Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

Roaming the Streets of Minneapolis, Looking for ICE

In the weeks following the killing of Renée Good, Minneapolis saw a surge in the number of federal immigration officers across the city. That escalation was met with a visible community response. People gathered day after day outside the Whipple Building, a federal detention center that is serving as a hub for agents conducting raids and returning with people they had detained.

As enforcement activity spread into residential neighborhoods, observers watched the streets, shared information, and used whistles to warn one another when agents appeared. Fear was constant, but so was the way people showed up for each other. These photographs document that period and the tension between an expanding federal presence and a community determined to respond together.

A woman in a winter coat holds a sign that reads, "Justice for Renee Good, Killed by ICE."

A counterprotester holds a sign calling for justice for Renée Good during a demonstration in Minneapolis opposing a rally organized by supporters of January 6 defendant Jake Lang.Madison Swart

A man wearing a military vest smiles with his arm raised while another man flips him off.

Lang records on his cellphone while a counterprotester flips him off during a demonstration.Madison Swart

A man wearing a military style vest walks through snow surrounded and followed by a number of people.

Lang is escorted away through a crowd of counterprotesters during a demonstration in Minneapolis.Madison Swart

A group of three men wearing yellow floral masks walk with a raised fist and flashing a peace sign.

A counterprotester holds up a fist during a demonstration opposing the Lang rally.Madison Swart

A person with ski goggles holds a sign that reads, "The Only ICE I like is the ice my two gay hockey boyfriends skate around on – Fuck ICE, now & forever."

A counterprotester at the Lang rally.Madison Swart

A woman holds a sign that reads, "We Will Defeat You" in the dark.

A protester outside of the Whipple Building holds a sign that says, “We Will Defeat You”Madison Swart

Two people on a high pedestrian overpass with signs that read, "Rise Like Lions," "We are Many," "They are few."

Two people stand on a bridge overlooking a busy highway with signs that say “Rise Like Lions, We Are Many, They Are Few.”Madison Swart

Close up of a man being handcuffed in the snow.

An ICE agent prepares to place handcuffs on a man during an enforcement action.Madison Swart

A man is detained and surrounded by a number of federal agents.

ICE agents detain a man during an enforcement operation.Madison Swart

Two close-up images of protesters faces.

Protesters outside of the Whipple Building in Minneapolis.Madison Swart

Two close up photos of federal agents faces.

ICE agents stand outside a house during an attempted enforcement operation.Madison Swart

Person with a cellphone in front of a fence with a number of painted images of African Americans killed by police, and a drawing of Renee Good, killed by federal agents.

A person photographs memorial portraits honoring victims of police and state violence at the memorial site for Renée Good.Madison Swart

Masked Border Patrol agent looking at photographer.

A Border Patrol agent and part of senior official Gregory Bovino’s convoy looks at the camera while waiting outside at a gas station.Madison Swart

A man with a long beard wearing a blue jacket, holding a cellphone, yells at an ICE agent.

An observer shouts at masked agents at a Speedway gas station.Madison Swart

Man in camouflage and a military vest surrounded by federal agents.

Gregory BovinoMadison Swart

Group of people, most holding phones, with one prominent woman flipping a double bird.

Protesters and community observers react to Bovino’s convoy at a gas station.Madison Swart

Close up of a masked federal agent looking out of a car window.

An ICE agent seen through a window during an attempted operation.Madison Swart

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Definition of Heroism and Bearing Witness: An Extraordinary CNN Interview.

Last night, CNN’s Anderson Cooper broadcast an exclusive interview with the woman who was first seen in early videos posted of federal agents killing Alex Pretti last Saturday. Stella Carlson was standing close to the deadly skirmish, and ended up as the citizen with the best vantage point to record the shooting—holding her camera phone through it all, and capturing the now-indispensable video that has ripped to shreds the administration’s lies about what happened.

“I am grateful that I was in a position to be there for my community.”

This interview is astonishing. And after watching so many astonishing videos of what has transpired in Minneapolis, this one has stayed with me. Carlson’s bravery is inspiring, as is how she articulates something I hold dear as a journalistic aspiration: the power of bearing witness when no one else will.

“I am grateful that I was in a position to be there for my community,” she told Cooper. “To stop the lies and the madness, and allow there to be proof.”

“Were you scared?” Cooper asked.

“I was terrified, but I was more worried about this not being documented.”

Carlson, who was described by Cooper as a children’s entertainer, a face and body painter, and an airbrush artist, didn’t choose this role. She’s not a journalist or a human rights activist. She is a person who cared about her community. Recording this brutality was foisted on her by Trump’s siege of her city, and she described it as something akin to a calling. She was there to protect her neighbors, she said, “as best I can with my whistle and my phone, which really feels not great.”

“And yet you stood there with a phone, and you documented this,” Cooper gently pressed. “You didn’t run away.”

And then her response, which struck me the most. A gut punch:

“I am not one to run when I’m afraid. I just—no way was I going to leave Alex by himself undocumented, like, that wasn’t an option. I mean, obviously somebody was just executed in the street. I knew I was in danger. We all were, but I wasn’t going to leave… I knew that this was a moment, and we all have to be brave, and we all have to take risks, and we’re all going to be given moments to make that decision… I’m grateful to myself, and I’m grateful to anybody who was supportive to me after to make sure I could get to safety and get that video uploaded to the right people.”

That is heroism, pure and simple. There were other videos of the killing. But Carlson’s was the clearest. What record would have existed had she not been there?

And what record would exist without all the journalism happening in Minneapolis. I’ve been moved while reading comments from you, our Mother Jones community, thanking us after watching dispatches by our digital producer Sam Van Pykeren, who has been relentlessly chronicling the reactions and realities on the ground in a set of emotional, viral videos. This is not to show off, but to double down on the importance of showing up, speaking to real people, and yes, bearing witness, like Carlson.

“Thank you**,** Sam**,** for being there and reporting the truth,” one said. Another: “Thank you for keeping our eyes open.”

I hope you can check out not only Sam’s videos, but also the full range of Minneapolis and ICE reporting from the frontlines of Trump’s immigration crackdown on the site right now, documenting both the brutality and the resistance.

Here’s just a sampling from our reporters over the last day or so: Kiera Butler’s look at how right-wing influencers are working to make women love ICE. Russ Choma’s revealing article about Tom Homan’s record as he takes over Minnesota operations. From Minneapolis, reporter Julia Lurie filed a stunning dispatch about the community coming together in the wake of Alex Pretti and Renée Good’s killings (with gorgeous photography by Madison Swart), describing a city under assault but also a resilient city creating mutual aid networks that will outlast federal occupation. She also interviewed a US Army vet, outraged by these new attacks on a country he once defended. Samantha Michaels published a devastating story, with a video on a warrantless ICE raid that tore apart a Memphis family. Noah Lanard analyzed how Greg Bovino proved too openly fascistic—even for Trump.

There’s much more to read and watch and interact with. And there is more to come.

“Nobody’s here for us,” Stella Carlson said during her gripping CNN interview. “So this is what we can do.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

ICE Violence Is Fueled by Misogyny and White Nationalism

Editor’s note: This article first appeared in Ms. Magazine.

The brutality we are witnessing in Minnesota, at the hands of thousands of poorly trained, heavily armed and trigger-happy men who have full reign to hunt and harass anyone who is non-white, is nothing short of state-sponsored terror. It is a horrific illustration of what unfettered power does in the hands of leadership that celebrates and demands violence, especially from men.

Make no mistake: The thousands of new recruits to ICE, driven by a $100 million “wartime recruitment” push, were selected with violence in mind. Recruitment ads targeted male-dominated places and spaces where violence is either required or valorized: gun shows, military bases and local law enforcement, along with UFC fight attendees and people who spent time browsing for tactical gear and weapons.

Recruitment ads make it clear that ICE is the place to scratch the violent itch.

The content of those ads makes it clear that ICE is the place to scratch the violent itch. Recruitment posters and slogans focus on ideas of national defense and sacred duty, positioning immigrants as an existential threat by imploring applicants to “defend the homeland” against an incursion of “foreign invaders.” Veterans get a special nod with phrasing like “your nation calls once more.” The work of detaining immigrants is depicted as an epic, heroic quest, with frontier imagery and cowboy-hat clad horsemen alongside language like “one homeland, one people, one heritage.”

The ads also dehumanize and fearmonger with racist dog whistles, warning that “the enemies are at the gates” or telling applicants to join ICE to “destroy the flood.” One DHS ad uses the phrase “we’ll have our home again,” which is a lyric from a white supremacist song.

Much of this rhetoric evokes the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, which mobilized white supremacist terrorist attacks in El Paso, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo in recent years with false claims of an orchestrated effort by Jews and feminists to promote immigration, reduce white birthrates, and eliminate white majority societies.

It’s not only the homeland that’s being defended in this framing. It’s also the nation’s white women, who the administration has continually depicted as the victims of unfettered crime at the hands of undocumented immigrants. This is why we see Trump administration officials constantly invoking the names of a handful of young white women, like Laken Riley or Jocelyn Nungaray, who were killed by immigrants—even though thousands more women have died at the hands of their lovers, partners or strangers who are citizens. Last week, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt railed in response to a journalist’s question about ICE, describing the “brave men and women of ICE” as “doing everything in their power to remove those heinous individuals and make our communities safer.”

False crime statistics about sexual violence have always mobilized white supremacist violence from the extremist fringe, from the KKK’s campaign of racial terror, to recent mass shootings. During his attack, the terrorist who killed nine Black worshippers in 2015 in a Charleston church told his victims he was doing this because “y’all are raping our women.”

Now, we are seeing those same false claims mobilize state-sponsored violence. The administration is recruiting, training and deploying federal agents who believe they are on some sort of noble, patriotic and manly quest, flying on horseback across the open land to rescue white women and restore the nation to its righteous place.

Protection isn’t the only way that gendered narratives mobilize violence. What we are seeing in Minnesota is also about punishment.

But protection isn’t the only way that gendered narratives mobilize violence. What we are seeing in Minnesota is also about punishment. Replacement conspiracies frame women—especially feminists—as the problem, arguing they are conspiring to have fewer babies, promote abortion, reduce white birth rates and accelerate demographic change. Women who refuse to submit to male authority, refuse God-given heterosexual relationships or reject their ‘natural’ roles as reproducers of the nation are seen as the enemy.

This is why, after an ICE agent shot Renee Nicole Good in the face after she dared to protest his authority, he lobbed the phrase “fucking bitch” as she was dying. In the days following Good’s killing, a local protester reported that another ICE agent sneered at her, “Have you not learned? This is why we killed that lesbian bitch.” Another woman was warned to stop obstructing agents because “that’s why that lesbian bitch is dead.”

This is how men who cannot tolerate a woman’s disrespect put her in her place: with violence or the threat of it. The shootings of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent and Alex Pretti by CBP agents—coming on the heels of numerous deaths of ICE detainees in recent months—are a predictable outcome of the institutional norms and social hierarchies the administration is valorizing.

As thousands of amped up men are deployed in the streets and taught there are no consequences for killing anyone who refuses to submit to their authority, we should anticipate more violence to come. After all: The violence is the point.

Cynthia Miller-Idriss is a scholar at American University, where she is the founding director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL). She is the author of several books including, Man Up: The New Misogyny and the Rise of Violent Extremism.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

HHS Will Allow Pharmacies to Boycott Lifesaving Drugs Used in Medication Abortion

After Roe v. Wade was overturned, the Biden administration enforced a rule in 2022 mandating that retail pharmacies receiving any federal funding had to carry and dispense mifepristone, misoprostol, and methotrexate—drugs used in medication abortions and, in the case of methotrexate, the treatment of ectopic pregnancies and autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus—in order not to discriminate on the basis of sex and disability.

The Trump administration formally withdrew that rule on Tuesday, allowing pharmacists to refuse to stock or dispense misoprostol and methotrexate, despite their other uses.

Even under the Biden-era rule, pharmacists could still refuse to dispense the drug if they suspected or knew a pregnant person was past the date allowed in their state for a medication-induced abortion. Mifepristone was removed from the Biden rule in 2023, after a lawsuit involving anti-abortion litigators at the arch-conservative Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) in a case that was subsequently dismissed.

I asked the two leading pharmacies in the United States—CVS and Walgreens—if they will continue to stock and dispense methotrexate. A spokesperson from CVS told me that “all our pharmacies continue to stock and dispense methotrexate where legally permissible.” Walgreens did not respond by the time of publication.

ADF, meanwhile, celebrated the win it couldn’t get in court, writing that “we are grateful to the Trump administration for rescinding Biden-era guidance that forced Americans to dispense abortion-inducing drugs against their conscience.”

Days prior to the Biden administration issuing the rule, NBC’s Today Show covered the challenges faced by patients with chronic illnesses in trying to get their lifesaving medication. With the rule rescinded—and coupled with efforts to criminalize abortion drugs in states like South Carolina, raising concerns that even sympathetic doctors will be scared to prescribe mifepristone, misoprostol, and methotrexate—their availability at smaller pharmacies is likely to drop.

That’s despite the fact that people who are able to conceive are supposed to take contraceptives while on methotrexate, which can cause fetal abnormalities, according to the American College of Rheumatology, meaning that their risk of getting pregnant—let alone pursuing an abortion—is in fact quite low.

Autoimmune disorders primarily affect women, who have also been the main target of abortion restrictions, underlying how treatment for both shows how women’s health is under attack. Research from KFF found that of reproductive-age women who have used methotrexate in the previous year, over 90 percent did so for reasons unrelated to pregnancy. According to the John Hopkins Arthritis Center, around 60 percent of rheumatoid arthritis patients currently are on or have been on methotrexate. It’s unclear how challenging filling methotrexate prescriptions for chronic illnesses remained under the Biden rule, but it will almost certainly become more difficult without it.

Without reliable access to treatment, autoimmune disorders can be very dangerous for those who have them. A 2018 brief report funded in part by the Lupus Foundation of America found that systemic lupus erythematous, one form of lupus, is tied for the top ten leading cause of death for women between the ages of 15 and 24. Among Black and Latina women, it’s the fifth leading cause of death for that age group.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

HHS Wasn’t Worried About South Carolina’s Measles Outbreak. It’s Now Enormous.

With 789 cases and counting, the current measles outbreak in South Carolina is now the nation’s largest since measles was officially eliminated in 2000. The highly contagious virus “is circulating in the community, increasing the risk of exposure and the risk of infection for those who are not immune due to vaccination or natural infection,” the state’s Department of Public Health says on its website.

Measles is spreading especially quickly among unvaccinated individuals—692 of the South Carolina cases are in unvaccinated individuals—just as it did in the large outbreak in Texas last year, which ultimately sickened 762, hospitalized 99, and killed two children.

Yet despite that recent experience, the Department of Health and Human Services insisted last month that this time wouldn’t be that bad.

In a December 16 email to Mother Jones, at which time South Carolina already had more than 100 cases, a spokesperson from HHS downplayed the threat of measles in South Carolina. “CDC is not currently concerned that this will develop into a large, long-running outbreak as was seen in Texas earlier this year and whose outbreak has been declared over,” wrote HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard in bold text.

When I followed up on Tuesday this week to ask for comment on those earlier predictions, a spokesperson did not address my question but instead stated that “CDC is working closely with South Carolina health officials, including through regular coordination meetings.” The spokesperson added that the agency had provided $1.4 million in financial assistance to the state, and that “most cases are occurring in an under vaccinated immigrant community in the Spartanburg area.”

In an emailed statement, South Carolina state epidemiologist Linda Bell wrote that DPH was currently collaborating with CDC on surveillance, testing, reporting, and outbreak control measures. “Due to the fact that measles has been rare in the U.S. for over twenty years, we have benefitted from [CDC] experts,” she wrote.

In her December email to Mother Jones, HHS’ Hilliard insisted that “Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] has been very clear that vaccination is the most effective way to prevent measles. Any attempts to spin this are baseless.”

In the email this week, the HHS spokesperson reiterated that “vaccination remains the most effective way to prevent measles, and the Secretary has been clear and consistent on this point.”

Yet at the height of Texas’ measles outbreak last year, Kennedy speculated that the measles vaccination had harmed children in that state. He also falsely claimed that officials “don’t know what the risk profile” is for vaccines that prevent measles.

In a press conference last week, CDC principal deputy director Ralph Abraham said of South Carolina’s outbreak, “We have these communities that choose to be unvaccinated,” he said. “That’s their personal freedom.” If the United States loses its measles elimination status, he added, that’s the “cost of doing business.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Is This a Police State?

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

Toward the end of 2024, several weeks before Donald Trump would regain power, I wrote an article headlined, “Donald Trump Will Need a Police State to Implement His Agenda.” In this piece, I observed, “Trumphas many plans for his return engagement at the White House. Several will require police-state tactics”—foremost his vow to round up and deport 11 million or so undocumented immigrants. Peering into the future, I wrote:

Such a program would require deploying a paramilitary force—or even the National Guard or the military—to locate migrants, apprehend them, and guard them in a network of prisons and detention camps. (Executives at private prison, security, and surveillance software companies are already salivating.) This system would depend on Trump ramping up monitoring of workplaces and neighborhoods, and on anonymous tip lines susceptible to abuse and false leads. (Have a problem with a neighbor? Report ’em.) Perhaps the forces rounding up migrants will be afforded special powers to evade civil liberties protections. As in East Germany during the Cold War, an atmosphere of terror and intimidation will pervade.

I bring this up to make two points. First, what we are seeing in Minneapolis with the murders of Renée Good and Alex Pretti was entirely foreseeable. I’m no Nostradamus, and it was obvious to me this horror was coming. (By the way, Nostradamus was no Nostradamus.) No one should be surprised that Trump, Stephen Miller, JD Vance, Kristi Noem, Gregory Bovino, and others have unleashed a violent and unlawful wave of terror upon the nation. Any Trump supporter aghast at this has no excuse. (I’m looking at you, Joe Rogan.) Trump had a long history of encouraging and excusing violence. He praised authoritarians who resort to violence. He plainly spelled out his intention to remove over 10 million people. Such a profound disruption of American life could not be achieved without force and cruelty.

Barbarity on the ground requires malice in the highest offices of the land.

Second, even though I feared Trump would turn to police-state tactics, I and others who expected some of this did not fully envision the lawlessness, savagery, and viciousness that now infuses Trump’s regime. But we should have known. Barbarity on the ground requires malice in the highest offices of the land. Troops that are sadistic and ruthless follow the lead of those directing them.

It’s a sign of the Trump crew’s depravity that we now are not shocked that following the extrajudicial execution of Pretti, an ICU nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital, the men and women in charge of our government immediately branded him a “terrorist” and falsely claimed he had tried to kill ICE and CBP agents. Stephen Miller, the Minister of Hate, was one of the first out of the gate with this deplorable gaslighting. In response to a tweet from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who urged Trump and his henchmen to watch the “horrific video” of the lethal attack on Pretti, Miller posted on X: “A domestic terrorist tried to assassinate federal law enforcement and this is your response.”

There was no evidence of any of that. In fact, multiple videos that became publicly available right after the killing clearly demonstrated that Pretti had not attempted to “assassinate” the agents. He was trying to help a woman being assaulted by them and in doing so became a target of their wrath. Without an ounce of humanity, humility, or sympathy, other Trumpers joined in, as they did with the murder of Good, to demonize the victim of a summary execution. (Days later, Miller engaged in a partial pullback, noting that the CBP team that killed Pretti “may not” have been following protocol. But he did not retract his foul description of Pretti or apologize for defaming him.)

On CNN, the Border Patrol’s Bovino huffed, “The victims are the Border Patrol agent. The suspect put himself in that situation.” On ABC News’ This Week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent justified the killing by saying that Pretti had been armed. When host Jon Karl pointed out Pretti had not brandished the gun, Bessent smugly and disingenuously replied, “I’ve been to a protest—guess what? I didn’t bring a gun. I brought a billboard.” So now the Trump administration is in favor of killing people who carry weapons to protests?

The message is obvious: Oppose us and we will kill you—and then lie about you. For Trump’s brownshirts, there is no accountability.

Kash Patel added to this dissembling chorus. “You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want,” he said. “It’s that simple. You don’t have a right to break the law and incite violence.” Actually, you can. In many places, the law—thanks to conservatives like Patel—allows people to bring a gun to a rally or anywhere else. (This month, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a law in Hawaii banning gun owners from bringing their weapons onto private property open to the public without approval from the property owner. The Trump administration filed a brief supporting the challenge.)

Patel’s claim that Pretti had incited violence was slanderous. In a menacing manner, he added, “You do not get to attack law enforcement officials in this country without any repercussions…We not messing around.”

Here was the FBI director essentially saying federal agents have the right to shoot you dead if you get in the way. In law enforcement agencies across the land, that is not justification for the use of lethal force. But the message is obvious: Oppose us and we will kill you—and then lie about you. For Trump’s brownshirts, there is no accountability.

What was going on was no mystery. A standard play of authoritarian and fascist governments is to brand critics and opponents “terrorists.” Vladimir Putin does this. He recently labeled the anti-corruption organization founded by Alexei Navalny a “terrorist” outfit. And terrorists obviously are legitimate targets of extreme measures. Anyone who cooperates with Navalny’s group can now be imprisoned for life.

All this follows Trump’s routine use of hate-fueled divisive rhetoric. He regularly denigrates his political opponents as “the enemy within” and asserts that Democrats, liberals, and the media are in league with “lunatic radicals,” communists, and antifa to destroy the United States. For years, he has been vilifying his foes and detractors as direct threats to the nation, frequently saying they pose more of a risk to the country than Russia or China. It is a small step from that to decrying Pretti and other protesters as “terrorists.” Once you do, it’s open season on these Americans.

Those who challenge the administration cannot be patriotic Americans. They must be that enemy within— subversives and terrorists.

As part of this phony and dangerous demagogic narrative, Vance and other Trump lieutenants are suggesting a nefarious force is behind the anti-ICE protests. “The level of engineered chaos is unique to Minneapolis,” the vice president posted on X. “It’s the direct consequence of far left agitators, working with local authorities.” And Bessent exclaimed, “There are a lot of paid agitators who are ginning things up.”

This is the sort of accusation J. Edgar Hoover and others hurled in the 1960s: The antiwar movement was funded and controlled by communists; the civil rights movement was funded and controlled by communists. President Ronald Reagan said the same about the nuclear freeze movement in the 1980s. Those who challenge the administration cannot be patriotic Americans. They must be that enemy within—subversives and terrorists. They deserve no quarter and no protection of the law. They must be crushed. They must be eradicated.

That is the police-state mentality. I suppose you can’t run a police state without it. If you deploy a paramilitary force to terrorize the public—which certainly was the goal of flooding ICE and CBP agents into the Twin Cities—you must support your thugs and back up the narrative that the people they brutalize and perhaps kill had it coming. You can’t enforce rules and regs for this force. That will reveal contradictions and undermine your Manichean tale of good (us) and evil (them). This is about power and decidedly not about the rule of law. The aim is to obliterate the rule of law.

What will the majority do to stop Trump and his gangsters? Can it yield a resistance fierce enough—in the courts, at polling places, on the streets, online, and elsewhere—to beat back Trump’s hostile takeover of the nation?

So are we now in a police state? Not quite. As thousands of kind-hearted and brave Minnesotans have shown us, the right to protest and challenge Trump’s reign of violence remains, even if his masked goons have made it perilous to do so. Police states don’t allow such demonstrations. But Trump, Miller, and the rest are attempting to smother opposition to the point they’re justifying and whitewashing the brazen murders of American citizens. They are hellbent on establishing an environment of fear and terror. They don’t mind a Kent State every week. The chaos, the disorder, the violence—these are their tools and their ends.

They have not yet won. They are ferociously employing the strategies and tactics of a police state. Most Americans, though, oppose this. Even some Republicans have expressed concern or anger about the killing of Pretti. The question is, what will the majority do to stop Trump and his gangsters? Can it yield a resistance fierce enough—in the courts, at polling places, on the streets, online, and elsewhere—to beat back Trump’s hostile takeover of the nation?

Trump has transformed the national political discourse from skirmishes over his assorted harebrained ideas and extreme actions (Venezuela, Greenland, vengeful criminal prosecutions, mass deportations, the destruction of the public health establishment, his war on universities, tax cuts for the rich, and so on) into a debate over the fundamental nature of the United States. Will it become a full-fledged authoritarian-led police state? That’s the fight at hand. Trump and his miscreants are eager for it. They may attain their fascistic fantasy—unless enough Americans say no.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Yup. Trump Suggested Ilhan Omar Staged Her Own Attack in Minneapolis.

After Congresswoman Ilhan Omar was attacked at a Minneapolis town hall on Tuesday night and sprayed with an unknown substance from a syringe, President Donald Trump suggested that she may have orchestrated the incident.

“No. I don’t think about her. I think she’s a fraud. I really don’t think about that,” Trump said when asked if he had seen the video of the attack. “She probably had herself sprayed, knowing her.”

Oh, but he does think about her. The attack on Omar took place the same night Trump mentioned her while delivering a speech in Iowa ahead of this year’s midterm elections.

“We need people to come in legally, but they have to show that they can love our country—not hate our country,” Trump said Tuesday regarding immigration policy. “Not like Ilhan Omar.”

He continued: “She comes from a country that’s a disaster… It’s not even a country, okay. It barely has a government. I don’t think it does. They’re good at one thing. Pirates.”

Trump on Omar: "She's always talking about 'the Constitution provides me w/ the following.' She comes from a country that's a disaster. It's not even a country. They're good at one thing – pirates. But they don't do that anymore bc they get same treatment from us as the drug dealers. Boom Boom Boom"

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-27T23:13:41.283Z

Omar was born in Somalia’s capital of Mogadishu and fled the country with her family during the Somali Civil War. She spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya before moving to the US in 1995. Omar and her family eventually settled in Minnesota, home to the largest Somali communities in the country.

Trump has targeted Somali immigrants since at least last November when he promised to end Temporary Protected Status for Somalis living in Minnesota, linking all communities to fraud in the state.

But Omar has continued to fight back.

“ICE cannot be reformed, it cannot be rehabilitated, we must abolish ICE for good, and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem must resign or face impeachment,” Omar said during the Tuesday town hall, just before the man attacked her.

She wound up to strike back at the man before he was subdued by security. Omar was not injured, and, later on Tuesday night, she wrote on X, “I’m ok. I’m a survivor so this small agitator isn’t going to intimidate me from doing my work.”

The man was arrested and booked at the county jail for third-degree assault, according to Minneapolis police spokesperson Trevor Folke.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) assaulted during town hall meeting: "Here's the reality that people like this ugly man don't understand; we are Minnesota strong and we will stay resilient in the face of whatever they might throw at us." pic.twitter.com/Ud5l3yP4lQ

— CSPAN (@cspan) January 28, 2026

And Omar continued her speech after a short break. “I learned at a young age, you don’t give in to threats,” Omar told the audience. “You look them in the face and you stand strong.”

The incident involving Omar isn’t the only recent example of heightened threats and attacks. A man allegedly assaulted Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fl.) last week. Frost said that the man punched him after saying that Trump would deport him.

And according to data from the US Capitol Police released on Tuesday, investigated threats—which include “concerning statements, behaviors, and communications directed against Members of Congress, their families, staff, and the Capitol Complex”—rose from 9,474 in 2024 to 14,938 in 2025.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Why the Next “No Kings” Could Be the Biggest One Yet

Ezra Levin, the co-founder and co-executive director of Indivisible, one of the many groups behind the nationwide “No Kings” protests, describes himself as “a cynical political organizer.” But still, Monday night got to him.

That evening, just days after federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Indivisible and other groups, which included the ACLU, put together a “Know Your Rights” training on how to document violent incidents by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection in response to the violent occupation of Minneapolis and around the country. According to the coalition, over 200,000 viewers attended the Monday “Eyes on ICE” training, the first in a series of trainings dedicated to protesters’ First Amendment rights. These people, Levin told me, “saw secret police force assault and murder fellow Americans, and one natural response you could imagine would be people could do what the regime wants them to do, which is to be quiet and go home and not show up.”

“But instead,” he continued, “we have, by several orders of magnitude, the largest number of people ever to attend a training to learn how to do exactly what Renée Good and Alex Pretti were doing.”

It’s against this anger that another round of “No Kings” protests is being planned for March 28, with a flagship event in the Twin Cities. Levin expects the next “No Kings” protest to see the largest turnout.

I caught up with Levin on why this moment demands such pre-planned big tentpole events like “No Kings,” the agility it takes to respond to violence from the federal government with rapid mobilizations, and more below.

When we spoke on Friday, we talked about the “No Kings” coalition being able to mobilize if federal agents shot and killed another person. The next day, Alex Pretti was killed. What happened next internally?

We had talked about this on Friday, Katie, because it was entirely predictable. We all saw what the regime was doing. They’re using violence to intimidate and bully the population into submission. The murder is heinous. The slander that followed is really chilling because it is a very clear message to foot soldiers of the regime that it does not matter how many people are taping you. It doesn’t matter how clearly what you’re engaging in is illegal. It does not matter how heinous your crime is. The response of the top levels of this regime will be the circle of bandwagons, call your victim a terrorist, and protect you from all consequences.

In response to these murders, we had 147,000 people register for the “Eyes on ICE” training planned for Monday, and these are mostly not Minnesotans. These 147,000 people saw secret police force assault and murder fellow Americans, and one natural response you could imagine would be that people could do what the regime wants them to do, which is to be quiet and go home and not show up. But instead, we have, by several orders of magnitude, the largest number of people ever to attend a training to learn how to do exactly what Renee Good and Alex Pretti were doing. [A press release from the coalition behind the training said that the number of viewers ended up totalling over 200,000.]

How did that get put together so quickly?

We’re not starting from zero. I think it’s the same way that we were able to, in 48 hours, put together 1,200 protests for “ICE Out for Good” in the wake of Renée Good’s murder, where it took us six weeks leading up to Hands Off protests in April of last year to put together 1,300 events. The point of these mass mobilizations and this broad national coalition building through “No Kings” is, yes, in part, to pull off big one-day protests. And those are important. But they’re not the whole shebang. It’s not all about just a one-day protest. We are developing organizational capacity that allows us to pull off historic levels of engagement in between these tentpole events. The “No Kings” coalition is not just Indivisible, not just 5051, or MoveOn, or Working Families Party, or ACLU. We’ve all been working together now for over a year to figure out how we can organize collectively, bringing all of our skill sets and all of our tools to tackle the same problem. Indivisible would be the wrong group to hold a Know Your Rights training. We don’t have a lot of First Amendment lawyers on staff. But the ACLU does.

What does the number of RSVPs for the training this week communicate to you?

The attendance tells me that there’s real demand for this. Look, a lot of us have been paying attention to the fascist threat for a long time. This has been what we eat, sleep, and breathe for a while. Also, we recognize that most people are not like us. Most people are not paying attention to the demise of American democracy on a daily basis. A successful movement depends on welcoming new people and meeting people where they are and accepting them when, whatever that moment is, whatever that event is, brings them into the movement—accepting them at that point and not saying ‘Where have you been up until now.’

What it tells me is that there are a lot of people who, for the last year, may have been upset about what was happening, may have opposed what was happening, but may have not been actively engaged in pushing back at the level that we’re seeing in the Twin Cities, who are now going through the process of imagining a situation in which their own personal constitutional rights are under threat. They are working through what they personally will do in that moment to defend themselves and their community. That is crazy powerful. That is an inflection point.

“When it comes to actually defending your community, you should not be looking to some talking head on TV. You should be gathering community with your neighbors and figuring it out yourself, because nobody’s going to save you but you. “

It’s different to go up to a group of ICE agents on the streets in New York, where there are 50 people within spitting distance, versus places like Tucson, Arizona. How do these trainings address how to encounter federal immigration agents in different towns and cities?

I think with the news being as inescapable as it is, it’s easy to imagine this coming to your own community. I think one of the really important lessons that we should be learning from the Twin Cities is that the opposition is not nationalized; it is very much localized. And the single best thing that you can do in this moment—we’ve been preaching this for 14 months—is not be alone. Refuse to be alone and to join in a community where you are geographically, because the challenges and opportunities available to you are based on your geography or based on what your community actually looks like.

This is a movement that is being led and directed at the local level, and I think that’s why it’s been so successful. There’s no email list at the national level that is sending in a direction. When it comes to actually defending your community, you should not be looking to some talking head on TV. You should be gathering community with your neighbors and figuring it out yourself, because nobody’s going to save you but you.

The coalition that Indivisible is a part of is launching another national mobilization: “No Kings” 3 for March 28. How do the “Eyes on ICE” trainings that y’all announced and No Kings 3 complement one another, and how are they unique?

Each “No Kings” has had a different focus, responding to the moment. “No Kings” one was an effort to provide a stark narrative contrast to Trump’s version of reality. He was throwing himself a ridiculous military birthday parade for himself, as authoritarians do. We wanted to make clear that he was small and weak and that the people were against him. The second “No Kings” was largely in response to sending the National Guard to invade and occupy American cities.

I think the third “No Kings” is a response to the secret police force that’s terrorizing American communities. I reserve the right to say that this is in response to whatever more recent atrocity the regime commits. It’s lashing out quite a bit, so we’ll see. They’re still constructing more detention camps. They’re still acquiring weapons. They’re still picking out target cities to occupy and terrorize. So, I would expect to see more, unfortunately, of the darkness that we saw in the Twin Cities over the last several weeks. But I’d also expect to see more of the kind of righteous, non-violent, organized opposition that we saw in the Twin Cities, too.

I’m incredibly proud of “No Kings” and also, protests are a tactic. Tactics should fit into a strategy. Strategy should be designed to achieve your goal. Our goal is to safeguard democracy and protect our communities from an authoritarian threat that’s seeking to submit it to power for good. Our strategy is mass, non-violent, organized people power. “No Kings” three is in the tactic within that strategy. “Eyes on ICE” training is a tactic within that strategy. Rapid response, mass mobilizations like “ICE Out For Good” are a tactic within that strategy. Pushing Democrats to unify and fight back against DHS funding is a tactic within that strategy. We need a multiplicity of tactics.

“What I found over the last 14 months is that the framework that many of these Democratic leaders have is not a framework built for this moment.”

So on Friday, we also talked about Democratic leadership—Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer—not meeting this moment. Since the killing of Alex Pretti, leading Senate Democrats have threatened to block the DHS funding bill; some Democrats are mentioning different reforms, etc. It’s a different situation than it was on Friday. What do you make of that?

My goal here is a unified, strong opposition party to the regime. That is what I would like to build. I think there is a real disconnect between some Democrats who dominate leadership in both the House and the Senate, and rank-and-file Democrats around the country who want to see a real fight back against the regime. What I found over the last 14 months is that the framework that many of these Democratic leaders have is not a framework built for this moment. The framework goes something like: second term presidents decline in popularity over time; that naturally leads to the opposition party winning seats in the midterms; our role is to not rock the boat too much; communicate as much as we can about people’s top concern, which is always the economy; and then allow political gravity to run its course so that we win in the midterms. I understand that framework. I understand how it could make sense for a certain kind of political era. I do not believe that the political era we’re in, and that’s not where the people on the ground believe we are.

We believe instead in what the anti-authoritarian experts call an “authoritarian breakthrough moment,” a moment where an authoritarian regime tries to consolidate power as quickly as possible through attacks on pillars of democracy, not just through the legislature, not through just executive functions, but media, law firms, and universities, etc. And it builds up a force across the country in order to ultimately subvert elections and prevent any kind of threat to their continued political power. And if that’s your framework, you’re not waiting for the Midterms and you’re not trying to avoid attention. You are looking for every piece of leverage you have to excite the public to the dangers that are coming, so that you can successfully push back against the authoritarian escalation.

I’m happy that they are fighting back now, and I’m not convinced that without sustained, overwhelming pressure and a threat to their continued grip on power within the Democratic ranks, they will continue to fight.

Right, it was nice to see from Dems. But you’re not sleeping with both eyes closed, ready to rest.

I’m old enough to remember last November when we were winning popular support for the shutdown fight. People wanted Republicans to give on the health care subsidies, and suddenly the Senate Democrats surrendered. Those are the same Senate Democrats. We got the same party. They’re responding to the news of the day, and when the news of the day moves on, they’ll respond to that. The question is: Is it the grassroots opposition that is driving the news of the day, or is it something else?

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Five Constitutional Amendments Trump is Ignoring in Minnesota

For nearly two months, the Trump administration has unleashed immigration officers on the streets of Minneapolis and St. Paul in a siege of increasing cruelty and violence. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers are dragging citizens from their homes, deploying five-year-olds as bait, arresting demonstrators, and using pepper spray on protesters like bug repellent at a barbecue. They have shot three people, including the executions of Renée Good and Alex Pretti.

“The federal government is attempting to bend the state’s will to its own—and that is not allowed under the Constitution.”

The immorality of the moment is clear. But the images of uninhibited brutality visited by federal law enforcement officers onto a metropolis also run counter to our Constitution—both its restrictions on federal power and the freedoms it is meant to protect. Simply put, the violence inflicted by ICE doesn’t just feel wrong: it is a violation of our basic rights, ones that hold the line between democracy on one side and fascism and dictatorship on the other. In Minnesota, we’re plainly seeing why these rights underpin our system of government.

Despite the rampant violations carried out by armed agents of the state, they are unlikely to see much justice in the courts. That’s because in recent decades, the Supreme Court has limited people’s ability to sue individual federal officers who violate their rights. Such suits were accepted and even common in the 19th century. But in sad irony, the same Supreme Court justices who say it’s important to continue the country’s earliest legal traditions have made them all but impossible. “They’ve made it incredibly difficult to sue federal officers for abuse of power, no matter how egregious,” says David Gans, a scholar at the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive nonprofit law firm.

But some avenues remain to stopping the violence and obtaining legal relief. Namely, a federal judge can order the government to stop illegal behavior, and there are multiple lawsuits mounting constitutional challenges to both ICE’s tactics and the entire invasion, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, more broadly. As those suits move forward, here is a list of the five amendments the Trump administration has effectively suspended in Minnesota.

The First Amendment

The First Amendment protects the rights to speak freely, to assemble, and to protest. This includes the right to observe federal government action and to protest against it. Crucially for Minnesota, this includes a right that CPB and ICE really don’t like: the right to record their actions. The First Amendment also protects against government retaliation for these acts—these rights would be meaningless if the government could chill them through retaliation. The government cannot target and punish you because of your views or other First Amendment-protected actions.

But under Trump, it’s impossible to count the ways in which all these rights have been violated every day in Minnesota, not to mention around the country. Obstructing law enforcement is not a protected act, but every video of an ICE officer arresting or pepper spraying an observer who is not obstructing them serves as documented evidence of unconstitutional retaliation for a protected act. Every time an officer physically assaults or detains someone who is simply observing or protesting, that’s a violation of the First Amendment.

This isn’t just theoretical. In a case filed by a group of Twin Cities observers demanding relief from ICE’s tactics, federal Judge Kate Menendez found this month that ICE likely violated the First Amendment rights of two plaintiffs when agents arrested them in what appeared to be retaliation for watching them. Menendez likewise found that a third plaintiff likely suffered unconstitutional retaliation for protected activity when an ICE officer pepper sprayed him as he stood aside a road. Menendez’s opinion provides a glimpse of how ICE is using chemical agents to chill Minnesotans’ free speech: “In one instance, agents drove slowly past, opened the car door, and ‘sprayed [a bystander] directly’ as the bystander ‘held their arms out’ and ‘was standing on the edge of the road.’ As the bystander moved away from the car, ‘another agent on foot came behind them and sprayed them directly in the face again,’ before spraying ‘into the small crowd.’” Menendez issued an injunction against against arrests and pepper spraying for people peacefully observing, but, in a move that shows the limits of local judges’ ability to intervene, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals soon blocked the order.

Reports from the Twin Cities show that the reprisals can sometimes be petty, but no less unconstitutional. One woman who followed a CBP vehicle in her car was stopped by an officer who warned that he was using facial recognition software and knew who she was. Three days later, the Department of Homeland Security revoked the woman’s Global Entry and TSA PreCheck. The government cannot revoke a privilege as punishment for exercising First Amendment rights. A local toy store says DHS initiated an audit of employment and payroll records mere hours after the owner’s daughter criticized ICE to the media. (DHS denies that the investigation of a store with just five part-time employees is tied to her critical comments.)

More broadly, every resident of the Twin Cities has had their First Amendment rights violated. That’s because this entire operation appears to be reprisal against Democratic cities in a Democrat-led state for its collective choice not to vote for Donald Trump in the last three elections. “I won Minnesota three times and I didn’t get credit for it,” Trump said this month when asked about his federal occupation. “That’s a crooked state. California’s a crooked state. We have many crooked states.”

“The government doesn’t have a right to go into your house without your consent unless they have a warrant.”

A lawsuit seeking the end of ICE’s operation brought by the state of Minnesota and the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis references these comments: “President Trump did not win the majority of votes cast in Minnesota in 2016, 2020, or 2024. His claims to the contrary, in the context of being asked to explain actions his administration is taking in Minnesota, suggests a desire to punish the State for voting for his opponents.” It further points out that in his first year back in office, Trump has only targeted Democratic cities with surges of federal officers and National Guard troops, and that he is attempting to withhold billions in federal dollars from Democratic states as well. Moreover, Minnesota is not a logical site of the nation’s largest immigration enforcement operation: a mere 1.5 percent of its population is undocumented, many of whom are already known to DHS. An ulterior motive is obvious.

On Sunday, Minnesota and the Twin Cities bolstered their lawsuit’s argument by adding a Saturday letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi to the case’s record, which offered to “bring an end to the chaos in Minnesota” if the state hands over to the feds, among other databases, its voter rolls. There’s no rational way to make sense of violence and havoc the Trump administration is inflicting on the Twin Cities as normal immigration enforcement; it only makes sense as punishment upon the entire population for its political preferences. And that’s unconstitutional First Amendment retaliation.

The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. It would be impossible to list every way federal officials have violated this in Minnesota.

ChongLy Thao, a US citizen, was arrested when ICE broke down his door and entered his home with guns drawn. They refused to look at his identification and dragged him out of his house in underwear, through the snow, and whisked him away. When they realized he was a citizen an hour or two later, they returned him. This is a textbook example of unconstitutional behavior. If you want to breakdown a door, you need a warrant signed by a judge.

“The government doesn’t have a right to go into your house without your consent unless they have a warrant from a judge,” says Jill Hasday, a constitutional law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.

And yet, DHS has been instructing ICE officers that they can invade people’s homes without a judicial warrant. Last week, the AP reported on a secret DHS memo, closely held and only shown to a small number of high-ranking officials, justifying that new policy. This violates the Fourth Amendment and Supreme Court precedent—which is probably why it took a whistleblower for the public to find out about it.

Unreasonable traffic stops are also banned by the Fourth Amendment. In the case brought by the ICE observers, Judge Menendez found ICE likely violated the Fourth Amendment rights of three plaintiffs when officers stopped their cars after they followed ICE vehicles.

Then there are the Kavanaugh Stops, stops based on a person’s race or ethnicity and named for Justice Brett Kavanaugh because he defended the use of race in ICE stops in a September opinion. There are innumerable accounts of people being detained by ICE for no apparent reason but the color of their skin, including in Minnesota. In a press conference, a local police chief shared that nonwhite off-duty officers were being pulled over by ICE. The result is that nonwhite citizens and legal residents are afraid to leave their homes.

The ceaseless violence ICE uses on both immigrants and protesters also violates the Fourth Amendment.

ICE and CBP are also testing the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment with their use of facial recognition software and data to track people’s locations, learn their identities, addresses, and other key information about them. According to 404 Media, ICE contends that they can circumvent the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement if they buy such data from third party companies rather than request it from, for example, AT&T or Verizon. Unless the courts or Congress address this issue, the government will find ever more dystopian ways to use for-profit surveillance tools to circumvent people’s constitutional rights.

The ceaseless violence ICE uses in its encounters with both immigrants and protesters also violates the Fourth Amendment. ICE is smashing windows to pull people out of cars and kneeling on their necks and backs when they detain them, among other violent tactics. “From the Supreme Court’s view, when the police seize you or your property and do so violently, that’s a Fourth Amendment problem where it’s excessive and disproportionate to law enforcement need,” says Gans. “What all the videos circulating show is just a shocking level of violence being meted out that far exceeds any law enforcement interest.”

This would include the killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti. The officers who pulled the triggers could be charged as murderers under state or federal criminal law, though the Trump administration certainly won’t do that. But constitutionally, explains Gans, these killing of US citizens who did not agree with ICE’s mission would be treated as “an unreasonable use of deadly force” under the Fourth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment protects against deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Supreme Court has held that this includes an equal protection guarantee as well. The result is that the Fifth Amendment would also be implicated in Kavanaugh Stops, which are both unreasonable searches and seizures and an equal protection violation.

The Tenth Amendment

The final amendment in the original Bill of Rights stipulates that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” It is, essentially, a guarantee of state sovereignty in areas not given to the federal government. Minnesota, Minneapolis, and St. Paul argue in their suit fighting ICE’s deployment that Operation Metro Surge violates the 10th Amendment, as the federal government has effectively invaded the Twin Cities in order to coerce the state to turn over voter data and to force cooperation with immigration enforcement that the state is not required to give. “They’re trying to hijack the state’s legislative process,” a lawyer with the Minnesota Attorney General’s office told Menendez during a Monday hearing. “They’re trying to get us to turn over voter rolls. What does that have to do [with immigration?] The federal government is attempting to bend the state’s will to its own—and that is not allowed under the Constitution.”

Menendez hasn’t issued a ruling, and it’s unclear if she will accept 10th Amendment arguments. But the federal government does seem to be signaling it is willing to exit Minneapolis in exchange for the surrender ofkey aspects of the state’s sovereignty.

The Fourteenth Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted in 1868, guarantees that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As the text says, this was aimed at the states in the aftermath of the Civil War, but the Supreme Court has applied much of its protections to the federal government. The drafters of the 14th Amendment were trying to eradicate state-sponsored violence against Black people—police invading their homes, stealing their property, and hunting them down for violent treatment and even massacre—that have shocking parallels to what is happening to people of color in Minnesota today.

“One of the lessons that you draw from the 14th Amendment is, if you can’t be physically secure in your community, you can’t really enjoy liberty and freedom and all the promises the Constitution provides,” explains Gans. “As we see ICE terrorizing these communities, that lesson is brought home in a really strong way.”

Beyond explicit constitutional violations, the suit brought by Minnesota, Minneapolis, and St. Paul alleges a final breach of our founding document. “There is also a ‘fundamental principle of equal sovereignty’ among States,’” the plaintiffs state. “The Supreme Court has long recognized that our nation ‘was and is a nation of States, equal in power, dignity, and authority,’ and that this ‘constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized.’”

There’s a deep irony in this allegation. It quotes from Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 decision in which Chief Justice John Roberts rehabilitated the “principle of equal sovereignty” to strike down the 1965 Voting Rights Act requirement that states and other jurisdictions with a history of suppression have changes to voting laws cleared by the Department of Justice. Congress violated this principle because, according to Roberts, the selection of states was no longer tethered to conditions on the ground. Roberts, who has a long history of attacking the VRA, was incorrect about the existing conditions, but held that Congress needed a significant and current justification in order to treat states differently.

Roberts created the equal sovereignty principle for modern times, but its origins actually lie in the court’s infamous Dred Scott decision finding that Black people could never be citizens. In that case, Chief Justice Roger Taney found that empowering Black people as citizens in free states would overrule the equal sovereignty of slave states that denied Black people political power.

Today, Minnesota invokes the idea for opposite purposes: Rather than to stymie the freedom of one race, they seek to wield it to protect nonwhite people. Roberts’ rehabilitation of the equal sovereignty principle remains an untested weapon against Trump’s war on Democratic states. Its success may turn on whether courts will question Trump’s allegations of corruption against Democratic states. It’s certainly not the use Taney or even Roberts envisioned for a principle that many legal scholars see as both bogus and tainted with racial animus. But Roberts breathed fresh life into it nearly 13 years ago, and now the courts—and possibly Roberts himself—are being asked if they really mean it.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

People Hate Data Centers, so the Industry Is Spending Millions to Rebrand Them

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

With community opposition growing, data center backers are going on a full-scale public relations blitz. Around Christmas in Virginia, which boasts the highest concentration of data centers in the country, one advertisement seemed to air nonstop. “Virginia’s data centers are…investing billions in clean energy,” a voiceover intoned over sweeping shots of shiny solar panels. “Creating good-paying jobs”—cue men in yellow safety vests and hard hats—“and building a better energy future.”

The ad was sponsored by Virginia Connects, an industry-affiliated group that spent at least $700,000 on digital marketing in the state in fiscal year 2024. The spot emphasized that data centers are paying their own energy costs—framing this as a buffer that might help lower residential bills—and portrayed the facilities as engines of local job creation.

Meta says it has supported “400+ operational jobs” in Altoona. But the local casino employs nearly 1,000 residents.

The reality is murkier. Although industry groups claim that each new data center creates “dozens to hundreds” of “high-wage, high-skill jobs,” some researchers say data centers generate far fewer jobs than other industries, such as manufacturing and warehousing. Greg LeRoy, the founder of the research and advocacy group Good Jobs First, said that in his first major study of data center jobs nine years ago, he found that developers pocketed well over $1 million in state subsidies for every permanent job they created. With the rise of hyperscalers, LeRoy said, that number is “still very much in the ballpark.”

Other experts reflect that finding. A 2025 brief from University of Michigan researchers put it bluntly: “Data centers do not bring high-paying tech jobs to local communities.” A recent analysis from Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit tracking corporate overreach, found that in Virginia, the investment required to create a permanent data center job was nearly 100 times higher than what was required to create comparable jobs in other industries.

“Data centers are the extreme of hyper-capital intensity in manufacturing,” LeRoy said. “Once they’re built, the number of people monitoring them is really small.” Contractors may be called in if something breaks, and equipment is replaced every few years. “But that’s not permanent labor,” he said.

Jon Hukill, a spokesperson for the Data Center Coalition, the industry lobbying group that established Virginia Connects in 2024, said that the industry “is committed to paying its full cost of service for the energy it uses” and is trying to “meet this moment in a way that supports both data center development and an affordable, reliable electricity grid for all customers.” Nationally, Hukill said, the industry “supported 4.7 million jobs and contributed $162 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2023.”

Dozens of community groups across the country have mobilized against data center buildout, citing fears that the facilities will drain water supplies, overwhelm electric grids, and pollute the air around them. According to Data Center Watch, a project run by AI security company 10a Labs, nearly 200 community groups are currently active, and blocked or delayed 20 data center projects representing $98 billion of potential investment between April and June 2025 alone.

The backlash has exposed a growing image problem for the AI industry. “Too often, we’re portrayed as energy-hungry, water-intensive, and environmentally damaging,” data center marketer Steve Lim recently wrote. That narrative, he argued, “misrepresents our role in society and potentially hinders our ability to grow.” In response, the industry is stepping up its messaging.

The data center ads reminded one activist of cigarette ads she saw decades ago touting the health benefits of smoking.

Some developers, like Starwood Digital Ventures in Delaware, are turning to Facebook ads to appeal to residents. Its ads make the case that data center development might help keep property taxes low, bring jobs to Delaware, and protect the integrity of nearby wetlands. According to reporting from Spotlight Delaware, the company has also boasted that it will create three times as many jobs as it initially told local officials.

Nationally, Meta has spent months running TV spots showcasing data center work as a viable replacement for lost industrial and farming jobs. One advertisement spotlights the small city of Altoona, Iowa. “I grew up in Altoona, and I wanted my kids to be able to do the same,” a voice narrates over softly-lit scenes of small-town Americana: a Route 66 diner, a farm, and a water tower. “So, when work started to slow down, we looked for new opportunities…and we welcomed Meta, which opened a data center in our town. Now, we’re bringing jobs here—for us, and for our next generation.”

The advertisement ends with a promise superimposed over images of a football game: “Meta is investing $600 billion in American infrastructure and jobs.”

In reality, Altoona’s data center is a hulking, windowless, warehouse complex that broke ground in 2013, long before the current data center boom. Altoona is not quite the beleaguered farm town Meta’s advertisements portray, but a suburb of 19,000, roughly 16 minutes from downtown Des Moines, the most populous city in Iowa. Meta says it has supported “400+ operational jobs” in Altoona. In comparison, the local casino employs nearly 1,000 residents, according to the local economic development agency.

Ultimately, those details may not matter much to the ad’s intended audience. As Politico reported, the advertisement may have been targeted at policymakers on the coasts more than the residents of towns like Altoona. Meta has spent at least $5 million airing the spot in places like Sacramento and Washington, DC.

The community backlash has also made data centers a political flashpoint. In Virginia, Abigail Spanberger won November’s gubernatorial election in part on promises to regulate the industry and make developers pay their “fair share” of the electricity they use. State lawmakers also considered 30 bills attempting to regulate data centers. In response to concerns about rising electricity prices, Virginia regulators approved a new rate structure for AI data centers and other large electricity users. The changes, which will take effect in 2027, are designed to protect household customers from costs associated with data center expansion.

These developments may only encourage companies to spend more on image-building. In Virginia’s Data Center Alley, the ads show no sign of stopping. Elena Schlossberg, an anti-data-center activist based in Prince William County, says her mailbox has been flooded with fliers from Virginia Connects for the past eight months.

The promises of lower electric bills, good jobs, and climate responsibility, she said, remind her of cigarette ads she saw decades ago touting the health benefits of smoking. But Schlossberg isn’t sure the marketing is going to work. One recent poll showed that 73 percent of Virginians blame data centers for their rising electricity costs.

“There’s no putting the toothpaste back in the tube,” she said. “People already know we’re still covering their costs. People know that.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

He Helped Build the Religious Right. Now He’s Fighting ICE.

On January 24, a US Border Patrol agent shot and killed 37-year-old ICU nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis after he was held down by multiple federal agents. The Trump administration alleged that Pretti threatened agents with a gun. But videos appear to show Pretti, who was carrying a licensed handgun, holding only his phone in his hand when he was tackled and agents disarming Pretti before he was shot and killed.

The Trump administration has since signaled that it’s scaling back the federal immigration operation in the city. Multiple news outlets are reporting that Gregory Bovino, the top US Border Patrol official, has been demoted and will leave. Tom Homan, the White House border czar, is now expected to manage immigration enforcement in Minneapolis, according to multiple reports.

Following Pretti’s death, thousands of protesters once again flooded the streets of Minneapolis. One of them was Rob Schenck, an evangelical minister who once routinely lobbied legislators to adopt a Christian conservative agenda and worked to persuade Supreme Court justices to rule in favor of the religious right. But Schenck began doubting the movement and his own role in it—especially once President Donald Trump came to power. Since then, he’s made a moral and political 180 and is now working to undo his decades of activism that he believes helped lead to this moment.

On this week’s More To The Story, Schenck sits down with host Al Letson to talk about what led him to the streets of Minneapolis, his emotional visit to Renée Good’s memorial, and why he’s become “guardedly optimistic” about the ultimate direction of this current political moment in America.

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

How Greg Bovino Proved Too Openly Fascistic for Trump

Greg Bovino, the Border Patrol “commander-at-large” who terrorized people across America in his Nazi-like trench coat, is being put out to pasture by President Donald Trump. The cause was Bovino’s stupidity, not his cruelty.

After his Border Patrol agents disarmed and killed Alex Pretti in broad daylight on Saturday, Bovino shamelessly slandered the 37-year-old nurse only to have his lies immediately and irrefutably exposed by numerous videos of the killing.

Instead of leading his band of masked agents from city to city, Bovino is now returning to his original role as the head of California’s not particularly busy El Centro border sector. The Atlantic reports that the 55-year-old is expected to soon retire. In place of Bovino, Trump has sent his border “czar” and first-term Immigration and Customs Enforcement director Tom Homan to Minneapolis. Unlike Bovino, who had an unusual arrangement in which he reported to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem instead of his immediate supervisors, Trump has said that Homan will answer directly to him.

It is worth stressing what Bovino got away with before Trump shoved him aside. In Los Angeles, Bovino and his gang occupied the city like an invading army, marching through MacArthur Park as a public relations stunt and pulling people off the street in obvious spasms of racial profiling that led to Trump’s Supreme Court explicitly legitimizing stops based on skin color.

In Chicago, Border Patrol agent Charles Exum shot Marimar Martinez multiple times while she was in her car. “I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes,” Exum later bragged in a text message. “Put that in your book, boys.” (Martinez survived the shooting and is now asking a judge to release evidence from a now abandoned federal case against her.)

In November, Sara Ellis, a federal judge for the Northern District of Illinois, made clear that Bovino lied repeatedly to defend his and Border Patrol’s conduct in Chicago. As Ellis wrote about Bovino in a 233-page decision, “the Court specifically finds his testimony not credible. Bovino appeared evasive over the three days of his deposition, either providing ‘cute’ responses to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s questions or outright lying.” That included, she added, lying multiple times about the events that led to him throwing tear gas at protesters.

He did this all with gleeful menace. His signature look was an authoritarian haircut paired with a winter trench coat reminiscent of Hitler’s Germany. As a writer for the German publication Der Spiegel put it, Bovino “stands out from this thuggish mob, just as an elegant SS officer stands out from the rowdy SA mob. The dashing undercut is also spot on; all that’s missing for the perfect cosplay is a monocle.” As noted by the Guardian, a second German outlet wrote that Bovino looked like “he had taken a photo of [assassinated Nazi paramilitary leader] Ernst Röhm to the barber.”

None of this stopped Noem and Miller from sending Bovino to Minneapolis, where he and his men predictably continued their anonymous thuggery. That culminated on Saturday with the killing of Pretti. From there, Bovino did himself in through sheer idiocy. Unlike the shooting of Martinez, for example, Pretti’s death was captured from numerous angles. The footage made clear that he was peacefully observing and recording Border Patrol agents before they tackled him, removed the handgun he was legally carrying, then shot him to death.

But Bovino had apparently become so accustomed to lying that he went ahead and pushed the DHS falsehood that Pretti appeared to have “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” Pretti, a former Boy Scout and VA ICU nurse, was too sympathetic to be smeared so brazenly. Trump recognized that and sent Bovino packing. But there should be no doubt that Bovino would still be in his job if his agents had done the same thing off-camera, or perhaps even on camera to a more easily maligned victim. His removal was also likely hastened by the lingering outrage from ICE agent Jonathan Ross brazenly killing Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis earlier this month.

At least for the time being, Trump is taking a less confrontational approach in public by touting a “very good telephone conversation” on Monday with Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, as well as another one with Gov. Tim Walz, who he now says he appears to be on a “similar wavelength” with. He has also avoided repeating the obvious lies about Pretti spread this weekend by Bovino, Noem, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and Vice President JD Vance.

Sources apparently loyal to Noem are now leaking to Axios to pin the blame on Miller for the false statement that was released by DHS on Saturday and repeated by Noem and Bovino. If true, it makes Bovino something of a fall guy for Miller, whose longtime role alongside Trump does not appear to be in jeopardy. (Miller was notably absent from a two-hour meeting between Noem and Trump on Monday, the New York Times reports.)

Homan is a hardliner who has been described by The Atlantic as the “intellectual ‘father’” of the first Trump administration’s family separation policy. Unlike Bovino, however, his most recent experience is with ICE rather than Border Patrol. Along with acting ICE director Todd Lyons, he is reported to favor a somewhat more targeted approach to mass deportation that prioritizes people with actual deportation orders or criminal histories. Whether that changes DHS’ behavior on the ground—especially with Miller still in the picture—remains to be seen.

Trump’s pullback on Monday is reminiscent of his abandonment of the family separation policy in the face of widespread outrage in 2018. The images and sounds of separated families came to define Trump’s first term on immigration—even though the policy ended well before the midpoint of the administration. It would not be surprising if the images of Pretti being shot in the back, then again and again as he lay motionless on the street, go on to occupy the same position.

In that sense, what followed family separation may be instructive. Trump and Miller’s hardline measures to seal the US-Mexico border continued through policies like Remain in Mexico, multiple asylum bans, and expanding detention of asylum seekers who’d recently crossed the border. But the outrage over family separation also helped to wipe away the political advantage on immigration that helped Trump win for the first time in 2016.

The killings of Pretti and Good, along with countless videos of immigrants and citizens being abused by masked federal agents, have similarly degraded the support for Trump on immigration generated by the chaos at the border during Joe Biden’s presidency. On Monday, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted before and after Pretti’s death showed that 53 percent of respondents disapprove of the president’s handling of immigration, compared to 39 percent who approve. That is a 23-point swing from February 2025 when voters approved of Trump on immigration by a nine-point margin.

Six in ten independents now say that ICE has gone too far, along with more than 90 percent of Democrats. Perhaps more surprisingly, Republicans are now nearly as likely to say ICE has gone too far as they are to say that ICE has not gone far enough, according to the Reuters poll.

After years of trying to avoid talking about immigration on the campaign trail, Democrats are recognizing that times have changed. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is calling on social media for fellow Democrats to reject an upcoming DHS spending bill. Democratic House leaders have joined efforts to impeach Noem.

It is now Bovino who is silent on X, and not by choice. In the Trump administration’s equivalent of Siberian banishment, he has reportedly been blocked from posting by his superiors.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Those Brutal “Melania” Documentary Reviews Have Vanished from Letterboxd

Yesterday I published a story about what was quickly becoming a surprising site of capital R Resistance: the Letterboxd review page for the $75 million documentary film, Melania.

Comments were profane, fun, silly, unprintable. I included some of my favorites. The point I was making was this: Even before the movie’s release this Friday, it has become a lightning rod for anger, not least because Melania Trump’s oligarchic private premiere gala at the White House came the same day Alex Pretti was shot dead in the streets of Minneapolis amid her husband’s disastrous siege of the city. A real let-them-eat-cake moment.

But as my colleague Arianna Coghill went to promote the story today on our social media channels, she discovered the reviews have been wiped from the site entirely.

Screenshot of a Letterboxd film page for "Melania 2026" displaying the Reviews tab. The dark interface shows navigation tabs for Members, Fans, Likes, Reviews, and Lists, with sorting options for Rating and When Reviewed. The main content area shows "No reviews" in gray text, indicating the film has not yet received any user reviews.

Wiped clean.

Sad.

So I sent an email to the Letterboxd press team asking why. What terms were violated? When did that happen? Even though the reviews appeared before the official release of the film, how is Letterboxd to know reviewers hadn’t seen the film itself?

They haven’t gotten back to me, and I’ll share their response when they do. But I presume they’ll hit me with their Terms of Service, which prohibit using Letterboxd to “game the Service’s mechanics,” “alter consensus,” or “participate in orchestrated attacks against films or filmmakers.” Letterboxd also asserts the “absolute discretion” to remove any post. Any account can be suspended for “any reason or no reason whatsoever, with or without notice.”

Letterboxd is also pretty clear in its FAQ: “Letterboxd is for reviews of films you’ve seen, not those you want to see,” and it encourages people to flag “pre-release reviews,” which, it says, “we’ll remove at our discretion.” It also says its undisclosed platform magic helps ensure its ratings are less vulnerable to being abused in online campaigns “to accurately represent the global consensus for each film”—but says people are welcome to report those suspected of waging such a campaign.

I guess we’ll have to wait until Friday, when the “global consensus” will begin to take shape—I suspect somewhat quickly.

Meanwhile, as if pocketing $28 million for just 20 days of being followed by filmmakers wasn’t grifty enough, Melania went on Fox News this morning to sermonize about “unity” after the Pretti killing—beneath a banner promoting her new film, bearing her own name.

Subtle.

.@FLOTUS: "We need to unify. I'm calling for unity. I know my husband, the President, had a great call yesterday with the Governor and the Mayor… If you protest, protest in peace. We need to unify in these times." ❤ pic.twitter.com/oj3skxpAYf

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) January 27, 2026

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Tom Homan Is Supposed to Fix Trump’s Minnesota Crisis. His Record Raises Serious Questions.

Donald Trump announced Monday that he is sending his border czar, Tom Homan, to Minnesota to take charge of the chaotic immigration operation that led to the killings of Alex Pretti and Renée Good by federal agents. According to Trump, Homan “knows and likes many of the people” in the state, and his arrival comes amid growing criticism—including from some Republicans and conservatives—over the administration’s violent crackdown. The Trump administration also removed hard-right Border Patrol official Greg Bovino from Minnesota.

Homan is being portrayed by many as a less extreme and more professional alternative to the leadership of Bovino and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. But these days, Homan is hardly a moderate. Last year, he called Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) “the dumbest congresswoman ever” and attempted to enlist the Justice Department to investigate her over her efforts to educate migrants on their constitutional rights. In April, during a speech in Arizona, he waved off concerns that Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s tactics were spreading fear, saying that “if you’re in this country illegally, you should be looking over your shoulder.”

For decades, Homan worked at Customs and Border Protection, before being appointed to position at ICE during the Obama administration. He pioneered the use of family separations to deter immigration and helped implement that policy as acting ICE director in the first Trump administration.

Homan left government in 2018 and established a consulting business. In the summer of 2024, he was reportedly recorded accepting $50,000 in a paper bag from businessmen—who were actually undercover FBI agents—seeking help winning contracts with ICE if Trump returned to office. Homan has said he did nothing illegal and has stated that he “didn’t take $50,000 from anybody.” Trump’s Justice Department ultimately dropped the matter after investigators, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi, “found no credible evidence of any wrongdoing.”

In 2018, my colleague Noah Lanard wrote a lengthy profile of Homan. People who worked with Homan prior to the Trump years remembered him as a voice for nuance who was focussed on ensuring positive public optics for immigration policy. At the time, some officials who had interacted with him for years were surprised that Homan was fitting into the Trump administration’s immigration machine so smoothly. Homan, one said, had become “unrecognizable”:

Homan was “the person who made the most passionate argument against removing anybody,” [former Obama White House official Cecilia] Muñoz says. Muñoz had won a MacArthur “genius” grant for her work on behalf of immigrants, yet Homan was the one making the strongest case against arresting people who came to the US as minors. Homan, she recalls, said he didn’t want a repeat of the 2000 Elián González case, when a Cuban boy was taken from his Miami relatives at gunpoint. Homan says in a statement to Mother Jones that he didn’t think the arrests would have been “the best use of our limited resources.”

Still, Homan became the face of Trump’s aggressive enforcement efforts in the first term, recommending the policy that led to family separations. He was known for fiery attacks and for firmly backing his boss. And he seemed to understand how how to leverage Trump’s fixation with appearances:

Crucially for a president obsessed with appearance, Homan—a barrel-chested former cop—looks the part. His presence is imposing enough that two former colleagues said, unprompted, that they’d never seen him bully someone. In July, Trump said he’d heard that Homan looks “very nasty.” He replied, “That’s exactly what I was looking for.” Many of the 12 former colleagues of Homan interviewed for this article, from Arizona, Texas, and Washington, DC, say he has a soft side behind the gruff exterior. But that hasn’t stopped Homan from playing up his “cop’s cop” persona on TV, surely aware that it goes over well with his most important viewer.

In Trump’s second term, Homan’s perceived proximity to private interests has emerged as a significant issue. FBI sting notwithstanding, he pledged to avoid any involvement with federal contracting when he returned to government in 2025 as White House border czar. But as Mother Jones and the Project on Government Oversight reported last fall, at least some prospective government contractors seemed to believe he could be helpful. In one instance, we found that a company seeking federal contracts told investors that it was “trying to get access to Tom Homan and the folks over at DHS at the secretary level.” Meanwhile, some of Homan’s former clients are landing big federal paydays:

In addition, a review by Mother Jones and the Project On Government Oversight shows that a number of Homan’s former clients from his time in the private sector have been awarded lucrative border and immigration-related contracts during the second Trump administration. Those projects include constructing private prisons, sprawling migrant detention camps, and a section of border wall. It is not clear whether Homan has played any role in helping his former clients land these deals—the White House says he has no involvement in the “actual awarding” of contracts.

Regardless, the pattern highlights what critics call the legalized corruption of Washington. While Homan denies taking a bag of cash to rig a contract, he openly ran a business in which he traded on his years of government work and high-level contacts to help clients who paid him prosper in the procurement process. Now that he is back in government, even the impression that he can influence federal contract awards creates the appearance of corruption, ethics experts argue.

Homan will be reporting directly to Trump as he leads the operation in Minnesota. In a social media post on Monday afternoon, Trump seemed to be striking a conciliatory tone, indicating Homan would be working with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. It remains to be seen whether that will help diffuse the crisis Trump and his team have already created.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Right-Wing Influencers Want Women to Love ICE

On Saturday, federal immigration agents fatally shot Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old nurse in Minneapolis, sparking swift backlash both in the streets and online. Even some conservatives characterized the incident as a bridge too far. But, in other corners of the internet, female conservative Christian influencers appeared to be attempting to convince their largely female audience that officers were simply doing their job.

Rachel Moran, a Senior research scientist at the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, sees influencers’ messages as part of a broader pattern. “For more conservative female influencers, we’re seeing them frame ICE-related violence within cultural frames that feel comfortable to them, such as religious narratives—battles of ‘good versus evil’ in which ICE is always good and any form of protest bad,” she wrote via email.

One of the loudest voices calling for women to stand with ICE is Allie Beth Stuckey, a podcaster, commentator, and author of a 2024 book titled Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion. That phrase, “toxic empathy,” stands in for a larger argument of how Christian morality has been used to pull people—especially evangelical Christians—to the left. As Stuckey explains on the podcast of the New York Times‘ Ross Douthat:

Empathy by itself is neutral. Empathy by itself, I believe, is neither good nor bad….But putting yourself in someone’s shoes, feeling what they feel, can also lead you to do three things that I say makes empathy toxic: One, validate lies. Two, affirm sin. And three, support destructive policies.

You can catch the drift here: Calls to love your neighbor have, according to Stuckey, drowned out the other side of the equation—the harms supposedly caused by helping someone. If you are empathetic to an immigrant, you are ignoring the harm Stuckey says immigration causes.

On Tuesday, Stuckey tweeted that Pretti and Renée Nicole Good, who was shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on January 7, “were people made in God’s image whose lives had value, and their deaths are tragic.” Still, she wrote, their deaths were the result of “local law enforcement refusing keep the public from impeding ICE and local politicians stoking the flames by calling ICE ‘Gestapo.’

Megan Basham, a Christian influencer and author of the 2024 book Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda, retweeted Stuckey and added some of her own messages, as well:

So a bunch of Instagram are influencers now posting anti-ICE propaganda on Instagram. Once again, we have women whose primary careers are picking outfits and lipsticks (both things I love!) attempting to become political commentators on an issue for which they possess little… https://t.co/i942dE0Wqh

— Megan Basham (@megbasham) January 24, 2026

“If your favorite fashion or beauty or home design [influencer] or what have you is posting anti-Ice sentiments, please DM me,” she tweeted on Sunday to her 197,000 followers on X. “I’d like to hear about it.” A few hours later, she tweeted, “Ladies, we need you on Insta being informed and unafraid!”

Basham also reposted a tweet that speculated that Pretti might have been radicalized by the nurse’s union he had joined. “It’s time we have a talk about the way healthcare orgs and unions including MNA and SEIU are radicalizing their employees and members across Minnesota and have been for several years,” it said. (The tweet has been liked more than 12,000 times.)

Stuckey and Basham were not the only female Christian influencers defending ICE. While others were tweeting about their shock and sadness about Pretti’s death, Anna Lulis, an anti-abortion influencer with 122,000 followers, was posting photos of children who she said had been murdered by illegal immigrants, ostensibly in an effort to show the other side of the story in the toxic empathy equation. Stuckey amplified some of those posts.

In a similar vein, an account called Conservative Momma, with 135,000 followers, tweeted out a photo of a college student who had allegedly been killed by an undocumented immigrant. “To the those wanting to ‘stop ICE,’ you are advocating for more innocent lives to be cruelly taken,” she wrote.

Kristen Hawkins, president of the anti-abortion group Students for Life, tweeted, “This is about the Left, the party that celebrates 1 million abortions a year, wanting to stop Trump from enforcing our immigration laws, creating chaos, and trying to win over the public (despite his very high approval ratings) before this November.”

On Instagram, one creator posted a tongue-in-cheek series of tips titled “Simple Ways I Lower My Risk of Being Shot By ICE.” The list was accompanied by cozy, stylized photos, including “drinking coffee and cuddling with my baby,” “cooking nutrient dense and healthy meals,” and “hanging out with my husband.”

“Such frames advance traditional conservative Christian values that tell women to disengage from political discussion as it’s outside of their realm of authority,” Moran wrote me. Posts like this encourage followers to “interpret emerging news about ICE violence as justified or outside of their responsibility.”

Still, some followers of these influencers seem increasingly skeptical. In replies to some of the pro-ICE posts, followers pushed back. “It’s sad that you just can’t condemn something that was so clearly wrong,” one commenter told Stuckey. “You are a kook if you can’t watch the video and see for yourself he was not brandishing a gun and threatening anyone,” wrote another.

But Stuckey, at least, appears to be undaunted. “I am really glad I have never listened to the naysayers on X who say changing women’s minds on culture and politics is pointless and impossible,” she wrote on X on Saturday. “I have seen their minds change—over and over and over again. To others with me in that fight, keep slugging.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Tricky Science of Forecasting Extreme Winter Weather

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

Already, a bitter burst of cold is gripping much of the country, and in the next few days, it will reach at least 45 states and extend across two-thirds of the country. It is one of the most extreme winter storms in years.

The National Weather Service on Thursday warned that “dangerously cold and very dry Arctic air” will spill into the continental United States and lead to “life-threatening risk of hypothermia and frostbite” as temperatures drop well into negative territory, creating some of the coldest weather on Earth.

For millions of Americans, this is not merely a forecast anymore.

Schools were already announcing closures around the country Thursday morning. Lines were forming at grocery stores. The Texas power grid operator issued a winter warning as it braces for higher electricity demand and disruptions from freezing rain.

“It always ends up colder than the models initially predict, and the models are always playing catchup.”

Wintertime cold is normal. But what is unusual is how this kind of cold tends to arrive: These icy spells sneak up on us, posing a greater challenge to forecasters and leaving little time to prepare compared to slower-moving extremes like heat waves.

“Oftentimes, longer duration signals, such as heatwaves, can be more predictable, whereas short bursts of cold are more difficult to predict,” Matthew Rosencrans, meteorologist at the National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center, told Vox in an email.

Cold snaps are especially jarring when they’re interspersed with milder weather. And even though the planet just came out of one of the hottest years on record and is poised to heat up more, shocks of extreme cold are not going away, nor are their disruptions and dangers. Winter Storm Uri in 2021 cost the US economy more than $200 billion as it triggered deadly blackouts and fuel disruptions in Texas.

New forecasting methods are helping meteorologists close the gap on predicting future winter storms. But they are racing against rapid planetary changes, and the US is deliberately hampering its own weather forecasting capabilities with major personnel and budget cuts to science agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That could leave more Americans less prepared for dangerous weather, which can quickly turn deadly.

A cold wave is a distinct meteorological event where temperatures plummet below the average for a region for several days. But conventional forecasting tools often struggle to track all the factors at work and can underestimate the full extent of the chill. That makes it more difficult to prepare for the severity of a storm, often until it’s already set in.

“It always ends up colder than the models initially predict, and the models are always playing catchup,” said Judah Cohen, a research scientist at MIT studying weather forecasting.

Bouts of cold like the one this week have their origins at the North Pole. Icy air tends to remain corralled at the Arctic by a spinning band of strong, cold wind that is normally confined to 10 to 30 miles above the North Pole, known as the polar vortex. It tends to get stronger in the winter. The polar jet, which flows at a lower altitude some three to six miles above the ground, also plays a role.

Waves of air can start to form in the atmosphere. Those waves can collide with the polar air currents, with some of their energy bouncing off and some of their energy getting absorbed. The collisions deform the wind rings holding chilly Arctic air in place, breaking the neat circles into oblong lobes that drape over lower latitudes.

“If that energy gets absorbed, it kind of energizes or amplifies the wave over North America, and you get these more extreme weather events,” Cohen said. “This [weather this week] is a very nice example of that.”

So meteorologists have a pretty good grasp on how the process works. The challenge is figuring out what signs can tell us what’s coming.

There are interactions between the Arctic Ocean, the ice above it, and the sky that influence weather patterns around the world. There are also other sources of variability, like the periodic warming and cooling pattern in the central Pacific Ocean known as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. It adds up to a knotty problem that scientists have slowly unraveled over decades.

To speed up progress and to encourage new approaches, the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts held a contest to see who could build the best new AI-powered model for subseasonal forecasts, looking two to six weeks ahead.

This remains one of the toughest windows to hit for weather forecasters because both long-term and short-term variables are at play. But good predictions in this timeframe could be very useful in planning for extreme weather, helping communities issue alerts, shore up power, and stockpile supplies. A good forecast is a lifesaving tool, one that has helped drive disaster-related deaths downward over the years.

Cohen’s team won the latest contest for the 2025-’26 winter season. There’s even a certificate. (“I’m excited, of course. I shared it on social media,” Cohen said.) He started raising the alarm as early as November that a blast of extreme cold was heading toward the United States in the coming months.

His team trained their model on decades of observations across the Northern Hemisphere. They found that there were really far-flung variables at work, like weather in Eurasia in October and ocean temperatures in parts of the Arctic like the Kara Sea.

How does climate change play into all this? That is, as scientists say, an area of active research. In general, the planet is heating up, and winter temperatures are rising faster than in the summer months. But in certain areas and at specific times, there are still periods of intense cold, and some evidence suggests that warming in the Arctic is contributing to these cold weather spillovers. The Arctic is currently warming up to four times faster than the rest of the planet.

The extent to which human activity is altering cold snaps isn’t known, and there are other scientists who think that Arctic warming doesn’t play a big role in cold weather in lower latitudes and found that global warming has led to fewer extremely cold temperatures.

A complication on top of all this is that while teams around the world are in a heated competition for better forecasts, the US is cutting back on a lot of its scientific research, especially around climate change.

In particular, the Trump administration has its crosshairs on the National Center for Atmospheric Research, one of the best places in the world for conducting weather and climate predictions. Job cuts across the government have already led to less collection of raw data that informs weather models. So at a time when the country needs a better sight of the world ahead, the current administration is obscuring the view.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

ICE Demanded an ID, But She Held Her Ground

You might’ve seen the video: a Minneapolis resident defiantly stands up to ICE, filming as they persistently question her. Nimco Omar, a citizen and long-time Minneapolis resident, was on her way to work when federal agents demanded to see her ID. Her viral video shows agents repeatedly asking her where she was born, with Omar calmly refusing and stating her rights. They finally gave up.

“You’re terrorizing people, and it’s unacceptable,” Omar tells the agents. “I’m a citizen, this is my home.”

Mother Jones senior reporter Julia Lurie spent last week in Minneapolis talking to community members, protesters, and people confronted by ICE, including Nimco. Follow along for more updates.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

RFK Jr. Wants to End the “War” on Unproven Treatments Like Stem Cell Therapy

About a decade ago, when Doris Tyler was 76, she still had her eyesight. She’d quit driving, but she could see well enough to cook, do laundry, and clean her Central Florida home. But when the treatment for her macular degeneration stopped working, she began exploring other options. Stem cell therapy—whereby patients receive injections of their own stem cells, usually sourced from fat or bone marrow—isn’t approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for her condition, but it sounded “promising,” she says. Representatives at a clinic in Georgia assured her, according to court documents, that injecting stem cells into her eyes would be safe and might even save her vision. After pulling together $8,900 for the procedure, she made an appointment for September 2016. “We were hopeful and very excited at that point,” she recalls. “Until things began to fall apart.”

Within a month of the treatment, Tyler woke up unable to see in one eye—her retina had detached, a doctor would confirm. Soon after, the other one did, too. She tried several surgeries to fix the problem, but by December, she was permanently blind. “I don’t see any shapes or anything,” Tyler, now 85, told me. “All I see is blackness.”

“It’s completely changed my life. And I don’t want this to happen to anyone else.”

The clinic, part of the Cell Surgical Network, is one of thousands that have cropped up across the United States over the last two decades, touting stem cell treatments for a wide range of conditions: Alzheimer’s, autism, erectile dysfunction, Covid, joint pain, and more. While some stem cell therapies—like bone marrow transplants—are proven, many clinics, experts say, operate in a legal gray area, jumping ahead of the current science. Rather than rein them in, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has pledged to end the FDA’s “war” on alternative medicine, which may include unapproved stem cell treatments. (Tyler sued Cell Surgical Network and eventually settled out of court. The company did not respond to a request for comment.)

Some stem cells are like a wild card in the game Uno; the embryonic ones can develop into any tissue type (blood, heart, nerve, etc.), whereas nonembryonic “adult” stem cells are limited by the tissue in which they reside—blood stem cells, for example, produce only red blood cells, white blood cells, or platelets. It’s “a very promising field,” notes Sean Morrison, who chairs the Public Policy Committee of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, but scientists are still striving to understand stem cells and evaluate their potential as therapies. “We can’t just skip over the process of testing in clinical trials,” he says. Paul Knoepfler, a professor of cell biology and human anatomy at UC Davis, has read “encouraging” stem cell studies involving Type 1 diabetes, spina bifida, Parkinson’s, and age-related macular degeneration like Tyler’s. But clinics “are prematurely marketing stuff that’s not really ready for primetime yet.” And they are proliferating.

In 2016, Knoepfler and a colleague tallied 570 clinics nationwide offering stem cell treatments. By 2021, there were more than 2,700, with hotspots in California, Florida, and Texas—many promoting stem cells for things like pain relief, sports medicine, and general wellness. That same year, Pew Charitable Trusts identified 360 reports of bacterial infections, blindness, cardiac arrest, organ failure, tumors, and other “adverse events” related to unapproved stem cell and regenerative medicine procedures from 2004 through September 2020. Toronto resident Srini Subramaniam told me he spent $28,000 at a Florida stem cell clinic to treat retinitis pigmentosa, a hereditary eye condition, to no avail: “It was just that money down the drain.”

How is this even allowed? Well, the FDA covers drugs, but regulation of medical practice—licensing, exams, surgical procedures—falls to the states. In 2018, the Trump administration sued clinics in Florida and California, along with the Cell Surgical Network, arguing that stem cell treatments are drugs and should be regulated as such. The case made it to the US Supreme Court, which effectively sided with the FDA.

But under RFK Jr., the FDA seems less eager to crack down. Last May, Kennedy told a podcaster—the biologist and wellness influencer Gary Brecka—that he didn’t want to see a stem cell “Wild West,” but added that “charlatans” and “bad results” are an inevitable risk of medical freedom. “If you want to take an experimental drug,” he said, “you ought to be able to do that.” He himself had gone to Antigua for stem cell therapy to treat spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological voice condition, and it helped him “enormously,” Kennedy said.

Several states, including California, now require clinics to disclose to customers when therapies aren’t FDA-approved. And a few state attorneys general have sued clinics for deceptive marketing. But several other states, as Knoepfler wrote in Stat last July, have introduced “right to try” bills that would allow clinics to offer biologically derived drugs like stem cells, and let the buyer beware. That’s not such a healthy policy for experimental medicines. Tyler told me that she never would have agreed to stem cell injections had she known the risks. “I grew up in the time when you went to a doctor, you expected them to tell you the truth,” she says. “And you trusted them. And that’s not true anymore.”

As for RFK Jr., “if he thinks it should be approved,” he should talk to patients like her first. “It’s completely changed my life,” Tyler says. “And I don’t want this to happen to anyone else.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Letterboxd Users Are Pre-Swarming the “Melania” Doc with Amazingly Mean Reviews

Jeff Bezos’s $40 million bribe of the Trumps, in the form of his Amazon-MGM-produced Melania documentary, is out in about 2,000 theaters across the country this Friday (5,000 worldwide, according to MarketWatch), backed by an inescapable $35 million advertising assault on the country’s airwaves and commuter transit. The Wall Street Journal reported that Melania will personally pocket $28 million.

On the day the nation reeled from her husband’s federal agents shooting and killing Alex Pretti in the streets of Minneapolis, Melania Trump herself hosted a ritzy private White House screening for execs, celebs, and Queen Rania of Jordan. There will also be a premiere at the formerly prominent arts institution once known as the Kennedy Center. All this, and let’s not forget the film’s director Brett Ratner is attempting a comeback after his career imploded in 2017 when he was accused of sexual misconduct (he denied the allegations and no charges were filed, according to People). He also appears in a photo released as part of the Epstein files.

So it was with some solace that I perused the Letterboxd page of Melania, which made for some entertaining reading, as users have pre-swarmed the review section to push the score down and let their voices rip.

Here’s a sample of some of my faves. And yeah, there are so many spicier versions on the page itself, not fit for publication here. I’ll leave that to you to scroll through. These are on the PG-rated end:

  • I really don’t care, do u? ½ star.
  • ABOLISH ICE. RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES
  • I would, however, love to see a scene-for-scene reenactment by Laura Benanti.
  • Death of Cinema 🤝 Death of American Democracy
  • Lol. No
  • Nobody asked for this absolute piece of flaming garbage.
  • I heard all of her lines are taken from a Michelle Obama documentary

And my favorite:

★★★★★ Watched by jbruno7478

An astonishing nonfictional rising biopic where an entire life in all its complications and contradictions is expressed through a series of non-linear, subjective fragments of storytelling showmanship that simultaneously construct and deconstruct an enigmatic myth of American empire. Every time I sit down to watch this I go “ok but is it really that good?” and every single time I am sucked in by the form which combines expressive deep-focus images with lots of wide and low-angle compositions that take in the gorgeously-designed, idiosyncratic interior spaces (including miniatures and optical illusion set extensions) and serve to heighten the constantly overlapping sound design and montage that collapses all of the techniques (and the sense of time and space they establish) into a panoramic stream of memory. This is a triumph in every sense of the word. I was left speechless, you’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll be angry. You will get all the feels. It’s criminal that we had to wait this long for this project.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Lawyer for Jonathan Ross Quits Minnesota Governor Race and Denounces ICE

A Republican attorney in Minneapolis who gave legal counsel to the ICE agent who shot and killed Renée Good dropped out of the Minnesota governor’s race on Monday, saying he couldn’t win given the Trump administration’s violent campaign in the state.

Chris Madel stated in a Monday announcement video that, “national Republicans have made it nearly impossible for a Republican to win a statewide election in Minnesota.” Despite dropping out, Mandel claimed to still support Trump’s “originally stated goals” of going after the “worst of the worst,” meaning people convicted of serious crimes.”

Madel criticized the Trump administration’s justification for the cruelty. “Operation Metro Surge has expanded far beyond its stated focus on true public safety threats,” he said. “United States citizens, particularly those of color, live in fear. United States citizens are carrying their papers to prove their citizenship. That’s wrong.”

He continued: “I cannot support the national Republican stated ‘retribution’ on the citizens of our state, nor can I count myself a member of a party that would do so.”

Madelalso defended his decision to provide legal advice to ICE agent Jonathan Ross, who killed Good earlier this month, saying he helped Ross “fill out a form” because “I believe the constitutional right to counsel is sacrosanct.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, although Madel largely campaigned on his record of going after fraud, many of his cases were defenses of law enforcement.

In 2024, Madel represented Minnesota state trooper Ryan Londregan, who was accused of killing 33-year-old Ricky Cobb by firing several shots at him while in his vehicle. Londregan faced murder, assault, and manslaughter charges, but they were dropped later that year.

At the end of the day, Madel said, “I have to look my daughters in the eye and tell them ‘I believe I did what was right.'”

Madel’s decision comes as some Republicans have publicly voiced opposition to the DHS operation in Minnesota, especially after Border Patrol agents killed Alex Pretti, an intensive care nurse for the Department of Veterans Affairs, on Saturday.

The Department of Homeland Security claims that Pretti “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” Multiple videos of the shooting refute this framing.

But the Trump administration indicated that it would enforce this brutality well before Operation Metro Surge launched last month. As my colleague Isabela Dias wrote earlier this month, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act made ICE the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the country. ICE is also in a hiring surge, deploying new agents with limited training to meet the administration’s quota of 3,000 arrests by ICE per day.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The DOJ’s “Ransom” Letter to Minnesota Reveals How Trump Plans to Rig the Midterms

On Saturday, the same day that a federal immigration officer killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, US Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a pointed letter to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz stating that if he wanted to “bring an end to the chaos in Minnesota,” he should comply with some “common sense solutions.”

Those “solutions,” according to Bondi, included Minnesota providing the Department of Justice with access to the state’s complete, unredacted voter roll, which includes sensitive personal information like voters’ Social Security numbers, drivers license data, and party affiliations. Bondi claimed that the DOJ needed the state’s full voter roll in order to “confirm Minnesota’s voter registration practices comply with federal law.”

But state election officials and election security experts say Bondi’s letter is an outrageous attempt by the Trump administration to coerce Minnesota into providing confidential voter data that could be weaponized by the president and his allies to amplify false claims of voter fraud, wrongly remove eligible voters from the rolls, and challenge election outcomes.

“That is simply a disgusting attempt to take attention away from Alex Pretti’s death,” said Joanna Lydgate, president of the States United Democracy Center, a group devoted to fair and secure elections. “It’s also a shakedown. They’re trying now to use the power of the federal government to scare Minnesota officials into handing over voter rolls and backing down on their protective policies. Trump wants that state voter data so that he has the ability to interfere with the upcoming midterm elections.”

Months before federal immigration agents killed Pretti and Renée Good in broad daylight, the DOJ had already requested complete voter rolls from 44 states and Washington, DC, including Minnesota, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Only eleven red states have complied with the request, with most others citing federal and state privacy laws that preclude officials from sharing voters’ personal information, not to mention the fact that states are in charge of running their own elections under the Constitution. The DOJ has since sued 24 states and counting, including Minnesota, which ranks highest in the country for state voter turnout and is often lauded as a model for having robust election security protocols.

“It is deeply disturbing that the US Attorney General would make this unlawful request a part of an apparent ransom to pay for our state’s peace and security.”

As Mother Jones reported in December, these requests and lawsuits are part of a decades-long history of right-wing activists seeking private voter data to advance the unproven narrative that there is rampant non-citizen voter fraud proliferating across the US. That the DOJ is now using its considerable resources to promote the same repeatedly debunked theory represents a major escalation of these tactics.

As Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows—who has also been sued by the DOJ for voter roll data—told us: “The Department of Justice has the power to investigate, prosecute, and place people in jail.”

Bondi’s letter raises the stakes of the DOJ’s demands for state voter roll data even further, according to Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, by suggesting that ICE will only leave Minneapolis if the state capitulates to the administration’s demands. “It is deeply disturbing that the US Attorney General would make this unlawful request a part of an apparent ransom to pay for our state’s peace and security,” he said in a statement on Sunday.

The administration appears to want the voter data in order to construct an unprecedented national database of all registered voters, which it would share with the Department of Homeland Security. Such a database could be a prime target for hackers and could be easily weaponized to spread false claims of illegal voting, which could then be used to remove eligible voters from the rolls and challenge election outcomes.

The Justice Department recently admitted that two members of Elon Musk’s DOGE team at the Social Security Administration may have handed over Americans personal information to an advocacy group working to “overturn election results in certain states,” and suggested they be prosecuted.

Three courts have recently ruled against the administration’s demand for such voter data. The first came in California, with U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruling that the state did not need to hand over its voter list to the DOJ.

“The Department of Justice seeks to use civil rights legislation which was enacted for an entirely different purpose to amass and retain an unprecedented amount of confidential voter data,” Carter wrote. “This effort goes far beyond what Congress intended when it passed the underlying legislation. The centralization of this information by the federal government would have a chilling effect on voter registration which would inevitably lead to decreasing voter turnout as voters fear that their information is being used for some inappropriate or unlawful purpose. This risk threatens the right to vote which is the cornerstone of American democracy.”

A judge in Oregon indicated from the bench that he would rule against the administration while a third judge in Georgia dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuit against the state, indicating it was filed in the wrong jurisdiction.

Weighing a federal lawsuit examining whether the Trump Administration’s “Operation Metro Surge” can continue in Minnesota, a federal judge also expressed outrage at the administration’s new demand for state voter data, asking the DOJ in court, “Is the executive trying to achieve a goal through force that it can’t achieve through the courts?”

Bondi’s recent letter to Walz suggests that, after repeatedly losing in court, the administration is now using more aggressive methods, including exploiting a horrific tragedy, to get what it wants.

“The administration has really shown its hand,” Lydgate says. “They’re using these violent ICE operations as a weapon to try to get states to change immigration policies, voter data, and to shrink their power. And the states are standing up, and they’re pushing back.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

A Year Later, We’re All Paying for Trump’s Assault on the “Green New Scam”

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

The Village of Sauget in St. Clair County, Illinois, was founded in order to be polluted. Incorporated in 1926 by a group of Monsanto Chemical Company executives (and initially named “Monsanto”) it was and is an industry town: with deliberately lax manufacturing and emissions laws, it has played host to companies like ExxonMobil, Clayton Chemical, Gavilon Fertilizer, Eastman Chemical, and Veolia North America.

The 134 residents of Sauget—and the 700,000 people in the greater East St. Louis metro area that surrounds it—have often seen their needs come second to those of their corporate neighbors. In the 1990s, according to the last longitudinal EPA study done in the area, they inhaled high levels of lead, volatile organic compounds, and sulfur dioxide compounds that can increase the risk of cancer and respiratory illness.

“We were basically incorporated to be a sewer,” the town’s mayor, Rich Sauget, told the Wall Street Journal in 2006.

Trump aimed to “eliminate funding for the globalist climate agenda while unleashing American energy production,” the White House noted.

Since 1999, one well-known local polluter has been Veolia Environmental Services, a subsidiary of a French company that runs an incinerator, which stores and burns hazardous waste. The company is certified to burn toxic substances like PFAS, and people in the area have long complained of acrid or sewage-like smells near the facility.

Darnell Tingle, who leads United Congregations of Metro-East (UCM)—a group of faith communities working to address environmental and social justice issues in the area—says congregants at the half-a-dozen Illinois churches within 10 miles of Veolia often wonder if the incinerator is what’s making them sick.

According to Lucas King, Veolia’s Sauget Facility Manager, “Veolia North America is committed to safe operations, ensuring our processes are in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements, and protecting the health of the communities where we operate. We are proud of Veolia’s record of safety, compliance and community partnership-building.”

But Tingle claims, “we have some of the worst air quality in the country.” Children in East St. Louis suffer from asthma at much higher rates than the national average. But it’s hard for the 878 people who live within a mile of Veolia’s incinerator to prove anything. So, in 2023, UCM proposed a solution: they would install air quality monitoring stations on half-a-dozen local churches, pay scientists to analyze that data, and finance the whole thing with $500,000 in Community Change Grant funding, a landmark program of Joe Biden’s EPA.

Soon, Tingle hoped, they’d have the answers they were looking for. But in early 2025, his promised grant money was abruptly withdrawn by the newly inaugurated Trump administration—along with 105 similar grants, totaling at least $1.6 billion, from Alaska to Florida. The EPA’s new administrator Lee Zeldin, declared the grants “unnecessary,” and with the help of Elon Musk’s now-decommissioned DOGE, froze the money and closed the Office of Environmental Justice, amounting to losses of at least $37 billion.

Only two of the six planned air-quality monitors were installed in East St. Louis before the grants were terminated, Tingle said—and Tingle’s organization doesn’t have the money to pay scientists to analyze the data those monitors generate. In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention completed an air quality study in Sauget, the main conclusion of which was that, because the EPA has not done adequate data collection, the CDC could not say much about the incinerator’s health impacts. In particular, the agency said, they were unable to conclude whether or not the volatile organic compound levels in the air were hurting people. So the community is still left with poor health effects and lots of suspicions about where they come from—but without concrete proof.

“For many communities, they’ve been going through the stages of grief.”

This Community Change Grant program was unique in the realm of federal funding, said Zealan Hoover, former senior advisor to Biden’s EPA administrator Michael Regan. “Most EPA funding flows through the states, and that is a model that works well,” Hoover said. “But at the same time, money that flows top down through states takes longer to reach communities and is not always as responsive as grants directly to the frontline communities that have a very clear, well-defined scope of what they need to do.”

Zeldin and Trump asserted that freezing these grants—which, organizers say, happened without any forewarning from the EPA, sometimes in the middle of grant disbursal and sometimes without communities seeing any money at all—was justified as a way to end the “green new scam” and “eliminate funding for the globalist climate agenda while unleashing American energy production,” according to a White House fact sheet.

A year later, many other communities beyond Sauget are also experiencing the grant terminations in starker terms. In Pocatello, Idaho, some of the town’s unsewered neighborhoods still face the unsanitary hardships of nitrate contamination from septic systems in their drinking water source. In the South Bronx, New York, one community remains vulnerable to extreme flooding, in part because their plan to revitalizing a dilapidated waterfront park has been defunded. And in South Dakota, the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe’s plan to use $19.9 million in grant funding to (among other things) rebuild a long-unusable bridge, build resilience hubs, weatherize buildings, and install solar panels on the homes of community elders remains just a plan.

“For many communities, they’ve been going through the stages of grief,” said Hoover. “First was disbelief, because they know the merits of these projects. They know how badly it’s needed by the community. That has evolved over time into disappointment that the agency has been unwilling to reconsider, even after seeing cases like Kipnuk, Alaska, where EPA terminated a grant for flood prevention and then the town was washed away in a flood.”

The communities and organizations around the country who lost funding have responded in a variety of ways. Some, like UCM in East St. Louis, are hopeful that other forms of funding will turn up—and are refocusing on other projects. Other municipalities and nonprofits are still involved in litigation against the EPA, hoping to recoup some of the losses they’ve sustained in money and in time.

In South Dakota, rather than making an appeal, the town of Flandreau ended up closing its application for a grant to bring solar power to the homes of some Flandreau Santee Sioux Nation members, according to Rhonda Conn, the associate director of Native Sun Community Power Development, the nonprofit which hoped to work with the town and tribe.

Native Sun has pushed on to seek funding sources for its other work. The organization secured some local and private funding, but nothing at the scale of the EPA Community Change money has materialized, Conn said. In the process, Native Sun has been forced to work on a very lean budget—no permanent office space, few workers, and few plans to expand. These days, they’re spending more time working on renewable energy workforce development with the state of Minnesota, as opposed to taking big, costly swings at new infrastructure projects.

“For us, the infrastructure stuff is not going to go away,” Conn said. “It’s just about where we’re balancing our energy right now.”

In green energy and disaster resilience work, organizations are competing under higher pressure for less money. “There are still some grant and loan programs operating at lower levels across the government, there are still sources of state, local, and private funding,” Hoover said. “But there are not multibillion-dollar sources of funding commensurate with what the Trump administration terminated.”

“It’s very stressful,” Conn said. “Because everybody now is scrambling for the same pot of money, and there isn’t enough of it.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Roy Cooper Is at the Forefront of Democrats’ Longshot Bid to Flip the Senate. But What Do Voters Think of Him at Home?

If Democrats are to have any hope of retaking the Senate this fall, then Roy Cooper, the former North Carolina governor, must flip the seat held by retiring GOP Sen. Thom Tillis, in one of the most anticipated races of the 2026 midterms. The stakes of the race have already led to an influx of cash and media attention: Cooper, who will likely be running against former RNC chair Michael Whatley, set fundraising records the day after announcing his candidacy last July, in a contest that could be one of the most expensive in history.

For North Carolinians like me, long before Cooper had the fate of the Senate resting on his shoulders, he was a familiar fixture in state politics. Cooper joined the state legislature in 1987 before serving four consecutive terms as the state attorney general, then winning the governorship in 2016 and again in 2020.

As a state politician, Cooper’s style was often about getting results, even when it meant working with Republicans or breaking with his own party. As governor, he’s remembered for working with Republicans to repeal HB2, which prohibited transgender people from using public restrooms aligned with their gender identity, and for passing Medicaid expansion with bipartisan support. But his gubernatorial career was also defined by a contentious relationship with state Republicans who held a supermajority in the legislature—and thus the ability to overturn Cooper’s vetoes—for four of his eight years in the office. As governor, Cooper vetoed 104 bills. Republicans overturned half of those.

I remember Cooper campaigning for his first gubernatorial bid on my college’s campus and sitting courtside at basketball games. To me, he seemed like he could’ve been a classmate’s dad.

Despite those political battles, Cooper has managed to remain pretty well liked by voters in a long-time purple state growing redder (thanks, in part, to newly drawn congressional maps). North Carolina has the country’s second largest rural population and, to reach these voters, Cooper often touts his upbringing in rural Eastern North Carolina as an indicator of his trustworthiness. North Carolinians will be familiar with his stories of cropping tobacco on his family’s farm during the summers and his frequent reminders that his mother was a public school teacher.

I remember Cooper campaigning for his first gubernatorial bid on my college’s campus and sitting courtside at basketball games. To me, he seemed like he could’ve been a classmate’s dad. He ate Bojangles. He liked Cheerwine. He’s a self-described “caniac”—a fan of the North Carolina hockey team, the Carolina Hurricanes. But will this nice-guy appeal be enough to propel Cooper to victory when the stakes are higher than ever? Recently, I traveled to Nash County, where Cooper grew up, to find out.

I’m from Eastern North Carolina, about an hour and a half from Nash County. I’ve spent a lot of time driving through this area and have become familiar with the landscape: lots of pine, oak, and maple trees; state roads curving through small towns; plenty of lakes, rivers, and creeks. Driving around Nash County feels familiar, with its rows of crops—this time of year, likely cabbage or collards. Nash has strong railroad ties, so I often bumped over tracks as I drove around.

While some parts of Nash County feel like forgotten ghost towns, others are seeing a surge of new development. Rocky Mount Mills, once a thriving cotton mill at the center of the county’s largest city, is now a bustling campus with bars and businesses where locals and visitors gather.

In nearby counties, it’s become common to see a Trump flag hanging next to a Confederate flag or Trump signs outside of homes, businesses, or roadside produce stands. But driving through Nash that day, the only political ad I saw was from a 2022 congressional campaign. Nash County’s political allegiances are a bit of a mystery, with the rural county emerging as a bellwether in recent elections. Since 2012, the county has supported the winning candidate in each US presidential election. And when President Donald Trump won the county (and the state) in 2016, so did Cooper.

I drove into Rocky Mount and stopped at a coffee shop, where I saw a chalk sandwich board that read, “Welcome. All are friends.” A few of the employees said they didn’t know enough about Cooper to have strong opinions about him. Opinions about Cooper around town are “mixed,” one barista told me.

While in Nash, I met with Harris Walker, a Rocky Mount native running for North Carolina General Assembly, at a burger spot. As a kid, Walker volunteered for one of Cooper’s earlier state assembly runs, helping distribute pamphlets.

I asked if Cooper’s long political career in the state had inspired Walker to run for office. “When he was representing Nash County he always fought for what would improve the livelihoods of people right here. Yeah, that did inspire me,” Walker said. “Watching Roy come from here and be able to follow that trajectory was important.”

Walker knew he wanted to go into politics one day, so when he was a teenager, Cooper sponsored him to be a legislative page in the state’s General Assembly. When Walker’s grandparents died during Cooper’s tenure as attorney general, Cooper attended their funerals, where he sat in the back. “It wasn’t a campaign thing for him,” Walker said. “That’s Roy Cooper.”

Still at the burger spot, I asked my waitress what she thought of Cooper as I paid my bill. She turned her head to the side. “Who’s that?” I briefly went through Cooper’s bio. “Oh, I think I like him? Well, I think I voted for him,” she replied.

Before he was going toe-to-toe with lawmakers in Raleigh, Cooper was a managing partner at the law firm his father co-founded, Fields & Cooper, in the town of Nashville. In 1997, he hired Mark Edwards, a Nash County native who’d just graduated from law school at Wake Forest University. Edwards, who chaired the Nash County Republican Party from 2009 until last year, surmises that Cooper’s time in the smaller firm in Nashville helped prepare him for his role as attorney general. “He just has a very practical demeanor about himself and is able to relate to almost anyone in any circumstance,” Edwards said. “I could see that when he was practicing law and I could see that when he was serving as attorney general.”

Walker told me he thinks many folks are proud that Cooper is from Nash County, but Edwards wonders if the national stage of a US Senate race will change that. “It’s going to be a much more partisan affair, and if he were to win, I’ll be curious to see if there’s that same feeling,” Edwards said.

Later in the day, I drove into Rocky Mount’s downtown and met Cassandra Conover, who chairs the Nash County Democratic Party, at the party’s headquarters near an old train station. Conover and her husband, John, moved to Nash County from Petersburg, Virginia, just before the pandemic. Conover, who was a longtime prosecutor in Virginia, wasn’t surprised to hear that some people were un-opinionated about Cooper. She explained that there’s a “level of apathy” about politics in the county. But she hopes that’s changing. Each of the county’s 24 voting precincts enlists a chair to help organize elections and reach voters in their precincts, but when Conover arrived, most of the positions were vacant. Now, all but one precinct is chaired.

Because Cooper’s a familiar name around town, Conover thinks voters in the county are comfortable with him as a candidate. Cooper “has demonstrated the things that make him more credible and more authentic,” Conover said. “And that’s what the voters right here are looking for.”

“He was the governor for all the people,” Roberson said. “And going into the Senate, I feel that he’ll be a Senator for all of the people.”

Nearly everyone I spoke to recalled Cooper coming back to Nash County for various reasons: to attend funerals, birthday parties, community events, and to visit and care for his aging parents.

Morris Roberson, whose brothers attended Northern Nash High School (one of the first Rocky Mount schools to integrate) with Cooper and played with him on the football team there, remembered Cooper visiting Rocky Mount for the 85th birthday party of his high school basketball coach, Bobby Dunn. Cooper attended the event wearing his high school letterman jacket and shared a few words with the crowd. Roberson thinks Cooper will “represent the masses” if elected to the Senate. “He was the governor for all the people,” Roberson said. “And going into the Senate, I feel that he’ll be a Senator for all of the people.”

Brenda Brown, the Republican mayor of Nashville, lived next to Cooper’s parents for years. Just a few years older than the former governor, Brown remembers Cooper as a “regular Nash County boy with ambitions.” Despite their political disagreements, Brown describes Cooper as a “great person.” “He hasn’t lost the connection with Nashville, and it is appreciated,” Brown said.

Echoing the barista I spoke to earlier, Brown said that now, opinions are “mixed” when it comes to Cooper. “I think he still has a lot of respect from our county for what he did as governor, but at the same time, I think there’s some people that were disappointed,” she said.

Of course, not all Republicans take as favorable a view of Cooper. State Republicans—including Whatley—blamed the August murder of a passenger on a Charlotte light-rail train on Cooper’s “soft on crime” policies. Cooper has also been repeatedly criticized by Republicans for how his administration handled disaster relief efforts after Hurricane Helene. Under his administration, the North Carolina Office of Recovery and Resiliency, which assists homeowners with disaster recovery efforts, was mismanaged and left many hurricane victims displaced.

While the latest polling shows Cooper with a comfortable lead on Whatley, only Election Day will prove whether Cooper’s homegrown persona is enough to win a national race. To do so, he’ll have to not only win urban areas like Raleigh and Charlotte, but also minimize his losses in some of the state’s more conservative rural counties—where trailing Whatley by 10, 15, or even 25 points would be a triumph for any Democrat. If Cooper can repeat his performance as a gubernatorial candidate and “lose less badly” in those counties, he may be on track to victory, said Asher Hildebrand, a professor in the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. “That is important at a time when many voters—especially right of center voters—feel kind of looked down on by today’s Democratic Party,” Hildebrand said.

Though Democratic candidates on both ends of the spectrum—from democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani to moderate Abigail Spanberger—celebrated victories in November’s elections, politicians like Cooper are an increasingly rare breed. In many ways, Cooper is a “bridge” between the Democratic Party of the last century and the party today, Hildebrand said.

When he was elected governor, Cooper was a relatively moderateformer state AG with an “ideological pragmatism” reminiscent of 20th-century Democratic governors, who valued getting work done over party allegiance, Hildebrand said. But though he never lost that results-oriented approach, his governorship also came in an era of increased partisan fighting and ideological orthodoxy, shaped by what Hildebrand describes as “a political ecosystem that rewards stridency over compromise.” Somehow, Cooper has managed to hold on to his nice-guy reputation despite that—at least in his home county. In North Carolina, where unaffiliated voters outnumber both major parties, Cooper’s likability could be valuable.

“He has an ability to connect with voters in a way that is authentic and respectful and doesn’t look down on them,” Hildebrand said. Cooper’s style is “a throwback to politics as it once was. It’s a throwback that I think a lot of voters still want in this era.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

He Spent Decades Building the Religious Right. Now He’s Marching to Undo It.

He helped build the religious right in the United States. Now he’s in Minneapolis, Minnesota, to join the clergy’s fight ICE’s siege of the city.

“Being here, in solidarity, is part of the repair work in my own soul,” said Rev. Rob Schenck, an Evangelical minister who spent decades commingling church and state to advance conservative causes like the anti-abortion movement. One example: Schenck’s organization, Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capital, created “Operation Higher Court,” which trained wealthy couples as “stealth missionaries” to befriend Supreme Court justices to preserve, in his words, a Christian nation.

Now, he says he must confront the damage he helped cause, including what he believes was his role in delivering “the entities that are now inflicting all of this suffering on so many people”—extending to the rise of President Donald Trump. “We made this terrible deal with Donald Trump because we were already demoralized,” he told Mother Jones in 2018. “He didn’t demoralize us—he is the evidence of our demoralization.”

So, here, braving subzero temperatures, Schenck told me, “I have to do the work of repair.” The video above was taken on Friday, during the city’s “Day of Truth and Freedom”—a citywide strike and march in which clergy played a prominent role. “These folks are showing more grace in accepting me than I would have ever extended to them,” he said, flanked by organizers shouting, “Whose streets? Our streets!”

The next day, after learning of federal agents shooting and killing Alex Pretti, Schenck extended his stay in the city. I’ve been following Rob on his journey over the last few days and the clergy’s fight against ICE, which we will feature more of in the coming days.

“This is redemption,” he told me. “This is redemption.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Some Conservatives Veer Off Party Line After DHS Agents Kill Another US Citizen

It didn’t take long for the Trump administration to blame 37-year-old Alex Pretti for his own death after a federal immigration agent shot and killed him on Saturday in Minneapolis.

Pretti, an intensive-care unit nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital, is the second US citizen to be killed by federal immigration agents in less than a month. Videos of the Saturday shooting, which have been analyzed by various outlets including Mother Jones, dispute the federal description.

The president referred to Pretti as a “gunman” and wrote “LET OUR ICE PATRIOTS DO THEIR JOB!” on Truth Social.

The Trump administration has claimed that Pretti was an armed agitator who wanted to cause mass harm. While video analysis appears to show an immigration agent removing a gun from the pile of men, it is never seen in Pretti’s hand. A witness on the scene has also testified that she saw no sign of Pretti holding a gun at any point. And, according to officials, Pretti held a firearms permit, required by state law in Minnesota to carry a handgun.

Trump’s top advisor Stephen Miller called Pretti a “domestic terrorist” and a “would-be assassin” in a series of posts on Saturday.DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a press conference on Saturday that the nurse committed an act of “domestic terrorism” and that was “ just the facts.”

Noem also previously said that Renée Nicole Good, the other US citizen who was shot and killed by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis, had committed “an act of domestic terrorism.”

Some on the right have questioned the narrative coming out of the Trump administration and have urged that a thorough investigation take place**—**even while, often, still praising the president and immigration officials and criticizing Minnesota’s leaders.

Here’s what some conservatives have said since the Saturday shooting.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

“Any administration official who rushes to judgment and tries to shut down an investigation before it begins are doing an incredible disservice to the nation and to President Trump’s legacy,” he wrote onX.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

“The events in Minneapolis are incredibly disturbing. The credibility of ICE and DHS are at stake. There must be a full joint federal and state investigation. We can trust the American people with the truth,” he wrote on X.

Gov. Kevin Stitt (R-Okla.)

“Well, first off, this is a real tragedy, and I think the death of Americans that we’re seeing on TV, it’s causing deep concerns over federal tactics and accountability. Americans don’t like what they’re seeing right now,” he said on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday. Stitt then applauded President Trump and how he ran on closing down the border, while criticizing former President Joe Biden.You know, we believe in federalism and states’ rights and nobody likes feds coming into their state. So what’s the goal right now? Is it to deport every single non-US citizen. I don’t think that’s what Americans want.

Former United States Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)

“Imaging [sic] if one of our MAGA independent journalists or even just a MAGA supporter stood in the street outside a J6’ers house while Biden’s FBI carried out a law enforcement operation, home invasion, and arrest. Then Biden’s FBI goes to the MAGA guy videoing it all and shoves a woman with him to the ground and sprays them with bear spray then throws the MAGA guy to the ground as MAGA guy was trying to help the woman off the ground. Then Biden’s FBI beats MAGA guy on the ground, disarms MAGA guy, and then shoots him dead,” she wrote on X, asking, “What would have been our reaction?”

Tim Pool, Right-wing commentator

“I don’t believe this for 2 seconds,” he wrote over a post quoting Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino. “Peretti was a radicalized leftist who wanted to “dearrest” and obstruct. He refused to be detained and fought feds. They saw the gun, yelled GUN Gun and he got shot. There’s no reason to think he was trying to massacre LEOs.”

Erick Erickson, Conservative Christian broadcaster

“The President is a great marketer and PR guy. While those around him may not realize it, I’m pretty sure he understands another dead American with his team rushing to undermine second amendment arguments and define the dead guy with a lot of facts still unknown is a bad look,” he wrote on X.

Maria Bartiromo, Fox News

“How was he threatening Border Patrol?” she asked in an interview with FBI Director Kash Patel. Bartiromo inquired if federal forces had a handgun in their possession. Patel said they do. “And how was he using that handgun in terms of threatening Border Patrol? What was the threat? He had his camera, right, he was filming it.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Nurses Union Calls ICE Agents “Public Health Threat” After Alex Pretti Killing

The nation’s largest union of registered nurses fervently renewed their demand to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement and cease current deportation operations in American cities after a federal immigration agent shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old registered nurse, in Minneapolis on Saturday.

“The nation’s nurses,” National Nurses United, which has more than 225,000 members nationwide, began in a statement, “who make it their mission to care for and save human lives, are horrified and outraged that immigration agents have once again committed cold-blooded murder of a public observer who posed no threat to them.”

“This time,” they continued, “they have executed one of our fellow nurses.”

Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, was doing what nurses do best — taking action to protect his community — when he was killed by federal agents.

Nurses are outraged by this heinous murder. It’s time to abolish ICE now!

— National Nurses United (@NationalNurses) January 24, 2026

The border patrol agent who killed Pretti fired more than 10 shots in five seconds toward the nurse, according to the New York Times. Pretti, a US citizen and Minneapolis local, worked in the intensive-care unit at a Veterans Affairs hospital. Videos detail the last moments leading up to his death: he was directing traffic on the street while filming immigration agents, attempted to assist another observer who was pushed to the ground by immigration enforcement, pepper-sprayed by the agent who ends up shooting him, and tackled by several agents onto the street.

At some point in this interaction, according to the Times analysis, federal agents appear to pull a firearm from near Pretti’s right hip and carry it away. According to officials, Pretti held a firearms permit, required by state law in Minnesota to carry a handgun. Department of Homeland Security officials have posted a photo of a gun they claim belongs to Pretti. The Border Patrol Union claimed that Pretti “brandishes” a weapon—though videos show him holding a phone, not a gun, in his hand to record the agents. A witness on the scene has testified that she saw no sign of Pretti holding a gun at any point.

Within seconds, a border patrol agent—whose identity has yet to be confirmed—shoots and kills Pretti, who lies motionless as other observers record and cry out.

Pretti is the third person shot and second person killed by immigration agents in the Minneapolis area in less than a month. On January 7, ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renée Nicole Good, also 37, while in her car. One week later, a federal agent shot a man in the leg. That man, who DHS claimed was a Venezuelan national who was a target in an immigration operation, was taken to the hospital with a non-life-threatening injury.

The nurse’s union wrote on Saturday that ICE and all related immigration enforcement agencies “have been kidnapping hard-working people—mothers, fathers, and children —and now murdered a registered nurse, one of the most trusted professions in the country.”

Related

Armed law enforcement officers in tactical gear and gas masks advance behind yellow police tape while deploying pepper spray toward civilians during a street confrontation in Minneapolis, as bundled-up bystanders recoil in the foreground on a winter day.“It’s a Horror Show”: Anguish Sweeps Minneapolis After Federal Agents Kill Another Neighbor

In the hours after his killing, colleagues of Pretti’s remembered him as a kind, dedicated nurse.

A colleague of Pretti, Ruth Anway, told the New York Times that he “wanted to be helpful, to help humanity and have a career that was a force of good in the world.” Anway, a nurse, said that Pretti was interested in social justice issues, adding, “I’m not surprised he was out there protesting and observing.”

This isn’t the first time that National Nurses United has spoken out against President Donald Trump and his administration’s violent immigration enforcement campaign across the nation. Consistently, over several months, the union has posted statements in support of immigrants’ rights and against immigration agents’ tactics. After Good was killed, they wrote, “Armed federal agents on our streets and in our communities, not immigrant workers, are the biggest threat to our collective safety.”

Just one day before Pretti was killed, the union called for Congress to abolish ICE and to reject the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which would give more money to Trump’s anti-immigration force. The spending package passed the House this week with several Democrats voting in support and is now headed for the Senate—where key Democrats, following Pretti’s killing, are threatening to block the bill.

“Make no mistake,” the nurses’ union wrote on Friday, “the terror we are experiencing is being subsidized by our own government.” “Nurses,” they continued, “know that our vision for a healthy society is possible and we will not stop fighting until it is a reality.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Inside the Largest Effort Ever to Save the Great Barrier Reef

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

“I just got a whiff,” said Peter Harrison, a marine scientist, as he leaned over the edge of the boat and pointed his flashlight into the dark water. “It’s really coming through now.”

It was shortly after 10 pm on a cloudy December night, and Harrison, a coral researcher at Australia’s Southern Cross University, was about 25 miles off the coast of northern Queensland. He was with a group of scientists, tourism operators, and Indigenous Australians who had spent the last few nights above the Great Barrier Reef—the largest living structure on the planet—looking for coral spawn.

And apparently, it has a smell.

Over a few nights in the Australian summer, shortly after the full moon, millions of corals across the Great Barrier Reef start bubbling out pearly bundles of sperm and eggs, known as spawn. It’s as if the reef is snowing upside down. Those bundles float to the surface and break apart. If all goes to plan, the eggs of one coral will encounter the sperm of another and grow into free-swimming coral larvae. Those larvae make their way to the reef, where they find a spot to “settle,” like a seed taking root, and then morph into what we know of as coral.

Spawning on the Great Barrier Reef has been called the largest reproductive event on Earth, and, in more colorful terms, “the world’s largest orgasm.” Coral spawn can be so abundant in some areas above the reef that it forms large, veiny slicks—as if there had been a chemical spill.

A boat sits in a dark water alit by a red and white light.

A team of researchers and tourism operators try to collect coral spawn above the Great Barrier Reef near Cairns one night in December.Harriet Spark/Vox

This was what the team was looking for out on the reef, and sniffing is one of the only ways to find it, said Harrison, who was among a small group of scientists who first documented the phenomenon of mass coral spawning in the 1980s. Some people say coral spawn smells like watermelon or fresh cow’s milk. To me it was just vaguely fishy.

“Here we go,” said Mark Gibbs, another scientist onboard and an engineer at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), a government agency. All of a sudden the water around us was full of little orbs, as if hundreds of Beanie Babies had been ripped open. “Nets in the water!” Gibbs said to the crew. A few people onboard began skimming the water’s surface with modified pool nets for spawn and then dumping the contents into a large plastic bin.

That night, the team collected hundreds of thousands of coral eggs as part of a Herculean effort to try to keep the Great Barrier Reef alive. Rising global temperatures, together with a raft of other challenges, threaten to destroy this iconic ecosystem—the gem of Australia, a World Heritage site, and one of the main engines of the country’s massive tourism industry. In response to these existential threats, the government launched a project called the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program (RRAP). The goal is nothing less than to help the world’s greatest coral reef survive climate change. And with nearly $300 million in funding and hundreds of people involved, RRAP is the largest collective effort on Earth ever mounted to protect a reef.

The project involves robots, one of the world’s largest research aquariums, and droves of world-renowned scientists. The scale is unlike anything I’ve ever seen.

But even then, will it be enough?

The first thing to know about the Great Barrier Reef is that it’s utterly enormous. It covers about 133,000 square miles, making it significantly larger than the entire country of Italy. And despite the name, it’s not really one reef but a collection of 3,000 or so individual ones that form a reef archipelago.

Another important detail is that the reef is still spectacular.

Over three days in December, I scuba dived offshore from Port Douglas and Cairns, coastal cities in Queensland that largely run on reef tourism, a whopping $5.3 billion annual industry. Descending onto the reef was like sinking into an alien city. Coral colonies twice my height rose from the seafloor, forming shapes mostly foreign to the terrestrial world. Life burst from every surface.

What really struck me was the color. Two decades of scuba diving had led me to believe that you can only find vivid blues, reds, oranges, and pinks in an artist’s imaginings of coral reefs, like in the scenes of Finding Nemo. But coral colonies on the reefs I saw here were just as vibrant. Some of the colonies of the antler-like staghorn coral were so blue it was as if they had been dipped in paint.

An image of a brown-haired scuba diver floating next to coral and an anemone.

A pink skunk clownfish encounters the author outside its anemone home.Harriet Spark/Vox

It’s easy to see how the reef—built from the bodies of some 450 species of hard coral—provides a foundation for life in the ocean. While cruising around large colonies of branching coral, I would see groups of young fish hiding out among their nubby calciferous fingers. The Great Barrier Reef is home to more than 1,600 fish species, many of which are a source of food for Indigenous Australians and part of a $200 million commercial fishing industry.

“The reef is part of our life,” said Cindel Keyes, an Indigenous Australian of the Gunggandji peoples, near Cairns, who was part of the crew collecting coral spawn with Harrison. RRAP partners with First Nations peoples, many of whom have relied on the reef for thousands of years and are eager to help sustain it. “It’s there to provide for us, too,” Keyes, who comes from a family of fishers, told me.

The Great Barrier Reef is not dead, as many visitors assume from headlines. But in a matter of decades—by the time the children of today grow old—it very well could be.

The world’s coral reefs face all kinds of problems, from big storms to runoff from commercial farmland, but only one is proving truly existential: marine heat. Each piece of coral is not one animal but a colony of animals, known as polyps, and polyps are sensitive to heat. They get most of their food from a specific type of algae that lives within their tiny bodies. But when ocean temperatures climb too high, polyps eject or otherwise lose those algae, turn bleach-white, and begin to starve. If a coral colony is “bleached” for too long, it will die.

A woman with black hair and brown skin stands in front of the ocean and looks into the distance.

Cindel Keyes, on a boat near Cairns, before spawn collection begins.Harriet Spark/Vox

The global prognosis is bleak. The world has already lost about half of its coverage of coral reefs since the 1950s, not including steep losses over the last two decades. And should wealthy countries continue burning fossil fuels—pushing global temperatures more than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial baseline—it will likely lose the rest of it.

Projections for the Great Barrier Reef are just as grim. A recent study published in the prestigious journal Nature Communications projected that coral cover across the reef would decline, on average, by more than 50 percent over the next 15 years, under all emissions scenarios—including the most optimistic. The reef would only later recover to anything close to what it looks like today, the authors wrote, if there are immediate, near-impossibly steep emissions cuts. (The study was funded by RRAP.)

The reef has already had a taste of this future: In the last decade alone, there have been six mass bleaching events. One of the worst years was 2016, when coral cover across the entire reef declined by an estimated 30 percent. Yet recent years have also been alarming. Surveys by AIMS found that bleaching last year affected a greater portion of the reef than any other year on record, contributing to record annual declines of hard coral in the northern and southern stretches of the reef.

“I’ve been suffering,” said Harrison, who’s been diving on the Great Barrier Reef for more than 40 years. “I’ve got chronic ecological grief. Sometimes it’s overwhelming, like when you see another mass bleaching. It can be quite crushing.”

The problem isn’t just bleaching but that these events are becoming so frequent that coral doesn’t have time to recover, said Mia Hoogenboom, a coral reef ecologist at Australia’s James Cook University, who’s also involved in RRAP.

“The hopeful part is if we can take action now to help the system adapt to the changing environment, then we’ve got a good chance of keeping the resilience in the system,” Hoogenboom said. “But the longer we wait, the less chance we have to maintain the Great Barrier Reef as a functioning ecosystem.”

That night in December, after filling two large plastic bins onboard with coral spawn, the crew motored to a nearby spot on the reef where several inflatable pools were floating on the ocean’s surface. The boat slowly approached one of the pools—which looked a bit like a life raft—and two guys onboard dumped spawn into it.

The government established RRAP in 2018 with an ambitious goal: to identify tools that might help the reef cope with warming, refine them through research and testing, and then scale them up so they can help the reef at large. It is a massive undertaking. RRAP involves more than 300 scientists, engineers, and other experts across 20-plus institutions, including AIMS, which operates one of the world’s largest research aquariums called the National Sea Simulator. And it has a lot of money. The government committed roughly $135 million to the project, and it has another $154 million from private sources, including companies and foundations. It’s operating on the scale of decades, not years, said Cedric Robillot, RRAP’s executive director.

Scientists at RRAP have now honed in on several approaches that they think will work, and a key one is assisted reproduction—essentially, helping corals on the reef have babies. That’s what scientists were doing on the water after dark in December.

Normally, when corals spawn, only a fraction of their eggs get fertilized and grow into baby corals. They might get eaten by fish, for example, or swept out to sea, away from the reef, where the larvae can’t settle. That’s simply nature at work in normal conditions. But as the reef loses more and more of its coral, the eggs of one individual have a harder time meeting the sperm of another, leading to a fertility crisis.

RRAP is trying to improve those odds through what some have called coral IVF.

At sea, scientists skim spawn from the surface and then load them into those protected pools, which are anchored to the reef. Suspended inside the pools are thousands of palm-sized ceramic structures for the larval coral to settle on, like empty pots in a plant nursery. After a week or so, scientists will use those structures—which at that point should be growing baby corals—to reseed damaged parts of the reef.

Two people hunch over the edge of a boat in the darkness.

Crew members Paco Mueller-Sheppard and Devante Cavalcante dump a bucket of spawn into one of the floating pools above a reef near Cairns.
Harriet Spark/Vox

With this approach, scientists can collect spawn from regions that appear more tolerant to warming and reseed areas where the corals have been killed off by heat. Heat tolerance is, to an extent, rooted in a coral’s DNA and passed down from parent to offspring. So those babies may be less likely to bleach and die. While baby corals are growing in those pools, scientists can also introduce specific kinds of algae—the ones that live symbiotically within polyps—that are more adapted to heat. That may make the coral itself more resistant to warming.

But what’s even more impressive is that scientists are also breeding corals on land, at the National Sea Simulator, to repopulate the reef. SeaSim, located a few hours south of Cairns on the outskirts of Townsville, is essentially a baby factory for coral.

I drove to SeaSim one evening in December with Robillot, a technophile with silver hair and a French accent. He first walked me through a warehouse-like room filled with several deep, rectangular tanks lit by blue light. The light caused bits of coral growing inside them to fluoresce. Other than the sound of running water, it was quiet.

The main event—one of the year’s biggest, for coral nerds anyway—was just outside.

SeaSim has several open-air tanks designed to breed corals with little human intervention. Those tanks, known as autospawners, mimic the conditions on the wild reef, including water temperature and light. So when scientists put adult corals inside them, the colonies will spawn naturally, as they would in the wild. The tanks collect their spawn automatically and mix it together in another container that creates the optimal density of coral sperm for fertilization.

A white woman with brown hair points her finger against a glass window of a machine at growing coral.

Research technician Elena Pfeffer points out pink bumps on the surface of branching coral in one of the autospawners, a sign it’s about to spawn.Harriet Spark/Vox

Observing spawning isn’t easy. It typically happens just once a year for each species, and the timing can be unpredictable. But I got lucky: Colonies of a kind of branching coral known as Acropora kenti were set to spawn later that evening. Through glass panels on the side of the autospawners, I saw their orangish branches, bunched together like the base of a broom. They were covered in pink, acne-like bumps—the bundles of spawn they were getting ready to release—which was a clear sign it would happen soon.

As it grew dark, the dozen or so people around the tanks flipped on red headlamps to take a closer look. (White light can disrupt spawning.) Around 7:30 pm, the show started. One colony after another popped out cream-colored balls. They hung for a moment just above the coral branches before floating to the surface and getting sucked into a pipe. It was a reminder that corals, which usually look as inert as rocks, really are alive. “It’s such a beautiful little phenomenon,” Robillot said, as we watched together. “It’s a sign that we still have vitality in the system.”

After spawning at SeaSim, scientists move the embryos into larger, indoor tanks, where they develop into larvae. Those larvae then get transferred to yet other tanks, settling on small tabs of concrete. Scientists then insert those tabs into slots on small ceramic structures—those same structures as the ones suspended in the floating pools at sea—which they’ll use to reseed the reef. One clear advantage of spawning corals in a lab is that scientists can breed individual corals that appear, through testing, to be more resistant to heat. Ideally, their babies will then be a bit more resistant, too.

A balled, white man wearing a blue shirt pours red liquid into a large vat.

Andrea Severati, a researcher at AIMS who designed many of the tanks at SeaSim, releases coral embyros into a large tank, where they’ll develop into larvae.
Harriet Spark/Vox

During spawning late last year, SeaSim produced roughly 19 million coral embryos across three species.

“People often don’t understand the scale that we’re talking about,” said Carly Randall, a biologist at AIMS who works with RRAP. “We have massive numbers of autospawning systems lined up. We have automated image analysis to track survival and growth. It is like an industrial production facility.”

Including the spawn collection at sea, RRAP produced more than 35 million coral embryos last year that are now growing across tens of thousands of ceramic structures that will be dropped onto the reef. The goal RRAP is working toward, Robillot says, is to be able to stock the reef with 100 million corals every year that survive until they’re at least 1 year old. (Under the right conditions, each ceramic structure can produce one coral that lives until 1 year old in the ocean, Robillot told me. That means RRAP would need to release at least a million of those structures on the reef every year.)

On that scale, the project could help maintain at least some coral cover across the reef, even in the face of more than 2 degrees C of warming, Robillot said, citing unpublished research. One study, published in 2021 and partially funded by RRAP, suggests that a combination of interventions, including adding heat-tolerant corals, can delay the reef’s decline by several years.

“We are not replacing reefs,” Robillot said. “It’s just too big. We’re talking about starting to change the makeup of the population by adapting them to warmer temperatures and helping their recovery. If you systematically introduce corals that are more heat-tolerant over a period of 10 to 20 to 30 years, then over a hundred years, you significantly change the outlook for your population.”

The obvious deficiency of RRAP, and many other reef conservation projects, is that it doesn’t tackle the root problem: rising greenhouse gas emissions. While restoration might help maintain some version of coral reefs in the near term, those gains will only be temporary if the world doesn’t immediately rein in carbon emissions. “It all relies on the premise that the world will get its act together on emissions reductions,” Robillot said. “If we don’t do that, then there’s no point, because it’s a runaway train.”

Many groups involved in reef conservation have failed to reckon with this reality, even though they’re often on the front lines of climate change. During my trip, I would be on dive boats listening to biologists talk about restoration, while we burned diesel fuel and were served red meat—one of the most emissions-intensive foods. A lot of tour operators, some of whom work with RRAP, don’t talk about climate change much at all. Two of the guides who took me out on the reef even downplayed the threat of climate change to me.

Yolanda Waters, founder and CEO of Divers for Climate, a nonprofit network of scuba divers who care about climate change, said this isn’t surprising. “At the industry level, climate change is still very hush-hush,” said Waters, who previously worked in the reef tourism industry. “In most of those boats, climate messaging is just nonexistent.”

This makes some sense. Tourism companies don’t want people to think the reef is dying. “When international headlines describe the Reef as ‘dying’ or ‘lost,’ it can create the impression that the visitor experience is no longer worthwhile, even though large parts of the Reef remain vibrant, actively managed, and accessible,” Gareth Phillips, CEO of the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators, a trade group, told me by email. (I asked around, but no one could point me to data that clearly linked negative media stories to a drop in visitors to the Great Barrier Reef.)

An image half in the water and half outside of the water that shows a boat floating over the reef.

A dive boat from the company Quicksilver Group above a reef near Port Douglas.
Harriet Spark/Vox

Yet by failing to talk about the urgent threat of climate change, the tourism industry—a powerful force in Australia, that influences people from all over the world—is squandering an opportunity to educate the public about what is ultimately the only way to save the reef, said Tanya Murphy, a campaigner at the Australian Marine Conservation Society, a nonprofit advocacy group. Tourists are ending their vacation with the memory of, say, a shark or manta ray, not a new urge to fight against climate change, Waters said. So the status quo persists: People don’t connect reducing emissions with saving the reef, even though that’s “the only reef conservation action that can really be taken from anywhere,” she added.

(Not everyone in the tourism industry is so quiet. Eric Fisher, who works for a large Australian tourism company called Experience Co Limited, says he tells tourists that climate change is the biggest threat to the Great Barrier Reef. “It’s what we tell people every day,” Fisher told me. “So as they fall in love with it, they’re more likely to leave with an understanding of that connection.”)

Keeping mum on climate change, while speaking loudly about restoration and other conservation efforts, including RRAP, can also take pressure off big polluters to address their carbon footprints, Waters and Murphy said. Polluters who fund reef conservation, including the government and energy companies, are given social license to operate without stricter emissions cuts, because the public thinks they’re doing enough, they said.

In reality, the Australian government continues to permit fossil fuel projects. Last year, for example, the Albanese administration, which is politically left of center, approved an extension of a gas project in Western Australia that Murphy and other advocates call “a big carbon bomb.” The extension of the project, known as the North West Shelf, will produce carbon emissions equivalent to about 20 percent of Australia’s current yearly carbon footprint, according to The Guardian.

A spokesperson for the Albanese government acknowledged in a statement to Vox that climate change is the biggest threat to coral reefs globally. “It underlines the need for Australia and the world to take urgent action, including reaching net zero emissions,” the statement, sent by Sarah Anderson, said. “The Albanese Government remains committed to action on climate change and our net zero targets.”

Anderson highlighted a government policy called the Safeguard Mechanism, which sets emissions limits for the country’s largest polluters, including the North West Shelf Facility. Yet the policy only applies to Scope 1 emissions. That means it doesn’t limit emissions tied to gas that the North West Shelf project exports — the bulk of the project’s carbon footprint.

Although Australia has far fewer emissions compared to large economies like the US and China, the country is among the dirtiest on a per-capita basis. If any country can reduce its emissions, it should be Australia, Waters said. “We’re such a wealthy, privileged country,” Waters said. “We’ve got the biggest reef in the world. If we can do better, why wouldn’t we?”

On a stormy morning, near the end of my trip, we returned to the reef—this time, visiting another set of floating pools, offshore from Port Douglas. They had been filled with spawn several days earlier. Small corals were now growing on the ceramic structures, and they were ready to be deployed on the reef.

After a nauseating two-hour ride out to sea, a group of scientists and tourism operators jumped into small tenders and collected the structures from inside the pools. Then they motored around an area of the reef that had previously been damaged by a cyclone and started dropping coral babies off the side of the boat, one by one.

As it started to pour, and I noticed water flooding into the front of the tender, I couldn’t help but think about how absurd all of this was. Custom-made pools and ceramics. Hours and hours on the reef, floating in small boats in a vast ocean. Sniffing out spawn.

“You sort of think about the level of effort, that we’re going to try and rescue something that’s been on our planet for so many millions of years,” Harrison told me on the boat a few nights earlier. “It seems a bit ironic that humans now have to intervene to try and rescue corals.”

RRAP is making this process far more efficient, Robillot says—machines, not people, will eventually be dropping the ceramic structures off the boats, for example. But still, why not invest the money instead in climate advocacy or clean energy? Isn’t that an easier, perhaps better, way to help?

It can’t be either or, Robillot said. And it’s not, he contends. Many donors who fund the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, a core RRAP partner and Robillot’s employer, are putting more of their money into climate action relative to reef conservation, he said. The government of Australia, meanwhile, says it’s spending billions on clean energy and green-lit a record number of renewable energy projects in 2025. Plus, while the scale of resources behind RRAP is certainly huge for coral reefs, it’s tiny compared to the cost of fixing the climate crisis. “We need trillions,” Robillot said.

Investing that roughly $300 million into fighting climate change could have a small impact on reefs decades from now. Putting it into projects like RRAP helps reefs today. It’s only a waste of money—worse than a waste of money—if that investment undermines climate action. And Robillot doesn’t think it does.

A turtle floats next to a reef.

A hawksbill turtle on a reef offshore from Cairns.
Harriet Spark/Vox

The Great Barrier Reef Foundation has been criticized for its ties to mining and energy companies, including Peabody Energy and BHP. The Reef Foundation currently receives money from mining giant Rio Tinto and BHP Foundation (which is funded by BHP) for projects unrelated to RRAP, the organization told Vox. “It is a bit concerning,” Murphy told me. “It’s really important that we get polluters to pay for the damage they’re causing. But that should be done as an obligatory tax and they should not be getting any marketing benefits from that.”

Robillot argues that these companies have not influenced RRAP’s work, or restricted what its staff can say about climate change. “If we can still scream that climate change is the main driver of loss of coral reefs, I don’t have an issue,” he said. “I don’t think it’s realistic to only take money from people who do not have any impact on climate change. I don’t know anyone.”

Yet if there’s one argument that I find most convincing for RRAP—for any project trying to help wildlife suffering from climate change—it’s that even if the world stops burning fossil fuels, these ecosystems will still decline. They will still need our support, our help to recover. The planet is currently crossing the 1.5-degree threshold, at which point the majority of coral reefs worldwide are expected to die off. “If you stop emissions today, they will still suffer,” Robillot said of reefs. “And we’re not going to stop emissions today.”

Yet if there’s one argument that I find most convincing for RRAP—for any project trying to help wildlife suffering from climate change—it’s that even if the world stops burning fossil fuels, these ecosystems will still decline. They will still need our support, our help to recover. The planet is currently crossing the 1.5-degree threshold, at which point the majority of coral reefs worldwide are expected to die off. “If you stop emissions today, they will still suffer,” Robillot said of reefs. “And we’re not going to stop emissions today.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

“It’s a Horror Show”: Anguish Sweeps Minneapolis After Federal Agents Kill Another Neighbor

Minnesotans awoke to yet more terror Saturday morning as news broke that federal agents had shot and killed another local in the streets. The victim, 37-year-old Minneapolis resident Alex Pretti, was pinned down by several agents before being shot multiple times. The Associated Press said Pretti was an intensive care nurse at a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital who lived just 2 miles from where he was killed.

Heeding calls to take to the streets, locals from the surrounding neighborhood immediately poured into nearby intersections where Pretti was killed. They loudly confronted tactical Border Patrol units, who fired continuous rounds of tear gas canisters and flash grenades into a crowd of all ages that had gathered to bear witness and demand an end to what they described as a federal siege of their city.

Not long after, I visited the area and spoke with grief-stricken residents, who unleashed a torrent of anguish over the killing, the second in just over two weeks in a city enduring President Trump’s intensifying immigration crackdown.

“This is fucking crazy, I don’t recognize our country.”

“This is fucking crazy, I don’t recognize our country,” said Megan Cavanaugh, a 52-year-old from St. Louis Park, Minnesota. She described a loud, chaotic, but peaceful protest after the shooting, during which locals were hit with rubber bullets, pepper spray, and smoke bombs. Calling herself “not a protest type of person,” Cavanaugh said “it was the scariest experience I’ve ever experienced in my lifetime.”

“If Minnesota falls, everything falls,” she warned. “We’re done as a nation.”

As the gas dissipated, so did the agents. But the damage was done. Residents cried in pain from the effects of tear gas, while locals jumped into action—rinsing eyes with saline, handing out water, and providing other basic medical aid.

“We’re furious that our neighbors are getting kidnapped and murdered in the streets.”

“We’re furious that our neighbors are getting kidnapped and murdered in the streets,” another protester named John told me. “This is supposed to be America, the land of the free, and this is not freedom.”

John said he had just been tear-gassed; his eyes were red from the chemical irritant. “We’ve got these beautiful community members looking out for us, and our state and our federal government are not,” he said, as a volunteer helped wipe his face. “Wake up, people! This is Minnesota! Who’s next?”

Anger was directed not only at federal authorities but also at local police and officials, whom protesters said were failing to protect them. “People are dying and getting arrested daily,” said Alex, a 25-year-old who lives just blocks from where the shooting happened. “Mayor Frey is not doing jack shit. You know, politicians largely aren’t doing jack shit. We’re the ones out here.”

A small bouquet of flowers lies on a winter street in Minneapolis in the foreground, while yellow police tape cordons off the sidewalk and bundled-up community members gather near a commercial building in the background.

Flowers mark the spot where federal agents killed Alex Pretti as Minneapolis residents gather nearby.Sam Van Pykeren/Mother Jones

While many residents headed into the fray, others ran to nearby shops to stock up on supplies—water, food, extra layers—to distribute to neighbors making the trek. Todd, who gave only his first name, told me, “I’ve given out more saline and gloves and hand warmers than I’ve ever given out at one of these events, but we’re just trying to help keep the community safe and let our voices be heard.”

Soon after, what had been a confrontation shifted into a demonstration. A makeshift barricade rose to block off the street, and the crowd swelled into the hundreds. All around me, people checked in on one another, trading gear and resources.

The scene near the location where a Minneapolis man, Alex Pretti, was shot and killed by federal agents on Saturday morning.Sam Van Pykeren/Mother Jones

“Minnesota strong,” the mutual aid volunteer Todd said. “And don’t give up.”

Nearby, one man realized he had left his camera on top of his car for an extended period. “Only here can you leave a $500 camera on your car and not have anyone steal it! I love this fucking city!”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Video Contradicts Trump Administration Account of Minneapolis Killing

A new video published on social media contradicts the Department of Homeland Security’s account of why federal agents killed 37-year-old Minneapolis man Alex Pretti in broad daylight on Saturday.

The graphic video, which was uploaded by Drop Site News, shows Pretti appearing to direct traffic and film federal agents on his phone. Soon after, he appears to be pepper-sprayed and wrestled to the ground by multiple agents. About a half-dozen agents are on top of Pretti or in his immediate vicinity when he is initially shot. The gunshots continue after Pretti is on the ground.

The video published by Drop Site makes clear that Pretti was not holding a weapon in the lead-up to the shooting, or when federal agents forcefully took him to the ground.

The video, along with others recorded from different angles, refute the more than 150-word account of the shooting that DHS published on social media on Saturday afternoon. In that statement, DHS claimed that “an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun.”

DHS has tried to back that up by saying Pretti had a handgun on him at the time, sharing a photo of it in the same social media post. Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said on Saturday that Pretti appeared to be a licensed gun owner. But the video published by Drop Site makes clear that he was not holding a weapon in the lead-up to the shooting, or when federal agents forcefully took him to the ground. Instead, he only appears to be holding his phone to record the situation.

DHS also tried to make what happened appear akin to an active shooter situation by claiming that “this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” That is directly refuted by the video uploaded by Drop Site that was recorded in the immediate vicinity of the shooting, which makes clear that Pretti was peacefully observing the federal agents who approached him and later tackled him. There is no indication based on the available video evidence that he tried to harm federal agents, much less inflict “maximum damage” or “massacre” people.

Contrary to Bovino’s claims, there is no reason to believe that the Trump administration will conduct a legitimate investigation of Saturday’s shooting.

Border Patrol official Greg Bovino stuck to DHS’s story in a Saturday afternoon press conference, saying that Prettiapproached agents with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun. Bovino then deflected two questions about when agents learned Pretti had a gun and whether he brandished it at them. Instead, he said that the situation is “evolving” and would be investigated “just like we have done over the past several years.”

Contrary to Bovino’s claims, there is no reason to believe that the Trump administration will conduct a legitimate investigation of Saturday’s shooting. After Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jonathan Ross killed Renée Good earlier this month in Minneapolis by shooting her at point-blank range, the Trump administration tried to investigate Good’s partner, rather than Ross. That decision led to the resignation of multiple federal prosecutors in Minnesota. On Friday, the New York Times reported that FBI agent Tracee Mergen has also resigned after “bureau leadership in Washington pressured her to discontinue a civil rights inquiry” of Ross.

DHS has been caught in countless lies under Donald Trump. Last year, it falsely claimed that all of the more than 200 Venezuelans it sent to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison were members of the criminal organization Tren de Aragua. That was refuted by reporting from Mother Jones and multiple outlets, but DHS never backed down from its lies about the Venezuelan men and ignored repeated requests asking for evidence to support its false claims.

Earlier in January, the Trump administration accused Good of “domestic terrorism” after Ross killed Good. Video analysis of the encounter by the Times shows Good trying to drive away from masked federal agents, not run them over, as the administration claimed.

Even Trump retreated from his initial hardline stance after it became clear that Americans were not buying the administration’s lies about Good. On Tuesday, he called Good’s killing a “tragedy” and added that immigration agents are sometimes “going to make a mistake.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Breaking: Federal Agents Shot and Killed a Man in Minneapolis This Morning

Federal agents shot and killed a man in south Minneapolis on Saturday morning, according to witnesses and video posted to social media.

The video, a version of which was posted to X, shows several agents wrestling the man to the ground before a gunshot rings out. Agents scattered and fired multiple shots at the man, who then lay still on the sidewalk.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara told the Star Tribune that the victim, an unidentified 37-year-old white resident of the city, was dead.

In a statement posted to X, the Department of Homeland Security claimed that the victim approached US Border Patrol officers while carrying a semiautomatic handgun and two magazines, and “that officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted.”

“Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots,” the statement continued. (The DHS statement is unverified, and the agency has previously given unreliable accounts of violent incidents involving federal agents.)

Live footage posted to social media in the aftermath of the shooting showed a loud and growing crowd of protesters gathering at the site of the shooting and a beefed up federal presence alongside what appeared to be local police trying to enforce a perimeter around the chaotic scene. Agents deployed multiple tear gas canisters.

According to the Star Tribune, several witnesses have been detained. ICE agents ordered Minneapolis police to leave, but O’Hara refused, telling officers to preserve the scene.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz posted to social media that he spoke to the White House after the shooting, and that “Minnesota has had it. This is sickening. The President must end this operation. Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now.”

Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith (D-Minn.) both posted on X, demanding that ICE leave the state.

There has been another shooting involving federal agents in Minneapolis and I am working to get more information. I will update as soon as possible. To the Trump administration and the Republicans in Congress who have stood silent: Get ICE out of our state NOW.

— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) January 24, 2026

It’s the second time in a little more than two weeks that federal agents have shot and killed someone amid President Donald Trump’s escalating crackdown in the city. An ICE agent shot Renée Good earlier this month as she attempted to drive away from the site of an altercation between agents and locals—sparking mass protests and condemnation from state and local officials. Today’s shooting comes just one day after a historic general strike halted business in the city, with solidarity rallies breaking out in other major cities.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Continue Reading…