” is not.

The Republican appointees have been manipulating standing doctrine in recent years in order to achieve desired results. But even if they felt strongly that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, the request for a stay required the justices to determine which side would face greater, even irreparable, harm if the project proceeded at this juncture. Clearly, the preservationists would suffer greatharm if the ballroom is completed. Conversely, the president wouldn’t be harmed by a pause. After all, his purportednational security concerns are already being met with construction of his underground lair continuing.

Moreover, the president cannot be harmed if his action is illegal in the first place. This is a point Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson separatelymade just last week when her Republican-appointed colleagues lifted an injunction against Trump’s illegal executive order on mail-in ballots. “The President is only conceivably harmed by an injunction barring executive action if that court order is preventing him from doing something the law permits him to do,” Jackson wrote.

In Monday’s decision in the ballroom case, the majority wouldn’t discuss the legality of the project. That’s probably because the ballroom is pretty clearly illegal. It’s a privately funded demolition and reconstruction of the so-called People’s House when Congress explicitly gave itself control over suchnew buildings and their funding. As Roberts wrote in his dissent: “Congress has explicitly prohibited the construction of any ‘building or structure. . . on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.’” Moreover, by using private funds, the Trump administration is circumventing Congress’ power of the purse; Congress is supposed toallot taxpayers’money for White House renovation. “Today’s decision,” Roberts wrote, “is no victory for the separation of powers.”

Though Roberts had the legal and political sense to dissent this time, in similar cases he has generally been on the other side. Time and again, this court has reasoned that the executive is harmed if his obviously lawless actions are put on hold by the courts. When Trump kicked off his second term in January 2025 with a flurry of illegal activity that the lower courts quickly blocked, the Supreme Court repeatedly came to his rescue on the theory that the president is harmed if his actions cannot take effect—even ones that are clearly illegal, such as denying citizenship to people born in the United States, which the GOP appointees said courts could not block in full. In case after case, the majority presumed that the harm to Trump is greater than the harm to the targets of his actions—even when those are far more irreparable and concrete.

There is an irony in Roberts’ unwillingness to go along with this view of executive prerogative in the ballroom case, because he is largely responsible for it. In decision after decision, Roberts has imbued the presidency with the powers of the so-called unitary executive, a king-like ruler with total control over the executive branch. The apotheosis of this theory is Roberts’ majority opinion in Trump v. United States, which gave presidents criminal immunity. The chief justice explicitly placed a president’s desiresabove the constraints of the criminal laws passed by Congress. It was better, he wrote in that decision, to have an “energetic, vigorous, decisive” executive than one who was bound by the criminal laws, which he described as “counterproductive burdens” on the “‘vigor'” and “‘energy’ of the Executive.”

The country, he promised, would be better off with a decisive leader, rather than one who must “‘answer for his conduct’ in court.” Just one year later, Trump decisively but illegally razed the East Wing and started building a giant ballroom.

Roberts ended his dissent from Mondaywith a quote. “Winston Churchill once remarked that ‘[w]e shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us,’” Roberts wrote. “All the more reason to ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People’s House.”

Roberts’ warning, it seems, is that an administration working out of an illegally-constructed building might be shaped by that ethos of lawlessness, and that, within its ill-gotten walls, they might be inspired to flout the law in other pursuits. That may be true, but it’s remarkably unselfaware coming from Roberts. The man who told presidents they could crime with impunity is now fretting that they might, actually, ignore the law.

Churchill’s admonition could be redirected at the chief justice and his colleagues: The Supreme Court writes opinions, and those opinions shape the country. All the more reason to enforce the law, especially when it comes to the inhabitant of the People’s House. But on Monday, the court once again told Trump to go ahead with an illegal scheme. The lesson is clear.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Relentless Work of Being Sick

In late 1984, dozens of people in the region of Lake Tahoe, California, would go to the doctor with a variety of symptoms, including debilitating fatigue—the first clearly documented cluster of what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would label “chronic fatigue syndrome” towards the end of the ’80s.

Today, that complex condition is known as ME/CFS, or myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. In its more severe manifestations, it can leave people unable to get out of bed independently, needing to be tube-fed. Even in its minor forms, it can be life-altering.

I would know: I received an ME/CFS diagnosis in 2023. It’s not a rare condition—it’s estimated that around half of the millions of people with long Covid may have ME/CFS— but it is still widely misunderstood. Pushing oneself too hard to get “through” it, for one thing, doesn’t help build tolerance, and can instead lead to crashes known as post-exertional malaise.

Duke University cultural anthropologist Emily Lim Rogers looks at the labor it takes simply to exist while sick in her new book Sick Work: Exhaustion, Labor, and Invisible Illness, through the lens of ME/CFS. We spoke about the history of the condition, the importance of acknowledging differently racialized experiences of chronic illness, and the compounding exhaustion of being ill.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How has debilitating fatigue been downplayed since the Industrial Revolution, and how does that connect to work?

In the US, we have an idea that it’s normal to be burnt out. Fatigue and burnout are systemically denied from workers’ compensation claims; this is actually not the case in all countries.

“Fatigue is this term that’s so banal and non-exceptional. We accept it as completely mundane and something that everyone should be: fatigued.”

The concept of fatigue was initially conceived of as something that could be solved, particularly in the context of an understanding of the body as a machine, in the late 19th century. Fatigue did not enter English-language medical journals until the last decade of the 19th century. The first chapter of the book looks at how fatigue went from a problem that could be solved, and should be worked on—granted, for maximum productivity—to something that just became accepted as part of everyday life.

Stress was a concept that only gained widespread acceptance as a legitimate scientific phenomenon in the 1970s.

When I was looking at people with ME/CFS contemporarily, one might expect to find sort of a paradigm of hysteria [and dismissal on that basis], like women’s chronic illnesses are obviously disproportionately affected by chronic fatigue syndrome. But what I found was that most people were not dismissed as kind of crazy hysterics—though that certainly echoes as well—but from an idea that they were just working too hard.

But then, that’s interesting, because our solution is not, “Maybe we should give these people disability insurance, maybe we should give these people time off work.” Instead, it’s, “You cannot handle the conditions of everyday life under capitalism. You’re just fatigued. You’re just burnt out.”

Now, people with ME/CFS have a qualitatively different type of fatigue than fatigue from work. [But] I think if we were to challenge the idea that some people have debilitating fatigue in addition to other non-specific symptoms, it would fundamentally raise the question of: Should we all be tired all the time in the first place?

You write that “Sick work is not about rehabilitation into the workforce or the reproduction of labor power: It is treading water with a body that has already been rendered unproductive.” That really hit me hard. In what ways do you think the capitalist society we live in degrades the amount of work it takes for chronically ill people, whether they have ME/CFS or another condition, to survive?

Part of my argument is that we call these illnesses “invisible illnesses,” because you can’t necessarily tell that someone’s sick. That’s true, but, for some people, it’s very much not invisible. I would describe these illnesses as invisibleized, more accurately. And part of my argument is that the invisible labor, and the invisibilization of the labor, that it takes to be sick leads to the invisibilization, and minimization politically, of many diseases like ME/CFS.

“In US culture, we have a huge kind of panic over the idea that someone is faking it.”

The work and everyday labor of living with ME/CFS contains this recursive loop of everyday labor of being ill, where you can’t work, but you need to work.

The engine of capitalism, as I describe in the [book], is fatigue: the depletion of bodily capacity to its absolute limit. If all of that is depleted in simply trying to be okay, then you’re already rendered outside the fold of who we think of as a productive worker. Many people, as I show in the book, do have ME/CFS and have to work paid jobs because they have to get health insurance, but they’re barely treading water. And the only reason, for many people, is because work is their only tie to health insurance, which is the cruel irony of this whole system.

You note that some ME/CFS patient activists believe the CDC used the name “chronic fatigue” to downplay its severity.

I read about it in some early reporting on ME/CFS in the ’90s. I think the question of intentionality is maybe less salient than the question of its effect. Fatigue is this term that’s so banal and non-exceptional. We accept it as completely mundane and something that everyone should be: fatigued.

For people with ME/CFS, a very different type, a very, very debilitating type of fatigue that does not come proportionate to any exertion, kind of gets buried in that. It’s important to look at the nitty-gritty of the science, why something’s researched or not researched. But zooming out, I try to understand this as very deeply embedded into how capitalism operates for chronically ill people at large.

How have ME/CFS patients been dismissed owing to the lack of clear, consistent biomarkers for the condition?

Many people would look at people with ME/CFS, especially those very active in the patient activist movement, and say, “Oh, these are a bunch of bougie white women”—and that’s true in terms of who can get a diagnosis. We would say that the bourgeois white woman is so opposite of the figure of the welfare queen, the person who wants a cop-out from work, right?

I actually think these figures are not completely distinct, because in US culture, we have a huge kind of panic over the idea that someone is faking it, and thus taking taxpayer dollars, and just lazy.

“Many people of color that I talk to didn’t even consider that they might have ME/CFS…People can really internalize: Am I worthy to be ill, or am I not?”

I think that the lack of biomarkers creates that panic, and biomarkers became the idea of objective proof of illness and became more important in disability determinations in the neoliberal era.

We saw it in the gutting of the social safety net under Reagan, continuing obviously under Clinton, and this is obviously very relevant to what we’re seeing now with all of the cuts in Medicaid. What we have or don’t have [reduced to] biomarkers is political, and how that meets and meshes with actual everyday interactions in the disability determinations office, with health insurance companies, is sort of a distillation of all that. All those sources come crashing in [together] to shape the dismissal of ME/CFS.

As you mentioned, ME/CFS has often been portrayed as a rich white women’s disease, which is just not accurate. Could you tell me about your takeaways from your conversation with Robin, a Black woman with ME/CFS?

Not only was there the shocking anecdote that even a Black doctor would tell her, “No, just keep pushing on,” it raised a larger point. It is always about who has the money, resources, and time to go and get an ME/CFS diagnosis—but there’s also something where it cuts deeper, to who sees themselves as someone who can be legitimately ill.

The portrayal of ME/CFS as a bourgeois white woman’s disease does not help. Many people of color that I talk to didn’t even consider that they might have ME/CFS, so I think people can really internalize: Am I worthy to be ill, or am I not? And should I just push on, or should I not?

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

How Trump Can Use Chaos to Cheat in the Midterms

In his crusade to undermine American democracy, Donald Trump doesn’t have to win to win. He only needs to create a mess.

Look at this week’s news. There were several court actions regarding Trump’s outrageous attempt to restrict mail-in voting for the midterms. The back-and-forth was confusing, as the Supreme Court undid a lower court’s decision that had blocked key components of Trump’s plan. The US Postal Service then announced it would proceed with Trump’s scheme, but a federal judge subsequently issued a temporary restraining order that prevented the USPS from moving ahead. The legal fight is continuing, with mail-in voting due to begin within several weeks in some states.

So…chaos. Which is what Trump desires. Surely, he wants to succeed in severely limiting mail-in balloting—an obsession of his that seems patently unconstitutional, given that the founders handed the authority to run and oversee national elections only to the states and Congress. But he also triumphs if his shenanigans foster uncertainty.

It will be a disaster for democracy should Trump manage to win this legal battle and limit mail-in voting

Many voters do not follow the ins and outs of electoral law. As with most issues, they hear and see snatches of news and miss key developments and important details. It can be tough to be fully informed on this front. But if voters receive the impression that mail-in ballots might not count, might not be permitted, or might expose a voter to extra scrutiny, some voters might not bother to vote or might be intimidated from voting.

It will be a disaster for democracy should Trump manage to win this legal battle and limit mail-in voting. Eight states run elections primarily by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. So does Washington, DC. And several other states rely heavily on mail-in ballots. But even if the courts ultimately reject his assault on postal voting, the confusion he’s sowing could, to a degree, subvert the election.

Trump’s attack on mail-in ballots is only one front in his war on voting. He already has succeeded in pushing Republicans to gerrymander congressional districts ahead of schedule to tilt the playing field this year toward the GOP. The Trump administration also just announced it will deploy 1,000 election monitors to voting sites in November.

Past administrations have sent out monitors without causing disruptions. But given Trump’s adversarial stance toward state election authorities and his ceaseless pushing of bogus election conspiracy theories, there’s reason to worry that mischief and voter intimidation could be prompted by his supposed monitors.

There also has been speculation among Trump detractors that he might resort to stationing troops, National Guard forces, or ICE agents at polling places to scare off voters.

One cause for concern: The Justice Department’s civil rights division has apparently hired for its election monitoring project a lawyer named David Michael Levin, who in 2016 was charged in Florida with three felonies for allegedly hacking into government election sites. According to Democracy Docket, the charges were reduced to two misdemeanors, and he pleaded guilty and served 20 days in jail. Moreover, Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the civil rights division, which is responsible for election monitoring, is a 2020 election denier who pushed Trump’s false claims about that contest. Having her head an election monitoring mission would be like placing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in charge of the nation’s vaccine policies. Oh…wait.

There also has been speculation among Trump detractors that he might resort to stationing troops, National Guard forces, or ICE agents at polling places to scare off voters. If anything like this happens, Trump and the GOP will argue that citizens entitled to vote have no reason to fear the presence of ICE agents. But since ICE agents have rounded up American citizens—and often acted violently—their appearance at these sites would likely keep some voters away. Who wants to risk being erroneously apprehended or getting caught up in a violent ICE action—just for exercising their constitutional right to vote?

Such speculation is far from idle. Bobby Charles, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Maine, recently said he would ask White House border czar Tom Homan to send ICE agents to the state’s polling stations. (In July, Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a Colombian national, was shot and killed by ICE agents in Biddeford, Maine. He was mistakenly targeted by ICE agents who were looking for his roommate.) Trump and his minions don’t have to dispatch ICE on Election Day to frighten away voters; a public discussion of this prospect could be enough to keep some voters at home.

It’s so damn obvious but still deserves saying: Nothing this administration states about voting should be taken at face value.

Markwayne Mullin, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, has said that he would not deploy ICE agents to intimidate voters, but there’s no reason to accept his promise. After all, Trump and his entire administration have been promoting the baseless lie that election fraud is rampant and noncitizen voting is a significant problem. In a speech in July, Trump declared that DHS had identified 250,000 noncitizens on the voter rolls of four states. But since then, DHS has not been able to produce proof of this, and it has even acknowledged that the number was inflated.

It’s so damn obvious but still deserves saying: Nothing this administration states about voting should be taken at face value. Pushing his Big Lie about the 2020 election, Trump nearly annihilated the nation’s constitutional order. He mounted a disinformation campaign to discredit legitimate voting results and incited violence to stay in power. After that, screwing around with the midterms is peanuts for him. No one should be surprised that he will use whatever power he now has to rig the coming elections in his favor. All media coverage of his assault on mail-in voting and his other attempts to reduce voting participation should be presented within the context that Trump is a clear and present threat to democracy.

The US electoral system is a crazy quilt of state and local election authorities. It won’t be easy for Trump to meddle in hundreds of contests across the country—especially in Democratic-led states. Mail-in ballots may be his best shot. But with only 19 House seats deemed toss-ups at this point, Trump and his crew will only have to interfere in a handful of races to help his Republican cultists remain in charge of Congress.

These coming elections are not only significant because control of the legislative branch is at stake at a time of crisis. They will demonstrate whether the United States can have free and fair elections or whether Trump and the GOP will prevail in their ongoing endeavor to impose minority rule on America.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

It Looks Like Hegseth Is Replacing Top Military Officers With Loyalists

US Army Secretary Dan Driscoll is set to depart the Pentagon in the next few days, following a months-long feud with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the firings of several top officials and allegedly blocking many of his innovation projects like streamlined technology adoption.

The Wall Street Journal was the first to report the news on Monday.

Driscoll’s resignation after serving for 18 months leaves the US Army effectively without a senior leader. Hegseth fired Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George in April and has not nominated a replacement.

Hegseth has cut down the number of top military officials in his Defense Department. According to Military Times, since taking his post last January, he presided over the firings and early departures of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chief of naval operations, the Army’s vice chief of staff, and the commander of the US Army in Europe and Africa, among others.

While it’s unclear which firings Driscoll took issue with, Hegseth also fired the only two women serving as four-star officers and blocked promotions for several female and Black Navy officers, seemingly under his anti-diversity push. In early 2025, Hegseth said the firings were “a reflection of the president wanting the right people around him to execute the national-security approach we want to take.”

“Secretary Driscoll has been highly effective in advancing President Trump’s agenda to Make America Strong Again at the Department of the Army by providing outstanding leadership during historic military operations, restoring an emphasis on readiness and lethality, assisting with negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, and more,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. (Noting the emphasis on lethality.)

Driscoll took his worries about the Army’s future under Hegseth’s leadership directly to President Trump, four people familiar with the discussion told The Atlantic, given the series of firings of top officers. One of the people said that Trump was surprised and expressed concern.

Hegseth is reportedly considering his chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell—who also allegedly abused his estranged wife and children—to succeed Driscoll. As I pointed out on Monday, Parnell criticized the Washington Post’s reporting that cited classified documents in which top military officials stated that the current war in Iran is depleting their ability to defend the US from other threats, baselessly claiming on Sunday that publishing the report was “a crime” and evidence of Trump and Pete Derangement Syndrome.

This all looks like a move to replace officers who push back on Hegseth’s policies with loyalists.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

A Federal Judge Just Killed New York’s $75 Billion Climate Bill for Polluters

On Monday, an Obama-appointed federal judge ruled that New York State could not enforce its 2024 Climate Change Superfund Act, a landmark law that would have charged fossil fuel companies $75 billion over 25 years for climate damages from cumulative greenhouse gas emissions.

In a 63-page opinion, Chief Judge Brenda Sannes of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York sided with 22 Republican state attorneys general, as well as industry groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute, and National Mining Association, saying the state’s “sprawling” superfund act was preempted by the federal Clean Air Act and outside the jurisdiction of New York.

“The Climate Act is an unusual and sweeping statute, designed to address the effects of climate change–a ‘uniquely international problem of national concern’,” Sannes wrote. “Thus, the Court finds the Climate Act is ‘simply beyond the limits of state law.’” Her decision follows a July hearing where Sannes sharply questioned whether she was constrained by an earlier 2021 decision in which New York sued five fossil fuel groups for climate damages from climate change, such as sea level rise. Her August 31 opinion relied heavily on this case.

New York’s climate superfund legislation, passed in 2024, required fossil fuel companies to pay for climate change adaptive infrastructure projects, like upgrades to roads, transit systems, the electric grid, stormwater drainage, and sewage treatment plants, as well as design solutions to mitigate extreme heat.

Climate litigation experts criticized the legal rationale behind Sannes’ decision. “The [2021] Second Circuit NYC decision is not binding precedent in this case,” said Patrick Parenteau, a law professor and Climate Policy Fellow at Vermont Law School. “It has been severely criticized by other federal and state courts. Judge Sannes should not feel bound by it.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration, which over the last year and a half has enacted its deregulatory “energy dominance” agenda and has rolled back a host of environmental rules, like the 2009 endangerment finding, commended the ruling.

“The Department of Justice is delivering on President Trump’s order to protect American energy from state overreach,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson in a Department of Justice press release. “New York’s law would have expropriated $75 billion from energy companies around the world during an energy emergency and in direct defiance of American foreign policy and federal law. We will continue to fight for affordable, reliable energy for all Americans.”

Gustafson is head of the recently rebranded Energy and Natural Resources Division, and under his watch, the DOJ filed a similar lawsuit last year supporting attorneys general in New York as well as Vermont, which passed the very first state climate superfund legislation in May 2024. Vermont was first sued by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute in December of that year.

In 2026, 13 other states have considered passing similar “polluters pay” laws. Despite wide public support, organizers in blue states considering their own bills are seeing opposition from state Republicans, business groups, and trade associations. New Jersey Senator Michael Testa released a statement saying his state “should pay close attention” to New York’s ruling. “Our state’s similar bill should go no further. It’s a waste of time and resources.”

At the time of publication, New York’s Attorney General Letitia James has not yet filed an appeal over Sannes’ ruling. Separately, it is unclear when and how Vermont’s case will be decided, but both decisions may inform how other states draft and pass future climate superfund laws.

Environmental advocates stress that New York’s ruling “doesn’t bind” other states from passing their own superfund laws, and that the burning of fossil fuels will continue to cause mounting climate damages. “The floods will still come, roads will still wash out, and communities will still need billions to protect themselves,” said Make Polluters Pay Communications Director Cassidy DiPaola in an emailed press release. “Those costs don’t disappear just because fossil fuel companies don’t want to pay them.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Here’s Why We’ve Been Seeing So Much Food-Borne Illness

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

Summer is supposed to be the best time for fresh produce. Corn on the cob at the cookout. Berries plucked right from the vine. Salads on the cafe patio while you take an extra long lunch break because the weather and the food is that good.

But this year, summer’s harvest brought something much different than the flavorful dishes we’ve come to expect. Since May, the United States has seen more than 17,000 lab-confirmed cyclosporiasis cases. Before this summer’s massive outbreak, the country had never recorded more than a few hundred infections in a single year from this parasite, which can cause watery and at times explosive diarrhea.

And that isn’t the only bug invading Americans’ digestive tracts.

One person died from a listeria infection traced to ricotta cheese. Close to 100 people came down with salmonella from recalled eggs, while more than 400 people have gotten sick in a separate salmonella outbreak involving jalapeños. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration issued its highest urgency warning for frozen blueberries believed to be contaminated with E coli.

“Climate change has allowed pathogens like cyclospora…to expand from the tropic, subtropic lines into areas more north and south.”

And now several dozen people across 15 states have become ill after eating alfalfa sprouts in a new outbreak that involves salmonella and E coli. Four of them have been hospitalized.

It’s gotten so bad that one Washington Post columnist argued we should stop eating lettuce altogether. Experts have told me they were worried people might actually completely stop consuming vegetables—vital to any healthy diet—for fear of contracting cyclosporiasis and enduring a month of watery diarrhea. I personally avoided the bagged salad kits that provided me with many easy lunches on a workday.

While this spate of foodborne illness is especially bad, the worst may be yet to come.

It’s only natural to look for somebody to blame. Culpability has understandably fallen on the Trump administration and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who helms the US Department of Health and Human Services—especially after his deep staffing cuts at the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the two federal agencies most responsible for investigating and responding to disease outbreaks. Those cuts have slowed the response, and officials have struggled to communicate with the public clearly in a fast-moving crisis.

While our government officials are partly to blame, the problem is bigger than Trump and Kennedy, or even this one summer. While seasonal changes will always play a role—the warmer months, when people eat more fresh produce and consume more food that’s been sitting out at unsafe temperatures, typically have more foodborne illnesses—the underlying factors contributing to these outbreaks are becoming more potent. The food supply is more and more globalized. And the planet continues to warm, allowing these pathogens to spread to more and more farms all over the world, including in the US.

As the weather finally begins to cool down, I’ve been asking myself an uncomfortable question: What if diarrhea summer never really ends?

Our globalized food supply chain has a lot to do with our food safety—and that isn’t going to change any time soon. Americans expect access to any produce they want year-round, even produce that isn’t in-season locally, or that may not grow anywhere in the US at all. We source food from all over the world: Most cyclospora outbreaks originated with foods grown in other countries. This year’s crisis was eventually linked to iceberg lettuce from Mexico.

And as the New York Times recently documented, the sometimes international trip from the farm to the store for a bagged salad kit offers multiple moments for potential contamination, including tainted irrigation water, local wildlife excrement, and poor storage practices, making it possible for dangerous pathogens to take hold before a person even buys their groceries.

This is a problem that is going to become worse, not better.

Warming temperatures around the world are also helping those bugs spread. Humidity is essential for salmonella and warmer summers will mean more humid-favorable conditions for the bacteria to grow. E coli likewise will thrive as temperatures rise. Cyclospora has historically been found in subtropical climates, so for a long time, infections from food grown inside the United States were unheard of. Not anymore.

“Climate change has allowed pathogens like cyclospora…to expand from the tropic, subtropic lines into areas more north and south of that tropic line,” said Joseph Eisenberg, a professor of epidemiology and global public health at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

“With respect to the US, we’re starting to see new infectious diseases in southern Louisiana, Texas; that also increases the presence of cyclospora in food systems in other countries,” he said. “It suggests that, through climate change, we might potentially start seeing it be endemic in the United States at some point.”

And indeed, cyclospora was found in farms in Florida in 2020. This is a problem that is going to become worse, not better, given the expected trends in global warming in the decades to come.

“It wasn’t until about within the last 10 years we started to see cases from domestic origin,” Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia, told me. “Before, there were predominantly cases due to international travel or importation of products because it used to be endemic in some tropical or warmer climates.”

“It’s clear that now,” he said, “it’s become established in the domestic environment.”

To make matters worse, at the same time conditions for foodborne illness are ripening, the US government has been sharply cutting its ability to monitor for and respond to these outbreaks.

At the beginning of the second Trump administration, as part of the widespread government staffing cuts, the FDA laid off 3,500 workers. Between the FDA and the US Department of Agriculture, which also oversees food safety, and several related agencies, more than 11,000 workers have been lost, a 22 percent cut, according to the Partnership for Public Service. And the CDC, which helps respond to outbreaks once they start, has lost about a quarter of its workforce from January 2025 to October 2025, according to Reuters; by this summer, CBS reported, the number of scientists tracking food parasites at the agency dropped from 11 to three. Meanwhile, the administration has been rushing to hire 2,200 people in the middle of the crisis.

Former FDA officials have described a “brain drain” for the food safety programs that won’t be easy to reverse.

“There have been a lot of federal cuts. There have been cuts around CDC surveillance, around state and local public health. You’ve lost people,” Dr. Anurag Malani, vice chief of staff at Trinity Health’s Ann Arbor, Michigan, campus, told me. “The ability to do what you need to do to keep citizens safe and to keep the public safe, we don’t have as many people doing that as we used to.

The federal government also shut down several national monitoring programs for foodborne illness in 2025—including for the cyclospora parasite specifically. The state and local agencies that surveil for and respond to food outbreaks have also faced staff cuts because they depend on the federal government for their funding.

“It’s hard when there is one larger entity kind of controlling all of that,” Dr. Kathleen Linder, the hospital epidemiologist at the Veterans Affairs hospital in Ann Arbor, told me in July. “Local health departments are having to do more on their own than they would have had to do in the past just because of decentralization at that level. It has been very hard to get updated information. The information has been lagging a little bit behind.”

Food safety is hard enough to tackle on its own. Part of the reason we experience regular outbreaks of cyclospora is that it can successfully infect people even when only very little of it is present, and because we can’t grow it in a lab to study it.

But the US has made things harder by cutting these important programs. Rebuilding the staff and capacity to do this work is not likely to happen under the Trump administration, and former FDA officials have described a “brain drain” for the food safety programs that won’t be easy to reverse in the next administration.

But something will have to be done if we’re ever to escape the food recall cycle. Despite the name, food has historically been neglected by the “Food and Drug” Administration, and better food safety could require serious restructuring and investment in these capabilities. And foodborne illnesses aren’t the only kind of infection that climate change will make more likely: The United States is also seeing the spread of mosquito-borne diseases like dengue. Responding to those new threats is going to require a rebuilt and potentially reimagined federal public health apparatus.

If there is any good news in the short term, it’s that there are a lot of great recipes for grilling your vegetables to eliminate any pathogens hiding in our side dishes at next summer’s cookouts. It sure seems like we’re going to need them.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Politicians’ Reckless Rhetoric Is Putting Federal Judges in Danger

One judge had to build a safe room at home. Others were so scared they wouldn’t let their children play outside; another stopped grocery shopping and couldn’t attend his grandchild’s recital because of a 24/7 security detail. “I can’t leave my house at the same time or take the same routes” every day, the one with the safe room said, fearing that someone might follow behind.

Threats to the federal judiciary have skyrocketed under the second Trump administration, according to a new report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which interviewed 35 sitting and retired federal judges, many of whom requested anonymity.

Many of the jurists said the job had become more dangerous partly because President Donald Trump and his allies verbally attack them for decisions on high-profile cases, leading to a surge in harassment from other people: After overseeing a contentious immigration case, the judge with the safe room got more than 700 threatening phone calls to their chambers. Others said they were “pizza-doxxed”—someone anonymously had pizzas delivered to their houses with threatening notes inside, including messages with the name Daniel Anderl, a 20-year-old who was murdered in 2000 by a gunman while his mom, Judge Esther Salas, served on the federal bench in New Jersey.

“We sign up for this. We are public servants,” one federal judge told the Brennan Center. “But our children don’t.”

“Threats to federal judges’ safety have always existed,” the Brennan Center authors wrote, “but their scope, frequency, and intensity have sharply increased over the past decade alongside the nation’s deepening political divisions.”

According to the US Marshals Services, the 2025 fiscal year saw a 57 percent uptick in “security incidents of significant concern” for federal judges, and the number was expected to keep rising. In July, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan reported that Supreme Court Police expected a 38 percent increase in threats to Supreme Court justices in 2026, after a 25 percent increase in 2025.

The annual average number of threats and hostile communications toward federal judges, prosecutors, judicial staff, and courts rose from 1,180 incidents in the decade before Trump’s first campaign to 3,810 in the seven years afterward, according to a Reuters report, with the number now at “unprecedented” levels. “In 40 years of judicial service,” US District Judge William G. Young told the Brennan Center, “I have never experienced an executive branch that is so overtly hostile to the federal judiciary—top to bottom.”

The Brennan Center report is striking for the sheer number of examples of harassment, and the candidness of judges who were interviewed. (Another report, also released on Monday by researchers at the law schools of University of California, Berkeley, and New York University, showed even more examples.) Some judges were victims of swatting—someone anonymously called the police to report a crisis at their home, triggering an armed response. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently recounted how her teenage son opened the door to discover police vehicles outside after someone falsely reported gunfire.

Others have received hate mail or faced intense online harassment: The judge with the safe room was inspired to build it because someone had posted their house’s floor plan on the internet. District Judge John Bates was threatened with an online image of a noose after Elon Musk posted photos of him and his wife. A May 2025 study found that online posts calling for violence or impeachment of judges increased 324 percent between May 2024 and March 2025.

Since Trump returned to office, more than 850 lawsuits have been filed to challenge the administration’s policies—and judges have at last partially blocked those policies in more than 150 cases, according to the Brennan Center. Judges said that for a while, cases involving the January 6 attack on the Capitol were the most likely to illicit threats, but lately immigration cases are the most dangerous. Many worried for their families. “We sign up for this. We are public servants,” Judge Beth Bloom of the Southern District of Florida, told the Brennan Center. “But our children don’t sign up for this.” Some judges wouldn’t let their kids go on social media, and others asked their loved ones to take different routes home.

Most of those interviewed said they needed more security. Some paid out of pocket for extra protection at home, and noted that security at courthouses had been underfunded. In 2021, the US Marshals Service, which protects federal judges, did “not have the resources or proactive threat detection capabilities” that it needed, according to an audit. Funding for federal court security stayed flat between the 2023 and 2025 fiscal years, but in February Congress increased it from $750 million to $892 million, the full amount requested by the judicial branch. “This was a positive and necessary development,” the Brennan Center wrote.

But other problems remain: The administration has reassigned some marshals from their judicial security jobs to immigration enforcement and other duties, and judges fear Trump will withdraw even more resources. Last week, my colleague Pema Levy reported that the Supreme Court is taking matters into its own hands and building up its own police force. The justices “keep ruling for Trump,” she wrote, “but don’t trust him to keep them safe.”

What will all of this do for judicial independence? Though judges told the Brennan Center that they would not be influenced in the courtroom by the growing threats outside it, some said it was hard to ignore the pressure, and they questioned how long they can keep living like this. Would they need to retire early?

“How many qualified great candidates are we losing because they are afraid to step into this arena?” said Judge Salas, whose son was killed by the gunman in 2020. Another judge added, “If this gets too bad, I’m going to stop.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Is Growing Desperate on Iran

The Trump administration is back on the warpath. Over the weekend, the government resumed military attacks on Iranfor the first time in a month, which in turn prompted retaliatory Iranian strikes against the United Arab Emirates and American bases in Jordan. On Monday, Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst said the president told him that “there will be a US response” to the Iranian attack on US forces in Jordan.

Which is all to say that Iran, thanks in part to economic support from China, isn’t backing down.

The Trump administration also signaled that it may ramp up economic sanctions on Iran this week, seeking to make good on promises of an “economic D-Day” against the country: “This is going to be financial violence if we have to,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told the Associated Press on Sunday.

On Monday, Iranian leadership joined an economic summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whose largest members are China and Russia, in a meeting that many American outlets have characterized as adverse to US interests China has been Iran’s economic bulwark during the current war, defying US sanctions by remaining the main importer of Iranian oil.

While struggling to fight Iran on multiple fronts—through Bessent’s “financial violence” in the form of severe economic sanctions—and the conventional violence of deadly military action against both the country’s civilian infrastructure and combat forces, the US has achieved little in terms of forcing Iran’s leadership to budge on negotiations.

We’ve seen this play out again, and again, and againin the months since Trump dragged the U.S. into war with Iran.

In response to an exclusive from the Washington Post citing classified documents in which top US military officials state the current war in Iran is depleting their ability to defend the country from other threats, Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesperson, claimed that publishing the report was “a crime”—it is not—and evidence of “TDS and PDS”—Trump and Pete Derangement Syndrome, respectively.

Even as it scrabbles for new tactics—and publicly appears at a loss—the Trump administrationcontinues to deny that its war isn’t working.

But as Bessent himself said Monday of Canada’s claim that it was weathering Washington’s trade war: “What else are they gonna say?”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

What the Deportation of Milo Yiannopoulos Tells Us About the State of MAGA

Before last week, Milo Yiannopoulos was one of the most noxious, divisive, and broadly unpopular far-right figures in the country, having whittled down his allies in the movement over the past decade with a combination of exuberant misogyny and bigotry, catty infighting, an infamous moment of pedophilia apologism, and increasingly pointed criticism of Donald Trump. Now, he’ll have to settle for being a broadly divisive and unpopular figure in the UK, having been swiftly and very publicly deported back to his home country on Friday after being arrested at the New Orleans airport.

But while Yiannopoulos’ deportation contains an extremely rich vein of schadenfreude—he previously called for deporting “millions and millions of people” and joked about masturbating while witnessing ICE raids—it’s also indicative of how power, punishment, and influence currently work in the MAGA movement, and broader crackup within that feud-heavy world, where fragile alliances are constantly being made, broken and remade anew. Three far-right figures—Trump confidante Laura Loomer, former Breitbart UK editor Raheem Kassem, and MAGA propagandist Benny Johnson—have either taken credit for or claimed advance knowledge of Yiannopoulos’ deportation. All have indicated they’re in communication with inside sources at the Department of Homeland Security, who shared what would normally be confidential information about a supposed hunt for Milo, who had allegedly overstayed his visa, in order to remove him. And both Loomer and Kassem implied that more of their enemies could face imprisonment and deportation very soon.

Yiannopoulos is, to be overly clear, no one’s idea of a sympathetic victim and someone whose favor even with his ideological fellow travelers has been steadily waning for years. A Breitbart columnist from 2014 to 2017 and an enthusiastic early backer of Trump, he mostly made his name in the mid-2000s as a gleefully offensive all-purpose troll and rank Islamophobe who was barred from Australia in 2019 for branding the religion “barbaric” in the wake of the Christchurch, New Zealand terrorist attacks. He was also an enthusiastic backer of Gamergate, a supposed crusade for ethics in video game journalism that began in 2014 and became, instantly, a cover for doxxing and harassing women in the gaming world and beyond. Gamergate created the circumstances for Yiannopoulos’ burgeoning fame in the United States, as did his plans to hold “free speech” rallies at University of California-Berkeley and elsewhere, which fizzled out quickly, with organizers citing safety concerns.

Yiannopoulos’ star plummeted in 2017, when comments he made appearing to defend sex with 13-year-olds were resurfaced by a conservative Twitter account; Yiannopoulos called some sex between teens and adults “perfectly consensual” and called some teen-adult sexual interactions “coming-of-age relationships.” (He went on to apologize for the comments, blame the way they were received on “deceptive editing,” and say he was himself a victim of sexual abuse as a minor.) The comments ignited a true furor in the conservative world, and in short order, he had a speaking gig canceled at CPAC, a book deal nixed, and ultimately resigned from Breitbart. In an interview in 2021 with the anti-abortion Life Site News, Yiannopoulos declared that he was no longer gay and that he was “living as brothers” with the man who’d once been his husband. He also had a brief stint on the YouTube channel of Catholic outlet Church Militant hawking religious statues and became part of a far-right push to “reform” the Catholic church.

By 2020, Yiannopoulos had become intermittently critical of Trump, who he’d once adored. At the same time, he began allying himself with various members of the far-right fringe. In 2022, he began working as an “intern” for Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and was involved in rap artist Ye’s abortive presidential campaign. (Yiannopoulos has continued to work for Ye, though he did claim in 2024 to have resigned; that was apparently short-lived, and he soon returned to work for Yeezy, the artist’s company, as a spokesperson.) During that time, he also helped arrange what became an actual scandal for Trump: a private dinner with Ye and white nationalist incel Nick Fuentes.

“I wanted to show Trump the kind of talent that he’s missing out on by allowing his terrible handlers to dictate who he can and can’t hang out with,” Yiannopoulos told NBC News a few days later.

All of this, then, created a situation where Yiannopoulos had few true allies in the MAGA movement. He was especially at odds with Laura Loomer, who immediately took credit for his deportation. “When Milo called for me to be assassinated, I reported him to ICE and the FBI,” she tweeted on Friday. “I told you all that Milo was an illegal alien.”

(In its own tweet, the Department of Homeland Security alleged that Yiannopoulos had entered the country legally in 2019 on a tourist visa, which he overstayed, and also said that a final order of removal was issued for him after he missed an immigration hearing in July. DHS concluded their statement by encouraging people to “self-deport,” advice which has had deadly consequences for some migrants returning to their home countries.)

Raheem Kassam, a former Breitbart UK editor and former advisor to far-right UK politician Nigel Farage who now owns a MAGA hotspot restaurant in DC, also said that he’d been aware that immigration authorities were looking for Yiannopoulos. Kassam claimed on X and in a Substack post that Milo had once “begged me for a job,” blaming himself for Yiannopoulos’ rise. Kassam didn’t go so far as to take credit for Milo’s deportation, but he wrote that, “A friend close to the Department for Homeland Security (DHS) reached out and let me know: ‘Milo has been living in the US illegally.’”

“I was shocked,” Kassam added, “though I suppose I ought not to have been. A source close to the State Department confirmed it when I enquired, and so began his deportation saga.”

Kassam added that he “got word last month that [Milo] was about to be deported. On Thursday night, I got a call. As overly dramatic as it may seem. ‘We got him. In Louisiana.’”

Another Yiannopulos foe, Benny Johnson, also claimed to have inside knowledge of the proceedings against him. Several hours after Loomer posted that Yiannopoulos had been arrested, Johnson quote-tweeted it and wrote, “Milo has already been deported. The flight has taken off. Milo will never be legally allowed back in America again.” In other words, then, like Loomer, Johnson’s post gave the impression that he had inside knowledge of DHS proceedings, despite not being, at least officially, employed with the government in any capacity.

Like Loomer and Kassam, Johnson also claimed to have been aware that Yiannopoulos was in the country illegally for quite a while. He appeared to threaten last year to sue Yiannopoulos and claimed in tweets on Friday that he had not done so because, he wrote, “Laura called and told me he was an illegal alien and it will be impossible to sue him or serve him because he’s running from ICE like a rat.” (Besides his MAGA enemies, TMZ reported on Monday that Yiannopoulos also accused his ex-husband of threatening to call ICE on him in court filings in 2025, writing that his ex, in TMZ’s words, “knew his green card status depended on their continued marriage.”)

Loomer, Kassam, and Johnson are all in good standing with the MAGA power structure; for their loyalty, they were rewarded with, at the very least, a special degree of information about DHS proceedings and an early opportunity to humiliate a sworn enemy. This is a situation they all seem to relish. Loomer has been on a celebratory tweeting spree for days and has since called for Marjorie Taylor Greene to be investigated for employing Yiannopoulos, as well as another of her far-right foes, podcaster Candace Owens, seemingly for interviewing Yiannopoulos, which Loomer called “harboring an illegal alien in her home.” Kassam, meanwhile, responded to a well-wisher congratulating him on Yiannopulos’ downfall by writing, “Wait til you see who’s next.”

Even Yiannopoulos was, in a twisted way, shown a level of favoritism that most undocumented immigrants don’t receive. Instead of languishing in detention for months or years, or being deported to a “legal black hole” in a country like Eswatini, he was sent to the UK almost immediately. Kassam speculated in his Substack post that Yiannopoulos would soon resurface in UK politics “or perhaps as a contestant on some third-tier reality show.”

“To America, I say my apologies. For all of it,” he added. “And to Britain, in advance of his return… my apologies. For all of it.”

Continue Reading…