More Immigrants Detained by ICE Recount Harsh and Cruel Treatment

As the Trump administration’s deportation campaign continues to bring fear and upheaval to Minneapolis, more immigrants are sharing their stories of detainment and harsh treatment when being apprehended at their homes, while driving, and at work. Tensions continue to rise as federal immigration agents target people who they claim are in the country without legal status, as well as protestors filling the streets to demand accountability for Homeland Security’s often violent tactics, including ICE agent Jonathan Ross’ killing of Renée Good in her car.

This week, according to reporting from the Minnesota Star Tribune, federal agents detained three workers from a family-owned Mexican restaurant hours after the agents themselves dined at the establishment. The agents reportedly followed the workers after the workers closed up for the night and took them into custody. That was not the first time ICE agents have gone to a local business as customers before arresting someone who works there.

“They took trophy pictures with their personal phones,” a man detained by ICE says.

During a Saturday press conference, a recently released man described a different form of callousness by ICE. Garrison Gibson, 38, said that agents showed up to his house multiple times, eventually smashing open the door with a battering ram. After armed agents took him from his home Gibson says, they reveled in his detainment.

“They took trophy pictures with their personal phones,” he said, adding, “like one stood by me on the right side of me. One stood on the left side of me. And they went, like, thumbs up and took pictures with their personal phones.”

According to reporting from Minnesota Public Radio, the federal agents “did not let Gibson change into warm clothing or put on a coat before taking him out into the 16-degree winter air.” Gibson was sent to El Paso, Texas, before being returned to Minnesota, due to a federaljudge’s intervention.

He made it back home just in time for his daughter’s birthday, but Gibson is still fighting the government’s efforts to deport him to Liberia, “a country he hasn’t visited since he fled a civil war there when he was 6 years old,” reported MPR.

Another troubling account comes from a husband and wife who were pulled over by federal agents while on the way to the hospital. According to reporting from Sahan Journal, Bonfilia Sanchez Dominguez was experiencing back pain and was being driven to the emergency room by her husband, Liborio Parral Ortiz, when ICE agents stopped the car. The couple’s daughter, who says she was on the phone with Ortiz duringthe interaction, said that ICE “started opening their doors and pulling them. They were not asking them any questions, they just started grabbing them.”

Ortiz was taken into custody and quickly sent to El Paso, Texas, according to the family and ICE’s detainee locator system. According to the daughter, ICE agents and hospital staff have been restricting access to her mother at the hospital, even turning away the family’s pastor and lawyer.

“They were just racially profiled and picked up and kidnapped without a destination,” the daughter told Sahan Journal.

Continue Reading…

Top Trump Official Says FBI Won’t Investigate Killing by ICE Agent

In an interview on Fox News Sunday, US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told Shannon Bream that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is not, nor are they planning to, investigate Jonathan Ross—the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who shot and killed Renée Nicole Good in her car in Minneapolis earlier this month.

“We don’t just go out and investigate every time an officer is forced to defend himself against somebody or putting his life in danger,” Blanche, formerly Donald Trump’s personal attorney, said. The Trump administration began asserting immediately after the killing that Good was a “rioter” who committed an “act of domestic terrorism,” continuing a long pattern of responding to deadly tragedies by making baseless and false claims.

“We investigate when it’s appropriate to investigate and that is not the case here, it wasn’t the case when it happened, and it’s not the case today,” Blanche insisted. “If circumstances change, and there’s something that we do need to investigate around that shooting or any other shooting, we will,” he said, adding, “but we are not going to bow to pressure from the media, bow to pressure from politicians.”

BREAM: Is the FBI investigating the ICE agent who shot Renee Good?BLANCHE: What happened has been reviewed by millions of Americans bc it was recorded. We investigate when it's appropriate. That is not the case here. We are not going to bow to pressure. So no, we are not investigating.

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-18T16:24:27.784Z

Blanche used a remarkable rationale. Hesaid that the FBI didn’t need to investigate, in part, because “what happened on that day has been reviewed by millions of Americans because it was recorded on phones when it happened.”

Such footage appears in video investigations, including from the New York Times and Bellingcat, that undercut the administration’s message that Ross was acting in self-defense. The Times found that “the visual evidence shows no indication that the agent who fired the shots, Jonathan Ross, had been run over” and “also establishes how Mr. Ross put himself in a dangerous position near her vehicle in the first place.” As Mother Jones reported last week, many Americans do not buy the Trump party line about what eyewitness videos show.

While the Department of Justice and FBI decline to investigate Ross, they have reportedlybeen investigating Good’s wife, Becca Good, as well as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. And they also shut out state and local law enforcement:The day after Ross killed Good, Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension announced that the US attorney’s office was preventing it from participating in any investigation.

The Trump administration’s investigation into Good’s family—and lack thereof into the shooter—prompted the resignation of several federal prosecutors in Minnesota, with more poised to resign soon, according to reporting from my colleague Samantha Michaels.

On Friday, the DOJ announced it is investigating Gov. Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey, alleging that they are conspiring to impede federal immigration agents.

“This is an obvious attempt to intimidate me for standing up for Minneapolis, our local law enforcement, and our residents against the chaos and danger this Administration has brought to our streets,” Frey said in a statement to CBS News. “I will not be intimidated. My focus will remain where it’s always been: keeping our city safe.”

Days earlier, Blanche had accused the two men of “terrorism.”

“Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement. It’s disgusting,” he wrote on X on Wednesday. “Walz and Frey – I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.”

On Friday, Walz responded to the DOJ probes into him and Frey: “Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic.”

“The only person not being investigated for the shooting of Renee Good,” Walz continued, “is the federal agent who shot her.”

Continue Reading…

A Flood-Plagued African City Sets Out to Reengineer Its Wetlands

This story was originally published byYale e360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Maurice Manishimwe runs a small garage beside a fuel station in Musango village, just outside the Rwandan capital of Kigali, in a nation known as the land of a thousand hills. Sandwiched between one of those hills and the Nyabugogo River, his workshop hums with activity as people arrive with cars and equipment to be tested and repaired.

But this busy location comes at a cost: When rainstorms hit, water running off the hillsides and rising river levels flood the streets and spill into Manishimwe’s workplace. “Our shops were submerged and our goods were destroyed,” says the 30-year-old, speaking about a December 2023 storm that surrounded his garage with knee-high water. He says the flood cost him thousands of dollars in lost inventory and tools.

Manishimwe built a higher step into his workshop to protect his brake pads and taillights, laid new tiles, and replaced his wooden shelves. Still, he worries that heavy rains could once again wreck his shop.

“The project represents a rare, citywide effort to rebuild nature-based infrastructure.

Kigali, a city of 1.7 million, has historically seen an average of nearly 40 inches of rain a year. But rainy seasons in Rwanda are becoming both “shorter and more intense,” according to the Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA). Since 2017, East Africa’s spring rains have shown record-breaking extremes as warmer air and ocean surfaces load storms with more moisture.

Forty years ago, Kigali was protected from stormwaters by extensive wetlands at the base of its many hills. The wetlands soaked up rain, slowed floods, and filtered runoff. But decades of degradation, including informal agriculture, sand mining, and industrial dumping in these areas have reduced the wetlands’ ability to perform these essential ecological functions.

Rapid urban growth has placed additional pressure on the wetlands. The city’s population has risen by 4 percent each year since 2020, and open space continues to be replaced with impermeable concrete, which sends ever more runoff downhill. The flooding erodes soil, destroys buildings and infrastructure, and causes tens of millions of dollars’ worth of damage a year, according to Teddy Kaberuka, a Rwandan economist.

Eager to protect its citizens and property, create green space for communities and wildlife, and curb financial losses, Kigali began working nearly a decade ago to restore its natural defenses. In just a three-year period, the city converted a degraded swamp into a functioning wetland—featuring a series of ponds, a riverine forest, and a savanna—that stores carbon, controls floods, filters pollutants, and enhances biodiversity. Building on that success, the city is now reforesting hillsides and restoring an integrated wetland system that will eventually span more than 18,000 acres. The ambitious project will ultimately reshape one of Africa’s fastest growing capitals.

As wetland loss accelerates worldwide, few cities have the space, resources, or political will to restore nature at this scale. Kigali’s project cannot stop floods on its own or reverse climate change, but it represents a rare, citywide effort to rebuild nature-based infrastructure—offering one of the continent’s clearest models for urban areas seeking to boost their resilience.

Kigali sits within what was once an exceptionally soggy and verdant landscape, with 37 interconnectedwetlands covering almost 23,000 acres, or 12.5 percent of the city’s land mass. These weren’t small urban ponds with patches of swampland but broad, saturated expanses teeming with vegetation that supported birds, reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals.

The city’s wetlands functioned as a vast natural sponge, soaking up excess water, reducing flooding, trapping sediment, and filtering pollutants before they reached streams and rivers. Wetlands also cool surrounding neighborhoods through moisture release and shading and, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency, support a diverse array of wildlife in their reedbeds and grasslands, and store carbon in their soils and vegetation.

But in Kigali, explained Gloriose Umuziranenge, a senior lecturer in the Department of Urban and Environmental Management at Protestant University Rwanda, urban expansion—including the construction of new roads, housing estates, commercial developments, and hillside settlements—as well as the pasturing of livestock and dumping of waste gradually degraded the city’s wetlands.

At least 50 percent of Kigali’s wetlands have lost their ecological character, according to the World Bank, meaning these wetlands have lost their “capacity to absorb and store excess rainwater,” Umuziranenge said. This local trend reflects a global pattern: about 22 percent of the world’s wetlands, around 1 billion acres, have been lost since 1970, and 25 percent of the remainder are degraded.

Eastern Kigali’s Nyandungu wetland is a case in point. The formerly lush area had been despoiled by decades of sand mining, stony quarrying, and cattle grazing. It frequently flooded the nearby roadway, jamming up traffic and endangering lives. In response, REMA—with support from the World Bank, Global Environment Facility, and Rwanda Green Fund—began in 2016 to transform this wasteland, at a cost of $5 million, into a biologically productive landscape.

Today, the 400-acre Nyandungu Eco-Park is alive with marshes, ponds, and more than 200 species of birds. “From the time [the wetland] was restored,” said park manager Ildephonse Kambogo, “there was no more flooding.”

The success of the Nyandungu pilot project reshaped national thinking about other wetlands, said Richard Mind’je, an environmental studies lecturer at the University of Lay Adventists of Kigali. “After having this benefit, Rwanda said, ‘Why can’t we now restore other wetlands from Kigali so that we can keep benefiting from these services?’”

Today, cranes and diggers are working amid the bustle of Kigali’s streets— crowded with buses, moto taxis, shops, and homes—to restore and reshape five more degraded wetlands, covering 1,200 acres. Hundreds of workers are reshaping the land, creating islands, lakes, and ponds, clearing water channels, planting indigenous species, removing invasives, and establishing reed beds.

“If you’re deforesting the catchment, no amount of wetland is going to make much difference.”

By mid-2026, according to the city’s restoration blueprint, the restored sites—Gikondo, Rwamperu, Kibumba, Nyabugogo, and Rugenge-Rwintare—will link up, forming a continuous ribbon of wildlife corridors, parks that contain 36 miles of walkways and bike lanes, and wetlands that guide stormwater safely downstream. With wetlands under threat across the continent, the project has the potential to serve as a model for other African cities, said Julie Mulonga, East Africa director for Wetlands International. Its design, financing, and community engagement are all elements “that can be replicated,” she said.

Yet challenges remain as Kigali expands. The city must balance new green spaces for flood protection and climate resilience with residents’ need for agricultural land. Many of the areas now set aside for restoration have been used informally for generations—to grow food, graze cattle, and fish. According to a 2019 report by the Albertine Rift Conservation Society, 53 percent of Rwanda’s wetlands had, by 2015, been converted to agriculture. The land is government-owned, and its use has, so far, been tolerated, as these wetlands are clearly spaces that people have come to depend on.

The Kigali Master Plan 2050 aims to restore and protect 18,000 acres of wetlands that thread between the city’s hills, said Emma Claudine Ntirenganya, a spokesperson for the City of Kigali, but more than 14,000 farming households could lose access to these areas if the city’s restoration ambitions proceed as planned. Nyandungu, for example, no longer allows agricultural activity, its grounds are fenced, and entry now requires a fee.

Park manager Kambogo acknowledged that informal use has continued in Nyandungu, including illegal fishing and collecting grass for cattle. He said some breaches, such as fence cutting, incurred fines and that it was important to engage with and educate the local community until they “understand the importance of having the wetlands.”

Emphasizing conservation and tourism over agriculture, said Alan Dixon, a professor of sustainable development at the University of Worcester, in the UK, risks creating “spaces of exclusion.” Ultimately, he said, “people have just got to feed themselves. Everywhere else is drying up, the weather is becoming less predictable, so wetlands are the last place in the catchment that people can [use].” The dilemma for governments, planners, and conservationists, he added, is “how do you allow people to use these areas while also retaining the environmental integrity?”

Christian Benimana, a Rwandan architect and the founding director of the African Design Centre, emphasized the importance of monitoring social impacts as Kigali restores its wetlands. So far, among the six wetlands restored to date, he said, displacement hasn’t yet occurred, “but it’s something that might happen.” Gentrification is also a concern. “Before, you were living close to makeshift car shops, and all of a sudden it’s a beautiful park,” he said. “Is it bad that it makes these people’s property more valuable? I don’t think so. Is it bad if it leads to some form of negative gentrification? I think so.”

For some residents, relocating from the wetlands has been a relief rather than a loss. Athanase Segatsinzi, 60, head of Runyonza Village in Nyandungu, spent decades farming and grazing cattle in the flood-prone area.

“When heavy rains came, the wetland overflowed and destroyed our crops,” he recalled. “Even after the water receded, everything was ruined.” In 2019, he says, farmers and herders using the wetland were resettled in Rwanda’s Eastern Province, where the government gave his family 15 acres to farm. “Milk production increased because my cows now graze on a much larger area without the risk of losing pasture to floods,” he said.

But wetlands alone cannot protect the capital from flooding as temperatures rise, rainfall intensifies, and deforestation of the city’s slopes compounds the city’s challenges. “If you’re deforesting the catchment,” Dixon said, “no amount of wetland is going to make much difference.”

In response, the City of Kigali last year launched a community campaign that aims to plant 3 million trees over five years, creating a continuous network of forest that links the restored wetlands.

Gatsata Hill, the steep slope that channels torrents of water into Maurice Manishimwe’s workplace, is currently being reforested, and the wetland in front of his garage is being restored. Together, these interventions will create a buffer that fills him with optimism.

“Once the reforestation is complete and the trees take root, the water that used to rush downhill will slow,” he said. “And when the Nyabugogo wetland restoration is finished, the flooding problem will be solved for good.”

Continue Reading…

A Wave of New Polls Shows Trump’s Support Cratering Across the Board

As President Donald Trump wraps up the first year of his second term—one marked by US aggression abroad and rising political violence at home—a wave of new polls released this week shows him and his policies at remarkably high, and in some cases record, levels of unpopularity. Across nearly every major measure, Trump is generating more backlash than loyalty, deepening distrust as his personal standing continues to slide.

A new CNN poll released Friday found that nearly 60 percent of Americans describe Trump’s first year back in office as a failure. Trump is faltering even on issues that have historically been his strongest, like the economy. A majority of Americans (55 percent) say he has made the economy worse, while just 36 percent believe he has focused on the right priorities—a nine-point drop since the start of his term. CNN also found Trump’s overall job approval rating languishing at 39 percent, down from 48 percent last February.A clear majority say he has gone too far in using presidential power. You can read the full results here.

New from us: Public opinion on nearly every aspect of President Donald Trump’s first year back in the White House is negative, a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS finds.www.cnn.com/2026/01/16/p…

— Ariel Edwards-Levy (@aedwardslevy.bsky.social) 2026-01-16T15:09:44.022Z

CNN’s numbers are not outliers. A new Associated Press–NORC poll, released on Thursday, shows erosion even within Trump’s own party. Only 16 percent of Republicans say the president has helped “a lot” with the cost of living, down sharply from 49 percent in April 2024. Trump’s approval on immigration—still one of his strongest issues among Republicans—has slipped as well, falling from 88 percent in March to 76 percent in the latest survey. Overall, just 38 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of immigration, a marked decline, while 61 percent disapprove. Across the poll, voters say Trump is focused on the wrong priorities, abusing power, hurting the economy, and leaving the country worse off. The survey marked his lowest approval ratings on the economy reported by AP pollsters during both stints in the White House.

Other surveys this week echoed the same themes. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Trump deeply underwater overall, with 58 percent disapproving of his job performance and just 36 percent approving of his handling of the economy. The poll also found overwhelming opposition to Trump’s foreign adventurism, with 71 percent saying the use of military force against Greenland would be a bad idea. Meanwhile, a Marist poll released Friday found that 56 percent of Americans oppose the United States taking military action in Venezuela.

Continue Reading…

“Utter Buffoonery”: Trump Slaps NATO Allies With Tariffs over Greenland, Even as More Republicans Revolt

Donald Trump promised on Saturday to issue a series of increasing tariffs on European NATO allies until he is permitted to buy Greenland, the latest escalation in his already feverish threats to take over the Arctic country, which is part of Denmark.

Trump announced on Truth Social that starting next month, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland would all be charged a 10 percent tariff on all goods sent to the US. The tariff would rise to 25 percent on June 1.

“These Countries, who are playing this very dangerous game, have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable,” Trump wrote.

The president continued to assert that acquiring the island was “imperative” for America’s national security and the “survival of our planet” in the face of alleged threats from Russia and China, adding that the US’ “Golden Dome” air and missile defense system made the takeover necessary.

But Trump’s claims are unfounded and don’t require obliterating the US’ relationship with NATO. As I noted earlier this week, the US already has a massive collection of at least 128 military bases in at least 51 countries—all without taking over land—and the US has had a strategic military presence in Greenland since World War II. There is also no evidence of a Russian or Chinese military presence on Greenland’s coast.

Trump’s threats have led European nations to send military personnel to the island at the request of Denmark. Protesters in Denmark and Greenland demonstrated on Saturday, demanding sovereignty.

A massive "Hands off Greenland" protest is happening right now in Copenhagen to demonstrate against Trump's threats."The aim is to send a clear and unified message of respect for Greenland's democracy," organisers said.“Respect for Greenland, respect for Greenlanders, respect for Denmark.”

— Adam Schwarz (@adamjschwarz.bsky.social) 2026-01-17T15:52:08.356Z

Massive crowds have taken to the streets of Nuuk to protest the Trump administration with one message: Greenland is not for sale. It is not negotiable.

— Olga Nesterova (@onestpress.onestnetwork.com) 2026-01-17T18:19:34.148Z

According to CNN, an estimated 5,000 protesters showed up in Greenland’s capital city of Nuuk—remarkable for an island with a population of approximately 56,000.

Even many Republican lawmakers have voiced strong opposition to buying Greenland.

Trump’s rhetoric risks “incinerating the hard-won trust of loyal allies.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), chair of the Senate defense appropriation subcommittee, labeled Trump’s rhetoric as risking “incinerating the hard-won trust of loyal allies in exchange for no meaningful change in U.S. access to the Arctic.”

“If there was any sort of action that looked like the goal was actually landing in Greenland and doing an illegal taking… there’d be sufficient numbers here to pass a war powers resolution and withstand a veto,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said on Thursday.

A bipartisan delegation of congressional lawmakers visited Copenhagen on Friday to reassure Denmark and Greenland officials that they would not support Trump’s plan to annex or buy Greenland—and especially not any military action against a fellow NATO member.

“Greenland needs to be viewed as our ally, not as an asset, and I think that’s what you’re hearing with this delegation,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said on Friday after meeting with Danish and Greenlandic leaders there.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) said on Wednesday that the president’s threats were “utter buffoonery.” “If he went through with the threats, I think it would be the end of his presidency,” he continued. “He hates being told no, but in this case, I think Republicans need to be firm.”

But on Friday, Trump refused to commit to not engaging in attacking a NATO partner.

“I don’t talk about that,” the president replied when questioned by reporters.

REPORTER: Do you commit to not militarily engaging NATO partners?TRUMP: I don't talk about thatREPORTER: You're not willing to commit to not attacking a NATO partner?

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-16T22:01:15.026Z

Continue Reading…

Trump’s Frantic Attack on Minnesota Hits Obstacles in the Streets—and the Courts

On Friday afternoon, a judge blocked federal agents in Minneapolis from arresting peaceful protesters or using crowd control tools against them, just as news broke that Trump’s justice department desperately launched an investigation into whether Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey impeded immigration enforcement through their public opposition.

US District Judge Kate Menendez ruled that DHS and ICE agents working in Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota must refrain from “using pepper-spray or similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity.” Menendez also barred federal agents from stopping vehicles from following them if they maintain a safe distance.

Menendez’s order granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed by protesters last month that argued that their constitutional rights to exercise free speech and peaceably assemble were violated by federal agents who retaliated with intimidation, force, and detention.

Menendez wrote that protesters and observers “did not forcibly obstruct or impede the agents’ work.”

“The First Amendment protects speech and peaceful assembly—not rioting,” DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “We remind the public that rioting is dangerous—obstructing law enforcement is a federal crime and assaulting law enforcement is a felony.”

Menendez’s order comes as the Trump administration began sending about 1,000 more federal agents to Minnesota last week—in addition to the 2,000 others already deployed in the state.

The Justice Department is also intensifying its assault on Minnesota by targeting Gov. Walz and Mayor Frey. Prosecutors reportedly issued grand jury subpoenas to the pair on Friday.

But the investigation into Gov. Walz and Mayor Frey raises similar First Amendment concerns as the lawsuit filed by the protesters—the right to condemn the government without fear of punishment.

“Two days ago it was Elissa Slotkin. Last week it was Jerome Powell. Before that, Mark Kelly. Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic, Gov. Walz wrote Friday in a post on X. “The only person not being investigated for the shooting of Renee Good is the federal agent who shot her.”

Two days ago it was Elissa Slotkin. Last week it was Jerome Powell. Before that, Mark Kelly. Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic.

The only person not being investigated for the shooting of Renee Good is the federal agent who shot her. https://t.co/MfgwSjDFwh

— Governor Tim Walz (@GovTimWalz) January 16, 2026

On Friday night, Mayor Frey said on X that the subpoena was an “obvious attempt to intimidate.”

In a Friday night post to X, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote, “A reminder to all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law.”

But the Trump administration’s claim that its escalation of violence is justified against protesters comes as story after story emerges of violent encounters with federal officers, including using tear gas on a six-month-old baby.

While yesterday’s ruling protecting protesters will likely go to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where 10 of the 11 active judges have been nominated by Republican presidents, the broader picture is becoming clearer: the administration must know protesters are thwarting federal agents; they know their enforcement is being challenged in court; and they know support for their immigration policies is plummeting.

Continue Reading…

A Dictator Deposed—What Now for Venezuela?

Journalist Mariana Zúñiga woke up in the middle of the night to the sounds of explosions and military planes in Caracas, Venezuela. Her WhatsApp chats flashed the news: The ruling dictator, Nicholás Maduro, had just been captured by the US military. She was surprised and felt uneasy about what was to come.

In the days that followed, Zúñiga would go into the field, despite the dangers journalists face, to report on what the country feels like at this tumultuous moment.

This week on Reveal, we speak with Venezuelans about witnessing this moment of history from up close and afar. For Freddy Guevara, an exiled Venezuelan opposition leader living in the US, there is little confidence in the country’s new leadership.

“They are not moderate at all,” Guevara says. “They are super radical, and they believe they are smarter than everyone.”

And historian Alejandro Velasco explains the role Venezuela’s most valuable resource—oil—has played in the country’s history and relations with the US.

Continue Reading…

Minnesota US Attorney’s Office Is Bracing for a New Wave of Resignations

More resignations of federal prosecutors are expected at the US Attorney’s Office in Minnesota amid ongoing frustration over the Trump administration’s response to the fatal shooting of Renée Good by an ICE officer in Minneapolis.
“I have heard there may be more people leaving, people I would consider senior and respected career prosecutors,” said Anders Folk, a former acting US attorney in Minnesota, who left the office in 2021 to work for the Justice Department in Washington, DC, under former President Biden.

Minnesota Federal Defender Katherian Roe, in a staffwide email obtained by the Sahan Journal, also wrote that “more resignations are anticipated” at the US Attorney’s Office. “It’s a sign that something is not right” there, added Folk, who is still in touch with colleagues in the office and is now running for Hennepin County Attorney.

Already this week, at least five federal prosecutors in Minnesota announced their resignations. Among them was the office’s second-in-command, Joseph Thompson, who was overseeing the welfare fraud investigation involving Somali immigrants that President Trump used as a pretext to send his immigration force to Minneapolis.

The prosecutors did not give a reason for their departures, but their announcements came shortly after the Justice Department ordered the office to investigate Good’s wife rather than focus on the shooter and the shooting. “It’s a big deal, and this is fairly unprecedented,” Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor now based in Los Angeles, said of the resignations. “You have so many leaving, and frankly on principle: We are living in unique times where prosecutors are being asked to do things they’ve never had to do before. That’s not what they signed up for.”
Five senior prosecutors at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in DC—a unit that investigates police killings—also resigned this week.

Since Trump’s reelection, the Minnesota US Attorney’s Office has seen a steady stream of departures. Nearly 50 out of about 135 staffers have left their positions, according to a person with knowledge of the departures who did not want to be named, and who confirmed that more resignations are likely. Some of the office’s attorneys left earlier this year as Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency was working to downsize the federal workforce. Others quit in December, after ICE launched its Minneapolis surge.

“They’ve had a major brain drain, and I don’t know who’s going to be left to do the cases.”

The administration’s response to the Good’s death on January 7 appears to have been the last straw for some of the prosecutors. The 37-year-old mom, who had partly blocked a neighborhood street with her vehicle, was fatally shot in the head and chest by ICE officer Jonathan Ross. The killing, which has sparked nationwide protests, was captured on video by multiple bystanders, and also by Ross, who recorded the encounter on his phone. In his footage, a male voice**,** which the New York Times has verified was Ross, could be heard calling Good a “fucking bitch” after he shot her.

The Justice Department has defended Ross, accusing Good of trying to run him over, and ordered the US Attorney’s Office to focus on Good’s wife, who was on hand protesting the ICE operation. But a frame-by-frame video analysis from the Times clearly shows that Ross shot Good as she was steering her vehicle away from him, and that he was not run over, as Trump and other federal officials claimed, or struck by the vehicle in a substantial way.

The administration quickly excluded the Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from its investigation, making it harder for state authorities to gather evidence. As staffers at the US Attorney’s Office watched the video footage, some were crying or otherwise visibly emotional about the death and the Justice Department’s response, according to the person with knowledge of the departures.

Since Operation Metro Surge began in the Twin Cities, federal immigration officers have reportedly arrested more than 2,400 people. To deal with the influx of cases, given its reduced staff, the US Attorney’s Office is receiving help from military attorneys known as Judge Advocates General. Several JAGs are already stationed at the office, and the Pentagon, according to CNN plans to send about 25 more.

As videos spread showing brutal ICE encounters in the Twin Cities—officers dragging a disabled woman out of her car as she tried to drive to a doctor’s appointment; carrying away an unconscious man in handcuffs; throwing a flashbang at a car with six children, and more—protesters are calling for accountability and yelling at the masked federal officers to get out of their neighborhoods.

But to file civil rights cases against ICE agents or any other law enforcement, prosecutors at the US Attorney’s Office would need approval from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys in DC. And that “feels impossible,” said the person with knowledge of the resignations, “when you can’t even get an investigation for a woman who was shot point-blank in the head.”

Folk, the former acting US attorney, told me that he’s never seen anything like the recent spate of resignations in Minnesota. It’s unusual, he said, for so many career prosecutors, as opposed to political appointees, to leave at the same time. “It’s deeply concerning to many members of the legal community here,” Folk told me, and he worries about the consequences for other investigations, including the ones looking into fraud in state welfare programs and the assassinations of former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, last year.

At least some of the attorneys who resigned this week had planned to use their accumulated leave to stay on longer and help with the transition, but the Justice Department fired them after they announced their intentions, abruptly blocked their credentials, and had them escorted our of the building.

The Minnesota US Attorney’s Office had fewer than 30 prosecutors prior to the latest departures—that’s less than half of what the full head count should be, Folk said. Former federal prosecutor Levenson added that it might be difficult for the office to hire new attorneys, given the explosive political environment. “People of the caliber you used to get at US attorney’s offices aren’t interested in the job; they’ve had a major brain drain, and I don’t know who’s going to be left to do the cases,” she said.

“This will have an impact for years to come.”

Continue Reading…

These Researchers Are Working to Quantify the Value of Nature

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

In an era of rapid globalization, economic growth has come with trade-offs. To make room for urban development or fossil fuel extraction, countries often clear forests, pollute water and decimate wildlife populations.

However, while nations and businesses build lucrative markets around these activities, destroying nature often comes at a cost—literally. Natural resources underpin the global economy, from pollinators supporting agricultural supply chains to forests ensuring water quality and availability. One estimate suggests that more than half of the world’s gross domestic product is moderately or highly dependent on the environment.

Research shows the services that nature provides are diminishing as we degrade it. Now, a growing number of economists and ecologists around the world are helping decisionmakers understand the full extent of the contributions to local and national economies made by plants, animals, or entire ecosystems—and what’s at risk financially if they are lost.

Since time immemorial, humans have relied on natural resources like clean water, forests, and soil to prop up economies. As Stanford University ecologist Lisa Mandle put it to me bluntly, “if there were no nature, there would be no economy.”

But it wasn’t until fairly recently that experts formally started to catalogue the environment’s financial contributions to society through an approach dubbed “natural capital accounting.” In 2005, a report compiled by hundreds of scientists from around the world, which was called for by the United Nations, estimated that human activities had driven the decline of two-thirds of ecosystem services on Earth, including freshwater supply, climate-change mitigation, and disease control.

Pollinators contribute $800 billion in gross economic value annually, including $34 billion in the United States.

Dubbed the “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,” the report also revealed how much was not known about the environment’s financial contributions, finding that the costs of degrading nature were rarely tracked in local and national economic accounts. Since then, experts have scrambled to fill these gaps.

Mandle is the co-executive director of Natural Capital Alliance, a Stanford-based collaboration of research institutions and nonprofits such as the Nature Conservancy working to help countries better understand their natural resource availability and how to balance those benefits with development.

For example, the group recently worked with the Colombian National Planning Department to calculate the economic value of the country’s Upper Sinú Basin. Using input from locals and complex financial models, they found that ecosystems in the region deliver around $100 million in benefits to hydropower production and the delivery of clean water to households and economic sectors—nearly 2 percent of the region’s GDP.

“In many decisions, nature has been treated as essentially worthless or of negligible value when compared to other kinds of human activities,” said Mandle. “Natural capital accounting is an effort to correct that and to shine a light on the many different ways that nature and biodiversity supports human well-being and the economy.”

It’s not just governments using this type of data; businesses around the world are increasingly required to disclose the biodiversity risks of their operations, the Financial Times reports. At the same time, investors have shown more interest in companies that can show they are environmentally friendly, Viorel Popescu, an ecologist at Columbia University, told me.

Large corporations are major contributors to biodiversity loss, but Popescu said they are also at “the forefront of being able to do something about it,” and can often move at a faster pace than governments. With this in mind, Columbia University announced in September the creation of a master’s program focusing on biodiversity data analytics. The idea is to help businesspeople understand the implications of corporate operations on nature.

“We’ve been training ecologists to do ecology forever, and they don’t always get into places where they can actually make decisions, unfortunately,” said Popescu, who is the director of the program. He has been an ecologist for more than two decades and stressed that the new program is “trying to get people that don’t have necessarily an ecology or a conservation background…but are in the position of making a difference.”

Ecosystem accounting has revealed some staggering stats on nature’s financial contributions. Pollinators contribute $800 billion in gross economic value annually, including $34 billion in the United States. A recent federal report found that US birders spent an estimated $108 billion related to their pursuits in 2022 alone, which is almost six times the total revenue generated by the National Football League that year. Mangrove forests prevent more than $65 billion in property damage around the world each year, according to a 2020 study.

Even a single species can bring in the big bucks: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that the endangered North Atlantic right whale generated $2.3 billion in sales for the whale-watching industry and across the broader economy in 2008 alone. Conservation groups often use these analyses to make the case for protection of plants and wildlife.

“To participate in the commodification and financialization of our Relatives is an affront to the Natural Laws.”

Experts recognize that natural capital accounting has limitations, largely due to the diversity of ecosystems and what values different groups of people put on various services. Additionally, interactions across a single ecosystem can be incredibly complex, and “it can be hard to tease out what the value is of an individual component, because its value is not just [that component], but it’s how it interacts within this system to sustain life,” Mandle said. The UN has a framework to help countries track ecosystem services, though much of these processes are case by case.

In recent years, new markets have emerged to commodify nature-based solutions through the sale of carbon offsets or “biodiversity credits,” which represent a measured unit of biodiversity protection that companies can purchase to support conservation. However, critics say the “financialization of nature” fails to recognize its intrinsic value, and could actually work against its protection.

“Only humans would have the audacity to assign ‘financial value’, in their colonial thought process ways, to the Sources of Life and the living beings that are our relatives,” Casey Camp- Horinek, an elder of the Ponca Nation of Oklahoma and chairwoman of the Indigenous Council of the Global Alliance of the Rights of Nature, said in a statement on the group’s website. “We do not own anything that is called Nature, we are Nature, and to participate in the commodification and financialization of our Relatives is an affront to the Natural Laws and quite simply wrong.”

Popescu said he’s “conflicted” about assigning financial values to ecosystem services. “But at the same time, I’m well aware that if we don’t try to do that, you’re not going to advance the conversation,” he said.

Echoing this sentiment, Mandle said that while it’s crucial to also consider the intangible values of nature, “there are some decisions that get made, you know, comparing numbers, lines on a spreadsheet, or weighing costs and benefits.”

It’s a “head approach and a heart approach,” she said. “I think they work together.”

In any case, it’s clear that environmental degradation and climate change are already taking a heavy toll on the global economy, costing trillions of dollars annually, according to a UN report released in December. “I think [natural capital accounting] has become especially relevant recently as the size of the human enterprise relative to Earth systems has grown,” Mandle said. “Many of these values have only been apparent once they’ve been lost.”

Continue Reading…

Trump’s USDA Is Hiding the Data on Food Stamp Cuts

On December 1, under President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—which more than 40 million Americans rely on—introduced new work requirements for people verging on retirement age.

Millions of adults ages of 55 to 64 may now be locked out of the program if they’re not able to work—and in a one-two punch of attacks on federal services, the USDA has terminated its annual Food Insecurity Survey, making it impossible to know just how devastating an impact Trump’s backdoor SNAP cuts will have on aging adults who are unable to get exemptions from their state.

In normal conditions, said Tufts University food economist Parke Wilde. policymakers and government workers would ask, “‘What are the consequences of policy changes this fall so that we can calibrate and improve the program in the future?’ We won’t be able to do that this year.”

Targeted actions to eliminate federal government data have accompanied countless other Trump administration cuts and defundings: An executive order by Trump curtailed the collection of gender and sexuality information in federal surveys, and the Institute of Education Sciences, which disseminates education data, faced mass layoffs last year.

What existing data tells us is that tacking on new SNAP work requirements leads people to lose their benefits. Research from George Washington University found that between 2013 and 2017, changes to SNAP work requirement waivers led to around one-third of adults without dependents losing SNAP benefits. “There is scant evidence that work requirements are effective in helping people gain employment or become more self-sufficient, and there is strong evidence that work requirements create hardships,” the researchers concluded.

Colleen Helfin, a Syracuse University professor of public administration and international affairs, said that around half of early retirements between the ages of 55 and 65 are the result of health issues or difficulties maintaining employment, often compounded by challenging state processes to seek exemption from

“It’s really important for states to be thinking about the administrative burden,” Helfin said. “All these things become a little bit harder as people become older, and they may have declines in hearing, sight or cognitive function.”

Some states try to reduce hurdles, rather than add them, explained Lauren Schuyler, a specialist in family welfare at the University of Maryland School of Social Work.

“Having your practitioner provide documentation or proving that you have disabilities is just an added layer of that administrative burden,” Schuyler said, which is especially likely to strip SNAP from people in their fifties and through mid-sixties. With the USDA’s decision to quit tracking food insecurity, the impact will remain unclear and far more challenging to address.

Helfin is wary of smaller organizations trying to fill the data gap left by USDA—but some states are seeing an effort to do so.

“There’s a movement for state legislators to pass bills to mandate the state measurement of food insecurity, perhaps putting it on something like the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey,” Helfin said.

In response to a request for comment, a USDA spokesperson characterized the Food Insecurity Survey as “subjective, liberal fodder” designed “as a means to support the increase of SNAP eligibility and benefit allotments.”

Continue Reading…

ICE’s Tear Gas Sent a 6-Month-Old to the Hospital, the Latest in an Alarming Pattern

A mother in Minneapolis rushed to perform CPR on her 6-month-old baby on Wednesday night after federal immigration agents deployed a flash bang and chemical agent near her car, leading all six of her children to be taken to the hospital.

The Jackson family told local news outlets that they were coming home from their son’s basketball game when they got stuck between protesters and immigration agents, unable to drive away. That’s when, according to the family, their car began filling with a chemical irritant.

“All we heard was BOOM and every airbag deployed,” Destiny Jackson, the mother, told KARE 11 News.

She recalled screaming for her children to get out of the car and hearing them say that they couldn’t maneuver out—and couldn’t breathe. Bystanders rushed to help as Destiny said she screamed out for her youngest.

“He was just lifeless, like he had foam around his mouth,” she said. “He had tears coming out of his eyes. “I was giving him mouth-to-mouth, and I remember stopping, and I said, ‘I will give you all my breath ‘til you get yours back.’”

“Nobody wants to see their kids like that,” Jackson said, visibly holding back tears as she discussed the violence.

The whole family was taken to the hospital. Destiny called the incident “very traumatizing” in a GoFundMe post, writing that “never in a million years would I have thought something like this would happen to me and my family.”

In an X post that appears to have been taken down, DHS appeared to blame the Jackson family for their hospitalization. “It is horrific to see radical agitators bring children to their violent riots,” adding, “PLEASE STOP ENDANGERING YOUR CHILDREN.”

This isn’t the first time kids have been on the receiving end of chemical weapons used by federal immigration agents in the Trump administration’s mass deportation plans. These include incidents where children have been harmed as ICE agents targeted their parents with chemical agents. Young people have also been caught in the crosshairs at protests or nearby. Several incidents of tear gas have taken place at schools.

Just a week earlier in Minneapolis, and just hours after ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renée Nicole Good in her car, US Border Patrol agents descended upon Roosevelt High School, “began tackling people,” and “handcuffed two staff members and released chemical weapons on bystanders,” according to reporting from Minnesota Public Radio. The Department of Homeland Security denied that tear gas was used; the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers said in a statement that agents did use a chemical irritant.

The incident prompted Minneapolis Public Schools to cancel classes for the remainder of the week for the whole district. The school system is now allowing for remote learning through at least February 12 after a district spokesperson said they had received “multiple threats impacting several MPS schools.” The charter school where one of Good’s children attends has also switched to online learning following right-wing attacks, according to reporting from Sahan Journal.

And it’s not just kids in Minneapolis, nor is it just this month.

In July 2025, children were seen on video running away from a chemical agent that ICE set off during a raid on farmworkers in Southern California.

In August, a Portland grade school announced that it was relocating as an “emergency move” due to dangerous conditions surrounding a nearby ICE facility. “We have been impacted mostly by chemical weapons that are being used against protesters in the vicinity of our school,” the school’s interim executive director explained at the time, adding that they had routinely found “munitions” on the playground.

Multiple incidents involving alleged chemical agents and children were also reported in Chicago last fall.

On the Northwest side of the city in late October, Border Patrol agents reportedly interrupted a children’s Halloween parade, deployed chemical agents, and tackled and arrested several people, including US citizens, according to residents in the neighborhood and videos verified by ABC News.

Days later, near the Logan Square neighborhood, federal agents threw a chemical irritant onto a busy street near an elementary school, with DHS later justifying the action by claiming protesters had been impeding an activeoperation. According to reporting from ABC 7, children were playing on the monkey bars at school moments before officials threw tear gas canisters from a white SUV.

Shortly after, in November, in a Chicago suburb, video showed what appearedto be a federal agent in a truck spraying a chemical irritant into a car as it drove past. In that car was Rafael Veraza and his family, including his one-year-old daughter, who was reportedly impacted by the chemical agent.

“My daughter was trying to open her eyes,” Veraza told reporters at a press conference following the interaction. “She was struggling to breathe.”

“Us, as adults,” he said, “we can handle it. But as kids, they shouldn’t be targeting kids.”

Continue Reading…

These Finnish Homes Are Being Heated by a Surprising Source: Bitcoin Mining

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

For someone who cares about climate change, Matt Carlsson had what seemed like a dream job: teaching clients how to decarbonize buildings. But he was frustrated. He could give customers the tools to improve energy efficiency and phase out fossil fuels, but if they couldn’t easily turn his guidance into cost savings, they’d simply ignore him.

“Most of these people are not going to take action,” he realized, “because there’s not going to be a business case.”

Carlsson decided that he’d need to find a job where he could make the case for energy efficiency on economic terms. This led him somewhere surprising: bitcoin.

Mining bitcoin throws off an enormous amount of heat. That’s because the “mining” in question refers to the energy-intensive computational process by which bitcoin transactions are verified. In a typical transaction, a boxy computer attempts to solve what’s essentially a very complex math problem. If it can do this before any of the other “miners” working on the problem across the world, the miner is rewarded with bitcoin of its own.

This process takes a whole lot of power; overall, bitcoin mining accounted for an estimated 0.5 percent of global electricity use in 2024. The more complex the task at hand, the more electricity is needed—and the more heat is created. Essentially, as long as it’s lucrative to mine bitcoin, it’s going to spit out a lot of extra heat as a byproduct. The question becomes: Can that heat be put to beneficial use?

“It’s not a bad thing to be able to heat homes in an affordable way. But does that provide justification for the industry?”

That’s where Carlsson comes in. He’s now helping to heat the homes of 80,000 residents in Finland with waste heat from local cryptocurrency miners, as a part of a project run by his new employer, the bitcoin mining company MARA Holdings.

Water runs through MARA’s miners, which are stored in black metal units in the center of the towns, cooling them off before coming out at a scalding 122 to 172 degrees Fahrenheit (50 to 78 degrees Celsius). From there, the water is pumped underground through the cities’ existing district heating systems, drastically cutting down the need for traditional boilers. As a result, MARA’s two bitcoin districts have avoided greenhouse gas emissions roughly equivalent to those produced by 700 US homes since its first project came online in 2024.

Carlsson thinks this model could be expanded to cities and buildings across the world—and he’s not the only one. Joint bitcoin mining and heating operations are popping up across Finland, an ideal location because of its cool climate and existing district heating systems that companies can easily plug into. Terahash Energy’s “Genesis” project, for example, is sending waste heat from bitcoin mining to be used in an industrial area in the Nordic nation, plus some nearby homes. The global bitcoin mining infrastructure firm Hashlabs hosts six sites connecting miners to district heating systems elsewhere in Finland, with more in the works.

“It’s a business, after all,” said Alen Makhmetov, co-founder of Hashlabs. “I just want to make our business much more sustainable, robust, and long term,” he said. Though there’s a climate case to be made for the operation as well, Makhmetov means “sustainable” in an economic sense. That’s because Hashlabs is now insulated from a crash in the price of bitcoin—if it loses crypto revenue, it’ll still get revenue for its heating services. The heating customers are insulated, too: Hashlabs has promised to continue producing heat, even if the value of bitcoin makes its mining unprofitable.

“It was really a no-brainer in terms of: Why not do this?” said Adam Swick, MARA’s chief strategy officer. That’s because MARA gets to pull in two revenue streams: The company earns bitcoin by mining, of course, but it also earns a fee from the districts for supplying heat—all while receiving the water necessary to cool its miners for free. Each of MARA’s bitcoin heating systems are sized so they provide the minimum heat needed year-round in the cities where they operate. (In the winter, the districts use a combination of electric and biomass boilers to provide extra heat.)

Residents of the two locations where MARA operates, the region of Satakunta and the city Seinäjoki, might not realize that anything has changed, since they’re getting heat from the same pipes that they always have. “That’s kind of the goal, that nobody’s impacted,” Swick said. MARA assumed all equipment costs and is providing heat at a lower price compared to electric heating companies.

Through MARA’s eyes, it’s better for the climate, too. District heating systems in Finland are mostly powered by burning biomass, such as wood chips. While biomass is considered renewable by some, including the European Union, it still emits carbon when burned. **(**In the two sites where MARA installed its bitcoin miners, the districts were also burning peat.) By cutting down on the amount of biomass and peat the districts need to use, MARA calculates that it has mitigated almost 5,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the 1.5 years that its districts have been operating. (To come up with this tally, the company references the latest official count of emissions caused by producing and consuming electricity in Finland to figure out how many emissions are caused by the miners, and then it compares that to the emissions stemming from traditional district heating in Finland.)

But the scheme won’t make sense for every district heating system in the Nordic nation, because many of them are already highly efficient. Nearly half source their heat from co-generation plants, or power plants that are already burning fuel for the electricity grid. These systems “harvest that heat to be as efficient as possible,” said Eric Bosworth, founder of Thermal Energy Insights, where he advises on projects to transition heating systems from gas to low-carbon thermal energy networks. That weakens the case for heating with bitcoin.

“If a bitcoin operation is already planned, then that heat should definitely be recovered.”

And even where using waste heat from co-generation plants is not possible, reusing the heat from bitcoin mining is by no means the ideal form of efficient heating—although it is undoubtedly better than letting it go to waste. Bitcoin miners use the same amount of energy as an electric-resistance water heater. Essentially, one unit of energy in produces one unit of heat out. That pales in comparison to the efficiency of electric heat pumps.

But while converting to heat pumps would be far more efficient, that would require costly overhauls; each individual building would have to install a heat pump and the associated infrastructure. Most existing systems are not prepared to bear these costs—another version of the dilemma Carlsson found himself confronting before he joined MARA.

When district heating systems find themselves overly reliant on imported fossil fuel sources, however, waste heat from bitcoin can offer a cost-effective solution that comes with a plausible climate case. Hashlabs got its first contract for a bitcoin heating district after Russia invaded Ukraine, sending energy prices soaring. Some district heating plants that relied on natural gas had gone bankrupt and “needed to either shut down or innovate,” said Makhmetov. Bitcoin mining offered a cheaper solution—one that provided heat with far less need for fossil fuels.

Of course, it’s easy to argue that the one thing better than efficiently using bitcoin’s waste heat is not mining bitcoin at all. Out of all forms of crypto, bitcoin consumes the most electricity—more than a small country—because of the particularly energy-intensive way it verifies transactions, which is called proof of work.

Given that most electricity grids today still run primarily on fossil fuels—unlike in Finland, which is powered by nearly 95 percent carbon-free sources, including nuclear and biomass—this could severely limit the climate case of welcoming bitcoin mining to harness its waste heat.

“It’s not a bad thing to be able to heat homes in an affordable way,” said Johanna Fornberg, a senior research specialist at the environmental advocacy nonprofit Greenpeace. “But does that actually provide justification for the industry? I would argue it does not.”

“We want to avoid believing these claims that bitcoin is providing a solution where there otherwise is not one,” she added. Greenpeace, along with other climate organizations, has advocated for bitcoin to change its verification method, which would cut its energy use drastically.

In a world where decarbonization efforts frequently involve tradeoffs, Carlsson is happy that, in this case at least, bitcoin mining produces what looks to him like a win-win.

“When I first started learning about bitcoin, I was leery of it and trying to figure out if it was a scam,” he said. Seven years later, two tiny miners sit atop his desk. “Now, I feel like a missionary, part of a strange cult.”

Still, if operations like MARA’s expand further, it could mean fossil power plants in Finland have to run more, increasing overall emissions, just to have enough energy to power bitcoin mining, Bosworth said. “I think the more valid argument is that if a bitcoin operation is already planned, then that heat should definitely be recovered and sent to a district where possible,” he said.

A reduction in energy use stemming from reuse of mining’s waste-heat “is more of a positive side-effect that largely has a negative climate impact,” said Fornberg, “not something that we want to incentivize and become increasingly reliant on in the long term.”

Continue Reading…

How Trump Is Using Violent Tragedies to Divide America

Once again, the response was quick, fuming, and filled with falsehoods.

On January 7, about five hours after a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis fatally shot a woman in her SUV, President Donald Trump addressed the reckless killing in a social-media post: The victim, he said, “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense. Based on the attached clip, it is hard to believe he is alive.”

Those were lies. Trump shared murky slow-motion footage from a distant door camera, but clearer videos from eyewitnesses had already gone viral and showed the reality. ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot Renee Good, an American citizen and 37-year-old mother of three, point-blank through the windshield and open driver’s-side window as Good tried to turn her slow-moving vehicle away from him. Ross then reholstered his gun and walked down the street toward where the SUV had crashed, eyewitness video showed. (Moments later in that same video, Ross can be seen even more clearly walking back up the street and showing no signs of serious injury. Trump officials have since claimed that Ross suffered from an unspecified degree of internal bleeding.)

Trump’s post culminated with him blaming Good’s death on what he said was a sprawling conspiracy targeting ICE agents: “We need to stand by and protect our Law Enforcement Officers from this Radical Left Movement of Violence and Hate!” Just over a week later, amid tense protests and further violence by ICE in Minneapolis, he threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act.

Trump’s vitriol, though often seen as “unhinged” by critics, is methodical and by design. He uses any violent national tragedy as political ammo. During his first year back in the White House, he has seized upon assassinations, mass shootings, and other deadly traumas to stoke partisan division and justify extreme policies and actions. Fact-finding in the aftermath of a tragedy does not matter to him—only setting the narrative does.

“He only speaks in one key, and that key is division.”

His top officials back him in lockstep. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem declared shortly after Good’s killing—before any investigation—that Good had committed “an act of domestic terrorism.” Noem’s description of what happened with the ICE agents defied reality: “A woman attacked them, and those surrounding them, and attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle.” Vice President JD Vance blamed the deceased victim for “an attack on the American people,” declaring it “classic terrorism.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated that Good’s death was “a result of a larger, sinister left-wing movement that has spread across our country.”

The brazen lying and demonization were familiar, the latest in a pattern from Trump that has included his response to the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, a mass shooting at a Mormon church, a terrorist attack on National Guard soldiers, and even the shocking murders of Hollywood icon Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele. (Details on these and others below.)

Most modern presidents have sought to console and reassure the country in the face of national tragedy, but Trump’s behavior stands alone, says Matt Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University. “He seems incapable of trying to unify people or issue words of healing,” Dallek says. “I can’t think of a single instance in which he tried to calm tempers. He only speaks in one key, and that key is division.”

Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, President George W. Bush stated that true Islam “is peace” and urged Americans not to vilify millions of Muslims who were making “an incredibly valuable contribution to our country.” After the devastating gun massacre at a historic Black church in South Carolina in 2015, President Barack Obama called for national soul-searching and emphasized the power of goodness and grace over racist hatred.

You have to go back half a century, to “law and order” hardliner Richard Nixon, to find a more combative approach, Dallek notes. Yet even though Nixon was bilious and conspiratorial against the political left, he was more measured in his public reaction to national trauma and less willing than Trump to disregard reality. Nixon’s messaging included victim-blaming after four students were shot dead by national guard troops at Kent State University in May 1970—but he also acknowledged that most in the protest movement were “very peaceful” and said he would withhold judgement about the shooting until after a factual investigation.

Trump’s tactics have been effective for helping him maintain a minority base of fervent supporters, says Dallek. “They can all get behind this idea that whatever is happening within MAGA is much less worse than the threat of ‘the radical left.’”

He adds: “It justifies, after the fact, his very aggressive and even extremist policies, including the unleashing of ICE on blue cities and states. The narrative he creates says to all his supporters that what he’s doing is ‘destroying the enemy within,’ that he’s taking care of the scourge that he promised to address. I think it’s a mistake to discount just how powerful that can be.”

Trump provokes so much news and controversy for the public to process that his exploitation of violent tragedies tends to fade quickly from consciousness. The rhetoric has an intended effect, then attention is gone. But scrutiny of recent disasters reveals the clear pattern by which Trump has built up a leftist bogeyman (including designating antifaa domestic terrorist group) and hasfurther cultivated contempt for immigrants and political adversaries.

“With God as my witness”

When Charlie Kirk was assassinated last September, the Trump White House emphasized blame, rapidly and without evidence, on a broad conspiracy. Law enforcement authorities announced in the initial aftermath that the suspect charged in the killing, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, likely acted alone—and no evidence to the contrary has emerged in the more than four months since. Nevertheless, top Trump aide Stephen Miller hammered home the preferred narrative on Kirk’s former podcast, in a conversation with Vance that was live-streamed from the White House five days after the killing. “It is a vast domestic terror movement,” Miller said. “And with God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks…and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi pushed broader blame in an interview with ABC News: “Who killed Charlie?” she asked. “Left-wing radicals, and they will be held accountable.” On Newsmax, Dan Bongino, then the FBI deputy director, leaned into talk of investigating a possible conspiracy.

“That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent.”

Inside a Phoenix stadium 11 days after the killing, Trump led the memorializing of Kirk as a persecuted martyr. He said that Kirk had faced “menacing hate” everywhere on his campus tours from “rage-filled radicals.” He denounced “antifa terrorists” and claimed that “many of these people” allegedly targeting Kirk were highly paid “agitators.”

In an especially dark turn, Trump went off script after saying that Kirk was a “noble spirit” with a forgiving view of the political opposition. “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie,” Trump added, waxing sardonic. “I hate my opponent. And I don’t want the best for them.”

“Another targeted attack on Christians”

Later in September, a man committed a mass shooting and arson at a Mormon church in Michigan and was quickly killed by police. Less than three hours afterward, Trump commented on social media: “The suspect is dead, but there is still a lot to learn.” In that same post, however, he declared a motive: “This appears to be yet another targeted attack on Christians in the United States of America.” Asked the next morning about motive on Fox & Friends, Leavitt said she’d learned from FBI director Kash Patel that all they knew so far was that the killer “hated people of the Mormon faith.”

Further media reporting on the perpetrator, who killed four victims and injured eight others, soon complicated the Trump narrative of a war on Christianity. Friends said that 40-year-old Thomas Sanford was a right-wing Republican. Social media posts showed he’d backed Trump for president, and recently a Trump sign had been displayed on his home. His grievance with the Mormon church appeared to hinge specifically on a rough breakup he’d gone through years prior with a Mormon girlfriend. He was an ex-Marine who’d served in Iraq and had a history of substance abuse. He had a young son with a rare genetic disorder, a source of emotional and financial strain. Sanford, in other words, was like many other suicidal mass killers: his pathway to violence was complex, with no clear ideological explanation.

The Trump White House said nothing further. Media coverage dwindled. But there was evidence from the start that some people had perceived the source of the massacre the way Trump wanted: As a Wall Street Journal reporter described from near the scene that day, “I’ve heard people yelling out car windows about radical leftists.”

“So whacked out”

Depending on who the victims are, Trump’s divisiveness has taken other forms—including what he doesn’t say or do in the aftermath. Back in June of last year, when a man in Minnesota hunted two Democratic state lawmakers at their homes, fatally shooting former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband and wounding Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Trump was notably muted as a search was underway for the suspect. Trump offered only a brief, uncharacteristic written statement, posted by Leavitt on his behalf, in which he denounced the violence generally and said that the DOJ and FBI were fully on the case. After the suspect was captured and evidence emerged that he was a Trump supporter who held extreme far-right views, Trump began using media interviews to trash Gov. Tim Walz as “grossly incompetent” and “a terrible governor.”

Normally after such a rare, high-stakes catastrophe, a president would offer support to regional leaders directly impacted, but not in this case. Trump sowed uncertainty in the media about whether he would reach out to Walz, and when asked again three days after the assassinations, he scoffed. “I think the governor of Minnesota is so whacked out. I’m not calling him,” he said. “The guy doesn’t have a clue. He’s a mess.”

Three months later, when asked by a reporter why he hadn’t ordered US flags lowered in honor of Hortman—as he had just done for Kirk—Trump said he was “not familiar” with who Hortman was. He added that he “wouldn’t have thought of” lowering flags for her and blamed Walz for not making the request. Earlier this January, Trump promoted a delusional conspiracy theory on social media suggesting that Walz himself was behind Hortman’s killing.

“We don’t want them in our country”

After an Afghan national gunned down two National Guard members in a terrorist attack just before Thanksgiving in Washington, DC, Trump unleashed a broad tirade against immigrants. The shooter had first been resettled in the US in 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome, a program for some who’d fought alongside the US military in Afghanistan. But although the shooter had later been approved for asylum under the Trump administration in 2025, Trump railed against his predecessor, vowing to “re-examine every single alien who has entered our country from Afghanistan under Biden.” In those same remarks from Mar-a-Lago the day of the attack, Trump went on to demonize “hundreds of thousands of Somalians” in Minnesota (overstating and misnaming that population). He blamed them for “ripping off billions of dollars” and alleged they hate America.

Trump soon amped up his dehumanizing rhetoric as ICE began aggressive operations targeting Somalis and others in the Minneapolis region. During a Dec. 2 cabinet meeting broadcast live, the president laced into Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, whom he has vilified for years: “She’s garbage. Her friends are garbage. These aren’t people who work.” He said further of the Somali community, “When they come from hell and they complain and do nothing but bitch, we don’t want them in our country. Let them go back to where they came from and fix it.”

Trump’s team applauded as Vance pounded the table enthusiastically.

“A very sad thing happened last night”

Trump’s reaction to another high-profile tragedy late last year seemed especially revealing. It is difficult to conceive of any purpose—other than to express vengeful satisfaction and provoke outrage—for his response to the news that Rob and Michele Reiner had been stabbed to death in their home, and that their long-troubled son Nick was the suspected killer.

Trump’s victim-blaming post on social media was bizarre, degrading, and grim: “A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME… He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness.”

The outrage came indeed. (“We are led by the most loathsome human being ever to occupy the White House,” wrote conservative columnist Bret Stephens.)

This pattern of conduct from Trump may be pushing the nation farther down a dark path, says Dallek, the historian. One concern is that the more violent events we have, the more divided the country could become. “Because the interpretation of those events by different factions is so in conflict, each violent episode worsens the atmosphere. It inflames people on all sides, and it’s impossible at that point for reason to triumph over the fury that people feel, in some cases justifiably.”

Trump has made clear repeatedly that he may further attempt to use the American military against Americans.

The risk has heightened around the killing of Renee Good and as ICE and Border Patrol operations have grown more lawless and violent. In Dallek’s view, Trump’s signals have been disturbingly clear: disinterest in the real facts of what’s happening on the ground, a total absence of accountability, and the White House doubling down on claims that it is their militarized deportation forces, not communities, that are under siege.

“To all ICE officers,” Miller declared on Fox News this week, “you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties.”

“It creates a kind of permission structure,” Dallek says. “I think the leaders of the Trump administration have told ICE and Border Patrol to take off the gloves, to be very aggressive. Now we are seeing the results of that message on the streets of American cities.”

Trump’s latest threat has long been building. Though the federal courts recently thwarted some of his extended deployments of National Guard troops, he has made clear repeatedly that he may further attempt to use the American military against Americans.

“We have an Insurrection Act for a reason,” he told reporters in the Oval Office last fall. “If people were being killed and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I’d do that.”

Continue Reading…

A Federal Agent Shot Another Person in Minneapolis. Then Trump Threatened the Insurrection Act.

The Trump administration’s offensive against immigrants in Minneapolis—and those who seek to help them—continued to intensify Wednesday night and into Thursday after a federal agent shot another person during an immigration operation.

President Donald Trump, in a Thursday morning Truth social post, threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act—a centuries-old law that allows the president to deploy the US military domestically.

The move comes after another chaotic night in Minneapolis during which a federal agent shot a man in the leg, according to the Department of Homeland Security. The City of Minneapolis said that the man was taken to the hospital with a non-life threatening injury.

According to DHS, the man was a Venezuelan national who was a target in an immigration operation. The federal agency claimed in a statement on X that officers were assaulted on the scene prior to the shooting and that an agent was also taken to the hospital.

This latest shooting by a federal agent comes just one week after ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Rénee Nicole Good in her car.

In a post commenting on initial reports of the shooting, US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Wednesday evening that there was a “Minnesota insurrection” happening. Blanche, who used to be Trump’s personal attorney, accused Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz of “encouraging violence against law enforcement.” Both Frey and Walz have multiple times called for peaceful protests against ICE’s actions in the city.

“Walz and Frey,” Blanche wrote, “I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.”

President Trump threatening to send the military into a US city under the Insurrection Act isn’t a new idea for the administration. Back in 2023 in an interview with the New York Times, Stephen Miller,Trump’s longtime advisor, said that they were already planning to invoke the law to apprehend immigrants.

The ongoing situation in Minneapolis has been intensifying for over a month and has only become more acute after the killing of Good. Videos from the frontlines, including many published by Mother Jones, show federal agents violently pulling a woman from her car, repeatedly deploying chemical agents on protestors, and otherwise continuing their offensive against those DHS claims are in the country without legal status—in their home, at school, and at work.

In a Wednesday night address, Gov. Walz spoke directly to Minnesotans, urging them to continue to record ICE’s actions. “If you see these ICE agents in your neighborhood, take out that phone and record. Help us create a database of the atrocities against Minnesotans. Not just to establish a record for posterity, but to bank evidence for future prosecution,” he said, once again telling protestors to respond peacefully. “Trump wants this chaos,” Walz added. “He wants confusion. And yes, he wants more violence on our streets. We cannot give him what he wants. We can’t. We must protest loudly, urgently, but also peacefully.”

Watch my address on the ongoing federal presence in Minnesota:https://t.co/n4AqTkHXRx

— Governor Tim Walz (@GovTimWalz) January 15, 2026

“This long ago stopped being a matter of immigration enforcement, instead, it’s a campaign of organized brutality against the people of Minnesota by the federal government,” Walz said, telling Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to “end this occupation.”

Continue Reading…

In the Eyes of Trump’s EPA, Human Health Is Now Literally Worthless

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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking a major step toward changing its math to favor polluters over people: It’s going to stop tallying up the dollar value of lives saved and hospital visits avoided by air pollution regulations.

Instead, the agency will consider the effects of regulations without attaching a price tag to human life.

In particular, the EPA is changing how it conducts the cost-benefit analysis of regulations for two major pollutants, fine particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns—usually referred to as PM2.5—and ozone. The change was buried in a document published this month analyzing the economic impacts of final pollution regulations for power plants, arguing that the way the EPA historically calculated the economic benefits of regulations had too much uncertainty and gave people “a false sense of precision.”

So to fix this, the EPA will stop tabulating the benefits altogether “until the Agency is confident enough in the modeling to properly monetize those impacts.”

The news was first reported by the New York Times. On X, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin pushed back on the reporting, calling it “another dishonest, fake news claim” and that the agency is still considering lives saved when setting pollution limits.

“You’re not able to compare the cost to the benefits unless you’re talking apples-to-apples, or in this case dollars-to-dollars.”

I spoke with several experts, including former EPA officials, and in fact, the change could lead to worsening air quality and harm public health.

The EPA exists to regulate pollution that harms people, and when it comes to things like ozone and tiny particles, there is robust evidence of the damage they can do, contributing to heart attacks and asthma attacks. Measured over populations, air pollution takes years off of people’s lives. Every year in the United States alone, air pollution pushes 135,000 people into early graves.

“There is a lot of science that shows very clearly that being exposed to increasing levels of PM2.5 has significant health impacts,” said Janet McCabe, who served as the EPA’s deputy administrator under President Joe Biden.

Anytime the EPA wants to issue a new regulation—say, revising how much mercury a power plant is allowed to emit—it looks at both the costs and the benefits before finalizing the rule. The EPA adds up how much companies would likely have to spend on things like installing upgraded scrubbers in smokestacks. Then the agency estimates the economic benefit of imposing the regulation, such as more days with cleaner air or fewer workers calling out sick. The biggest benefits usually come from improving health through things like avoiding hospital visits and reducing early deaths.

There is some fuzziness in the numbers on both sides of the ledger though. If a bunch of companies turn to a handful of suppliers for pollution control equipment, that could drive up compliance costs. And how exactly do you price a hypothetical emergency room trip that didn’t happen?

“In my experience at EPA, there’s never a perfect estimate of costs or benefits,” McCabe said. Yet even with imperfect calculations, regulators could get a decent sense of whether the juice was worth the squeeze when it comes to a new pollution standard, and the public would get a window into how the decision was made.

Under the Biden administration, the EPA found that enforcing the more stringent PM2.5 regulations it issued in 2024 would add up to $46 billion in health benefits by 2032, vastly more than the cost of complying with the rule.

The EPA now effectively wants to put receipts from the benefits side of the ledger through the shredder.

In theory, the EPA could still include the number of lives saved in how it considers the upside of a regulation without attaching a dollar value to it. But experts say that in practice, leaving the dollar costs of compliance in the equation and ignoring the economic value of the health benefits will likely skew the balance toward less regulation.

“You’re not able to compare the cost to the benefits unless you’re talking apples-to-apples, or in this case dollars-to-dollars,” said Christa Hasenkopf, director of the Clean Air Program at the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute.

This change in math is part of a broader pattern at the EPA—and across the federal government—of just measuring and counting fewer things under the second Trump Administration. The EPA has already closed its Office of Research and Development, which was meant to provide the scientific basis for environmental regulations, like tracking the effects of toxic chemicals on the human body.

With less data on science and economics, agencies like the EPA have less accountability for their actions as they face more pressure from the White House to cut regulations and craft policies benefiting politically favored industries. It also sets the stage for taking the teeth out of other regulations, like the Clean Air Act. The EPA has already dismantled its legal foundation for addressing climate change.

Joseph Goffman, who served as assistant administrator of the EPA’s air and radiation office under Biden, said this change in how the EPA calculates health benefits is part of a broader campaign against air pollution regulations.

“It really illustrates what the ulterior motive is and that is to mute or mask the true impact of [particulate matter] exposure and the huge benefits that flow from reducing it,” Goffman said. “Suddenly deciding that you can’t ascribe a dollar value to reducing PM really is convenient to the point of being instrumental to Zeldin’s efforts to weaken PM standards.”

If the EPA never comes up with a new way to monetize the health benefits of regulations, it’s likely that improvements in air quality will stall, and air pollution could get worse. “One would anticipate that we could see PM 2.5 levels rising across the country,” Hasenkopf said.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones Sues the Bureau of Prisons for Ghislaine Maxwell Records

One of the oddest occurrences in the Trump administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein imbroglio was the trip that Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, took in July to Tallahassee, Florida, to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell, who’s serving a 20-year sentence for procuring underage girls, some as young as 14, for Epstein to sexually abuse. Prior to being nominated by Trump to the No. 2 position in the Justice Department, Blanche was Trump’s criminal attorney in the porn-star-hush-money-forged-business-records case in New York, in which Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts.

Blanche never provided a compelling explanation for this unprecedented act. Why was Trump’s former personal lawyer and a top Justice Department official meeting with a sex offender whom the US government had previously assailed for her “willingness to lie brazenly under oath about her conduct”? Legal observers scratched their heads over this. Months later, Blanche said, “The point of the interview was to allow her to speak, which nobody had done before.” That didn’t make much sense. How often does the deputy attorney general fly 900 miles to afford a convicted sex offender a chance to chat? It was as if Blanche was trying to create fodder for conspiracy theorists.

What made all this even stranger is that after their tete-a-tete, Maxwell was transferred to a minimum-security, women-only, federal prison camp in Bryan, Texas, that houses mainly nonviolent offenders and white collar crooks. This facility—home to disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes and Real Housewives of Salt Lake City star and fraduster Jen Shah—is a much cushier facility than the co-ed Tallahassee prison.

When the transfer was first reported in August, the Bureau of Prisons refused to explain the reason for the move, which Epstein abuse survivors protested. So I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the BOP asking for information related to this relocation. Specifically:

all records mentioning or referencing Maxwell’s transfer to Federal Prison Camp Byran. This includes emails, memoranda, transfer orders, phone messages, texts, electronic chats, and any other communications, whether internal to BOP or between BOP personnel and any other governmental or nongovernmental personnel

Guess what? The BOP did not jump to and provide the information. After a months-long delay, the agency noted it would take up to nine months to fulfill this request.

We are suing. That is, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a nonprofit that provides pro bono legal assistance to journalists, today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Washington, DC, on behalf of the Center for Investigative Reporting (which publishes Mother Jones), to compel the BOP to provide the relevant records. The filing notes that the BOP violated the Freedom of Information Act by initially failing to respond in a timely manner.

We’re not the only ones after this information. In August, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) sent a letter to William Marshall III, the BOP director, requesting similar material. “Against the backdrop of the political scandal arising from President Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, Ms.Maxwell’s abrupt transfer raises questions about whether she has been given special treatment in exchange for political favors,” he wrote. Whitehouse asked for a response within three weeks. He received no reply—and, along with Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), filed a FOIA request.

In November, a whistleblower notified Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee that at Camp Bryan Maxwell was receiving preferential treatment that included customized meals brought to her cell, private meetings with visitors (who were permitted to bring in computers), email services through the warden’s office, after-hours use of the prison gym, and access to a puppy (that was being trained as a service dog). That month, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the senior Democrat on the committee, wrote Trump requesting that Blanche appear before the committee to answer questions about Maxwell’s treatment. That has not happened.

Given the intense public interest in the Epstein case—and the scrutiny it deserves—there ought to be no need to go to court to obtain this information about Maxwell. But with Trump’s Justice Department brazenly violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandated a release of the federal government’s Epstein records by December 19 (by which time only 1 percent of the cache had been made public), it’s no shocker that the Bureau of Prisons has not been more forthcoming regarding Maxwell’s prison upgrade.

Our in-house counsel, Victoria Baranetsky, says, “At a time when public trust in institutions is fragile, FOIA remains essential. Our lawsuit seeks to enforce the public’s right to know and to ensure that the government lives up to its obligation of transparency.” And Gunita Singh, a staff attorney for RCFP notes, “We’re proud to represent CIR and look forward to enforcing FOIA’s transparency mandate with respect to the actions of law enforcement in this matter.”

When might we get anything out of BOP? No idea. But we’ll keep you posted, and you can keep track of the case at this page.

Continue Reading…

Sen. Patty Murray: GOP Abortion Pill Hearing Is “Really About” a Nationwide Ban

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) decried Republican efforts to discredit medication abortion in an interview Wednesday with Mother Jones, saying that “the only reason they’re going after mifepristone is because it is the way most women get their abortive care.”

Mifepristone is one of the pills used in medication abortion, which in 2023 accounted for 63 percent of all terminations in the United States.

On Wednesday morning, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a hearing on “protecting women” from the “dangers of chemical abortion drugs.”

Chaired by Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, the hearing centered on conservative demands for further regulation of abortion medication; two of its three witnesses were medication abortionopponents, including Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who on Tuesday pushed to extradite a California abortion provider on felony charges, accusing him of sending abortion pills into her state.

Democrats taking part, including Sen. Murray, argued that the hearing wasn’t geared toward protecting women but discrediting settled science. In November, Murray led the Senate Democratic Caucus in sending a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Martin Makary expressing concern over the Trump administration’s review of mifepristone.

“Republicans are holding this hearing to peddle debunked junk ‘studies’ by anti-abortion organizations which have no credibility and have been forcefully condemned by actual medical organizations,” Murray said in her opening statement. The hearing, she continued, was “really about the fact that Trump and his anti-abortion allies want to ban abortion nationwide.”

According to a New York Times review of more than 100 studies spanning 30 years, abortion medication is safe and effective; mifepristone, used both in medication abortion and to treat miscarriage, has had FDA approval for more than 25 years. In October, the FDA approved another generic version of the pill.

“You can see that they’re just pulling straws from absolutely everywhere, because they want to obscure the whole goal” to “ban abortion nationwide,” Murray said to me.

Republican officials insisted that medication abortion is too easy to get. Yet in 13 states, abortion is banned in nearly all circumstances. Another seven states have enacted time restrictions earlier than what was outlined in Roe v. Wade.

At the same time, maternity care deserts are expanding across the nation. According to a 2024 report by infant and maternal health nonprofit March of Dimes, more than a thousand US counties—together home to more than 2.3 million women of reproductive age—lack a single birthing facility or obstetric clinician. Since 2020, 117 rural hospitals have stopped delivering babies, or announced that they would stop before the end of 2025, according to a December report from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform. A National Partnership for Women & Families analysis from June warned that 131 rural hospitals with labor and delivery units are at risk of closing altogether due to Republican-led cuts to Medicaid through President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

I asked Sen. Murray about requiring consultations for medication abortion—and why pregnant people aren’t going in person to seek out that route.

“It’s pretty stunning to watch these Republicans talk about this with a straight face,” she told me. “The reason many women don’t,” Murray continued, “is the abortion bans that in Republican states don’t give women the option to see a provider.”

Murray expressed concern, “especially after we have a hearing like this, where we heard so much misinformation,” that an already confusing landscape for those seeking abortion could be further obscured.

And a new study, published Monday in the leading medical journal JAMA, found that the FDA has repeatedly reviewed new evidence about mifepristone and reaffirmed its safety.

Abortion medication, Murray pointed out, is less deadly than both penicillin and Viagra.

“We didn’t have a hearing today on Viagra,” she told me. “We had a hearing on mifepristone, so their whole thing about safety and all this is just hogwash.”

Continue Reading…

Trump Jeopardizes NATO Over a Lie

Trump’s pursuit of Greenland is becoming increasingly unpopular: Denmark, Greenland, many NATO allies, and even some Republican lawmakers are in direct opposition.

Denmark’s foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, said there is a “fundamental disagreement” with the Trump administration after he and his Greenland counterpart met with JD Vance and Marco Rubio at the White House on Wednesday.

“Ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of self-determination of the Greenlandic people are, of course, totally unacceptable,” Rasmussen continued. But they agreed to try to “accommodate the concerns of the president while we at the same time respect the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark.”

Some GOP senators criticized the Trump administration’s actions toward Greenland on Wednesday.

“I have yet to hear from this Administration a single thing we need from Greenland that this sovereign people is not already willing to grant us,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said in a speech on the Senate floor. “The proposition at hand today is very straightforward: incinerating the hard-won trust of loyal allies in exchange for no meaningful change in U.S. access to the Arctic.”

A bipartisan group of senators also introduced a bill on Tuesday to prevent Trump from using Defense Department or State Department funding to occupy, annex, or otherwise assert control over Greenland without congressional approval.

“The mere notion that America would use our vast resources against our allies is deeply troubling and must be wholly rejected by Congress in statute,” Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) said in a statement.

Earlier on Wednesday, in a Truth Social post, the president insisted that NATO should be “leading the way” to help the US get Greenland, otherwise Russia or China would take the island. He added that the US getting Greenland would make NATO’s military might “far more formidable and effective.”

Following the meeting, Trump repeated the importance of acquiring Greenland for national security and to protect the territory and the Arctic region: “There’s not a thing that Denmark can do about it if Russia or China wants to occupy Greenland, but there’s everything we can do.”

But as former American military and diplomatic officials told the Wall Street Journal in a Monday report, the US already has a dominant group of overseas military bases—121 foreign bases in at least 51 countries—without taking over other land. There is also no evidence of a Russian or Chinese military presence just off Greenland’s coast.

In response to pressure from the Trump administration, Denmark’s defense ministry announced an increased Danish military presence—including receiving NATO-allied troops, bringing in ships, and deploying fighter jets—in and around Greenland, noting rising “security tensions.”

“Danish military units have a duty to defend Danish territory if it is subjected to an armed attack, including by taking immediate defensive action if required,” Tobias Roed Jensen, spokesperson for the Danish Defense Command, told The Intercept, referencing a 1952 royal decree that applies to the entire Kingdom of Denmark, including Greenland. Denmark’s defense ministry confirmed that the directive is still in effect.

Sweden Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said Wednesday that several officers of their armed forces would be arriving in Greenland that same day as part of a multinational allied group to prepare for Denmark’s increased military presence. Germany will send 13 soldiers to Greenland on Thursday and Norway’s defense minister said they have already sent two military personnel.

The Trump administration’s threats make all of these moves necessary.

Continue Reading…

Josh Hawley Asked “Can Men Get Pregnant?” 11 Times at Abortion Hearing

At the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions’s abortion pills hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri spent the whole of his allotted time reiterating disinformation about transgender people.

And, this isn’t the first time he’s utilized a hearing about reproductive healthcare to do so.

During an interaction at the hearing, Sen. Hawley asked Dr. Nisha Verma, who provides reproductive care in Georgia and Massachusetts, “Can men get pregnant?” Hawley asked this question over 10 times, repeatedly cutting her off when she attempted to answer.

Verma, along with Dr. Monique Wubbenhorst and Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, was called on by the committee for the hearing. Wubbenhorst previously testified in support of anti-abortion initiatives, and AG Murrill just indicted a California abortion provider on felony charges, accusing him of sending abortion pills into her state.

Before Hawley had the chance to share his views on gender, Florida Sen. Ashley Moody kicked off the topic by asking, “Miss Verma, can men get pregnant?”

“Dr. Verma,” she corrected.

Moody repeated:“Dr. Verma, can men get pregnant?” Verma paused. Moody asked the other witnesses, who quickly replied “no.”

Later in the hearing, before handing off the mic to Sen. Hawley, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who chairs the committee, said, “I think it’s science-based, by the way, that men can’t have babies.”

Then, it was Hawley’s turn.

“Since you bring it up, why don’t we start there,” he began. “Dr. Verma, I wasn’t sure I understood your answer to Sen. Moody a moment ago. Do you think that men can get pregnant?”

“I hesitated there because I wasn’t sure where the conversation was going or what the goal was,” Dr. Verma responded, adding, “I mean I do take care of patients with different identities, I take care of many women, I take care of people with different identities.”

“Well,” Hawley returned, “the goal is the truth, so can men get pregnant?” “Again,” Dr. Verma said, “the reason I pause there is I’m not really sure what the goal of the question is—” Hawley cut her off, in part saying, “the goal is just to establish a biological reality.”

“I take care of people with many identities—” Dr. Verma began, before being cut off by Hawley.

“Can men get pregnant?”

“I take care of many women, I do take care of people that don’t identify as women—”

“Can men get pregnant?”

“Again, as I’m saying—”

Hawley cut in. This tempo continued, with the senator at one point saying that he was “trying to test, frankly,” Dr. Verma’s “veracity as a medical professional and as a scientist” and “I thought we were passed all of this, frankly.”

Sen. Josh @HawleyMO: "Can men get pregnant?"

Dr. Nisha Verma: "I'm not really sure what the goal of the question is."

Hawley: "The goal is just to establish a biological reality…Can men get pregnant?" pic.twitter.com/4egtfZrPgB

— CSPAN (@cspan) January 14, 2026

Transgender men can and do get pregnant, as detailed in several different reports currently posted on The National Library of Medicine, which operates under the Department of Health and Human Services. Scientific research on this community is still limited, in part due to transgender men being hesitant to seek medical care in hospitals. Research out of Rutgers University found that about 44 percent of pregnant transgender men seek medical care outside of traditional care with an obstetrician, like with a nurse-midwife.

During the hearing, Republican members described abortion medication as dangerous and in need of further restriction. Their Democrat colleagues said that the hearing, entitled “Protecting Women: Exposing the Dangers of Chemical Abortion Drugs,” was a way to discredit settled science.

Mifepristone, one of the pills used in abortions with medication, has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for over 25 years and, just this past October, the FDA approved another generic version of the pill. A New York Times review of more than 100 studies on abortion medication found that it is safe and effective.

The current pushback against abortion medication, which accounted for 63 percent of all abortions in the US in 2023, is being spearheaded in part by Erin Hawley—the senator from Missouri’s wife. Erin Hawley works for the Alliance Defending Freedom and, in 2024, unsuccessfully argued for further restrictions on abortion medication in front of the Supreme Court. In December, the couple launched “The Love Life Initiative,” which aims to support anti-abortion ballot initiatives.

Back in 2022, at a different hearing on abortion access, Sen. Hawley focused on the same topic with another witness: law professor Khiara Bridges. Hawley began, as he did on Wednesday, by saying he “wants to understand.”

“You’ve referred to people with a capacity for pregnancy. Would that be women?” Hawley said. Bridges responded, explaining that some cis women can get pregnant while others can’t—and that people who don’t identify as women get pregnant, too. “So,” the senator returned, “this isn’t really a women’s rights issue.”

Bridges replied, smiling: “we can recognize that this impacts women while also recognizing that it impacts other groups. Those things are not mutually exclusive, Senator Hawley.”

Continue Reading…

Federal Court Upholds California Congressional Map, Bolstering Dems’ Chances of Retaking the House

In a big win for Democrats, a federal court panel on Wednesday upheld a new voter-approved congressional map in California that was designed to give Democrats five new seats in the U.S. House, offsetting the mid-decade gerrymander passed by Texas Republicans over the summer.

Republicans challenged the map after voters overwhelmingly approved it last November, arguing that it was a racial gerrymander intended to benefit Hispanic voters. But Judge Josephine Staton, an appointee of President Barack Obama, and District Judge Wesley Hsu, an appointee of President Joe Biden, disagreed, finding that “the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming.” They cited a 2019 opinion from the US Supreme Court ruling that partisan gerrymandering claims could not be challenged in federal court and concluded in this case that California “voters intended to adopt the Proposition 50 Map as a partisan counterweight to Texas’s redistricting.”

Judge Kenneth Lee, an appointee of President Donald Trump on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote a dissenting opinion, saying he would block the map because Democrats allegedly bolstered Hispanic voting strength in one district in the Central Valley, “as part of a racial spoils system to award a key constituency that may be drifting away from the Democratic party.”

Republicans will surely appeal to the Supreme Court, but may not have better luck there. When the Court upheld Texas’s congressional map in November after a lower court found that is discriminated against minority voters, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion maintaining that it was “indisputable that the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.”

Though the Roberts Court has frequently sided with Republicans in election cases, it would be the height of hypocrisy for the Court to uphold Texas’s map, then strike down California’s.

The California map is a major reason why Democrats have unexpectedly pulled close to even with Republicans in the gerrymandering arms race started by Trump. But the Supreme Court could still give Republicans another way to massively rig the midterms if it invalidates the key remaining section of the Voting Rights Act in a redistricting case pending from Louisiana, which could shift up to 19 House seats in the GOP’s favor, making it very difficult, if not impossible, for Democrats to retake the House in 2026.

Continue Reading…

ICE’s Violence Is “By Design” Under Trump

After a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed Renée Good in Minneapolis last Wednesday, Trump administration officials were quick to come out in the agent’s defense.

Violent interactions with the public aren’t surprising, a former ICE official said of the agency under Trump. “That’s sort of by design.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Jonathan Ross—a veteran officer with ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations arm who has been identified by multiple media reports as the shooter—followed his training and the agency’s protocol. Vice President JD Vance claimed Ross had reason to fear for his life and acted in self-defense. And press secretary Karoline Leavitt referred to Good as a “deranged lunatic woman” who tried to run over the office with her vehicle as a weapon. Officials repeatedly accused Good of perpetrating “domestic terrorism.”

The narrative put forward by the administration is largely disproved by available video evidence. And it has even been received with skepticism by some former ICE employees, who are condemning Ross’ use of force against the 37-year-old mother of three and warning that their one-time agency has lost its way.

Former ICE chief of staff Jason Hauser recently wrote in USA Today: “When enforcement is driven by messaging instead of mission, when optics outweigh judgment and when leadership substitutes spectacle for strategy, the risk to officers, civilian and public safety increases exponentially.”

The second Trump presidency has taken ICE off the leash. The agency is now the highest-funded law enforcement body in the United States, with a budget that eclipses that of some countries’ militaries. With its near-unlimited resources and aggressive directions from the White House, ICE is sending federal immigration agents not trained in community policing to make at-large arrests in cities across the country. (Days after the shooting, Noem announced DHS would deploy hundreds more agents to Minneapolis.)

Two ex-ICE workers I spoke with described an agency that, in pursuit of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation mandate, is engaging in reckless and risky behavior.

“They’re essentially operating now in a resource constraint-free environment and doing very dangerous things,” said Scott Shuchart, who previously worked at the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS and more recently as ICE’s assistant director for regulatory affairs and policy under the Biden administration. Violent interactions with the public aren’t surprising, he added. “That’s sort of by design.”

Dan Gividen, an immigration lawyer who acted as deputy chief counsel for ICE’s Dallas field office between 2016 and 2019, compared what the agency is doing as akin to running into a crowded movie theater and yelling “fire.” “You’ve got these ICE officers that are pouring out of these vehicles, pointing guns at US citizens—people who’ve done absolutely nothing wrong—and causing chaos.”

ICE removal agents charged with doing administrative arrests, he said, lack the tactical training to safely do operations out in communities. “It’s not at all surprising that this is happening with these ICE ERO officers being sent out to basically treat people terribly,” he said, anticipating more escalation of violence.

Another former ICE trial attorney I spoke with said that, typically, removal officers weren’t trained in high-risk operations because the daily demands of the job didn’t require it. In the past, if such an encounter took place, local law enforcement might have gotten involved to help keep the situation under control. “What has changed is there has been an encouragement from the top to be much more aggressive in enforcement and ramp things up and get the job done,” the ex-counsel for the agency told me.

In Gividen’s view, the federal immigration agents didn’t have a reason to interact with Good to begin with. “He had no reason to believe she had committed any offense that he actually has the authority to investigate,” Gividen said of Ross. “They murdered her, plain and simple. That is all there is to it. The notion that they were in any way, shape, or form acting in self-defense to put three bullets in that woman is absolutely absurd.”

An ICE’s use of force and firearms policy directive from 2023 states that authorized officers should only use force when “no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative” is available. It also mandates that the level of force be “objectively reasonable” given the circumstances and instructs officers to “de-escalate” the situation. The guidelines further state that an agent who uses deadly force should be placed on administrative leave for three consecutive days. (ICE didn’t respond to questions from Mother Jones about its policies and whether Ross had been put on leave.)

“They murdered her, plain and simple. That is all there is to it.”

“The question isn’t: Was he in any danger?” Shuchart said. “The question is: Was the use of force the only thing he could do to address the danger? And was the use of immediate deadly force the appropriate level of force?”

One of the videos shows that Ross appeared to move out of the way to avoid possible contact with the car. “I don’t understand how you get from there to the idea that deadly stop and force against the driver was necessary to protect the officer from serious bodily harm,” added Shuchart, who until January 2025 was part of a team that handles ICE-wide policy and regulations.

A DHS-wide 2023 policy on use of force generally prohibits deadly force “solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject” and the discharging of firearms to “disable moving vehicles.” But a recent Wall Street Journal investigation identified at least 13 instances since July where immigration agents fired at or into civilian cars, shooting eight people—including five US citizens—and leaving two dead.

Instead of de-escalating, Shuchart said, Ross only “exacerbated the danger.” Shuchart pointed to a number of errors Ross made that could have been avoided, starting with his decision to step in front of the car. “This officer was not just freshly coming across the scene when a vehicle lurches at him,” he said. “[He] had already violated policy creating a danger to himself by crossing in front of the vehicle that wasn’t in park. You have to assess what was reasonable in those circumstances from the fact that he had created the potential danger to himself.”

Prior to joining ERO, Ross did a stint with the Indiana National Guard in Iraq and worked as a field intelligence agent for the Border Patrol. His job as an ICE deportation officer in the Twin Cities area involved arresting “higher-value targets,” according to his own testimony from court records obtained by Wired, related to an accident last June when Ross was dragged by a car during an arrest.

“As a matter of what someone in law enforcement anywhere would be trained to do, and what someone would be trained to do under DHS policy, what he was doing was nuts,” Shuchart said of Ross’ actions last week. “He was so completely out of line with respect to what would have been safe for him and the other people on that operation. It was not at all how any kind of operation should go.”

“As a matter of what someone in law enforcement anywhere would be trained to do, and what someone would be trained to do under DHS policy, what he was doing was nuts.”

According to Shuchart, the agents at the scene also failed to follow protocol in the aftermath of the shooting by appearing to not immediately render medical assistance or confirm that, if the target was in fact a threat, they no longer presented danger.

Speaking to the New York Times, Trump appeared to try to justify Good’s killing by saying she had been “very, very disrespectful” to law enforcement. “

The fact that their feelings are hurt by US citizens disapproving of what they do loudly is completely irrelevant,” Shuchart said. “The point of the job is not to have your feelings well-cared for by the public.”

Under pressure to meet the administration’s goal of 3,000 daily arrests, ICE has been on a hiring spree. The agency is offering candidates signing bonuses and plans a $100 million “wartime recruitment” effort that includes geo-targeted ads and influencers targeting gun rights supporters and UFC fights attendees to bring in as many as 10,000 new hires. Earlier this month, DHS publicized the addition of 12,000 officers and agents—from a pool of 220,000 “patriotic” applicants who responded to the government’s “Defend the Homeland” calls—more than doubling ICE’s workforce.

So far, the result of that expansion drive has been less than optimal, with recruits failing fitness tests and not undergoing proper vetting. Experts have also raised concerns about the lowering of standards and reduced training times for new hires as the administration pushes to get more agents in the streets and rack up arrest numbers quickly.

“I would be skeptical of anyone who would take a job with an agency that is willing to defend behavior this unprofessional,” Shuchart said. “There are thousands of law enforcement agencies in this country. If you’re a decent recruit, go work for one of the others that has more reasonable standards and expectations.”

Continue Reading…

Scary Findings on Microplastics in Our Bodies May Be Flawed. That’s Good—and Bad.

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

High-profile studies reporting the presence of microplastics throughout the human body have been thrown into doubt by scientists who say the discoveries are probably the result of contamination and false positives. One chemist called the concerns “a bombshell.”

Studies claiming to have revealed micro- and nanoplastics in the brain, testes, placentas, arteries, and elsewhere were reported by media across the world, including the Guardian and Mother Jones. There is no doubt that plastic pollution of the natural world is ubiquitous, and present in the food and drink we consume and the air we breathe. But the health damage potentially caused by microplastics and the chemicals they contain is unclear, and an explosion of research has taken off in this area in recent years.

However, micro- and nanoplastic particles are tiny and at the limit of today’s analytical techniques, especially in human tissue. There is no suggestion of malpractice, but researchers told the Guardian of their concern that the race to publish results, in some cases by groups with limited analytical expertise, has led to rushed results and routine scientific checks sometimes being overlooked.

One scientist estimates there are serious doubts over “more than half of the very high impact papers” on microplastics in biological tissue.

The Guardian has identified seven studies that have been challenged by researchers publishing criticism in the respective journals, while a recent analysis listed 18 studies that it said had not considered that some human tissue can produce measurements easily confused with the signal given by common plastics.

There is an increasing international focus on the need to control plastic pollution but faulty evidence on the level of microplastics in humans could lead to misguided regulations and policies, which is dangerous, researchers say. It could also help lobbyists for the plastics industry to dismiss real concerns by claiming they are unfounded. While researchers say analytical techniques are improving rapidly, the doubts over recent high-profile studies also raise the questions of what is really known today and how concerned people should be about microplastics in their bodies.

“Levels of microplastics in human brains may be rapidly rising” was the shocking headline reporting a widely covered study in February. The analysis, published in a top-tier journal and covered by the Guardian, said there was a rising trend in micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) in brain tissue from dozens of postmortems carried out between 1997 and 2024.

However, by November, the study had been challenged by a group of scientists with the publication of a “Matters arising” letter in the journal. In the formal, diplomatic language of scientific publishing, the scientists said: “The study as reported appears to face methodological challenges, such as limited contamination controls and lack of validation steps, which may affect the reliability of the reported concentrations.”

One of the team behind the letter was blunt. “The brain microplastic paper is a joke,” said Dr Dušan Materić, at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Germany. “Fat is known to make false-positives for polyethylene. The brain has [approximately] 60 percent fat.” Materić and his colleagues suggested rising obesity levels could be an alternative explanation for the trend reported in the study.

Materić said: “That paper is really bad, and it is very explainable why it is wrong.” He thinks there are serious doubts over “more than half of the very high impact papers” reporting microplastics in biological tissue.

Matthew Campen, senior author of the brain study in question, told the Guardian: “In general, we simply find ourselves in an early period of trying to understand the potential human health impacts of MNPs and there is no recipe book for how to do this. Most of the criticism aimed at the body of work to date (ie from our lab and others) has been conjectural and not buffeted by actual data.

“We have acknowledged the numerous opportunities for improvement and refinement and are trying to spend our finite resources in generating better assays and data, rather than continually engaging in a dialogue.”

But the brain study is far from alone in having been challenged. One, which reported that patients with MNPs detected in carotid artery plaques had a higher risk of heart attacks and strokes than patients with no MNPs detected, was subsequently criticized for not testing blank samples taken in the operating room. Blank samples are a way of measuring how much background contamination may be present.

Another study reported MNPs in human testes, “highlighting the pervasive presence of microplastics in the male reproductive system.” But other scientists took a different view: “It is our opinion that the analytical approach used is not robust enough to support these claims.”

This study was by Campen and colleagues, who responded: “To steal/modify a sentiment from the television show Ted Lasso, ‘[Bioanalytical assays] are never going to be perfect. The best we can do is to keep asking for help and accepting it when you can and if you keep on doing that, you’ll always be moving toward better.’”

“This isn’t a dig…They use these techniques because we haven’t got anything better available to us.”

Further challenged studies include two reporting plastic particles in blood—in both cases the researchers contested the criticisms—and another on their detection in arteries. A study claiming to have detected 10,000 nanoplastic particles per liter of bottled water was called “fundamentally unreliable” by critics, a charge disputed by the scientists.

The doubts amount to a “bombshell,” according to Roger Kuhlman, a chemist formerly at the Dow Chemical Company. “This is really forcing us to re-evaluate everything we think we know about microplastics in the body. Which, it turns out, is really not very much. Many researchers are making extraordinary claims, but not providing even ordinary evidence.”

While analytical chemistry has long-established guidelines on how to accurately analyze samples, these do not yet exist specifically for MNPs, said Dr. Frederic Béen, at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: “But we still see quite a lot of papers where very standard good laboratory practices that should be followed have not necessarily been followed.”

These include measures to exclude background contamination, blanks, repeating measurements and testing equipment with samples spiked with a known amount of MNPs. “So you cannot be assured that whatever you have found is not fully or partially derived from some of these issues,” Béen said.

A key way of measuring the mass of MNPs in a sample is, perhaps counterintuitively, vaporizing it, then capturing the fumes. But this method, dubbed Py-GC-MS, has come under particular criticism. “[It] is not currently a suitable technique for identifying polyethylene or PVC due to persistent interferences,” concluded a January 2025 study led by Cassandra Rauert, an environmental chemist at the University of Queensland in Australia.

“I do think it is a problem in the entire field,” Rauert told the Guardian. “I think a lot of the concentrations [of MNPs] that are being reported are completely unrealistic.”

“This isn’t a dig at [other scientists],” she added. “They use these techniques because we haven’t got anything better available to us. But a lot of studies that we’ve seen coming out use the technique without really fully understanding the data that it’s giving you.”

She said the failure to employ normal quality control checks was “a bit crazy.”

“It’s really the nano-size plastic particles that can cross biological barriers,” but today’s instruments “cannot detect nano-size particles.”

Py-GC-MS begins by pyrolyzing the sample—heating it until it vaporizes. The fumes are then passed through the tubes of a gas chromatograph, which separates smaller molecules from large ones. Last, a mass spectrometer uses the weights of different molecules to identify them.

The problem is that some small molecules in the fumes derived from polyethylene and PVC can also be produced from fats in human tissue. Human samples are “digested” with chemicals to remove tissue before analysis, but if some remains, the result can be false positives for MNPs. Rauert’s paper lists 18 studies that did not include consideration of the risk of such false positives.

Rauert also argues that studies reporting high levels of MNPs in organs are simply hard to believe: “I have not seen evidence that particles between 3 and 30 micrometers can cross into the blood stream,” she said. “From what we know about actual exposure in our everyday lives, it is not biologically plausible that that mass of plastic would actually end up in these organs.”

“It’s really the nano-size plastic particles that can cross biological barriers and that we are expecting inside humans,” she said. “But the current instruments we have cannot detect nano-size particles.”

Further criticism came in July, in a review study in the Deutsches Ärzteblatt, the journal of the German Medical Association. “At present, there is hardly any reliable information available on the actual distribution of microplastics in the body,” the scientists wrote.

Plastic production has ballooned by 200 times since the 1950s and is set to almost triple again to more than a billion metric tons a year by 2060. As a result, plastic pollution has also soared, with 8 billion metric tons now contaminating the planet, from the top of Mount Everest to the deepest ocean trench. Less than 10 percent of plastic is recycled.

An expert review published in the Lancet in August called plastics a “grave, growing and underrecognised danger” to human and planetary health. It cited harm from the extraction of the fossil fuels they are made from, to their production, use and disposal, which result in air pollution and exposure to toxic chemicals.

Insufficiently robust studies might help lobbyists for the plastics industry downplay known risks of plastic pollution.

In recent years, the infiltration of the body with MNPs has become a serious concern, and a landmark study in 2022 first reported detection in human blood. That study is one of the 18 listed in Rauert’s paper and was criticized by Kuhlman.

But the study’s senior author, Marja Lamoree, at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, rejected suggestions of contamination. “The reason we focused on blood in the first place is that you can take blood samples freshly, without the interference of any plastics or exposure to the air,” she said.

“I’m convinced we detected microplastics,” she said. “But I’ve always said that [the amount estimated] could be maybe twice lower, or 10 times higher.” In response to Kuhlman’s letter, Lamoree and colleagues said he had “incorrectly interpreted” the data.

Lamoree does agree there is a wider issue. “It’s still a super-immature field and there’s not many labs that can do [these analyses well]. When it comes to solid tissue samples, then the difficulty is they are usually taken in an operating theatre that’s full of plastic.”

“I think most of the, let’s say, lesser quality analytical papers come from groups that are medical doctors or metabolomics [scientists] and they’re not driven by analytical chemistry knowledge,” she said.

Improving the quality of MNP measurements in the human body matters, the scientists said. Poor quality evidence is “irresponsible” and can lead to scaremongering, said Rauert: “We want to be able to get the data right so that we can properly inform our health agencies, our governments, the general population and make sure that the right regulations and policies are put in place.

“We get a lot of people contacting us, very worried about how much plastics are in their bodies,” she said. “The responsibility [for scientists] is to report robust science so you are not unnecessarily scaring the general population.”

“We do have plastics in us—I think that is safe to assume.”

Rauert called treatments claiming to clean microplastics from your blood “crazy”—some are advertised for £10,000 (about $13,400). “These claims have no scientific evidence,” she said, and could put more plastic into people’s blood, depending on the equipment used.

Materić said insufficiently robust studies might also help lobbyists for the plastics industry downplay known risks of plastic pollution.

The good news, said Béen, is that analytical work across multiple techniques is improving rapidly: “I think there is less and less doubt about the fact that MNPs are there in tissues. The challenge is still knowing exactly how many or how much. But I think we’re narrowing down this uncertainty more and more.”

Prof Lamoree said: “I really think we should collaborate on a much nicer basis—with much more open communication—and don’t try to burn down other people’s results. We should all move forward instead of fighting each other.”

In the meantime, should the public be worried about MNPs in their bodies?

Given the very limited evidence, Lamoree said she could not say how concerned people should be: “But for sure I take some precautions myself, to be on the safe side. I really try to use less plastic materials, especially when cooking or heating food or drinking from plastic bottles. The other thing I do is ventilate my house.”

“We do have plastics in us—I think that is safe to assume,” said Materić. “But real hard proof on how much is yet to come. There are also very easy things that you can do to hugely reduce intake of MNPs. If you are concerned about water, just filtering through charcoal works.” Experts also advise avoiding food or drink that has been heated in plastic containers.

Rauert thinks that most of the MNPs that people ingest or breath in probably expelled by their bodies, but said it can’t hurt to reduce your plastics exposure. Furthermore, she said, it remains vital to resolve the uncertainty over what MNPs are doing to our health: “We know we’re being exposed, so we definitely want to know what happens after that and we’ll keep working at it, that’s for sure.”

Continue Reading…

This Is What ICE Descending on Minneapolis Looks Like

Even as Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem has promised to deploy an even greater surge of federal agents into Minneapolis, ostensibly to investigate fraud, city residents have shown up in large numbers to express their desire for ICE to, as Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said, “get the fuck out of Minneapolis.”

Defying the strong resistance to ICE in the community following the tragic shooting last week of 37-year-old Renée Good, federal agents appear to have become even more aggressive in their enforcement activities. Agents have gone door-to-door demanding entrance; they’ve pulled people from their cars, arrested them for supposed immigration violations or specious infractions such as interfering with operations while filming. If a person is caught protesting or simply turning down the wrong street while driving, they are likely to face a wall of masked and armed agents.

In addition to citizens with cellphones who diligently record the actions of DHS, local photographers have been joined by photojournalists from around the country and Canada to document federal agents and the stiff resistance they’ve faced from brave Minnesontans. Here are a few of their images from the past week.

People react to the ICE agent killing of Minnesota resident, Renée Nicole Good, in Minneapolis.Cristina Matuozzi/Sipa USA/AP

Larry T., who did not want to give his last name, is at the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul, holding a sign during a vigil honoring Renée Good.John Locher/AP

Demonstrators confront counter-protesters during a protest outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis. Michael Nigro/Sipa USA/AP

A person walks past signage memorializing Renée Good, who was fatally shot by an ICE officer earlier in the week.Christopher Katsarov/The Canadian Press/AP

People embrace while visiting a makeshift memorial for Renée Good.

US Border Patrol agents question a minor before arresting him during immigration enforcement operations.Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu/Getty

Federal Agents clash with community members during the ongoing immigration raids in Minneapolis.Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu/Getty

A Federal Agent deploys pepper spray against community members during the ongoing immigration raids in Minneapolis.Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu/Getty

A federal officer breaks a car window as they remove a woman from her vehicle near an area where ICE was operating in Minneapolis. Octavio Jones/AFP/Getty

ICE and other federal officers pull a woman from her vehicle in Minneapolis. Hundreds more federal agents were heading to Minneapolis, the US homeland security chief said on January 11, brushing aside demands by the city’s Democratic leaders to leave after an immigration officer fatally shot a woman protester.Octavio Jones/AFP/Getty

Federal Agents arrest a woman after smashing her car windows for allegedly blocking the street during an Immigration Enforcement Operation in Minneapolis.Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu/Getty

Demonstrators confront federal agents as they protest outside the Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis. Protests have popped up around the city after a federal agent fatally shot a woman in her car.Scott Olson/Getty

A resident films as people gather to confront ICE agents after two people from a residence were detained. The Trump administration has deployed over 2,400 Department of Homeland Security agents to the state of Minnesota in a push to apprehend undocumented immigrants. Stephen Maturen/Getty

Agents are hit with snowballs while patrolling the streets in Minneapolis.Michael Nigro/Sipa USA/AP

Continue Reading…

The Evangelicals Who Think Iran’s Protests Mean Jesus Is Returning

In Iran, millions of protesters have taken to the streets to protest the repressive religious regime that has ruled the country for more than four decades. The response of the government, led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been swift and brutal, with thousands of protesters reportedly killed. All over the world, onlookers are cheering the courage of the Iranian people who are risking their lives to fight for their freedom. In a video posted on X, Reza Pahlavi, the son of the shah who led the country for 38 years until he was ousted by the current regime in 1979, vowed, “We will completely bring the Islamic Republic and its worn-out, fragile apparatus of repression to its knees.” In a Tuesday post on Truth Social, President Donald Trump encouraged the Iranian people to “KEEP PROTESTING—TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!”

But for some Christians, the Iranian protests are more than just a popular uprising; they are the fulfillment of ancient Biblical prophecies that foretell the second coming of the Messiah. Last June, shortly after the United States bombed Iran, I wrote about the US evangelicals who were cheering that move:

Broadly speaking—though there are certainly exceptions—many of the most ardent supporters of Trump’s decision to bomb Iran identify as Christian Zionists, a group that believes that Israel and the Jewish people will play a key role in bringing about the second coming of the Messiah. As Christians, they are called to hasten this scenario, says Matthew Taylor, a senior scholar at the Institute for Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Studies in Baltimore and author of The Violent Take It by Force: The Christian Movement That Is Threatening Our Democracy. “The mission, so to speak, is to get the Jews back to Israel and to establish themselves within Israel,” he says. “Then you fulfill the preconditions, or one of the preconditions, for the second coming.”

The dark side of this theology, Taylor added, is that in this version of the end times, once the Messiah comes, the Jews will either convert to Christianity or perish.

Ben Lorber, a senior research associate with the far-right monitoring group Political Research Associates, explained via email this week that for Christian Zionists, Iran is “an embodiment of the satanic force of fundamentalist Islam, arrayed in a ‘clash of civilizations’ against the Judeo-Christian West, represented by America and Israel.” The uprising, therefore, is a good thing—but not only because of liberation from an oppressive regime. “An apocalyptic war between these players is often seen as a precondition and sure sign of the End Times,” and by extension, the second coming.

Christian Zionists agree on those broad strokes, but they’re a little fuzzier on the details—there is some disagreement as to exactly what part of the Bible predicts the current geopolitical situation. Some believe that God is using President Trump to protect Israel from Iran. As I wrote in June:

Hours before news of the bombing broke, Lance Wallnau, an influential [charismatic Christian] leader with robust ties to the Trump administration—last year, he hosted a Pennsylvania campaign event for JD Vance—warned his 129,000 followers on X, “Satan would love to crush Israel, humiliate the United States, destroy President Trump’s hope of recovery for America, and plunge the world into war.” But then he reassured them: “That’s not going to happen. Why? I was reminded again just a few moments ago what the Lord told me about Donald Trump in 2015.” He explained that he had received a message from God that Trump was a “modern-day Cyrus,” an Old Testament Persian king whom God used to free the Jews, his chosen people. In a video posted two days after the bombing, Wallnau concluded that the prophecy was coming true. “Jesus is coming back, and I believe this is all part of him setting the stage for his return,” he said.

For other evangelicals, current events echo the Old Testament book of Daniel, in which Michael, Israel’s guardian angel, battles a demon named the Prince of Persia. After a long period of suffering and much turmoil, God ultimately wins.

Others see yet another Bible story playing out—but with the same outcome. Last week, the Christian Zionist news site Israel365 News ran a story laying out the details of the prophecy. This particular prophecy can be found in the book of Jeremiah, in which God promises to wipe out the brutal military forces in the Iranian city of Elam before restoring order there.

Israel365’s article focuses on Marziyeh Amirizadeh, an Iranian Christian who fled to the United States when she was imprisoned and sentenced to death for her conversion. In it, she describes a 2009 dream she had when she was in prison. “God said that He is giving a chance to these people to repent, and if they do not, He will destroy them all,” she explains. And now, with the protests, “God’s justice against the evil rulers of Iran has already started, and he will destroy them all to restore his kingdom through Jesus.”

“The Bible can open the eyes of Iranians to the truth,” she adds. “Therefore, inviting Iranians to Christianity is very important because the majority of Iranians have turned their back on Islam and do not want to be Muslims anymore.”

“Inviting Iranians to Christianity is very important because the majority of Iranians have turned their back on Islam and do not want to be Muslims anymore.”

Her remarks refer to widespread claims that Muslims in Iran are converting to Islam in droves. In an article last year, for example, the Christian Broadcasting Network reported that “millions” of Iranian Muslims had recently converted to Christianity and that most of the country’s mosques had closed as a result.

The claims of the extent of the conversions are impossible to verify—there is scant hard evidence of a dramatic uptick in them. Practicing Christianity is illegal in Iran, and converts can face the death penalty.

But believers remain convinced that the uprising is part of a cosmic plan. Sean Feucht, a Christian nationalist musician who organizes prayer rallies at state capital buildings, told his 205,000 followers on X last week, “While they build mosques across Texas, they are burning them down in Iran!” He added a lion emoji, which some evangelical Christians use to symbolize Jesus.

In a blog post on Tuesday, Colorado evangelist Dutch Sheets, a key figure in the campaign to overturn the 2020 election and the lead-up to January 6, offered a prayer asking God to free the Iranian people “from Iran’s tyrannical government and the evil principality that controls it,” adding a plea for “an earth-shaking revival.”

Tim Ballard, who has been accused of sexual misconduct and is the leader of an anti-trafficking group, posted to his 166,000 followers earlier this month, “Jesus is also making a move in Iran.” Over the last few days, Trad West, an anonymous account on X with 430,000 followers, has repeatedly posted “Iran will be Christian.”

As the protests wear on, the government’s retaliation is intensifying. With information on the crackdown tightly controlled by the regime, and strictly curtailed citizen access to the internet, the precise death toll so far is unclear. According to reporting from CBS, the UK government estimates that 2,000 protesters have been killed, while some activists believe the total could be as much as 10 times that figure.

“Revolution is inevitable in Iran,” Feucht, the Christian musician, said in another tweet. “It’s prophecy, and it is going to happen.”

Continue Reading…

America’s New Era of Violent Populism Is Here

A year ago this month, President Donald Trump granted clemency to nearly 1,600 people responsible for the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol. When Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor who studies domestic political violence, heard about the pardons, he says he immediately thought it was “going to be the worst thing that happened in the second Trump presidency.”

The first year of Trump’s second term has been a blizzard of policies and executive actions that have shattered presidential norms, been challenged in court as unlawful, threatened to remake the federal government, and redefined the limits of presidential power. But Pape argues that Trump’s decision to pardon and set free the January 6 insurrectionists, including hundreds who had been found guilty of assaulting police, could be the most consequential decision of his second term.

“There are many ways we could lose our democracy. But the most worrisome way is through political violence,” Pape says. “Because the political violence is what would make the democratic backsliding you’re so used to hearing about irreversible. And then how might that actually happen? You get people willing to fight for Trump.”

On this week’s More To The Story, Pape talks with host Al Letson about how America’s transformation to a white minority is fueling the nation’s growing political violence, the remarkable political geography of the insurrectionists, and the glimmers of hope he’s found in his research that democracy can survive this pivotal moment in history.

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

This following interview was edited for length and clarity. More To The Story transcripts are produced by a third-party transcription service and may contain errors.

Al Letson: Bob, how are you today?

Robert Pape: Oh, I’m great. I’m terrific. This is just a great time to be in Chicago. A little cold, but that’s Chicago.

I was about to say, great time for you. I’m a Florida boy, so I was just in Chicago, I was like, let me go home. So Bob, I thought I would kind of start off a little bit and kind of give you my background into why I’m really interested about the things that we’re going to be talking about today, right after Charlottesville happened. When I look back now, I feel like it was such a precursor for where we are today. And also I think in 2016 I was looking back and it felt like… Strangely, it felt like Oklahoma City, the bombing in Oklahoma City was a precursor for that. Ever since then, I’ve just really been thinking a lot about where we are as a society and political violence in America. The origins of it, which I think are baked deeply into the country itself. But I’m also very interested on where we’re going, because I believe that leadership plays a big role in that, right? And so when you have leaders that try to walk us back from the edge, we walk back from the edge. When you have leaders that say charge forward, we go over the edge. And it feels like in the last decade or so we’ve been see-sawing between the two things.

So let me just say that you are quite right, that political violence has been a big part of our country and this is not something that is in any way new to the last few years. And that’s also why you can think about this when you talk about 2016, going back to 1995, with the Oklahoma City bombing here and thinking about things from the right and militia groups and right-wing political violence. Because that in particular from the seventies through 2016, even afterwards of course, has been a big part of our country and what we’ve experienced. But I just have to say a big but here, it’s not just the same old story. Because starting right around 2016, it would’ve been hard to know this in 2016 and even really 2017, ’18 and ’19, you were there right at the beginning of a new layer, so to speak, of political violence that is growing.

It’s not that the old layer went away, which is why it’s been a little bit, I think, mystifying and confusing for some folks, and that’s folks who even cover this pretty closely, like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League and so forth. Because it took a few years before they started to see that there was some new trends emerging, growing political violence. It was getting larger. The old profiles of who was doing the violent attacks were starting to widen. And in many ways that’s scarier and more dangerous than if they’re kind of narrow because we like our villains to be monsters who are far away from us and they couldn’t possibly be living next door to us. Whereas the closer they come, the more edgy it feels. So what you’re really experiencing there is the very beginning of where I date the beginning of our shift to the era of violent populism. We’re in a new world, but it’s a world on top of the old world. The old world didn’t go away.

No, no, no. It feels like the old world is really the foundation that this new house of violence has been raised around. All of that that happened in the past was the foundation. And then in 2016, 2017, some people would say 2014, in that timeframe, the scaffolding began to go up and then Trump gets into office and then suddenly it’s a full-blown house that now all of America is living in.

Well, if you look at the attacks on African-Americans, on Jews and Hispanics, except for going all the way back to the 1920 race time, except for that, these large-scale attacks have clustered since 2016. Then we have the Tree of Life Synagogue in 2018, that’s the largest attack killing, mass killing of Jews ever in the United States. And then we have August, 2019, the attack at the El Paso Walmart killing more Hispanics in a day than has ever been killed in our country. So there’s a pointed wave, if you see what I mean here. And race is certainly playing a role.

So when you say how does this tie to the old layer or the existing layer, one of the big foundations here is absolutely race. What’s really sad and really tragic is in this new era of violent populism, that’s a term I like to use because it’s not just the same old, but it’s not quite civil war. In this new era, we’ve seen things move from the fringe where they were bad but happened more or less rarely, to more the mainstream where they’re happening more and more. And our surveys show this, people feel very fearful right now, and there’s actual reason for that. That’s not just media hype. There have been more events. We see them and they are real. We really have a time here that people are, I’m sorry to say, concerned. And there’s reason to be concerned.

Yeah, as you say, the thing that pops up in my mind is the fact that white supremacy, which I think for a long time held sway over this country. And then I think that white supremacy in a lot of ways always held onto the power. But there was a time where being a racist was not cool and looked down upon. And so racism, while still evident, still holding people down, it’s built into institutions, all of that. I’m not saying that racism was away, I’m just saying that expressing it openly is now in the mainstream. I mean, we just heard President Trump recently talking about Somalis-

Absolutely, yeah.

In a very… I mean, just straight up, there is no difference between what he said about Somalis than what a Klansman in the forties in front of a burning cross would say about Black people, like zero difference.

Yeah. So the reason I think we are in this new era, because I think you’re right, putting your finger on the mainstreaming of fringe ideas, which we used to think would stay under rocks and so forth, and white supremacy clearly fits that bill. But what I think is important to know is that we are transitioning for the first time in our country’s history from a white majority democracy to a white minority democracy. And social changes like that in other countries around the world, so I’ve studied political violence for 30 years in many countries around the world. Big social changes like that Al, often create super issues with politics, make them more fragile and often lead to political violence. Now, what’s happening in our country is that we’ve been going through a demographic change for quite some time. America up through the 1960s was about 85% white as a country. There was ebbs and flows to be sure. Well, that really started to change bit by bit, drip by drip in the mid 1960s, whereas by 1990 we were 76% white as a country. Today we’re 57% white as a country.

In about 10 or 15 years, it depends on mass deportations, and you can see why then that could be an issue, we will become truly a white minority democracy for the first time. And that is one of the big issues we see in our national surveys that helps to explain support for political violence on the right. Because what you’re seeing Al, is the more we are in what I call the tipping point generation for this big demographic shift, the more there are folks on the right, and most of them Trump supporters, mega supporters, who want to stop and actually reverse that shift. Then there of course, once knowing that, there are folks on the left, not everybody on the left, but some on the left that want to keep it going or actually accelerate it a bit for fear that with the mega crowd you won’t get it, the shift will stop altogether. These are major issues and things that really rock politics and then can lead to political violence.

Talk to me a little bit about January 6th, when that happened, I’m sure you were watching it on TV.

Yeah.

What were you thinking as all of it was kind of coming into play?

Well, so I was not quite as surprised as some folks, Al. So on October 5th in Chicago, I was on the Talking Head show in Chicago, it’s called Chicago Tonight. So on October 5th, 2020, that was just after the Trump debate where he said to the Proud Boys, stand back, but stand by. Well, the Chicago folks brought me on TV to talk about that, and I said that this was really quite concerning because this has echoes of things we’ve seen in Bosnia with some other leaders that a lot of Americans are just not familiar with, but are really quite worrisome. And I said what this meant was we had to be worried about the counting of the vote, not just ballot day, the day of voting. And we had to be worried about that all the way through January 6th, the certification of the election. But you made a point earlier, Al, about the importance of leaders.

This is part of the reason why it’s hard to predict. It’s not a precise science, political violence. I like to use the idea, the analogy of a wildfire when I give talks. When we have wildfires, what we know as scientists is we can measure the size of the combustible material and we know with global warming, the combustible dry wood that could be set afire is getting larger. So you know you’re in wildfire season, but it’s not enough to predict a wildfire because the wildfire’s touched off by an unpredictable set of triggers, a lightning strike, a power line that came down unpredictably. Well, that is also a point about political leaders.

So it was really, I did see some sign of this that Donald Trump said too about the Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. And no other president had said anything like that ever before in our history, let’s be clear. And because of my background studying political violence, I could compare that to some playbooks from other leaders in other parts of the world. That said, even I wouldn’t have said, oh yeah, we’re 90% likely to have an event, because who would’ve thought Donald Trump would’ve given the speech at the Ellipse, not just call people to it, it will be wild. His speech at the Ellipse, Al, made it wild.

You co-authored a pretty remarkable study that looked at the political geography of January 6th insurrectionists. Can you break down the findings of that paper?

Yeah. So one of the things we know when we study as a scholar of political violence, we look at things other people just don’t look at because they just don’t know what’s important. We want to know, where did those people live, where’d they come from? And when you have indictments and then you have the court process in the United States, you get that as a fact. So now it does mean I had to have big research teams. There’s a hundred thousand pages of court documents to go through. But nonetheless, you could actually find this out. And we found out something stunning, Al, and it’s one of the reasons I came back to that issue of demographic change in America. What we found is that first of all, over half of those who stormed the capitol, that 1,576 were doctors, lawyers, accountants, white collar jobs, business owners, flower shop owners, if you’ve been to Washington DC, Al, they stayed at the Willard. I have never stayed at the Willard-

Yeah.

So my University of Chicago doesn’t provide that benefit.

That is crazy to me because I think the general knowledge or what you think is that most of the people that were there were middle class to lower, middle class to poor. At least that’s what I’ve always thought.

Yeah, it’s really stunning, Al. So we made some snap judgments on that day in the media that have just stayed with us over and over and over again. So the first is their economic profile. Whoa, these are people with something to lose. Then where did they come from? Well, it turned out they came from all 50 states, but huge numbers from blue states like California and New York. And then we started to look at, well, where are in the states are they coming from? Half of them came from counties won by Joe Biden, blue counties. So then we got even deeper into it. And what’s happening, Al, is they’re coming from the suburbs around the big cities. They’re coming from the suburbs around Chicago, Elmhurst, Schomburg. They’re not coming from the rural parts of Illinois. They’re coming… That’s why we call them suburban rage. They’re coming from the most diversifying parts of America, the counties that are losing the largest share of white population.

Back to that issue of population change, these are the people on the front lines of that demographic shift from America is a white majority democracy, to a white minority democracy. These are the counties that will impact where the leadership between Republican and Democrat have either just changed or are about to change. So they are right on the front lines of this demographic change and they are the folks with a lot to lose. And they showed up, some took private planes to get there. This is not the poor part, the white rural rage we’re so used to hearing about. This is well off suburban rage, and it’s important for us to know this, Al, because now we know this with definitiveness here. So it’s not like a hand-wavy guess. And it’s really important because it means you can get much more serious political violence than we’re used to thinking about.

Yeah. So what happens, let’s say if circumstances remain as they are, IE, the economy is not doing great, the middle class is getting squeezed and ultimately getting smaller, right? The affordability thing is a real issue. What wins?

The first big social change that’s feeding into our plight as a country is this demographic social change. There’s a second one, Al, which is that over the last 30 years, just as we’re having this demographic shift to a white minority democracy, we have been like a tidal wave flowing wealth to the top 1%. And we’ve been flowing wealth to the top 1% of both Republicans and Democrats. And that has been coming out of the bottom 90% of both Republicans and Democrats. Unfortunately, both can be poorer and worse off.

Whites can be worse off because of this shift of the wealth to the top 1%. And minorities can be worse off because of the shift. And you might say, well, wait a minute, maybe the American dream, we have social mobility. Well, sorry to say that at the same time, we’re shifting all this money to the top 1%, they’re spending that money to lock up and keep themselves to top 1%. It’s harder to get into that top 1% than it’s ever been in our society. And so what you see is, I just came back from Portland. What you see is a situation in Portland, which is a beautiful place, and wonderful place where ordinary people are constantly talking about how they’re feeling pinched and they’re working three jobs.

Yeah.

Just to make their middle, even lower middle class mortgages. I mean, this is what’s happening in America and why people have said, well, why does the establishment benefit me? Why shouldn’t I turn a blind eye if somebody’s going to attack the establishment viciously? Because it’s not working for a lot of folks, Al. And what I’m telling you is that you put these two together, you get this big demographic change happening, while you’re also getting a wealth shift like this and putting us in a negative sum society. Whoa, you really now have a cocktail where you’ve got a lot of people very angry, they’re not sure they want to have this shift and new people coming into power. And then on top of that, you have a lot of people that aren’t sure the system is worth saving.

I really wanted to dive in on the polls that you’ve been conducting, and one of those, there seems to be a small but growing acceptance of political violence from both Democrats and Republicans. What do you think is driving that?

I think these two social changes are underneath it, Al. So in our polls, just to put some numbers here, in 2025, we’ve done a survey in May and we did one in the end of September. So we do them every three or four months. We’ll do one in January I’m sure. And what we found is that on both sides of the political spectrum, high support for political violence. 30% in our most recent survey in September, 30% of Democrats support the use of force to prevent Trump from being president. 30%. 10% of Democrats think the death of Charlie Kirk is acceptable. His assassination was acceptable. These represent millions and millions of adults. That’s a lot of people, you see. What you’re saying is right, we’re seeing it. And I think what you’re really seeing here is as these two changes keep going, this era of violent populism is getting worse.

Yeah, I mean, so I’ve seen that Democrats and Republicans are accusing each other of using violent rhetoric. So in your research, what’s actually more common in this modern area where we are right now, is it right wing or left wing on the violent rhetoric, but also who’s actually doing it?

So we’ve had, just after the Kirk assassination, your listeners will probably remember and they can Google, we had these dueling studies come out almost instantly, because they’re kind of flash studies and they’re by think tanks in Washington DC. One basically saying there’s more right-wing violence than left. And one saying there’s more left-wing violence than right. Well, I just want your listeners to know that if you go under the hood, so my job is to be like the surgeon and really look at the data. You’re going to be stunned, maybe not so stunned, Al, because you live in the media, to learn the headlines and what’s actually in the content are very different.

Both studies essentially have the same, similar findings, although slightly different numbers, which is they’re both going up. They’re both going up. So it’s really not the world that it was either always been one side or now it’s newly the other. So the Trump administration’s rhetoric, JD Vance is wrong to say it’s all coming from the left, but it’s also wrong to say it’s all coming from the right. Now, what I think you’re also seeing, Al, is that the politicians, if left to their own devices, rarely, I’m sorry to say do the right thing, they cater to their own constituents. But there’s some exceptions and they’ve been helpful, I think. There’s two exceptions I want to draw attention to, one who’s a Republican and one who’s a Democrat.

On the Democratic side, the person who’s been just spectacular at trying to lower the temperature is Governor Shapiro. He’s a Democrat, the Governor of Pennsylvania. Josh Shapiro has given numerous interviews public, where he has condemned violence on all sides. He’s recognizing, as very few others are, that it’s a problem on both sides. He personally was almost burned to death, only minutes from being burned to death with his family here back in April. So he knows this personally about what’s at stake and he has done a great job, I think in recognizing that here.

Now on the Republican side, we have Erika Kirk and what Erika Kirk, of course the wife of Charlie Kirk who was assassinated did, was at Kirk’s funeral, she forgave the shooter. But let’s just be clear, she’s a very powerful voice here. Now, I think we need more of those kind of voices, Al, because you see, they really are figures people pay attention to. They’re listening to people like that. They have personal skin in the game and they can speak with sort of a lens on this few others can. But we need more people to follow in that wake and I wish we had that, and that can actually help as we go forward. And I’m hoping they, both of those people will do more and more events, and others who have been the targets of political violence will come out and do exactly the same thing.

I want to go back a little bit to January 6th and just talk about those insurrectionists. So when President Trump pardoned them, what was going through your mind?

That it was probably going to be the worst thing that happened in the second Trump presidency. And I know I’m saying quite a bit. I know that he’s insulted every community under the sun many, many, many times. But the reason I’m so concerned about this, Al, is that there are many ways we could lose our democracy, but the most worrisome way is through political violence. You see, because the political violence is what would make the democratic backsliding you’re so used to hearing about, irreversible. And then how might that actually happen? You get people willing to fight for Trump.

And already on January 6th, we collected all the public statements on their social media videos, et cetera, et cetera, in their trials about why those people did it. And the biggest reason they did it was Trump told them so, and they say this over and over and over again, I did it because Trump told me to do it. Well, now Trump has not forgiven them, he’s actually helping them. They may be suing the government to get millions of dollars in ‘restitution’. So this is going in a very bad way if you look at this in terms of thinking you’re going to deter people from fighting for Trump. And now of course others are going to know that as well on the other side. So again, this is a very dangerous move. Once he pardoned it, no president in history has ever pardoned people who use violence for him.

Yeah. So you have the insurrectionist bucket. But there’s another bucket that I’ve been thinking about a lot and I haven’t heard a lot of people talk about this, and that is that under President Trump, ICE has expanded exponentially.

Yep.

The amount of money that they get in the budget is-

Enormous.

Enormous. I’ve never seen an agency ramp up, A, within a term, like so much money and so many people-

It is about to become its own army.

Right.

And Al, what this means concretely is, we really don’t want any ICE agents in liberal cities in October, November, December. We don’t want to be in this world of predicting, well, Trump would never do X, he would never do Y. No, we’ve got real history now to know these are not good ways to think. What we just need to do is we need to recognize that when we have national elections that are actually going to determine the future of who governs our country, you want nothing like those agents who, many of them going to be very loyal to Trump, on the ground.

We should already be saying, look, we want this to stop on October 1st to December 31st, 2026, and we want to have a clean separation, so there’s no issue here of intimidation. And why would you say that? It’s because even President Trump, do you really want to go down in history as having intimidated your way to victory? So I think we really need to talk about this as a country, Al. And we really want a clean break here in the three months that will be the election, the run-up to the election, the voting, and then the counting of the vote.

In closing, one of the major themes of this conversation has been that America is changing into a white minority. The question that just keeps coming to mind to me is, as somebody who studies this, do you think that America can survive that transition?

Well, I am going to argue, and I’m still a little nervous about it, but we are in for a medium, soft landing.

Okay.

One of the things we see is that every survey we’ve done, 70% to 80% of Americans abhor political violence. And that’s on both sides of the aisle. And I think in many ways there are saving grace and it’s why, Al, when we have public conversations about political violence, what we see in our surveys is that helps to take the temperature down. Because you might worry that, oh, we’ll talk about it, we’ll stir people up and they’ll go… It seems to be the other way around, Al, as best we can tell. That there’s 70% to 80% of the population that really, really doesn’t want to go down this road. They know intuitively this is just a bad idea. This is not going to be good for the country, for their goals. And so they are the anchor of optimism that I think is going to carry us to that medium soft landing here.

I think we could help that more if we have some more politicians joining that anchor of optimism. They’re essentially giving voice to the 70%, 80%. And if you look at our no Kings protests, the number of people that have shown up and how peaceful they have been, how peaceful they have been, those are the 70% to 80%, Al. And I think that gives me a lot of hope for the future that we can navigate this peacefully. But again, I’m saying it’s a medium soft landing, doesn’t mean we’re getting off the hook without some more… I’m sorry to say, likely violence, yeah.

Listen, I’ll take a medium. I would prefer not at all, but the way things are going, I’ll take the medium. Thank you very much. Bob, Professor Robert Pape, it has been such a delight talking to you. Thank you so much for taking the time out.

Well, thank you Al, and thanks for such a thoughtful, great conversation about this. It’s just been wonderful. So thank you very much.

Continue Reading…

The Supreme Court Looks Likely to Uphold Transgender School Sports Bans

A Republican-appointed majority of Supreme Court justices appeared ready to uphold two state laws that ban transgender women and girls from participating on girls and women’s school sports teams. Though the scope of the rulings and how sweeping its implications will be both remain unclear, oral arguments on Tuesday showed there are likely at least five votes for upholding transgender sports bans in Idaho and West Virginia.

Justice Kavanaugh called sports a “zero-sum game” where trans players inevitably cost cis players.

The justices heard two cases on Tuesday, one brought by a college student in Idaho and one brought by a now-high school student in West Virginia. Going into oral arguments, there were fears that the justices—who have amassed a recent track record of ruling against the rights of trans people—might use the occasion to broadly undermine transgender rights, and not just in school sports. And in both cases, a majority of the court’s right wing appeared ready to rule in favor of the laws and against exceptions for either plaintiff. But whether or not the rulings would have further impact remained unclear. A decision in the cases is likely to come at the end of the term in June.

One key vote appears to be Chief Justice John Roberts, who six years ago joined the landmark Bostock decision finding that discrimination against gay and transgender people in employment contexts is illegal sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Bostock was a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, and joined by Roberts as well as four Democratic appointees. There are now just three Democratic appointees, lowering the current Bostock majority down to five. But on Tuesday, when it comes to whether to allow banning trans students from sports, Roberts’ comments indicated that he was switching teams.

“In terms of Bostock, I understand that to say that discrimination on the basis of transgender status is discrimination on the basis of sex,” Roberts said Tuesday. “But the question here is whether or not a sex-based classification is necessarily a transgender classification.”

The idea put forth by Roberts here is that while transgender discrimination is part of the sex discrimination Venn diagram, rules limiting team membership to a single-sex do not necessarily target transgender people. This may be technically true, but it’s too cute in this context. It allows Roberts to ignore the obvious, purposeful effect of discriminating against trans people by using terms like biological sex rather than the term transgender. There is a long history of discriminating against classes of people without specifically naming the target—literacy tests and grandfather clauses come to mind.

Roberts’ comments are unsurprising. He made essentially the same argument last year in authoring the Skrmetti decision_,_ in which the court allowed states to ban gender affirming medical care for transgender minors on the grounds that the prohibitions were based on age and on medical use—even though it was clear that the laws were targeted at transgender kids. In this way, Roberts’ logic provides a door to more anti-trans discrimination under the guise of legitimate purposes.

Gorsuch, who authored Bostock, was harder to pin down during oral argument, but he too indicated that he sees school sports as different from Bostock‘s workplace context. Even if Gorsuch were to surprise courtwatchers and side with the plaintiffs, it appeared unlikely that there is a fifth vote to either strike down the laws or, as the three Democratic appointees were pushing for, allow exceptions for transgender athletes who prove they do not have a biological advantage over their cisgender teammates.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised the possibility using the case to ban trans students’ participation in sports in states where they are currently allowed to join girls and women’s teams, and even repeatedly asked whether allowing transgender women and girls to play alongside cis women and girls actually violated the rights of those cis teammates under Title IX, which requires equal opportunities in education. He called sports a “zero-sum game” in which a trans player inevitably costs a cis player a spot on the team, or the podium, or a college recruitment offer. The ACLU’s Joshua Block, arguing for transgender teen Becky Pepper-Jackson of West Virginia, responded that girls lose these opportunities to other girls all the time. If they lose them to a trans girl whose medical transition has erased any biological advantage, then there’s no real difference.

As Block points out, the question of whether trans athletes have an advantage animates the arguments on both sides. The science is unclear. The plaintiffs argue that if they can show there is no unfair advantage, then they should be allowed to play.The states, as well as the Trump administration, argue there should not be exceptions.

The question of whether the biological sex requirement should be waived for trans athletes who can demonstrate no advantage was a long and technical part of oral argument, but it also was particularly revealing. One side says if there’s no advantage, let them play. The other side still says no.

Continue Reading…

Trump Urges Protesters in Iran to “Take Over Your Institutions” As Death Toll Reaches Thousands

With the death toll reportedly surging in the thousands as Iran continues to brutally suppress the nationwide demonstrations over the country’s economic collapse, President Donald Trump on Tuesday urged Iranians to keep protesting the regime.

“Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING,” he posted on social media. “TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price.”

In perhaps the strongest signal yet that the US could be planning to intervene, Trump added, “HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!!”

The president’s message came as the number of dead is estimated to be as many as 2,000 to 3,000. According to a report by the Associated Press, Iranian state TV first recognized the devastating death toll on Tuesday. Reports from inside the brutal crackdown have been limited after Iran shut down internet service last Thursday and blocked calls from outside the country.

The unrest, which started in December after the country’s currency collapsed, has prompted the Trump administration to threaten military strikes against Iran if it continues to kill protesters. “Diplomacy is always the first option for the president,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Monday. “However, with that said, the president has shown he is not afraid to use military options if he deems it necessary.” On Monday, Trump imposed a 25 percent tariff on any country that does business with Iran, potentially leading to further economic turmoil for Iran.

Iran’s head of the country’s Supreme National Security Council also shot back at Trump’s message on Tuesday with the following:

We declare the names of the main killers of the people of Iran:
1- Trump
2- Netanyahu pic.twitter.com/CqcQYKHbDJ

— Ali Larijani | علی لاریجانی (@alilarijani_ir) January 13, 2026

Trump’s encouraging words for protesters in Iran come as his administration cracks down on protesters at home after the killing of Renée Good, the 37-year-old woman who was shot multiple times and killed by an ICE officer in Minneapolis last week. The glaring dissonance has been especially evident in the administration’s accusation that Good was guilty of “domestic terrorism,” as well as its apparent approval of federal agents continuing to brutalize, and sometimes shoot, at protesters.

You don't get to change the facts because you don't like them. What happened in Minneapolis was an act of domestic terrorism.

Acts of domestic terrorism like this should be condemned by every politician and elected official. It shouldn’t be hard or remotely controversial. pic.twitter.com/AmZLCyRiMo

— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) January 11, 2026

As my colleague Jeremy Schulman wrote on Sunday, Trump’s second-term crackdown on dissent started with pro-Palestinian activists, and never stopped.

Early last year, ICE began arresting and attempting to deport people with legal immigration status—such as Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk—who had engaged in pro-Palestinian activism or expressed pro-Palestinian views. The administration was explicit about the new policy. Troy Edgar, Trump’s deputy secretary of Homeland Security, made clear that the government was seeking to remove Khalil in large part because he’d chosen to “protest” against Israel.

Continue Reading…

Why You Should Care About Trump’s War on the Fed

On Sunday night, news broke that the Justice Department has commenced a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, an unprecedented move that marked an aggressive escalation of Donald Trump’s ongoing effort to seize more control of the historically independent Fed, which sets monetary policy for the US economy.

For months, Trump has expressed frustration with Powell because the Fed has refused to decidedly lower interest rates. The administration claims that this investigation is not retaliation for the president’s dissatisfaction with the Fed, but rather about lies Powell allegedly has told about the $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed’s office building in Washington, DC. In a rare public statement on Sunday night, the usually reserved Powell called out this framing: “The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President,” he said.

Video message from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell: https://t.co/5dfrkByGyX pic.twitter.com/O4ecNaYaGH

— Federal Reserve (@federalreserve) January 12, 2026

The investigation has raised concerns among economists and the business world about the potential impact to the US economy if a first-in-history DOJ prosecution against the Fed chair is allowed to move forward—and how it might compare to cases of political intimidation or prosecution of central bankers in other countries, from Turkey to Argentina.

What can history teach us about what happens when a populist strongman with an idiosyncratic taste for low interest rates undermines central bank independence?

— Justin Wolfers (@justinwolfers.bsky.social) 2026-01-12T01:44:26.533Z

I spoke to Jason Furman about these questions. A Harvard economist, Furman previously served as President Barack Obama’s chief economist, leading his Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) during Obama’s second term. On Monday, Furman signed on to a statement decrying the Powell investigation that is cosigned by every living former Fed chair, as well as former Treasury secretaries and CEA chairs who’ve served both Democratic and Republican presidents.

Our conversation below, edited for length and clarity, explores the importance of central bank independence to strong economies, and the grave consequences that have arisen around the globe when that independence has been compromised.

Let’s back up for a second: Why is central bank independence important?

If you don’t have an independent central bank, you’re investing enormous power in a president who can abuse it and follow their whims.

There are also two broader arguments: Number one is that we have fiat money, which means you can print as much as you want, whenever you want. That is a wonderful, amazing thing to help respond to recessions and prevent depressions, but it also can be really abused and cause a lot of inflation. So, we need some way to make sure that it’s limited. An independent central bank is the way to have your cake and eat it too—a fiat currency that you can use aggressively to respond to recessions, without a huge amount of inflation.

Finally, there’s been an awful lot of economics research for several decades now which has documented that the more independent your central bank, the lower your inflation, the lower your interest rates, at no cost at all, in terms of recessions or higher unemployment and the like. So, it really does empirically seem to be a free lunch.

The statement you signed on Monday, along with other economists who’ve served at the highest levels of government, is short—just four sentences. One of them says that this attack on Powell is akin to what happens in nations that have far less developed economies than America’s—what you call “emerging markets with weak institutions.” What are some of them?

There are examples in other places, though many of them get complicated. In Zimbabwe, they prosecuted the central banker. The central banker probably had messed up pretty badly the way they handled monetary policy, but they also messed it up badly because they listened to the government. So they listened to the government, caused a lot of inflation, and then got prosecuted for it. Indonesia had a case like this, though it’s possible that the central bank actually was somewhat corrupt and had misused money.

So when you start looking at cases in emerging markets with weaker institutions, you know, there’s a certain amount of messiness and complexity that differs from the unfortunately simple, clear-cut thing happening the United States right now: Jay Powell is not corrupt. The people prosecuting him are.

What happened in these other markets once central bank independence was compromised?

“I don’t think the United States is going to be like Zimbabwe anytime soon, but the reason it’s not going to be is precisely if we know about those examples, talk about them, and make sure that they don’t happen here.”

In Argentina, they ended up with so much inflation they stopped publishing the data. They had a massive default, a very, very deep recession, and ended up with the largest bailout program in the history of the International Monetary Fund. The poverty rate went up. The unemployment rate went up. This was in 2015, but in 2001, Argentina had a similar recession, and dozens of people were killed in demonstrations related to it. Zimbabwe ended up with inflation in the trillions of percent—just absolutely mind-boggling—and almost complete economic collapse.

So these, to me, are very, very extreme warnings for the United States. Of course, I don’t think the United States is going to be like Zimbabwe anytime soon, but the reason it’s not going to be is precisely if we know about those examples, talk about them, and make sure that they don’t happen here.

You also mentioned these countries in a post on Bluesky, where you listed governments that have either prosecuted or threatened to prosecute central bankers as political intimidation or punishment for monetary policy. It’s a long list! Is there one country that is a particularly relevant example for what seems to be starting here?

The closest analogy to what President Trump is trying to do is what President Recep Erdogan did in Turkey.

So Turkey had a relatively high inflation rate. It was in the low double digits, and President Erdogan thought that the way to reduce inflation was to cut interest rates. When his central banker refused, the person was fired. In another case, a central banker was threatened with criminal prosecution and investigated for officially unrelated things—but it was obviously about the choice of monetary policy. That central banker was forced out in the face of this investigation.

Then Erdogan got someone along the lines of what he wanted: They cut interest rates dramatically. Inflation took off and rose to 85 percent. There has been a lot of suffering in Turkey in the years since, and a lot of political discontent. The systems that are meant to protect central banks from being overly politicized failed in Turkey, and the result was a very serious crisis for people there.

So Erdogan prosecuted central bankers for something unrelated—but it was clearly a punishment for monetary policy the leader didn’t like. That rings true with what is now happening with Powell, where the investigation is ostensibly into his statements about the renovation of the Fed’s DC headquarters. But how far does that analogy extend? How likely is it that the chain of events turns out like they did in Turkey?

I do think the United States is very different from Turkey, and so Trump is much less likely to succeed. There are a few protections here. One is that monetary policy is made by the votes of 12 people on a committee (the Federal Open Market Committee, the Fed’s primary policymaking body), and the chair of that committee is just one of the 12. I think that those 12 people historically often did what the chair told them to do. But they are getting increasingly independent. And if they thought it was Donald Trump trying to tell them what to do, they would get more independent.

“What Donald Trump would love is to be able to change the independence of the Central Bank tomorrow. To do that, he would need to be able to fire people or intimidate them into leaving with criminal prosecution.”

The second protection is the Senate, which has had way too little backbone over the last year, but when it comes to things that might mess with financial markets and the stock market, you’re seeing a little bit of backbone: Two senators have already come out strongly critical of this, talking about concrete actions they’re going to take to not confirm anyone else to the Fed as long as this [Powell investigation] is going on.

And then finally, it’s just hard for me to imagine that US courts would follow through. With [the Justice Department prosecutions of] James Comey and Leticia James, the courts threw those cases out. And if there was a really, truly spurious case here—and this looks like a really, truly spurious case—I have enough faith in the legal system, which has placed some constraints on Trump in general and looks like it’s going to place more constraints when business and the economy are at stake.

This is the latest and most dramatic turn in a list of actions the administration has taken to assert more control over the Fed—like Trump’s ongoing court battle to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook. Why do you think the Trump administration is doing this?

I think Trump has a deep-seated conviction from decades in the real estate industry that low interest rates let you do more. My guess is the low interest rates help him personally. But I actually don’t think that’s the essential motive here. I think he is capable of all sorts of personal corruption, but in this case, it’s much more a mindset of: You think it’s good for you, you think it’s good for the world, and you think it’s good for a lot of the people around you.

So what Donald Trump would love is to be able to change the independence of the Central Bank tomorrow. To do that, he would need to be able to fire people or intimidate them into leaving with criminal prosecution. My guess is the courts will stop that from happening. So then, the threat here is not a sort of instant decapitation—it is a longer-term, patient effort.

Even if the courts stop a prosecution from happening, Trump does get one appointment to a vacancy, both Fed governor and chair slot this year. He gets another appointment two years from now. Maybe someone else leaves early, and he gets another appointment. Over six years President Trump and his successor could appoint multiple people and basically use that to take over.

If that longer-term takeover happens, how much closer do you think monetary policy gets to some of these extreme emerging market situations that you’ve talked about?

I don’t think it’s something that would happen super-fast, but it could last a long time: You know, Argentina was a great economy, and now it’s very different than the United States. And central bank independence really is one of those few items you’d have on the list as to why those two countries are so different.

So I don’t know how much closer it gets. It depends on just how rigid the people appointed are. And just how much they’re willing to ignore warning signs in markets—and their own appearance with the public that they would be failing.

Continue Reading…

This Bill Could Add to Mobile Home Residents’ Already Outsize Energy Costs

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

On Friday morning, the US House of Representatives approved a bill that would get the Department of Energy (DOE) out of the business of energy standards for mobile homes, also known as manufactured homes, and could set the efficiency requirements back decades.

Advocates say the changes will streamline the regulatory process and keep the upfront costs of manufactured homes down. Critics argue that less efficient homes will cost people more money overall and mostly benefit builders.

“This is not about poor people. This is not about working people,” said Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), who grew up in a manufactured home, on the House floor before the vote. “This is about doing the bidding of corporations.”

The average income of a manufactured home resident is around $40,000, and they “already face disproportionately high energy costs and energy use,” said Johanna Neumann, senior director of the Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy at Environment America. That, she said, is why more stringent energy codes are so important. But the Energy Department, which oversees national energy policy and production, didn’t always have a say over these standards.

Starting in 1974, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, became tasked with setting building codes for manufactured homes. But HUD last updated the relevant energy-efficiency standards in 1994, and they have long lagged behind modern insulation and weatherization practices. So in 2007, Congress assigned that task to the DOE. It still took 15 years and a lawsuit before President Joe Biden’s administration finalized new rules in 2022 that were projected to reduce utility bills in double-wide manufactured homes by an average of $475 a year. Even with higher upfront costs taken into account, the government predicted around $5 billion in avoided energy bills over 30-years.

At the time, the manufactured housing industry argued that DOE’s calculations were wrong and that the upfront cost of the home should be the primary metric of affordability. Both the Biden and now Trump administrations have delayed implementation of the rule and compliance deadlines, which still aren’t in effect.

This House legislation would eliminate the DOE rule and return sole regulatory authority to HUD. Lesli Gooch, CEO of the Manufactured Housing Institute, a trade organization, describes it as essentially a process bill aimed at removing bureaucracy that has stood in the way of action. “The paralysis is because you have two different agencies that have been tasked with creating energy standards,” Gooch said. “You can’t build a house to two different sets of blueprints.”

Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), agreed and called the move “commonsense regulatory reform” in a letter urging his colleagues to support the bill. Ultimately, 57 Democrats joined 206 Republicans in voting for the bill, and it now moves to the Senate, where its prospects are uncertain.

If the bill becomes law, however, the only operative benchmark would be HUD’s 1994 code and it could take years to make a new one. While more than half of the roughly 100,000 homes sold in the US each year already meet or exceed the DOE’s 2022 efficiency rules, the nonprofit American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy estimates that tens of thousands are still built to just the outdated standard. “Families are struggling,” said Mark Kresowik, senior policy director at the council, and he does not expect HUD under Trump to move particularly quickly on a fix. “I have not seen this administration lowering energy bills.”

For now, though, it’s the Senate’s turn to weigh in.

Continue Reading…

An Expert Weighs in on Hurdles to Suing the ICE Officer Who Fatally Shot Renée Good

If the ICE officer who shot and killed Renée Nicole Good in Minneapolis last week is not prosecuted criminally, or even if he is, can he also be sued?

Legal experts have different takes. Last week I spoke with a police misconduct attorney in Minnesota who seemed hopeful about the odds that Good’s family might face in court. Others I spoke with were somewhat less optimistic. Winning lawsuits against cops who kill “is challenging by design,” as Michelle Lapointe, legal director of the American Immigration Council, an immigrant rights advocacy group, wrote on the group’s website.

To flesh that out, Icaught up with Lauren Bonds of the National Police Accountability Project, a nationalgroup that works with civil rights attorneys to file lawsuits over police misconduct. Our conversation below, edited for length and clarity, explores the legal hurdles to beating an ICE officer like Good’s killer, Jonathan Ross, in civil court.

It’s notoriously tough to sue police, but it’s even harder when the officer is federal. What are the challenges?

You’re absolutely right: All the problems you have with suing a regular law enforcement officer exist, and then you have additional barriers. There are two distinct pathways to sue a federal officer for misconduct or excessive force: One is a Bivens action—a court-created pathway that allows you to sue federal agents for constitutional violations. And then there’s the Federal Tort Claims Act, a statutory provision that allows for these lawsuits to move forward.

The problem with Bivens is it’s been really, really narrowed in recent years by this particular Supreme Court. First there was Hernandez v. Mesa, a 2020 case where a Border Patrol agent shot and killed a child on the other side of the border in Mexico. And the court said it didn’t fit within the narrow confines of Bivens. And then there was a case in 2022, Egbert v. Boule, that foreclosed any new Bivens action: Basically the court said that this type of civil rights violation is something you can pursue under Bivens, but if it’s anything new, we’re not going that far.

The Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) is where more people are going to get relief for violations by federal officers. It basically says that any tort that you would suffer under state law [such as false arrest, assault, or battery] you can sue the federal government for—with vast exceptions: There’s one that comes up a lot for law enforcement cases, the “discretionary function” exception, which says an officer can’t be sued for anything that he or she needs to use discretion for. Courts have done a good job of interpreting that to mean discretion in terms of policymaking decisions, but some courts get it wrong. So those are the two pathways—they’re both narrow, and they’re both complicated.

There’s the issue of qualified immunity for police officers, or even sovereign immunity for the federal government, right?

Sovereign immunity [a legal principle that says the federal government can’t be sued without its consent] wouldn’t come up in an FTCA case, because it’s a statute in which Congress waived sovereign immunity and agreed to be sued under certain circumstances. It does come up as a defense when [the government is] saying, Oh, this case falls within an exception, but they can’t assert it otherwise.

If you were to file a constitutional claim under Bivens, they could invoke qualified immunity, another protection that law enforcement officers have; it asks whether there is case law in the circuit that would have put the officer on notice that their conduct was unconstitutional. [If not, the officer is essentially off the hook.]

A lot of courts have taken that requirement to an extreme place, basically saying it’s got to be identical facts—like there are cases that have been thrown out on qualified immunity because a person was sitting with their hands up versus standing with their hands up. That level of granularity has been applied to defeat civil rights claims. And so it’s a difficult barrier to overcome.

Given how hard it can be to sue, what about criminal charges?

It’s definitely possible. There isn’t any immunity from criminal prosecution that federal officers are entitled to, none that I’m aware of anyway. I know this issue came up when some ICE raids were planned to take place in San Francisco back in early fall, with the DA of San Francisco asserting that she did have authority to pursue criminal action against ICE agents if they broke California laws.

What about the Supremacy Clause? It protects federal officers from state prosecution if they were performing their federal duties, right?

The Supremacy Clause protects federal officers when they’re engaged in legal activity, and so if their conduct is illegal, they wouldn’t be protected. So in Minneapolis, if the officer engaged in a Fourth Amendment violation, he’d be beyond the protection of the Supremacy Clause.

This issue has come up with California, too. The Trump administration is suing California over new state legislation that would create a crime for wearing a mask and obscuring your identity if you’re a law enforcement officer. And it’s suing Illinois [for a state law that allows residents to sue ICE agents in certain circumstances]. Those lawsuits have asserted that the Supremacy Clause makes these [state] laws unconstitutional—that you can’t take any action against federal law enforcement officers under state law.

Have you heard of cases in this past year of ICE officers being sued or prosecuted for misconduct?

I haven’t seen any prosecutions yet. In terms of lawsuits, we’ve seen an increase in FTCA cases against DHS agents.

Regarding the recent killing in Minneapolis, what do you see as the main path to accountability, and the main challenges?

There’s going to be all the standard barriers that we talked about, including the Supremacy Clause defense, particularly because you have so many high-ranking federal officials, including the president and Secretary Noem, who are saying that this shooting was the right thing to do and was consistent with him carrying out his obligations.

On the civil side, this could be a potentially difficult Bivens or FTCA case. I would note, since we’re on the heels of January 6: Ashli Babbitt, the woman who died during the Capital insurrection, filed a FTCA case, or her family did, and got a $5 million settlement from the government. It’s hard to factually distinguish these cases.

The federal government has authority to settle a case like that, but since the Trump administration is taking a very opposing position against Good, the woman who died in Minneapolis, I would be surprised if they would be willing to put money on the table.

Continue Reading…