Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

Kash Patel Again Denies Firing Iran Experts Before Iran War

In an oversight hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, FBI Director Kash Patel did little to acknowledge the continuing fallout around the firing of agents for their role in investigating President Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents—even though they were experts in tracking Iranian threats.

Several outlets have reported that at least a dozen fired FBI counterintelligence staffers belonged to a unit that specializes in investigating potential danger from Iran. The firings took place just days before the Trump administration launched its military campaign against the country in February.

During the hearing, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) referenced those reports in his questioning: “Do you think firing the president’s political opponents is more important than retaining the decades of experience and expertise monitoring intelligence threats from Iran?”

“The individuals you are referring to are not experts [on Iran],” the FBI director responded. “I think what’s most important is [to] not have a weaponized FBI, and I will endeavor every single day to make sure we have no one there that is doing that.”

Blumenthal pointed out that Patel’s firings in effect politicized and weaponized the FBI against its own employees—despite previous claims that he would not target agents for participating in investigations.

“How can you make those two statements consistent?” the senator asked.

“Simple. If you weaponize law enforcement, you don’t get to work at the FBI,” Patel said—a remark that doesn’t actually address the question.

BLUMENTHAL: They were fired bc they worked on the classified docs case involving Trump. Do you think firing president's political opponents is more important than retraining decades of experience & expertise monitoring threats from Iran?PATEL: What's most important is not having a weaponized FBI

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-09-15T15:08:54.147Z

In a May Senate hearing, Patel also denied, multiple times, the accuracy of reporting that Iran experts were dismissed just before the current war began. Replying to Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Patel added that the situation was the subject of ongoing litigation—three FBI agents who were fired filed a class-action suit in March alleging a retribution campaign for investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election—and claimed that he could not discuss it further. He again rejected the validity of the reporting in a March House committee hearing.

Although not firing thatgroup Iran investigators wouldn’t mean the Trump administration would have avoided the current war—which has killed thousands of Iranian civilians, over a dozen US servicemembers, and included several deadly military operations in neighboring countries—or even maintained a ceasefire later on, it does, yet again, suggest that targeting the administration’s opponents remains a greater priority for the White House than ensuring the semblance of government function.

Whether there will be any actual accountability for the FBI’s conduct is another question—one that doesn’t seem to interest Patel.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The EPA Would Rather Monitor Water for Abortion Pills than Pollution

With his characteristic deregulatory zeal, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced before an audience of G20 energy ministers in oil-rich Houston, Texas, that his agency would eliminate climate pollution standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants. “For over 15 years, the Obama and Biden administrations implemented a war on coal to destroy reliable and affordable energy,” Zeldin said in an EPA press statement issued during the Houston meeting. “The Trump Administration has come in to protect American energy and to make sure you can afford to keep the lights on.”

This announcement was yet another example of the Trump administration’s eagerness to reinforce what Republicans have long considered a priority: freedom from government intrusion or regulation. But only a few days before Zeldin reassured energy executives that the government would no longer prioritize protecting public health, the EPA announced a new study that would test the country’s water supply for abortion medication, contraception, and hormones used in gender-affirming care, along with over 1,000 other medications and chemicals. “We have heard loud and clear that Americans are concerned about potential unknown pollutants lurking in their drinking water,” Zeldin wrote in the study press release.

“The Pro-Life Generation is finally being heard!”

The testing of abortion medication has been championed by anti-abortion groups for years, especially by Kristan Hawkins, the leader of Students for Life, who tweeted a video of herself receiving the news that the study was made public. In her post, she wrote:

“BREAKING: The EPA will now test water for abortion pill pollution!! The FDA has recklessly, negligently allowed chemical abortion pills on the market and deregulated them. They’ve killed millions of babies, harmed mothers, and polluted our water for 26 years. For the last year, we’ve been calling on President Trump’s EPA to find out what’s in our water. After more than three years of innovative water testing, a peer-reviewed research paper, and the introduction of legislation in states, the Pro-Life Generation is finally being heard!”

The EPA’s unrelated but tandem announcements reveal an agency that has fundamentally overhauled its policies toward environmental and human health in pursuit of the Trump administration’s “energy dominance” and “Make America Healthy Again” agendas. Rolling back power plant pollution standards will lead to higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth’s warming to deadlier levels, as well as increased levels of smog, mercury, and lead contamination, which can cause health problems.

Coal and natural gas-fueled power plants are the second-largest carbon polluter in the United States behind the transportation sector. Under the Biden administration, carbon pollution rules for power plant emissions standards would have reduced carbon emissions by 1.38 billion metric tons by 2047. The recently announced plan will repeal these Biden-era regulations and could prevent future administrations from curbing carbon emissions. First reported by Bloomberg News, the EPA’s latest move caps off a year and a half of the agency’s overhaul of federal climate policy. In February, the EPA rescinded similar climate vehicle standards and the 2009 endangerment finding, the landmark ruling that asserted greenhouse gases threaten human health.

Much to the dismay of anti-abortion activists, the number of abortions in the United States has actually increased since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. One reason for this has been access to abortion medication, the two-drug regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol that act to terminate pregnancies. This has activated the anti-abortion movement to find new approaches to ending the procedure, and one of them has been environmental: focusing on the alleged presence of these medications in the water supply.

After Republican lawmakers urged the EPA to take up the water study in June, Nathan Donley, the environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The 19th that, compared to other pharmaceuticals, mifepristone is taken as a one-time dose by a small portion of the population. “There are legitimate water quality threats that we need to attack and rectify in a regulatory manner,” Donley said. “And then there are things that are out in left field that just distract people.”

Meanwhile, monitoring the water supply—which Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote will “give Americans the truth about what is in their water”—may actually co-opt environmental policy to pursue anti-abortion policy. “I am deeply concerned,” Betsy Southerland, a former career scientist in EPA’s Office of Water, told Politico. “If there is any detectable level of mifepristone or its metabolites, the anti-abortion groups will scream that we are unknowingly aborting fetuses by drinking public tap water.”

According to Politico, the EPA insists the study will only determine if a chemical is present in the water supply, not its concentration. But pro-choice activists caution that the study could still pave the way for abortion access restrictions. “If the test finds any trace of abortion pills, conservatives will use it to legitimize their new legal front in the war on reproductive rights,” wrote activist and writer Jessica Valenti on her Substack, Abortion, Every Day. “The cruelty really is the point here, not science or health.”

As for the EPA’s other effort? Environmental groups are already planning their legal challenges to the EPA’s latest climate policy rollback. “The Trump administration is handing the fossil fuel industry a license to keep polluting,” Holly Bender, chief program officer for the Sierra Club, told The Guardian. “This is full-throated climate denial while the climate crisis happens in real time and a shocking betrayal of the American public.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Meet the Candidates Putting Bullets in Flock Cameras

In a campaign ad released Monday, Seth Bodnar—an Independent candidate running for U.S. Senate in Montana—warns viewers that Flock Safety cameras are tracking Americans “getting groceries,” “going to church,” and “buying ammo for the season.”

He then sets a surveillance camera on a tree stump, pulls a shotgun from his car, and just absolutely blows the thing away.

Trump says he ‘likes’ Flock cameras,” Bodnar wrote in a social media post. “I say ‘Flock off.”

Trump says he "likes" Flock cameras. I say "Flock off." pic.twitter.com/NekA0w4VJd

— Seth Bodnar for Montana (@SethBodnarForMT) September 14, 2026

Given America’s deep-seated gun culture—and mounting public frustration over automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras—it makes a kind of sense that Bodnar isn’t the only candidate for national office taking aim at automated police surveillance.

Adam Heimerman, an Independent running for Congress in Tennessee’s 2nd Congressional District, allegedly used a shotgun to shoot four Flock cameras this past July. He couldn’t stand the sight of them on his way to a job as a river guide, he told the Washington Post.

So, while Bodnar (presumably) bought his own camera to shoot, Heimerman (allegedly) did some target practice with four government-owned license plate readers.

“When people act out in a manner that we’re witnessing, things have gotten bad, and they no longer feel like they’re being heard,” Heimerman said at the time. “People are tired of being told to sit down and be quiet and write a letter.”

Heimerman’s chances of winning against Republican incumbent Tim Burchett were already slim before he was hit with four felony counts of vandalism. Bodnar, who was until recently President of the University of Montana, might have a better shot. The most recent poll in his race has him only eight points behind his Republican opponent Kurt Alme—and Bodnar’s anti-surveillance stance might just close that gap.

In his camera-blitzing video, Bodnar points out that Alme has refused to take a position on surveillance. Other Republicans do not seem to have the same reservations. In the past month, the Republican governors of Florida and Texas have backed off of funding ALPRs on their roads, citing privacy concerns; in late August, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) launched an investigation into Flock Safety for assembling an “unprecedented national surveillance network” without Americans’ consent.

But divisions around the technology are emerging within the Republican Party. While Hawley might take the side of the camera-shooters—and of the Americans who share their surveillance concerns, if not their explosive tactics—President Donald Trump has declared his support for the cameras.

“I sort of like them…because of law enforcement, but some people don’t,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One last week, as the Washington Post reported. “They think it’s an infringement. I like them.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

“A Sword of Damocles”: Salvadoran TPS Holders Are in Limbo as DHS Does Nothing

September 9 loomed large for the approximately 170,000 Salvadorans living in the United States with humanitarian protection for immigrants from crisis-stricken countries. The Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for El Salvador was set to expire that day, potentially putting one of the largest groups of TPS holders in the country at risk of losing legal status and making them vulnerable to deportation.

But the deadline came and went, withoutthe Trump administration either formally renewing or axing the protection for that population. Instead, the program’s website now says that an “announcement on El Salvador’s TPS will be made at the appropriate time.” Until then, Salvadorans with TPS will continue to be protected and authorized to work, according to the government.

The reprieve, while welcome, leaves these TPS holders who have lived and worked in the United States for decades in limbo. Or, as Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council put it, “with a sword of Damocles over their heads.”

“The only thing we know is that TPS for El Salvador is still alive and protecting people from detention and deportation,” says José Palma, a coordinator with the National TPS Alliance, an organization led by beneficiaries of the program. “But we are waiting for the official announcement on how long that protection is going to last.”

The Trump administration has yet to post a notice in the Federal Register, and under the statute, if the Homeland Security secretary doesn’t decide to renew or terminate a TPS designation 60 days before the expiration date, the protection is automatically extended for six months. That means, Palma says,“If they were to interpret the law based on how other presidents have interpreted it before, Salvadorans should be protected for at least six months.”

But Palma and other advocates worry Trump could still try to terminate TPS for El Salvador. The administration has previously moved to end TPS for more than a dozen countries, including Venezuela, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court gave Trump the green light to terminate the protection for more than 350,000 Haitians and Syrians, with likely implications for several other nationalities and some 1.3 million recipients.

The justices ruled that the DHS secretary’s decisions about TPS aren’t subject to judicial review, barring most legal challenges against possible violations of the statute. Following the decision, the Trump administration started targeting Haitians for arrest and deportation. As my colleague Laura Morel reported, many are being forced to choose between staying in the United States without legal status or returning to a country experiencing a humanitarian crisis.

DHS didn’t respond to questions about the secretary’s review of protection for El Salvadorans or the status of TPS recipients’ work authorization, only sharing with Mother Jones the same statement that appeared on the website.

The plight of Salvadorans fleeing the country’s violent, twelve-year civil war was a determining factor behind the legislative framework for TPS. When Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1990 establishing the humanitarian program, it did so in part to address concerns about the inconsistent nature of—and political bias inherent to—the US government’s practice of suspending deportations that benefited certain nationalities but not others.

Throughout the 1980s, the United States had funded El Salvador’s bloody civil war, providing itsmilitary-led government with $1 million a day in aid to fight a coalition of left-wing guerrilla groups. In keeping with its Cold War foreign policy interests, the Reagan administration then denied protection to the vast majority of Salvadorans fleeing the country, characterizing them as economic migrants.

Years of grassroots organizing had put the issue of Salvadoran refugees at the center of the debate. Signed into law by President George H. W. Bush, the ImmigrationAct of 1990 explicitly designated Salvadorans for protection, and they became the first group to be granted TPS. Although that protection ended in 1992, El Salvador was later designated again in 2001, aftertwo devastating earthquakes made it impossible for Salvadorans in the United States to return safely to their home country.

“It wouldn’t exist without our community, and now they’re losing this protection that has helped so many other nations.”

“It was the Salvadoran community that actually pushed for the creation of TPS,” says Abel Nuñez, executive director at the Central American Resources Center. “It wouldn’t exist without our community, and now they’re losing this protection that has helped so many other nations.”

Arnoldo Díaz was one of the young organizers advocating for what would become TPS. As a leader of the student reform movement in El Salvador, he was considered a national security threat bythe government, and he fled the country in 1982 at the behest of his family. When I met Díaz last year in Silver Spring, Maryland, he recalled how his best friend died in his arms after getting shot at a demonstration to support an oil factory strike. “I’m not the first one, and I’m not going to be the last one to die in this struggle,” he told Díaz, who later survived an ambush by a death squad. “Just promise me that you’ll never give up on our people and will never stop fighting.”

In 1987, an immigration judge granted Díaz political asylum, despite the US government’s efforts to deport him back to Central America. “It always gives me goosebumps when I remember it,” he said of the courtroom packed with supporters. Díaz, who became a US citizen in 1995, has kept the promise to his friend to continue fighting.

“It’s heartbreaking,” Díaz says of the current situation. “Keeping people in limbo like that is psychological torture to push people to self-deport.” A co-coordinator with the National TPS Alliance, Díaz said the organization is hosting a legal clinic and offering family preparedness advice, including on how parents can use a “power of attorney” to give temporary custody of US citizen children to other caretakers in the event they have to leave the country. “We don’t want to tell people to give up because we are not giving up,” he says. “But also be ready just in case because you never know.”

TPS for El Salvador has been renewed several times over the years, making it one of the longest-running designations of all nationalities. Having been shielded from deportation for more than two decades, TPS holders from El Salvador have deep roots in US communities. More than 30,000 of them live in the Washington, DC, metro area.

The uncertainty around the future of the program means Salvadorans with TPS are preparing for different scenarios. “Before the announcement, the level of anxiety was already increasing because they didn’t know what they could do,” Nuñez says. “People who did not want to be here in violation of the law were already making plans to leave the country…so they’re still very concerned.”

Without clarity on how much longer they may have valid protected status, TPS holders may encounter challenges in obtaining driver’s licenses. They also have questions about employment authorization. “There are employers that are saying, ‘No, I can’t keep you working. I need to know that you are authorized to work, and therefore come back when you have the proper documentation,'” Palma says.

Palma has lived in the United States since leaving El Salvador in 1998 and was granted TPS in 2001. Like so many TPS holders, he lives in a mixed-status household; he has four US citizen children, and his wife is a legal permanent resident. Depending on what happens to TPS, he says his family is wondering if they should wait before buying a new car, or even if they should sell their home. “We have to be prepared for whatever happens,” he says.

The Trump administration has repeatedly argued that TPS is supposed to be temporary and should only last as long as conditions in the country remain unsafe for people to return. The State Department’s advisory for El Salvador puts it at the lowest level of risk for travelers, citing a decline in crime and gang activity. But international organizations have long decried widespread human rights violations under Trump-aligned Nayib Bukele’s strongman rule and state of exception. Earlier this year, a group of experts found the violations committed by the Salvadoran government—imprisonment, torture, enforced disappearance—may amount to crimes against humanity.

Palma doesn’t dispute that TPS was meant to be a reprieve, but he says the circumstances of Salvadorans and other Central Americans are unique because of how long they’ve been in the United States. For Palma, the administration should stop the detention and deportation of Salvadorans while Congress considers a path to legal status for TPS holders. “If somebody from El Salvador has TPS,” Palma explains, “that means they have been doing everything the government has been asking for the last 25 years.”

“Twenty-five years is not temporary,” Díaz says. “25 years is a lifetime. They’ve put all their youth into this country. We can’t just tell them, pick up your stuff, close your business, take your children, and go home.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Emily St. John Mandel Still Has Hope

Emily St. John Mandel is perhaps best known for her 2014 novel Station Eleven, which presciently depicted a devastating global pandemic. Her new novel, Exit Party,out this week, isn’t much sunnier: This one imagines the aftermath of the collapse of the United States as a nation, and both the banality and turmoil that might follow. Exit Party centers around Ari Waker—a character Mandel first introduced in her 2010 novel The Singer’s Gun—who has just been released from prison as the United States settles into its first spring after civil war. She and her roommate attend a party to celebrate the end of curfew, but something isn’t quite right. The party’s host steps outside for some air, and is never seen again.

As I read Exit Party earlier this year, ICE agents were taking over cities like Chicago and Minneapolis, scanning the faces of protesters for some unknown database. The US and Israel had just launched a military assault against Iran. The CDC confirmed 1,000 measles cases, four times the number from the same period last year. Mandel’s speculation about the disintegration of the country didn’t seem as far-fetched as her pandemic might’ve seemed in 2014. Still, I was surprised she was writing about such a dark topic, when in a 2023 Reddit AMA she mentioned that she’d written Station Eleven before having a child, and that she might not have been able to do so after, because “imagining the world ending with my daughter in it is unbearable.”

When we spoke earlier this summer, I asked how she was able to overcome that impulse. Though she said that looking at these ideas “dead on is a little bit unbearable,” the “speculative cloak” helps. And ultimately, what she wants readers to know, is that this novel, like her others, is full of hope, too.

Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

There’s probably going to be a reaction to your new book, Exit Party, that’s like, “Oh no, the author who wrote a book about a pandemic years before Covid hit is now writing about the fall of the United States! What does she know?”

I know nothing. I’m not clairvoyant—I just read the news. There’s something incredibly uncomfortable about thinking about some of these scenarios that I’ve written about in Station Eleven, The Glass Hotel, and now Exit Party, but you may have to be willing to live with some discomfort to create interesting art. So I tried to lean into my fear and anxiety around the very dangerous path that the country is on.

What led you to want to write about this?

I am drawn to writing about the aftermath of catastrophe. There’s something very clarifying about how we respond to disasters as people. I’ve been thinking about this idea of the United States fracturing in a serious way since the early pandemic, when there was a real shortage of personal protective equipment and obviously a total vacuum of leadership in the first Trump administration. There was this weird moment where Northeastern states banded together to buy PPE as a bloc. I remember looking at these states on a map, thinking, “Well, here are these contiguous states working together to advance their interests, kind of at odds with the surrounding country. This kind of looks like a country. This kind of looks like a fracturing.” This feeling of there almost being two countries superimposed on top of the same geography with totally different cultures and ideas and understanding of reality—it’s that idea that animated the whole writing of Exit Party and channeling my political anxieties into fiction. Sometimes looking at something dead-on is a little bit unbearable, but putting it in this kind of speculative cloak makes it easier to consider more deeply.

You talk about your anxieties around the news being channeled into Exit Party, and surveillance seems to be a big part of that.

I think that we’ve surrendered a lot of our privacy, and we’ve done that very voluntarily. We’ve clicked on the videos; we’ve looked at the pictures. This dossier is being built around us. Another thing that scares me is the situation these days with ICE, and how it’s become normalized to have a secret police. Try to imagine how shocking it would have been five years ago for there to be a police force that floods the streets in American cities with masks on their faces. That’s not something that I think most of us would have anticipated for the United States or that we thought was possible in any kind of serious way, outside the conspiratorial fringes of the internet.

Early in Exit Party, some characters have a conversation about how boring living through catastrophe can be.

There’s kind of a banality of catastrophe, which I remember from the 2008 financial collapse, where you’re checking the news every day and after a while, there’s this feeling of “Yep, world still ending, still feels terrible.” I remember that from Covid, where you go from hitting refresh on the mortality graphs to thinking, “Well, yeah, okay, it’s another absolutely god-awful moment in a whole sequence of them.” There’s something both terrifying and hopeful in human psychology around the way that we can get used to anything and adapt to anything.

Yet your books are ultimately quite hopeful.

If a book is completely bleak, that feels implausible to me. Look, it’s a dark time in a lot of ways, but there is still a lot of joy, and there are still people resisting in honestly kind of silly ways that are super-effective. The actions we saw among citizens in Minneapolis were spectacular. Like that level of community organization and resistance and relentlessness in documenting what was going on and people helping their neighbors—that was pretty wonderful. You hear about things like that, and you think, “You know what? There is actually some hope here, even though the country does seem to be flirting with authoritarianism.”

A character in Exit Party says, “No country lasts forever.” Is that, to you, a hopeful statement or a terrifying one at this point in time?

That’s something that I found myself thinking about in the first Trump administration, when there was such despair on the left, and we comforted ourselves with this idea that “Well, nothing lasts forever. Life continues.” I don’t mean that in any kind of callous way. There’s something devastating about the idea of losing a country. At the same time, I’ve certainly met people who were born in places like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia that no longer exist in those forms, and that is the reality of countries. They don’t always last forever. You hope that whatever comes next is better.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Stop Trying to Sell Us Chris Brown’s Redemption Arc

“Your courage is contagious.”

In May 2026, while staring directly into the eyes of three of the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein—during a congressional hearing on the late financier’s sprawling web of rape, trafficking, and abuse—that’s what Rep. Jasmine Crockett said.

“I’ve been smiling probably more than I’m supposed to as I’ve sat here because y’all bring me so much joy. And let me tell you why,” she added. “The reason is this: because in spite of this incompetent government, y’all do not back down.”

Four months later, Crockett would take to the mic to express her joy once again, not at a congressional hearing but at the Texas AT&T Stadium, to bestow honors on a man who, in 2009, choked his then-girlfriend to the point that she “began to lose consciousness.”

On Sunday, the Texas Democratic representative joined Chris Brown onstage to sing his praises while awarding him recognition in the congressional record during the Texas stop of his joint tour with Usher.

View this post on Instagram

“We’re experiencing Black joy to the highest degree,” crowed Crockett, flanked by fellow Rep. Venton Jones.

For those not in the know, Chris Brown is a decorated R&B singer who’s been performing since he was a teen. Known for his smash songs, “Run It,” “Loyal,” and “Forever,” he’s been a staple of the genre for decades.

Nowadays, Brown is known less for his radio hits and more for the hits he allegedly bestowed on dozens of individuals, dating all the way back to 2009 when he brutally assaulted Rihanna, then his girlfriend. But his legal problems didn’t stop there. Over the past fifteen years, Brown has racked up so many convictions and allegations of assault and drug use that there’s an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to his legal issues.

Most notably, Brown has a long track record of alleged violence against women specifically. In 2009, he pleaded guilty to assault against Rihanna, whom he repeatedly struck, bit, and choked during an argument. In 2017, his then-girlfriend, Karreuche Tran was granted a restraining order against him after he threatened to “beat the s— out of” her in text messages. She also accused him of punching her in the stomach twice and pushing her down the stairs, which Brown has denied.

In 2018, a woman sued Brown for sexual assault in a case that settled out of court in 2020. In 2024, ID dropped the documentary Chris Brown: A History of Violence, in which several alleged victims of the singer came forward, including a woman who said Brown raped her in 2020 on Sean “Diddy” Combs’ yacht.

Brown’s penchant for violence has followed him throughout his entire career, but has somehow done absolutely nothing to stop dogged public support for the singer, especially among Black women.

Actress Keke Palmer attended Brown’s “Breezy Bowl” in 2025 despite interviewing Tran about Brown’s alleged assault against her in 2014. Throughout the 2020s, stars like Lizzo, Ciara, and Kelly Rowland have all given Brown his flowers. He’s collaborated with the likes of Normani, Chloe Bailey, and Cassie, who’s testified that Diddy sexually abused and exploited her.

But what separates Crockett from those figures is her status as a politician and her past use of her position to support victims of sexual violence. Throughout her career, Crockett rarely, if ever, shied away from calling out the Republican Party’s racism and misogyny. She’s steadfastly called out the Department of Justice’s failure to release the Epstein files and done the same with Trump for his sexual misconduct during his second presidency.

To (rightfully) lambast your colleagues for supporting a sexual abuser, only to have those politics fly out the window for something so inconsequential, is, on its face, a baffling choice. Saying Trump’s White House is covering up the Epstein files scores you viral clips circulated on the evening news. Calling survivors of sexual exploitation “courageous” leads to comments calling you “inspiring” and “OUTSTANDING.”

Apparently, it’s easier to denounce abusers when it’s politically advantageous.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

A New DHS Report Proves Alligator Alcatraz Detainees Were Right All Along

Alligator Alcatraz, the notorious immigrant detention camp erected in the Florida Everglades last year, routinely held detainees in “small metal enclosures” with just 18 square feet of floor space, a practice that the Department of Homeland Security’s independent watchdog called “highly unconventional and does not align with standards for humane treatment,” according to a DHS Office of Inspector General report.

First revealed by the New York Times on Monday morning, the document provides a rare comprehensive glimpse of life inside the facility, erected by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s administration last year. Consisting of several soft-sided tents on a remote airfield surrounded by swampland, Alligator Alcatraz at its peak housed up to 1,500 immigrant detainees when DHS was short on detention beds in other facilities. As I’ve reported throughout the last year, since its opening in the summer of 2025, Alligator Alcatraz was criticized for its treatment of the migrants, with advocates noting that the tents were prone to flooding. There were also mosquito infestations, limited access to legal counsel, and food scarcity. The state of Florida officially closed it in June, citing the threat of hurricane season.

The report is based on an unannounced inspection by the DHS Office of Inspector General in January. They concluded that while the detention camp did adhere to intake and use-of-force standards, they discovered several violations. Most notably, the use by detention staff of tight metal enclosures to confine a total of 79 people for periods of time ranging from a few minutes to up to two hours. The metal mesh enclosures, roughly the size of a phone booth, measured about 4 feet by 4 feet and were nearly 8 feet tall. “Facility staff described the small metal enclosures as ‘calming areas’ for detainees to de-escalate and have time alone,” the report states. “Staff further maintained that detainees asked to spend time in the small metal enclosures.” But inspectors found at least one case in which the enclosure was used to discipline someone who failed to comply with a staff order.

Inspectors found several other violations. Each detainee should have at least 75 square feet of living space, but they received only 28 square feet at the camp. During their inspection, OIG officials saw as many as 32 people held within the facility’s eight cell areas. Detainees were also only allowed recreation outside of their housing units three days a week for one hour. As the report noted, “With the limited amount of recreation, detainees could not engage in recreational and exercise programs, which could negatively affect physical and mental health.” Detainees told inspectors that they did not have access to clean drinking water, and inspectors found that they could shower only three days a week—federal detention standards require access to daily showers.

“The absence of well-defined standards at detention facilities increases the risk that detainees may not receive appropriate care.”

Corene Kendrick, deputy director at the ACLU’s National Prison Project, called the report “horrifying.” “It confirms and reaffirms the cruelty of Alligator Alcatraz. It backs up everything that the people who were detained at that camp were reporting to advocates about the conditions and the lack of access to legal calls, the lack of access to going outside, the cages that were used as punishment,” Kendrick told me. “At the time when these allegations were being brought up by people in the facility and by their family members and their attorneys, ICE and the state of Florida repeatedly said that that was all made up and that people were exaggerating and it wasn’t true.” But this report, she added, confirms that “people were suffering.”

After touring the detention center and interviewing staff and detainees, OIG officials found there was a “lack of clarity” on whether Alligator Alcatraz was following state or federal detention standards. The report states, “The absence of well-defined standards at detention facilities increases the risk that detainees may not receive appropriate care.”

In its response to the Office of Inspector General, DHS officials blamed the state of Florida for the conditions, which the agency says maintained authority over daily operations. But the report noted that ICE personnel were frequently on site and federal funding was used to open and run the detention camp. The state Department of Emergency Management, which ran the camp, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a statement, Alex Lanfranconi, the communications director for the governor’s office, said: “At least ten million illegal aliens entered our country under the Biden administration. Florida decided to do something about it. The left-wing media wants to focus on a confinement area for violent criminal aliens who have proven they cannot remain peaceful while awaiting deportation. While it adheres to all federal standards for criminal confinement, we’d make it even smaller if we could.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

States and Cities Sue To Stop Trump’s Immigrant “Wealth Test” Rule Before It Takes Effect

New York is leading a 22-state lawsuit against the Trump administration for unlawfully expanding the “public charge” rules that restrict entry to the United States for immigrants deemed likely to make use of public benefits. A group of municipalities, led by New York City, are separately suing over the same rules.

The new regulations, scheduled to go into effect September 18, reverse a set of 2022 rules which prohibited immigration officers from considering immigrants’ potential future use of non-cash public benefits—like food stamps, Children’s Health Insurance Program benefits, and Medicaid—when determining whether to grant visas. Under the rules scheduled to go into effect this week, officials can use an applicant’s need for food or medical aid to help determine grounds for inadmissibility.

In a report released this summer, health policy organization KFF estimated that between 1.4 million and 4.1 million Medicaid and CHIP enrollees in mixed-status households could disenroll out of fear. The cities and states suing over the rule change argue that it “throws out more than a century of settled law and decades of federal guidance and gives officers wide latitude to make decisions that are inconsistent and discriminatory,” representatives for New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani wrote in a press release.

Trump attempted to establish similar rules—sometimes described as a “wealth test for immigrants”—during his first administration. In 2020, as my colleague Noah Lanard reported, some mixed-status families were forced to choose between green cards and food for their children.

The public charge rule was sometimes described as a plan for denying green cards to people who used public benefits programs like food stamps and Medicaid. The reality is that immigrants are rarely eligible for public benefits until they get a green card. What the public charge rule did was deny green cards to people who immigration officials decided were likely to use public benefits after they became eligible for them.

It’s a revival of a 19th-century policy that grew out of a nativist backlash to Irish and Italian immigrants. The New York Times argued in 1887 that the public charge rule would prevent Italy from sending “monthly consignments of Neapolitan mendicants.”

“The new public charge rule seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades,” Mamdani said in a statement announcing the cities’ lawsuit. “That fear will not stop at the families that the federal government is targeting. Families who remain fully eligible for benefits will feel a chilling effect, and all New Yorkers will pay for it.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Proud Boys Next Door

Michael Premo was gasping for air. It was January 6, 2021, and Premo and his partner, fellow filmmaker Rachel Falcone, were crushed against a wall in the Lower West Terrace tunnel at the US Capitol. Between the gas mask and the body armor compressing his torso, Premo was struggling to breathe.

Then Premo made eye contact with a man he recognized from past rallies, who used his body to wedge Premo and Falcone free. When they were safely outside, Premo’s first thought was to find a Proud Boy named Chris Quaglin, whom they’d been following but had lost in the melee. They had to decide whether to leave or continue to film.

“Now it’s dawned on us, the sort of gravity of this historical moment that we are bearing witness to, and at that point it’s like a war photographer,” Premo says. “I’m just following the story wherever it goes.”

The moment was the climax of a story Premo had been working on for three years. His documentary, Homegrown, follows three members of the far-right nationalist Proud Boys—Quaglin, Thad Cisneros, and Randy Ireland—before and after the 2020 election, which they believe was stolen from Donald Trump. The film, which recently won a 2026 duPont-Columbia Award and is currently streaming on GATHR, traces Cisneros’ attempts at bridge building with Black Lives Matter, Ireland’s steady role as an organizer and Proud Boys ideological anchor, and Quaglin’s radicalization. It is a verité film, showing the ordinary texture of the men’s daily lives alongside the violence, with no narration or talking heads to tell viewers how to feel about either. And it feels less like documentation of a historic event and more like access into a current reality—one that many people would rather dismiss as extreme.

I watched the film as part of Project All, an initiative of the equity-focused research institute PolicyLink that argues the country’s way forward means bridging ideological gaps. The invitation to the viewing stated: “Americans still hold a deep love for their country and for one another—an untapped source of energy that can be mobilized to chart a new course above the fray of polarization.”

For viewers eager to condemn the Proud Boys, Homegrown replaces moral distance with something more uncomfortable: the idea that these men are not extraordinary.

It seemed an odd choice to use a film about the Proud Boys as an opening to connection. But Homegrown raised some questions for me, including: How did Premo, a Black man, manage to embed himself within an organization that, while describing itself as non-racist “Western chauvinists,” has been repeatedly linked to white supremacy? And then there’s his portrayal of the men in the film. For viewers eager to condemn the Proud Boys, Homegrown replaces moral distance with something more uncomfortable: the idea that these men are not extraordinary. Premo’s refusal to editorialize or explain his subjects means viewers see men who are in many ways familiar, who love their kids, who push back against racism in their own ranks, and who genuinely believe they’re on the right side of history—just as many viewers might believe themselves to be.

Michael Premo in a blue suit in front of signage for the Zurich Film Festival

Michael Premo attends the Homegrown green carpet during the 20th Zurich Film Festival in October 2024.Joshua Sammer/Getty

Premo, 44, says he’s always been driven to understand people across differences. Growing up in Albany, New York, the son of civil servants who worked for the state, he recalls as a child reading The Big Book of Peace, which included a drawing of an Israeli and a Palestinian. “I think the headline was something like, ‘Which is the Palestinian and which is the Israeli?’ and my younger self was trying to discern the difference,” he says. “And the point is there is no difference. They’re just people.”

When he was older, Premo went to college in Boston. He told me about an incident in which someone smeared urine and feces on his dorm door and wrote: “Michael Premo is a bitch N—.” While Premo says the school administration was sympathetic, they ultimately did little to resolve the issue and framed it as the person “acting out.”

“I told them that I wanted to make a film about people fighting for America and I wanted to understand what they were fighting for, and why.”

So in the aftermath of the 2016 election, Premo was surprised by how many people were shocked at Trump’s victory. He made Homegrown, in part, as an explanation. “To me he seemed to epitomize everything that America is but pretends it’s not,” he says. “I feel like Donald Trump was saying all of the quiet things out loud.”

He approached the men in the documentary from a place of wanting to understand. “I told them that I wanted to make a film about people fighting for America and I wanted to understand what they were fighting for, and why,” he says.

Before Premo started filming, he assumed that the far-right groups he met with would be predominantly white and was nervous about how he would be treated. But that didn’t turn out to be the case with the Proud Boys.

Founded in 2016, the group became known for street violence and confrontations with left-wing protesters. In 2020, Proud Boys tore down Black Lives Matter banners from two historic Black churches in Washington, DC; their leader, Enrique Tarrio, later pleaded guilty to burning one of them.

What Premo found was that the Proud Boys were multiracial, and, once he had earned the trust of Ireland and Cisneros, who were the leaders of their respective Proud Boy chapters, he was accepted. When some members did make racist remarks, Premo says Ireland defended him.

Still, Premo found the constant macho rhetoric and violence he witnessed while filming mentally and emotionally exhausting. He went to rallies dressed in protective gear, prepared for a riot. Even if there weren’t skirmishes between the Proud Boys and other groups, there were men talking about what they wanted to do to antifa or others.

While he included the violence in his film, Premo is clear that it is not meant to make these men exceptions, but to situate them within a broader pattern.

“One of my critiques of American history and polite, middle-class white liberal society is this idea that violence is only an aberration of the norm. It’s only something that is carried out by the fringe or the extremes of society, when fundamentally, the American project is a project built by violence,” he says.

Trump supporters gathered in the nation's capital today to protest the ratification of President-elect Joe Biden's Electoral College victory over Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

Pro-Trump protesters gather in front of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington, DC.Jon Cherry/Getty

In Homegrown, the result is an intimate if uncomfortable look that complicates existing narratives about the Proud Boys—and violence in America. Cisneros, Quaglin, and Ireland see themselves as fighting on behalf of disenfranchised men like themselves—middle and working-class people who have been ignored by a government that benefits the wealthy—and for a return to the ideals upon which they believe this country was built.

Quaglin, a 39-year-old electrician from New Jersey, becomes the film’s center of gravity. He and his wife—a Chinese immigrant who he says “100 percent is for Trump”—are preparing for the birth of their first child while his activism ramps up. We watch as he gets “punched in” to Ireland’s chapter after a rally—an initiation that involves reciting a pledge and getting decked by five Proud Boys. The film tracks Quaglin’s parallel storylines until they collide on January 6.

Premo chose to center Quaglin because his story was emblematic of many people Premo met while filming—men who had not been politically active before Trump’s 2016 election, but who then saw him as a solution. “Chris seemed to embody that individual who had these series of grievances, was trying to achieve something, though he wasn’t sure what he was trying to achieve,” Premo says. “It was really Trump that made him sort of hop up and go.”

Quaglin welcomed Premo and Falcone into his personal life. On the first day that they went to his house in New Brunswick to film, he woke up early to slow-cook pork on the grill for them. The night of January 6, Premo says that Quaglin left their hotel and returned with alcohol to celebrate. He’d remembered from some past conversation that Falcone liked Balvenie scotch and bought her a bottle.

It suggests something more uncomfortable: that the difference is often not one of belief, but of expression—who says what out loud, and who knows not to.

When I first watched Homegrown, I didn’t make it all the way through. The unfiltered look at Quaglin, in particular, was unsettling—not because of the violence or his racist comments, but because of the sense of normalcy with which they are presented. The opening scene shows Quaglin putting together a radiator cover in a nursery, in preparation for the birth of his son. Later, he outfits his truck to splatter paint over the Black Lives Matter sign on New York’s Fifth Avenue, carrying it out with methodical calmness. He is the only one of the men featured in the film who was at the Capitol on January 6, planning to go armed with knives and firearms for what he says will be a “CIVIL WAR.”

I found the ease with which Quaglin committed these acts astounding. The interspersion of political violence and domesticity doesn’t allow viewers to compartmentalize what’s on screen as fringe behavior, safely outside the bounds of ordinary American life. It suggests something more uncomfortable: that the difference is often not one of belief, but of expression—who says what out loud, and who knows not to.

As a Black woman, I know the quiet racism of liberal spaces, and the pretense that it is only perpetuated by those, like the Proud Boys, who are seen as extreme. The brilliance of Homegrown is that it forces viewers to confront that.

Ireland was the first of the Proud Boys in the film that Premo met, when they talked in a bar after a Trump rally in New York City. Ireland, 51, said that Premo shared that he was working on a film: “It was very much in general terms,” says Ireland. “That started a kind of friendship, I suppose.”

Ireland says Homegrown is a distortion of the Proud Boys because it focuses so heavily on Quaglin. “Chris is an extreme individual,” Ireland says. “I would say that Michael himself is more the standard.”

Cisneros, 49, challenges viewers’ preconceptions of who the Proud Boys are—and how they view the world. Before he agreed to participate in the film, Cisneros had his Proud Boys chapter in Salt Lake City watch Premo’s film Water Warriors, about Indigenous and white community members fighting to protect their water from a natural gas company. The “common man fighting the system” aspect of Water Warriors was something that resonated, Cisneros said.

One of the more surprising moments in the film is Cisneros’ partnership with Black Lives Matter activist Jacarri Kelley. Cisneros, who is Latino, says the Proud Boys and Black Lives Matter had shared goals in fighting for equality, because both groups were responding to a political system that had failed many working-class people. Kelley and Cisneros appeared together at rallies and public events. “The only way that we’re going to fix that,” Cisneros says in the film, “is if we recognize that we’re all sitting on the same plane and we’re all crashing into the same damn mountain.”

Cisneros was grateful that Premo was there to bear witness. “I’m honestly glad that I let Mike in in that way,” he says.

While some in his chapter were supportive of his decision, Cisneros says that within the nationwide Proud Boys Telegram chat, there was pushback. In the end, the partnership with BLM led to Cisneros being forced out of the Proud Boys.

His life spiraled out of control after January 6. He lost the Proud Boys, his dog, his relationship, and his freedom—he was recently released having served two years in prison in Texas for aggravated assault. Premo filmed some of Cisneros’ losses, including his father in hospice, but out of respect chose not to include them. Cisneros was grateful that Premo was there to bear witness. “I’m honestly glad that I let Mike in in that way,” says Cisneros, who has not yet seen Homegrown.

Meanwhile, Quaglin was incarcerated for his role on January 6 and was released in January 2025, after being pardoned by Trump. His wife divorced him, and Homegrown ends with a note that he had not held his son since his arrest in April 2021. Premo says Quaglin—who declined to speak to me for this story—blames him for the divorce.

Footage of a a man wearing a gas mask during the January 6 raid on the Capitol

Still from “Homegrown”Credit tktk

While the film focuses on the Proud Boys, Premo also followed other groups he describes as explicit white supremacists. He filmed what one framed as a border protection exercise, in which they patrolled in southern Arizona, some dressed in Nazi uniforms. One man told Premo he was an abomination who should be exterminated. Premo felt it was wiser not to respond and just let the man speak. “That just tested every sort of emotional thread I had,” Premo says.

Premo couldn’t watch the footage he shot on January 6 for more than a year.

He hasn’t yet processed the toll that working on the film has taken. He couldn’t watch the footage he shot on January 6 for more than a year. When the editors asked for his input during their first pass, Premo refused and asked them to just send the clips they thought they might use. Even then, he was reluctant to watch.

Premo tried therapy to cope with the mental and emotional exhaustion. “One therapist told me that in stressful situations I should take my shoes off and connect with the ground, and that didn’t seem to be applicable in my scenario,” he says. What worked was “bubble baths and cognac.” He also built in time, while filming, for hikes or to be in nature.

Premo and Falcone applied to film festivals in anticipation of the 2024 election cycle. While the film premiered at the Venice Film Festival that August, they encountered resistance from festival organizers in the United States. Some programmers saw little urgency, Premo says, doubting Trump could be re-elected. Others felt the film was platforming a hate group.

That shifted after Trump won. Homegrown now has been screened at more than 50 film festivals and won the duPont-Columbia in January. Along with its streaming agreement, it’s also available through an educational distribution agreement with New Day Films.

In making the film, Premo says he found that what people were fighting for came down to something more fundamental than politics: “I discovered,” he says, “that people are looking for belonging, meaning, and purpose.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

States Already Have a Good Way to Ensure Election Integrity—and MAGA Hates It

In January 2022, at an event hosted by one of the scores of local “election integrity” groups inspired by Donald Trump’s fraudulent assertion that voter fraud had cost him the 2020 election, Louisiana Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin made a big announcement: His state was leaving ERIC.

This was puzzling because, amid all the Republican pearl-clutching over election integrity, ERIC was the single organization best equipped to help states ensure exactly that.

And suddenly MAGA Republicans wanted nothing to do with it.

Conspiracy theorists “spread lies about me… They spread lies about ERIC’s funding, what ERIC does, how ERIC works.”

ERIC is short for Electronic Registration Information Center. It’s a nonpartisan, nonprofit coalition established in 2012 by elections officials from seven states—then four red, three blue—who joined forces to bulletproof their voting processes. This, of course, was before the right twisted the term “election integrity,” much as they’d previously usurped the word “patriot,” as a partisan identifier somewhat opposite from its original meaning.

And what does ERIC do? Well, member states submit voter registration and vehicle registration data through secure channels, allowing for cross-referencing. That’s valuable because people frequently move within and among states. Young people become eligible. Noncitizens become citizens. Former felons have rights restored. Newly incarcerated people lose them. And lots of people die.

ERIC helps its members track voter moves and purge their lists of duplicate registrations (Michael Mechanic vs. Mike Mechanic) and dead people (hopefully neither of those). It identifies people who are eligible yet unregistered. And after a national election, if requested, ERIC will produce reports flagging any signs of potential illegal voting—of a person casting ballots in two or more states or casting more than one ballot in one state, or voting on behalf of a recently dead relative, for example.

“These are all laudable, uncontroversial goals that have made our voter registration rolls more accurate and our elections more accessible and secure,” Jonathan Diaz, an executive with the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, wrote in an article extolling ERIC’s virtues.

ERIC attracted more new members every year. By the time of Ardoin’s announcement, it had 31 member states, plus DC, and was respected on both sides of the aisle as a powerful tool to help keep voter rolls in shape, improve access, and flag potential fraud. John Merrill, Alabama’s secretary of state from 2015 to 2023, recalls that ERIC had more Republican-run than Democratic-run states at the time. “Its integrity has been intact from its creation,” he told me.

“The people who decided that they did not want to be a part of ERIC did so for political reasons,” says Alabama’s former secretary of state. “And I have a problem with that.”

And yet his state was next to fall. In January 2023. Merrill’s predecessor, Wes Allen, withdrew Alabama from ERIC as his first official act. (“Providing the private information of Alabama citizens, including underage minors, to an out of state organization is troubling to me,” he stated in his announcement.) Allen was followed by a parade of red-state officials, some echoing baseless conspiracy theories, such as a bogus claim that ERIC got funding from George Soros. David Becker, a nonvoting board member who’d helped establish ERIC but is no longer involved, also came under attack.

“Conspiracy theorists targeted ERIC. Apparently, it was working too well for them,” Becker, also the founder and director of the “fiercely nonpartisan” Center for Election Innovation and Research, recalled at a CEIR press briefing on Friday. “They spread lies about me,” he said, and “They spread lies about ERIC’s funding, what ERIC does, how ERIC works. We continue to see that.”

Trump himself piled on: “All Republican Governors should immediately pull out of ERIC, the terrible Voter Registration System that ‘pumps the rolls’ for Democrats and does nothing to clean them up,” he wrote on Truth Social in March 2023, showcasing his complete ignorance of ERIC’s role.

Red-state officials played along. After Alabama came Florida, Missouri, and West Virginia, then Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, and Texas. By 2024, nearly a third of the member states had bailed, though a handful of reliably conservative states (Alaska, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Utah) remain. Officials from the departing states “succumbed to that disinformation, even as they admitted that they knew it was false, and within days of leaving, were proudly trumpeting voter fraud investigations and prosecutions they did that came solely from ERIC,” Becker said. “We saw this in several states.”

“I think that the people who decided that they did not want to be a part of ERIC did so for political reasons,” Merrill told me. “I don’t know anybody that had a factual base for removing their state because of an exposed vulnerability, inconsistency, or irregularity that they felt was a problem for ERIC’s integrity—and if they did, they never shared that publicly. Never. And I have a problem with that.”

In 2022, the year Louisiana bailed, ERIC flagged some 2.4 million interstate moves, 7.3 million intrastate moves, 203,210 duplicate listings, and 65,437 dead voters. Four years later, post-exodus, those numbers were much reduced: roughly 604,000 interstate, 881,00o intrastate, 61,000 duplicates, and 17,000 dead. To boost election integrity, Republicans officials might well have considered recruiting more states to join ERIC instead of taking their ball and going home.

Member states do have some obligations. They must agree to use ERIC’s list maintenance reports to keep their rolls accurate. They must review all potential cases of illegal voting that ERIC flags and refer the credible ones to law enforcement regardless of which party benefitted. They also must, and this is another reason some red states soured on ERIC, use its “Eligible but Unregistered” report to offer basic voter registration information to the people it identifies.

“I don’t think there are five justices who want to own the chaos that would ensue” if the Supreme Court let Trump interfere with voting by mail.

Part of any secretary of state’s job is, or should be, to encourage voter participation. But apparently they don’t make ’em like they used to.

Merrill, who now runs a consultancy called Morning in Alabama LLC that sometimes works with voting groups, has experienced pushback for his outspokenness. “I’ve had conservative ideologues who have said, “Oh, you, you embrace the liberal agenda,” he told me. “I’m like, ‘What? Where’s the agenda?’ I never saw an agenda. I used ERIC as a tool, just like we use the Kansas Interstate Crosscheck System, to multiply our efforts in Alabama to ensure that we had the best election administration system that we could have.”

If anything, he says, withdrawing from the compact has damaged election integrity in those former member states, including his own.

Becker concurs. Those states, he said, “have really kneecapped their own ability to maintain accurate voter lists and potentially combat fraud, and all in service of conspiracy theorists who seem more concerned with raising money and diminishing American election integrity than actually contributing anything substantial.”

The red-state ERIC exodus isn’t a new story, but it’s timely again as Trump’s Department of Justice ramps up attacks on states that refuse to hand over their voter rolls to the feds. In its effort to obtain those lists, the DOJ has taken 30 states to court—and lost in 23 of the 23 cases decided to date. Administration officials have even threatened to prosecute election officials for ill-defined missteps, and have hinted, also vaguely, that they could dispatch ICE or federal troops to polling places. (“This is not going to happen,” Becker said on Friday.)

Most recently, and egregiously, the administration has made moves to monkeywrench postal delivery of ballots in those blue and purple states unwilling to hand over their lists—to a government, mind you, that has obliterated any presumption that it will play fair, and that it won’t weaponize state voter data for partisan advantage.

On Friday, Becker said he didn’t believe the Supreme Court would allow Trump to interfere with mail voting so close to the midterms. “I don’t think there are five justices,” he said, “who want to own the chaos that would ensue and, in some ways, the chaos that might affect Republican voters worse than Democratic voters.”

But if the administration’s purpose is to undermine public confidence in an election in which Trump’s party is expected to fare poorly, then they’ve already succeeded.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Former EPA Officials: Trump Is Letting Data Centers Make People Sick

While tech oligarchs grandstand about the existential danger AI superintelligence poses to humanity, former Environmental Protection Agency officials say we should be worried about a more immediate threat to our health: the data centers that power those AI models.

The former EPA researchers, now working with the nonprofit Environmental Protection Network, are warning in a new report that since January 2025, Donald Trump’s EPA has embarked on a systematic weakening of pollution safeguards, permitting processes, inspection norms, and other guardrails—at least 30 different actions—that could increase the health risks associated with the data center boom.

There are currently about 3,000 data centers in the United States, and more than 1,500 new centers are in the planning stages. But as developers build out this vast, energy-hungry infrastructure, the country is losing the government regulatory safeguards that are needed to ensure that expansion is done safely, the ex–EPA officials say.

Dan Costa, who spent 35 years at EPA studying air pollution, noted that for decades the environmental agency, which was established in 1970, had a large and committed cadre of researchers who investigated emerging sources of pollution and new environmental threats.

“Over the decades, toxicologists, chemists, atmospheric scientists, modelers and engineers worked in concert with academic colleagues on behalf of the American people—not on behalf of industry,” Costa said in a press briefing last week. “We wanted to carry out EPA’s mission of protecting people’s health from industrial air pollution.”

Now, though, that work force has been gutted. The Trump administration has dismantled EPA’s main research office, and the agency’s priorities have shifted away from strict enforcement of pollution standards. “Transforming the nation’s energy system, while diminishing its scientific capacity to understand what the impacts are going to be, makes no sense,” Costa said.

But that appears to be the direction the country is heading in. President Donald Trump is “positioning America as the global leader in AI,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wrote in a memo last year. The agency is “committed to bolstering” those efforts, Zeldin said, by “cutting heavy-handed regulations to ensure America can build and power the data centers essential to Making America the AI Capital of the World.”

Since Trump returned to the White House, data center developers have seized the opportunity to expand at a rapid pace, helped by the administration’s moves. In some cases, that deregulation has involved keeping old coal-fired plants online past their planned decommissioning times in order to power data centers; other times, it has meant easing regulations on the use of onsite fossil-fuel-powered turbines to power hyperscale data centers like xAI’s Colossus.

The agency has proposed a rule change that would let developers begin constructing data centers and their associated power plants before they get air pollution permits. And it has directed the agency’s enforcement staff to avoid any action that could “unduly burden or significantly disrupt” energy production or power generation.

According to one study the former EPA researchers cited in their new report, pollution associated with the AI boom may lead to 1,300 additional deaths per year.

Physician and former EPA administrator Lynn Goldman said some health impacts of increased data center pollution might be felt quickly—for example, heart attacks or premature births associated with particulate exposure. Others, such as cancer, might take years to emerge. “The AI industry’s race for advantage should not be a matter of life or death,” Goldman said at the press conference. “Families shouldn’t have to pay for the AI boom with their health.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Keeps Using “National Security” to Do What He Wants

President Donald Trump has a favorite justification for everything he does: “It’s a national security matter.”

After 9/11, the United States built a vast, powerful, and generally unchecked national security apparatus. Twenty-five years later, Trump is using agencies and emergency powers that sprung up in the aftermath of the 2001 attacks—and have never been abolished or repealed—to threaten domestic dissidents and anyone else he views as an enemy, claiming that those who oppose his policies constitute threats to America.

Of course, American presidents have been using “national security” as an excuse to expand surveillance and start wars since before the smoke from the Twin Towers cleared, and Trump is no exception. In his first term, his long list of national security “threats” included Japanese cars, Chinese telecom equipment, and briefly, the gay hookup app Grindr.

But in his second term, Trump—whose constantly shifting stories about his own actions at Ground Zero defy credulity—has taken this tactic to even more absurd, and sometimes catastrophic, extremes. Here are some highlights.

Threatening to annex Greenland: Trump has periodically obsessed over “acquiring” Greenland, and, in various Truth Social posts, he has made his case for annexation. “The National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake,” he wrote in a series of early-morning Truth Social posts in January. “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!” Trump renewed his threats to annex Greenland at the NATO summit in July.

Targeting ICE protesters as terrorists: Trump’s September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 formally designates “antifa” as a domestic terrorist organization. Following that directive, dozens of ICE protesters across the country have been taken to trial as national security threats—some of them over things as small as moving a box of zines or wearing a shirt that says “I’m antifa.”

Related

An illustration depicts the United States trapped in a cats cradle of caution tapeThe Religion of National Security

Halting offshore wind development: Since late 2025, administration officials have framed offshore wind turbines as a national security threat. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has said a classified report from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth proves offshore wind is a national security threat—but has never exactly explained how. The administration has also used national security concerns as a pretext for keeping coal plants online past their planned retirement dates and restarting a problematic California oil pipeline over fierce state and local opposition.

Building more hyperscale data centers: “It is a national security imperative for the United States to achieve and maintain unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance,” Trump, who has invested millions of dollars in companies that build data center infrastructure, wrote in a 2025 executive order.

Constructing a $400 million ballroom: After a federal judge in DC ordered Trump to halt construction on his unsanctioned White House ballroom, he unleashed a tirade on social media pitching the project as a military-grade command center. The ballroom wasn’t just a ballroom, apparently, but a “desperately needed National Security structure for the people of the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in mid-August. The Supreme Court has, at least for now, allowed construction to move forward.

Stripping union protections from nearly a million federal workers: In a March 2025 executive order, Trump designated more than a dozen government agencies as performing “intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work,” thereby robbing about 950,000 federal employees of their collective bargaining rights.

Putting tariffs on musical instruments: The Department of Commerce announced in early August that it plans to implement a 25 percent tariff on brass instruments—including trombones, trumpets, and tubas—citing national security concerns about America’s purported overreliance on foreign copper alloys. The National Association of Music Merchants has condemned the move.

Letting xAI pollute Memphis: NAACP lawyers contend that Elon Musk’s xAI should pay more than $100,000 a day in civil penalties for violating the federal Clean Air Act by operating unpermitted gas turbines in Memphis to keep Musk’s Grok chatbot—a.k.a. “MechaHitler”—online. This past June, the Department of Justice intervened in the case, not to safeguard Memphians, but rather to protect Grok. “Grok’s continued operation and availability is a matter of paramount national security,” the filing said, especially “in the event of armed conflict”—noting that the Department of War used Grok to “deploy over 2,000 munitions to 2,000 distinct targets within 96 hours during Operation Epic Fury.”

Protecting the US drone industry—and his sons’ pocketbooks: Last week, Trump proposed slapping tariffs of up to 100 percent on foreign-made drones, calling reliance on foreign drone components a “national security threat.” His older sons, Eric and Don Jr., have sizable holdings in the US drone industry, so this is probably great news for them.

Excluding trans people from public life: In May, the Trump administration released its latest “counterterrorism” plan, which labels transgender people a threat to the nation’s safety. Counterterrorism czar Sebastian Gorka told reporters at the time that the administration would “crush” any threat, “whether it is the cartels, the jihadists or violent left-wing extremists like antifa—and like the transgender killers, the nonbinary, the left-wing radicals who killed my friend, Charlie Kirk, we will take them on, head on.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Inspirational Life of Environmentalist Wendell Berry

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

This coverage is made possible through a partnership between Grist and BPR, a public radio station serving western North Carolina. ​

Wendell Berry made his choices and stuck to them. He did not have a computer or a smartphone. He wrote more than 50 books of poetry, fiction, and essays, mostly with a pencil and paper, from his farmhouse in Henry County, Kentucky. By the time of his passing on August 31, the 92-year-old had lived many lives—as a farmer, teacher, philosopher, environmental activist—and inspired several generations of writers, farmers, and advocates in turn. From these varying perspectives, Berry grappled with humanity and the natural world.

His answer to the fundamental question of how to live right was to start small—to revere the Earth’s endless beauty, and to work a little, each day, to reverse the harm we’ve caused.

“There is no public crisis that is not also private,” Berry wrote in his essay “Think Little.” Written in 1972 as the environmental movement emerged, the piece marked a conflict of Berry’s: Despite strong environmental convictions, he sometimes despaired of the movement’s focus on bending the ear of politicians, without individuals healing the rupture between modern life and the land. “The changes that are required are fundamental changes in the way we are living,” Berry wrote.

Berry hated dualisms—between humanity and the natural world, body and soul, person who believes x and person who believes y.

He extolled this approach in one of his most well-known poems, “Manifesto: Mad Farmer Liberation Front”: “Invest in the millennium. Plant sequoias. / Say that your main crop is the forest / that you did not plant.”

The language of activism was often at odds with Berry’s worldview. It seemed to warn of a coming apocalypse, but to Berry, the world had no end and no beginning. To move in nature’s time meant to think in cycles of death and rebirth, not a straight line leading toward destruction or salvation.

That didn’t stop Berry from engaging with activism, even when it frustrated him, said Jeffrey Bilbro, an English professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, who’s written several books on Berry.

Berry was arrested in 1979 for protesting a nuclear plant in Indiana. In 2011, he was arrested again during a sit-in inside Kentucky state government offices while protesting mountaintop removal coal mining. He remained active in the fight against coal throughout the 2010s, helping to block the gates to a coal-fired power plant in Washington, D.C., and pulling his papers from the University of Kentucky after the school accepted a $7 million donation from Alliance Coal.

After Berry wrote his essay in Harper’s Magazine, “Why I am not Going to Buy a Computer” in 1987, some called him a Luddite. As a Grist article in 2014 pointed out, he was, in perhaps the truest sense, taking after that early 19th century movement, when textile workers at the advent of industrialization destroyed machinery to protect the dignity of their work. Berry refused, as much as he could, to let technology alienate him from his work. For this, he was sometimes criticized or called a curmudgeon.

His views didn’t fit neatly into modern politics. He believed that marriage and family strengthened community ties, but didn’t believe the government had authority to legislate such things. The law of nature, he said in one essay, was universal kinship and kindness, and Biblical stories and Psalms supported that.

“It is the time’s discipline to think / of the death of all living, and yet live.”

Berry was religious, but didn’t always like church, calling himself, according to Bilbro, a “bad weather church-goer” because he preferred to spend nice Sunday mornings walking in the woods. He hated dualisms—between humanity and the natural world, between body and soul, between person who believes x and person who believes y. This lent him broad appeal across the political and class spectrum, especially to those who felt that capitalism and industry had moved humanity away from a more honest way of life, whether through agriculture or other means.

“For an uncompromising person or a person of convictions, I think he recognized the need in a fallen world,” Bilbro said. “Our hands are all dirty, and we’re making these compromises, and it’s better to be honest about the necessity to do so and try to do what we can to live right, even if we can’t attain the purity that we might wish.”

The environmental crisis, according to Berry, takes hold in our lives and evinces itself as a sort of social decay. But living isn’t an unforgivable sin in itself, if we can only leave things better than we found them, knowing that the strip-mined mountaintop where we plant spruce, aspen, and wildflowers might not become a lush forest again until long after we’re gone.

In the poem, “A Discipline,” Berry imagines apocalypse: “it approaches / on every side, there is no other place / to turn.”

And yet, the poem continues, nothing ever really goes away: “It is the time’s discipline to think / of the death of all living, and yet live.”

Only the hard work of tending the land and learning its rhythms again can heal it, he believed. In coming into relationship with the smallest handful of earth, you can understand what it means to fight for change almost too enormous to fathom. To Berry, by tending a sprouted seedling in the ground, you can recognize you are it, and it is you.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Conspiracists and Supporters Collide at Charlie Kirk’s Memorial

We went to Charlie Kirk’s one-year memorial service at the site of his death. And it was full of contradictions—conspiracy theorists colliding with diehard supporters and counter protesters.

September 10 marked the one-year anniversary of the death of conservative youth activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University, which sits just outside of Salt Lake City, Utah. According to event organizers, thousands of people made the trek to the university event center to remember the founder of Turning Point USA. While it was mostly fans of Kirk and locals who had made the journey, none of the attendees happened to be from the Trump administration, unless you count Trent Staggs, the former mayor of Riverton, Utah and failed Senate candidate who now works in the Small Business Administration.

The event was subdued and received little media coverage because most of the political world was instead focused on President Donald Trump, who scheduled his midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, for the same night, reportedly without consulting Kirk’s widow, Erika, or the Turning Point leadership.

But the Utah event nonetheless drew Kirk’s diehard supporters, as well as a few conspiracy theorists who don’t believe that his death was the result of a lone gunman. (Tyler Robinson, the alleged shooter, is currently on trial in Utah.) And of course, there were a handful of protesters, mostly UVU students who were unhappy to have the memorial event held on their campus for a man whose views they found distasteful. We spoke to people from all camps. Watch:

Video by Peter Berger

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s DOJ Is Reportedly Investigating Gavin Newsom’s Travel Funding

The Justice Department’s probe into Gov. Gavin Newsom and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, is related to his international travel and how it was paid for, according to subpoenas reviewed by the San Francisco Standard in a story on Saturday.

These subpoenas were reportedly issued earlier this month and order six years of records from a nonprofit that paid for the governor’s travel. It also seeks internal communications among his current and former aides and associates.

Federal probes into Newsom’s circle reportedly began at least a year ago, and in June, Newsom said the probe was a politically motivated “fishing expedition.” He claimed the Trump administration was targeting him because he was considering a bid for president in 2028. (The president, of course, has a long history of going after his political enemies.)

“In recent days, federal agents have knocked on the doors of family friends and former employees,” Newsom said in a video message at the time. “Not because they found a crime, but because they simply are trying to find one.”

And in a statement Saturday, Newsom’s office said, “Governor Newsom went after the king—and as he warned in June, the tyrant is now coming after everyone around him. This is what Donald Trump does to his enemies: investigate first, hunt for a crime that doesn’t exist second.”

The California governor has a history of criticizing Trump. On Tuesday, he said the president lied when he told a story of two firefighters lifting him out of One Liberty Plaza on September 11, 2001.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Ted Cruz Pushed His College Sports Bill on ESPN—and Was Booed Mercilessly

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was on the receiving end of a nearly 10-minute chorus of boos on Saturday morning ahead of the heavyweight college football matchup between Texas and Ohio State, during an interview in which he shamelessly promoted his congressional bill live on ESPN.

ESPN had Ted Cruz on 'College GameDay' in a conversation with Rece Davis for nearly 10 minutes. Cruz was heavily booed by the crowd — and heard "Ted, you suck!" chants — in Austin.

Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing.bsky.social) 2026-09-12T14:21:12.607Z

His proposed legislation, the Protect College Sports Act, would allow the NCAA to unilaterally enforce its own rules on issues likerevenue sharing with college students and athletes transferring between schools. It also shields the NCAA from antitrust liability. Groups like the NAACP and AFL-CIO oppose the bill for further diminishing the voice and power of college athletes.

Other proponents of the bill—including former Alabama football coach Nick Saban and sports host Pat McAfee—have used ESPN airtime to support it. But the absence of an opposing viewpoint was glaring Saturday morning. As The Atlantic’s Jemele Hill wrote on Threads: “ESPN using its flagship college football show to openly advocate for this bill is egregious. Fine, have Ted Cruz on. But have on Senator Chris Murphy, who opposes this bill.”

And as sports news media site Awful Announcing points out, it’s ironic that ESPN provided room for a Republican senator from Texas to talk about politics the same week that ABC (which, like ESPN, is owned by Disney) stopped Jimmy Kimmel from airing an interview with Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico, following threats from the FCC. (Though it’s important to note that the FCC does not have oversight over cable television.)

It’s also a choice to haveCruz live on the air from Austin, Texas, given his infamous history at sporting events, particularly during the 2022 baseball postseason. During Game 4 of the American League Championship Series that fall between the team Cruz roots for, the Houston Astros, and the New York Yankees, the Yankee Stadium crowd booed and heckled Cruz, shouting “Loser!” and “Go back to Cancún!,” the latter a reference to his retreat from the 2021 winter storm that plunged Texas into a deadly power crisis. Weeks later, after the Astros took home the World Series, Cruz managed to get booed at the team’s victory parade.

Ted Cruz pulled off what I thought was impossible- getting booed at a championship parade. pic.twitter.com/B4oVgP404Q

— Chancellor Johnson (@ChancellorTV) November 7, 2022

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Black Market for a Lifesaving Cat Drug

In 2023, Marlena Arjo adopted a one-eyed kitten with a penchant for destruction. She named him Otto, and over the next eight months, Otto grew into his own little chaotic personality.

“ He’s laying on houseplants, he’s tearing books out of the bookshelves, ripping the calendar off the wall…I wasn’t prepared for having a criminal in my home,” Arjo joked.

Within months, Otto got sick and stopped eating. Arjo rushed him to a vet and learned he had feline infectious peritonitis, better known as FIP, a disease that kills nearly all cats that contract it.

The vet said there was nothing the clinic could do. But there was something Arjo could do.

“I shouldn’t tell you this,” Arjo recalled the vet telling her. “But by the way, you can get drugs for this if you go to this Facebook group.”

This week on Reveal, in partnership with the Hyperfixed podcast, we tell the story of the cat drug black market, why it was even necessary, and how cat lovers fought for big changes to make the black market obsolete.

This is an update of a show that originally aired in January 2026.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

ICE at the Polls? Ain’t Never Gonna Happen, Says This Voting Expert

At a press briefing on Friday, David Becker, a longtime voting rights advocate and the founder and director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, a “fiercly nonpartisan” nonprofit, threw a bucket of ice water on fears that the Trump administration might send federal troops or ICE agents to polling places.

The administration hasn’t explicitly threatened such a thing, although neither Trump nor his officials, including former personal lawyer and DOJ chief Todd Blanche, have ruled it out. DHS chief Markwayne Mullin recently said federal officers could be deployed to polling places if there was “a threat” or they were “serving a warrant,” though he also said DHS had no plans for such a thing. Democratic officials, meanwhile, have made a stink about it and the City of Denver is sufficiently freaked out that it has sued the administration to stop any such deployment.

A reporter at the briefing asked Becker whether he knows of any plans afoot, and what might happen in the courts if something were to go down on Election Day?

Here’s Becker’s response in full, with just a few light edits:

“I want to be very clear: This is not going to happen. ICE and troops will not be at the polls, period.

There are many reasons for this. One, it is completely and obviously illegal—18 U.S.C. 592 blocks this. As soon as someone, an armed federal, as soon as a troop or an armed man—that is the term in the statute—”armed men.” As soon as there is an armed individual at a polling place, there will be a court action.

Jurisdictions are preparing for it. They won’t need to use this, but they will go. They will get it blocked. And I think the administration is, and probably should be, worried that there might be political backlash if it occurred.

But even more importantly, it is very hard to target particular voters for intimidation, thanks to what the states, both red and blue, have done with regard to “convenience” voting: 47 states offer early in-person voting of some sort. Three-fourths of the states offer mail voting without an excuse. Democrats are disproportionately taking advantage of those now because the president has so delegitimized [mail voting], falsely, that the Election Day in-person voting is now disproportionately Republican.

So, if you try to deploy troops in order to suppress voters, the most likely time people are voting would be Election Day, and you might inadvertently, if you’re a Republican president, suppress your own voters.

This is not going to happen. I can’t say this strongly enough.

Now, it may very well be that there are people within the administration, and perhaps even the president himself, who would desperately love voters to be fearful that it might happen, which is why I think you see them dancing around this issue. We saw this with with Attorney General Blanche during his confirmation hearings.

I think you know the chairman of the Joint Chiefs issued a statement that was very clear on this: that there will be no troops. It is illegal to put troops at the polls. That it will not happen. I understand, given the administration’s seemingly intentional vagueness on this, litigants might want to get the administration on the record to get clear indications before court that this is not going to happen.

But regardless of the status of this lawsuit, regardless of what you what what we might hear from the administration, it is not going to happen.”

You’re welcome.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

America’s 9/11 President Never Forgets…His Paintings

On Friday, former President George W. Bush shared his new collection of self-congratulatory paintings to mark the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, which killed thousands of people while he was in office. In the years that followed, Bush led—and became the face of—the War on Terror era, with its succession of wars abroad.

View this post on Instagram

The paintings come from an exhibit titled “Remembering 9/11” on display at the Bush Museum in Dallas, Texas, for the entire month of September. Among the 16 works includes a painting of the infamous moment when Chief of Staff Andy Card whispered in Bush’s ear about the attack while the president was speaking to a classroom of elementary school students in Sarasota, Florida.

The George W. Bush Presidential Center website advertising the exhibit describes the series as “works of art to reflect on the courage, sacrifice, and resilience that emerged from one of the most defining moments in American history.”

It of course does not address his response to the 2001 attack, launching a “War on Terror” that, among other things, launched the United States’ longest foreign occupation, killed at least 4.5 million people, and saw the founding of the Department of Homeland Security, perhaps the Trump administration’s most powerful asset in rolling back democracy at home.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

What Does FBI Director Kash Patel Actually Do?

FBI Director Kash Patel seems to be very bad at his job.

This was confirmed yet again on Thursday, when national security journalist Seth Hettena found documents showing Patel instructing his team to search for and respond toonline accounts that criticize him. In one instance, Ben Williamson, the FBI’s assistant director for public affairs, tells Patel via text message that the FBI should not respond to a post making fun of the director from what looks like a troll account on X with a handle referencing the r-word slur.

Patel texted a link of the post to Williamson in February, to which Williamson replies, “this is an ‘Epstein didn’t kill himself’ bot account if you’re wondering where that’s coming from.” But Patel seems to fixate on the reaction to the post: “277k responses are not bots what i asked you and your team to do is find them, and post our record year results back at them all, continuously.”

The records appear in the FBI Vault, a large set of documentation that the FBI proactively releasedfor public interest in accordance with US freedom of information law. The documents that Hettena highlights are from a collection titled “Records regarding the review of the Investigative Holdings related to Jeffrey Epstein Part 11.”

Williamson dismissed his director’s concern over the February troll post**—**as of Friday morning it onlyhas 492 comments, about 1,000 reposts and quotes, and 16,000 likes—with Patel appearing to confuse the number of views with the number of responses. He warned Patel that responding to the post would “look bad on you”—a valid point.

Working for @FBIDirectorKash means @_WilliamsonBen has to spend his time explaining why the @FBI should not respond to a post by @ifindretards.

Found in the FBI vault: https://t.co/ikrrNjt7Ge pic.twitter.com/y9rKd8ZLou

— Seth Hettena (@seth_hettena) September 10, 2026

This behavior aligns with Patel’s excessive drinking and extended unexplained absences from his post, according to an April report in the Atlantic. The FBI director filed a defamation lawsuit against the media outlet, a case that remains pending following the Atlantic‘s motion to dismiss in July.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Religion of National Security

Anyone who’s camped out at a folk music festival and has been woken up at 2 a.m. by a blaringly rendered version of “Bella Ciao” knows that trumpet players are terrorists. But the Trump administration is taking that a bit literally: The Department of Commerce announced in early August that it plans to implement a 25 percent tariff on brass instruments, citing national security concerns about America’s perceived overreliance on foreign copper alloys. The move throws into sharp relief how far the term “national security” has wandered from its bare-bones literal meaning: defending a country from threats.

Our leaders have been referencing “national security” more or less since the founding. In a 1791 address to Congress, George Washington argued that militias were “of primary importance” to the young country’s “national security” to, among other things, fight against the “deluded tribes.”

But the term didn’t enter everyday vernacular until much later. During the New Deal era, as historian Andrew Preston put it in his book Total Defense, its meaning expanded: “Security became ideological as well as territorial, normative as well as physical, global and not just continental. It became, as it still is today, all-encompassing.”

Americans’ anti-communist fervor during the Cold War then laid the groundwork for today’s formalized national security state. The National Security Act of 1947 created many of the structures we now see as intrinsic to our national security, such as the CIA, the National Security Council, and the Department of Defense—even if it never actually defined the term. It “is sort of like a Christmas tree. Everybody can just kind of hang what they want onto it,” Delaware Law School professor Elizabeth Beavers told me.

The September 11 attacks weighed down that tree with a host of new meanings. Yumna Rizvi, a fellow at the Center for International Policy, cites the fall of the twin towers as the point when national security swallowed the world. Within days, Congress passed a sweeping authorization of military force that has yet to be repealed, and President George W. Bush was calling for a “crusade” against “terrorism.” By January 2002, the US had opened its prison at Guantánamo Bay for combatants in the so-called global war on terror. Just over a year after 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security was officially up and running.

“We became a fear-based, hyper-security state,” Rizvi said. “It was a shock to the American system.”

National security went from being a governmental priority to a full-blown religion. Bits of twisted steel from the wreckage of the towers were shipped all over the world and welded into ad hoc memorials in places like a strip mall in Parma, Ohio, and a firehouse in Giddings, Texas, where they were honored as saintly relics—“franchising 9/11 memory,” as researchers Samuel and Max Holleran put it.

If national security is everything, then national security is nothing at all, apart from a tool “to vilify, to punish, to create division” in the post-9/11 era.

Some “survivor steel” was even melted into the hull of the USS New York, a warship later deployed to the Persian Gulf. The subsequent 20 years of war cost an estimated 900,000 lives—including about 15,000 Americans—and at least $4 trillion.

Much of the infrastructure from the war on terror is still with us today. Events like the annual Christianity & National Security conference continue to cloak it in religious fervor. Meanwhile, “national security” has become a catchall for anything the government wants to spend money on—including domestic initiatives with little or no benefit to the public.

Every president since Bush has made use of the blunt weapon of national security to push their interests, but Donald Trump’s use has been unprecedentedly brazen. The White House ballroom is national security. Canceling offshore wind leases and dialing back limits on toxic chemical emissions are national security. Erasing transgender people from public life is national security, too.

And then there’s everybody’s favorite rage object, the hyperscale data center. As people started pushing back against these energy-guzzling, chatbot-sustaining behemoths en masse, those who stand to profit from the data center boom turned to a familiar argument. “It is a national security imperative for the United States to achieve and maintain unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance,” Trump, who has invested millions of dollars in companies that build data center infrastructure, wrote in a 2025 executive order. Celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary, whose 40,000-acre data center proposal in Utah was met with furious backlash, promptly labeled his opponents Chinese Communist Party plants and declared his project a national security necessity. “Who would want to stop us from having the compute capacity to develop AI? Which adversary would want that? There’s only one, it’s China,” he said on Fox News. And Trump has described the AI giant Anthropic alternately as either useful to national security or a national security threat, depending on the day.

Republicans aren’t alone in hanging their priorities on this Christmas tree. Gun violence has been dubbed a national security issue, and a spate of recent think pieces have declared Trump himself a national security threat. Other ideas transcend party lines. For decades, the Pentagon viewed climate change through that lens—“If you can’t land troops in a foreign country because the beach you thought was going to be something you could land on is no longer there, then it’s a national security issue,” one retired general warned on NPR during the first Trump administration. (The Defense Department “does not do climate change crap,” Secretary Pete Hegseth now insists.)

The outcome, of course, is that if national security is everything, then national security is nothing at all, apart from a tool to revive a zombie army of post-9/11 legal mechanisms against all sorts of domestic dissidents—the slew of anti-ICE protesters charged under Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 can attest to that. “The system has expanded to new uses, new targets, new opportunities to vilify, to punish, to create division. It started with the vilification of Muslims, and now you see it being used against immigrants and people on the left,” Rizvi says.

If Trump gets his way, it might be used against your local middle school’s tuba player, too.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

“We’ve Been Told There’s Another Plane in the Air and It’s Heading Here”

It’s been 25 years since the horrific attacks of 9/11. In the immediate aftermath, there was a hope that this nightmare would compel the nation to adopt a more serious approach to politics and foreign policy. That didn’t happen. President George W. Bush also urged the country to not allow 9/11 to give rise to greater Islamophobia. These days, anti-Muslim bigotry appears to be more prevalent, at least when it comes to Republican politicians and right-wing figures spreading and weaponizing this hatred. Five years ago, I wrote this remembrance of that awful morning to highlight the lessons we should have learned and to honor the passengers of Flight 93, whose courageous actions likely saved many lives, possibly my own.

“They’re attacking. They’re attacking.”

That’s what a woman shouted when I asked what was happening. I was walking past the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill, and Senate staffers were pouring onto the street on a gorgeous September morning. Who? I asked her. Where? “The Pentagon, the Mall, the White House, everywhere!” she exclaimed and hurried past. I rushed to the modest Nation magazine bureau—my one-room office in a building between the Supreme Court and the Senate buildings, half a block east of the Capitol—and flipped on an old black-and-white television set.

The towers were burning. People were leaping from unimaginable heights. The Pentagon had been hit. I called home to make sure my wife knew what was happening. I tried phoning family in New York City but couldn’t get through. I glanced at email. There was a message my editor in New York had sent a few minutes before 9 a.m. A plane had crashed into the World Trade Center, but she noted that this was unlikely to affect the issue going to press the next day. That was before the second airliner struck at 9:03 a.m. Everything had already changed.

I grabbed a notebook and raced outside into chaos. The Capitol and the office buildings had been evacuated. Legislators and staffers milled about on the streets. No one knew what to do or where to go. No one was in charge. Capitol Hill officers circulated without any apparent direction. Rumors were rampant: George W. Bush was dead. Explosions were going off throughout Washington. A dirty bomb had been detonated.

At the corner of Constitution Avenue NE and First Street, on the edge of the Capitol grounds, I spotted West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd. He was the president pro tempore of the Senate, which meant he was third in line for presidential succession, behind the vice president and the House speaker. At the moment, this seemed significant. Accompanied by a single aide, he seemed lost, unsure of how to proceed. As I reached them, they were asking a Capitol Hill officer for guidance. “I don’t know,” the officer said. “But we’ve been told there’s another plane in the air and it’s heading here. So, get in a car and drive as far as you can from here right now.”

Byrd seemed shaken by the news that there was no plan. This was absurd. The aide grabbed Byrd by the arm and said, “C’mon, Senator.” He led him away through the crowd. I looked at the officer. “A plane is coming this way?” I asked. “That’s what they’re telling us,” he said, adding, “That’s all I know.” He then said, “Good luck,” and trotted off.

I dashed back to my building, which housed offices for nonprofit groups and residential apartments, several of which had been occupied by past and present legislators, including former Democratic Sens. Howell Heflin, Al Gore, and John Stennis, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. (Yes, Gingrich and I were neighbors, so to speak, for many years. But that’s another story.) I ran down the halls on each of the five floors of the back half of the building, banging on doors and informing occupants that a Capitol Hill officer had said a plane was flying toward us. “I don’t want to spread rumors,” I said, “But…”

When I knocked on one door and it opened, I saw dozens of people crowded into a living room. This was the apartment for then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who had moved his evacuated staff into it. I passed along the intel from the officer and quickly moved on, as the senator and his staffers scrammed out of the apartment. After warning all I could, I sprinted to my car and drove away from Capitol Hill as fast as possible.

By this point, I believe, Flight 93, the fourth plane, had crashed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. It was brought down a few minutes after 10 a.m., when passengers on the flight, having heard of the attacks on the World Trade Center during cellphone conversations with friends and relatives, rushed the cockpit to thwart the al-Qaeda hijackers. As the 9/11 Commission’s final report noted, “Several passengers had terminated phone calls with loved ones to join the revolt. One of the callers ended her message as follows: ‘Everyone’s running up to first class. I’ve got to go.’” The report concluded that the intended target for Flight 93 was the Capitol or the White House. The Boeing 757 was 20 minutes flying time from Washington when those brave passengers confronted the enemy.

I often think of these men and women. Their actions prevented even more death and destruction on September 11. Did they save the lives of people on Capitol Hill or the White House? Did they foil an attack that could have decapitated an entire branch of the US government or destroyed the symbol of the American republic? Imagine the consequences of a successful strike on the Capitol when Congress was in session.

One lesson of the many from that harrowing day was that the United States was blind to a profound threat and thus totally unprepared. As the 9/11 report famously observed, “The most important failure was one of imagination. We do not believe leaders understood the gravity of the threat.” Yet the report illustrated that there had been plenty of indicators of such an attack—many dots that could have been connected. And while we now live in a world of reinforced cockpit doors and long airport lines and TSA inspections, 9/11 is—or should be—a reminder of how oblivious we can be and of the necessity of thinking creatively about dangers that may lie ahead. That’s true regarding threats beyond those from terrorists, such as pandemics, climate change, and domestic extremism.

A more uplifting takeaway from 9/11 is that just as the actions of a few evildoers can cause immense damage and alter the course of life across the globe, the actions of a small group of noble-minded people can do so much good. The Flight 93 passengers and crew gave their lives to make a terrible day less terrible. All of us who were on Capitol Hill that awful morning may well owe them a debt that cannot be paid. Yet, paradoxically, because they succeeded—they averted an even greater catastrophe in the nation’s capital that day—the crash of Flight 93 has tended to receive less attention in the 9/11 narrative. The iconic images that continue to define our memories of that horror come from downtown Manhattan or the Pentagon, not a verdant field in rural Pennsylvania.

Still, they are remembered. There is a memorial plaque within the Capitol building honoring the 40 passengers and crew members who perished on the flight. It reads: “In memory of the passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93, whose brave sacrifice on September 11, 2001, not only saved countless lives but may have saved the U.S. Capitol from destruction.”

In Shanksville, there is a national memorial for them. It includes a 93-foot-tall tower with wind chimes like none other in the world. As the National Park Service explains, “The chime system is designed using music theory to identify a mathematically developed range of frequencies needed to produce a distinct musical note associated with each chime. The applied music theory allows the sound produced by individual chimes to be musically compatible with the sound produced by the other chimes in the tower. The intent is to create a set of forty tones (voices) that can connote through consonance the serenity and nobility of the site while also through dissonance recalling the event that consecrated the site.” You can hear them here.

A live webcam shows the tower 24/7. Every so often, I drop by the website. For a while, on Monday evening at sunset, no one was there. Clouds slowly rolled across a blue sky in the orange glow of a beautiful late-summer day, two decades after the crash. A single person—a man—walked up to the tower. He stood there by himself for several minutes. Did he know he was being watched? He kissed his hand, placed it against the base of the tower, and then left to return to his life.

You can sign up for a free trial subscription to David Corn’s Our Land newsletter at davidcorn.com.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Utah’s Voters Would Like Their National Monuments Back, Thank You

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

Two-thirds of Utah voters support restoring the boundaries of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments to the previous boundaries they had before President Donald Trump reduced them to less than a quarter of their original size.

That’s according to new polling commissioned by the Grand Canyon Trust, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting the Four Corners region, and conducted by New Bridge Strategy, and comes as the Trump administration’s actions prompt the reignition of major lawsuits from environmental organizations, conservation groups and outdoor apparel maker Patagonia.

“Whether every elected official agrees with the results or not, these findings are profoundly telling and should not be ignored.”

“Utahns are currently speaking up, and they’re saying that the decision made regarding Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments being shrunk down are wrong and tribes should have been consulted,” said Autumn Gillard, the cultural resource manager for the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah and coordinator of the Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal Coalition, at a press conference hosted Wednesday to announce the poll results.

Before their downsizing, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments collectively stretched across over 3 million acres of public lands in southern Utah. Via two executive orders in July, Trump cut the monuments to just 302,600 acres to better align with the administration’s goal of opening up public lands for mining.

Gone are many of the two monuments’ protections for scores of archeological sites and some of the country’s last intact landscapes. Already, mining interests have begun staking claims in the area, even before the downsizing was complete. The executive orders also dissolved the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, which spearheaded the monument’s groundbreaking co-stewardship efforts.

The polling found 69 percent of Utahns opposed terminating that coalition, and 82 percent say tribal voices are important for managing the sites. Nearly three-quarters of Utah voters support presidents’ authority to designate national monuments under the Antiquities Act, a long-standing piece of legislation that Republicans have targeted, and 81 percent of Utahns oppose selling public lands to private interests, which Utah Republicans have advocated for.

“Whether every elected official agrees with the results or not, these findings are profoundly telling and should not be ignored,” said Davina Smith-Idjesa, a member of the Navajo Nation and part of both monuments’ inter-tribal coalitions, about the polling. “They reflect broad support within Utah for protecting these national monuments and ensuring that tribal nations have a meaningful and lasting role in their future.”

Having “earth-moving equipment, flags staked, and a just general industrial presence within these really beautiful, undeveloped landscapes is a tragedy.”

Other polls have found similar results: Colorado College’s 16th annual Conservation in the West Poll found 91 percent of voters in the Western US support keeping existing national monument designations in place.

In a statement, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said previous administrations abused their power under “the Antiquities Act to lock up millions of acres of Utah’s public lands, impoverishing local communities and sharply restricting access for recreation, grazing, resource development, and fire prevention” and downsizing the monuments “allow for common sense land use in these areas.”

Trump’s downsizing of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante this year isn’t his first attempt. In 2017, he reduced Bears Ears by 85 percent, and cut Grand Staircase-Escalante nearly in half. Environmental groups, including the Grand Canyon Trust, filed suit, as did local tribes, Patagonia and Access Fund, the national rock climbing advocacy organization.

That litigation was paused after the Biden administration restored the monuments. But it has since been reignited, with Patagonia, Access Fund, and the coalition of environmental groups filing to restart their lawsuits. The tribal groups, for now, have not refiled.

Those challenges rest on the Antiquities Act of 1906. That law gives presidents the power to create national monuments, but not to downsize them. That power rests with Congress. Last year, the Department of Justice outlined its reasoning for the opposite in a memo, but legal scholars have questioned that position and how it would hold up in court, if used.

Tom Delehanty, senior attorney with Earthjustice, which represents the coalition of environmental groups, said Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante are treasured for their significance to scientific research, cultural and historical significance to local tribes and opportunities for public recreation, and that’s why protecting them is so important. Delehanty expects developers to move quickly to try and stake claims.

“Having things like earth-moving equipment, flags staked, and a just general industrial presence within these really beautiful, undeveloped landscapes is a tragedy,” he said. “It’s very much something that we want to avoid, and it’s part of why these lawsuits are so important.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Don’t Be Fooled. Congress Isn’t Cracking Down on OpenAI.

A Republican-led Senate subcommittee on disaster management is now investigating the July incident where OpenAI’s autonomous models hacked Hugging Face, another AI startup, during internal testing.

Axios first reported the Senate probe on Thursday, providing a letter by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), the chair of the Subcommittee on Disaster Management, to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman from a day before.

Citing an August investigation from Model Evaluation and Threat Research and Redwood Research, two nonprofit research organizations, Hawley wrote to Altman that OpenAI knew that its agents were “exhibiting rogue behavior” but continued its internal testing anyway—an act he described as “reckless” to the degree of necessitating a Senate investigation.

“The American people deserve to know the details of what went on in the Hugging Face incident and other incidents of AI models going rogue,” Hawley wrote, also pointing to the growing number of experts warning about the existential safety risks of AI technology.

The subcommittee asks OpenAI 16 questions on the Hugging Face incident, including the rationale behind OpenAI’s decision to continue testing despite seeing evidence of “rogue AI activity,” every incident since OpenAI’s inception that its AI agents compromised internal testing environments, public servers, other other external systems like websites, and what the company has done to prevent its AI agents from hacking into personal information from both in-company and external systems. It requests OpenAI’s answers and documentation by October 1.

WillOpenAI comply? Based on its track record with other congressional requests, that seems unlikely. The company has delayed oversight conversations on the Hugging Face incident with House members, including a similar oversight request for internal incident logs from the breach by August 24, only some of which it eventually provided on August 31.

“Providing hand-picked investigators six days of supervised access is not public release, and those investigators themselves flagged that they could not rule out errors in their AI-assisted analysis,” Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) wrote to Altman last week, referring to the August investigation by Model Evaluation and Threat Research and Redwood Research.

As my colleague Satchel Walton wrote last month, federal legislation—let alone thoroughregulatory action informed by technical expertise—is difficult to pass through Congress when so many lawmakers oppose serious crackdowns on industry. Most prospective AI regulation bills have not even been brought to vote in committee, paving the way for AI companies to police themselves, a mandate they’re taking up enthusiastically but on very different terms than many critics seek. On Wednesday, OpenAI said it wanted to work with Congress to create “mandatory national AI safety requirements.”

In July, shortly following news of the Hugging Face breach, Miranda Bogen, the founding director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s AI Governance Lab, told me that even laws that are able to pass at the state level largely “ask companies to come up with their own safety plan and to follow that safety plan” and focus around the frontier lab risks from the major companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google. There are AI threats relevant to everyday life—such as attacks to banks, schools, or hospitals—that don’t go through the same questions of testing and regulation, Bogen said.

In other words, the Senate investigation into OpenAI’s breach of Hugging Face looks more like a mild concession to growing opposition toward the AI industry and its conduct, rather than a path toward meaningful safety and regulation.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Your Deadbeat President Is Never Giving You $5,000

The year is 2026, and by now, you know, with clarity, that Donald Trump is a brazen liar with an unusually impressive record of promising free cash—only to rarely ever fulfill those lofty pledges. It is the personality of a deadbeat that long precedes his entry into politics. But in between flashing “meat pics” of Hasan Piker and a surprise video appearance by John Fetterman, rabid cheers greeted the president’s offer to hand out $5,000 checks to every adult in the United States if Republicans win both the House and Senate in the November midterms.

“It will be called the Trump Dividend,” he said at Wednesday’s GOP convention in Dallas, as a beaming Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, applauded along.

.@POTUS announces the TRUMP DIVIDEND: If Republicans win both the House and the Senate, because of our tremendous economic success, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States for $5,000 pic.twitter.com/s4orJJGx9d

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 10, 2026

The plan, as many have now weighed in, would cost at least $1 trillion and arrives just as alarm bells are clanging over a ballooning national debt and everyday expenses continuously get more expensive. But Trump’s latest pledge is as fantastical and mendacious as many of Trump’s previous promises of free cash: $2,000 checks from supposed tariff revenue, $5,000 checks from all that money we never saved from DOGE, etc. This time around, though, some on the right don’t appear to be buying it. Here’s Fox News cautioning against believing Trump:

Fox pointing out this is not the first time that Trump has promised cash payments: He promised Americans $2000 rebate during his tariff policy when that was enacted, but those $2000 checks so far have not materialized. pic.twitter.com/4KH7VUIjCT

— Acyn (@Acyn) September 10, 2026

The rare caveat by Fox News comes amid signs that Trump’s frantic midterm strategy—which has involved a whole lot of lying, efforts to feign indifference, and impossible Iran war predictions—isn’t agreeing with Republicans, as more appear to distance themselves from the increasingly unpopular president. But at Wednesday’s convention, the first of its kind for the midterms, Trump continued to demand attention to the one person Republicans could afford to hear less from these days. “Pretend that I am running,” he told the crowd.

It isn’t a coincidence, then, that also on Wednesday night, ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel announced that his interview with James Talarico, the Democratic Senate candidate in Texas, would no longer air on broadcast television after new threats from the FCC. As Kimmel told the audience, Trump’s “FCC has threatened me, threatened our show, threatened our network, ABC, our affiliates, our local stations—based on simple, traditional editorial decisions, guest bookings it would seem they don’t like.” The announcement, which follows a similar move by the FCC when Stephen Colbert interviewed Talarico in February, reveals more of the same chaos ahead of the fast-approaching November elections, as well as a president desperately using every lever of political power to keep the spotlight on himself.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Will Putin’s Decade-Long War on US Elections Hit the Midterms?

In July 2025, Tulsi Gabbard, then–­director of national intelligence, strode into the White House briefing room to press the case that Barack Obama had mounted a “treasonous conspiracy.”

Days earlier, she had brazenly misrepresented declassified documents to challenge a damning 2017 intelligence assessment: Russia covertly assaulted the 2016 election—by hacking Democratic emails and pushing online disinformation—to sow discord, hinder Hillary Clinton, and assist Donald Trump. Now, Gabbard falsely claimed that Obama had cooked up the Moscow-­aided-Trump finding as a “coup” to “undermine” Trump. She asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into ex–Obama aides; it quickly did.

Trump and his allies embraced her lies, even though they were easy to debunk. Russia’s interference had been exhaustively documented by special counsel Robert Mueller—and by the Senate’s intelligence committee, then chaired by Republican Marco Rubio, which concluded that Vladimir Putin “ordered” attacks to “harm the Clinton campaign…help the Trump campaign…and undermine” US democracy.

Gabbard was providing Trump yet another chance to falsely claim the Deep State had conspired to delegitimize him. But Russian interference was very real—and it didn’t just happen in 2016. It’s occurred in every major election since, and Trump has abetted Putin’s decadelong assault, not only by denying this “gray warfare” is taking place, but also by neutering the federal government’s ability to thwart it.

During the 2020 contest, the Kremlin colluded—yes, colluded—with Rudy Giuliani to smear Joe Biden. Trump’s personal attorney assembled a team of operatives who zeroed in on Hunter Biden’s board seat at Ukrainian energy company Burisma. To portray Biden as corrupt, they falsely claimed that as vice president, he had forced the firing of a prosecutor because he had investigated Burisma.

This charge was readily disproved, but as the MAGA ecosystem kept hawking it, Giuliani hooked up with Andriy Derkach, a pro-Russia Ukrainian legislator who claimed to have documents showing Biden got $900,000 from Burisma. (No such evidence ever emerged.) Derkach had not yet been officially fingered as a covert agent, but it was known he had attended the KGB’s spy academy and had pushed the Moscow-generated conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in 2016. (Giuliani claimed he had “no reason to believe [Derkach] is a Russian agent.”) Nonetheless, in December 2019, Giuliani, joined by a One America News crew, interviewed him for hours at a luxury hotel outside Kyiv. OAN claimed the legislator “confirmed Burisma’s money laundering, Hunter and Joe Biden’s direct involvement, and [Ukraine’s 2016] interference.”

In May 2020, Derkach again boosted Giuliani’s get-Biden operation by releasing audio of calls between Biden and a former Ukrainian president, claiming they showed “international corruption and state treason.” While the fragments revealed no wrongdoing, for MAGA they were ammo. Fox News reported there were “new questions” about the Bidens. OAN aired “Biden’s Bribe Tapes,” a three-part series, and Trump retweeted a post pushing the clips.

Three weeks after that tweet, Trump’s Treasury Department sanctioned Derkach, declaring he had been “an active Russian agent for over a decade” who was running a “covert influence campaign…cultivating false and unsubstantiated narratives” to “discredit U.S. officials” ahead of the 2020 election. To sum up: According to the Trump administration itself, the president’s personal lawyer had collaborated with a Russian agent mounting a covert action to help Trump win.

The Derkach plot failed to keep Biden from booting Trump out of the presidency. But for Trump’s 2024 comeback, the Kremlin again launched a massive disinformation campaign, this time through covert networks researchers assigned names such as Storm-1516 and Doppelganger. With Russia now waging a barbaric war against Ukraine, these groups initially concentrated on discrediting its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as corrupt and criticizing Biden’s support of him. On sites designed to look like the Washington Post, Fox News, and other media outlets, Doppelganger also disseminated false stories about the election to US voters: Fraud was widely expected, bribed judges would impede Trump, Biden was close to “losing his mind.” In one instance, Russian operators created a video that supposedly disclosed a secret anti-Trump CIA–Ukrainian operation. Citing this video, DNI Avril Haines testified that Russia remained “the most active foreign threat to our elections.”

In July 2024, the Justice Department announced it had seized US domains and taken down 968 X accounts that were part of a Russian AI bot farm. Intelligence officials told reporters that Moscow was engaged in a “whole-of-government approach to influence the election.” A DNI fact sheet noted Russia was working to “target specific voter demographics, promote divisive narratives, and denigrate specific politicians” and aimed to “covertly use social media to amplify narratives to sway…swing states.” Biden officials did not explicitly state Putin was interfering to assist Trump—they didn’t want to be accused of influencing the election themselves—but that was clearly Moscow’s intent. And hard evidence soon emerged.

Two months later, the Justice Department revealed it had seized 32 domains used by Doppelganger to “covertly spread Russian government propaganda” smearing Ukraine and “influencing voters.” An internal memo from the operation disclosed by prosecutors said it “makes sense for Russia to put a maximum effort” into backing Republicans and Trump voters. In another case, employees of Kremlin propaganda outlet RT were charged with funneling millions via a US media company to prominent right-­wingers such as Benny Johnson, who produced videos and podcasts bolstering pro-Trump themes. These MAGA influencers insisted that they knew nothing about Russian funding. But Margarita Simonyan, RT’s editor-in-chief, later boasted that the project had “created a large network” with “electorally significant influence.”

After Biden withdrew and Kamala Harris stepped in, the Kremlin’s information war fixed on the new nominee and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. A network dubbed Storm-1679 created posts and videos to look like mainstream media reports: Harris had an abortion as a teen, was concealing family wealth, and was exhibiting early Alzheimer’s. It stoked fears of civil war, postelection violence, and a US–Russia conflict that could end in nuclear catastrophe.

One Storm-1516 video viewed by millions purportedly showed Harris supporters assaulting a Trump rallygoer. Another presented an actor sharing a fake story that Harris once paralyzed a girl in a hit-and-run. A deepfake depicted Harris joking about the assassination attempts on Trump. A month before Election Day, Storm-1516’s fake sites smeared Walz, a former high school teacher, saying he inappropriately touched a student—a false story seen by tens of millions. Storm-1516 also circulated a deepfake video of Pennsylvania mail ballots being destroyed. Another claimed Harris was linked to a small packet of cocaine found in the White House.

Trump’s refusal to acknowledge Russian interference is a clear and present danger.

Neither the Biden White House nor Harris’ campaign raised a major fuss, and there’s no telling the disinformation’s impact. But clearly, Putin remained on Trump’s side. After Trump’s victory, the Treasury Department sanctioned a Russian think tank for collaborating with the Russian military on “various influence operations,” including manipulating video to “produce baseless accusations concerning a 2024 vice presidential candidate.”

So Russian meddling in the 2016 election was no anomaly, and Gabbard’s attempt to undermine and criminalize the intelligence community’s 2017 conclusion was nothing but a con job. But the Trump gang’s refusal to acknowledge what happened in the past is more than a lie; it is a clear and present danger.

Since Trump reentered the White House, he and his aides, striving to wipe the Russia stain from his 2016 victory, have sought retribution against officials who investigated Putin’s information warfare. Even worse, they have eviscerated the government’s ability to counter it—or similar actions by other adversaries. FBI agents and intelligence officials involved in past inquiries into Russian interference were canned or forced out. The FBI’s foreign influence task force was dismantled, as was the DNI’s Foreign Malign Influence Center. Staffing at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which helps protect election systems, was slashed. Rubio, now secretary of state, shut down the department office tracking foreign disinformation.

The Department of Justice and the intelligence services are now run by lackeys who’ve shown they are more dedicated to helping Trump rewrite history and preserve his power—perhaps even by undermining elections—than to national security. “It’s astounding,” former FBI counterintelligence chief Frank Figliuzzi told NBC. “It’s now a free-for-all for foreign intel services seeking influence.”

November’s elections present Putin another opportunity. “One hundred percent: The Russians will want to screw around,” says a former top CIA official. Trump’s administration is not only unprepared to counter any such assault—it appears unwilling. “Trump wants them to mess around in his favor,” this official adds. A past beneficiary of Putin skulduggery, Trump has unilaterally disarmed and, in a way, surrendered to Putin, placing his own interests over those of the nation.

Adapted from How Russia Won: Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and the Fight for America (HarperCollins), which is being published September 15, 2026.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Soaring Insurance Prices Are Hitting Black and Hispanic Homeowners Hardest

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

Homeowners in Hispanic and Black communities nationwide are paying a disproportionate share of skyrocketing home insurance costs, according to a recent report. The disparities leave communities of color at greater risk as climate change increases the frequency of billion-dollar disasters.

The report, released in July by the Consumer Federation of America, a nonprofit representing nearly 250 consumer groups, concluded that homeowners in predominantly Hispanic zip codes pay on average a 30 percent higher premium ($950 more annually) compared with homeowners in white communities. In predominantly Black zip codes, homeowners pay, on average, a 16 percent higher premium ($500 more annually).

The findings were based on an analysis of identical policies across communities, eliminating the possibility the inequities were related to differences among homeowners, their homes or what they chose to insure, the report said. Local risk factors could be responsible for some of the disparities, although even when such factors were accounted for the gap remained large.

“A lot of this bias can kind of creep in if they’re not paying attention to potential unequal impacts.”

“We’ve talked a lot about our insurance affordability crisis,” said Sharon Cornelissen, director of housing at the Consumer Federation of America and a co-author of the report. “What we haven’t really talked about is sort of the racially inequitable impacts of that, and that Black and Hispanic homeowners are particularly struggling.”

The inequities add up to at least $28,500 in additional insurance costs over the span of a 30-year mortgage for homeowners in Hispanic communities and $15,000 for homeowners in Black communities, according to the report. The situation points to a legacy of redlining in home insurance that continues to challenge communities of color when it comes to homeownership and exposure to risk, although the discrimination today may be inadvertent.

The historical practice of redlining involved the designation of certain neighborhoods as “hazardous” for mortgage lending, based largely on the race of residents. People in these neighborhoods were denied home loans, leading to lower home values and less homeownership. Although redlining ended in 1968 with the Fair Housing Act, the practice has left a legacy of segregation and disparities in these neighborhoods that endures today when it comes to health care, education, incarceration, access to nutritious food, and public investment in infrastructure. The inequities also have left these communities more vulnerable to climate impacts such as heat.

Mark Friedlander, spokesman for the Insurance Information Institute, an industry group, said premiums are based on risk and not race or ethnicity and that the system used to establish premiums is actuarially grounded and heavily regulated.

“Using race, or any proxy for race, to set insurance rates is illegal in every US jurisdiction, and state insurance regulators review and approve the rating factors insurers use precisely to guard against that,” he said in a statement provided to Inside Climate News. “Many of the communities cited in reports like this are located in areas with objectively higher catastrophe exposure or higher costs to rebuild and repair after a loss.”

The report found the most acute home insurance disparity among homeowners in predominantly Hispanic zip codes in Florida, where they pay on average 58 percent more ($5,014 annually) for the same coverage as those in white communities. In the next four states, the gap was pronounced, but smaller: 20 percent ($431) in New York, 18 percent ($278) in Washington, 16 percent ($244) in Massachusetts and 15 percent ($633) in Kansas.

Source: CFA, based on Quadrant Information Services and American Community Survey data.Paul Horn/Inside Climate News

The inequities in Florida, where homeowners have been particularly hard-hit by insurance costs, represent “an enormous amount of money,” said Moira Birss, senior fellow at the Climate and Community Institute, a progressive think tank. “And so when we’re thinking about how we’re having an affordability crisis in this country…that’s unconscionable.”

When it comes to predominantly Black zip codes, the inequities are greatest in Michigan at 74 percent ($1,768 annually), followed by Pennsylvania at 57 percent ($1,048), New Jersey at 22 percent ($332), Massachusetts at 20 percent ($321) and New York at 19 percent ($417).

Source: CFA, based on Quadrant Information Services and American Community Survey data.Paul Horn/Inside Climate News

Meanwhile, the cost of insurance for the typical homeowner jumped by 24 percent between 2021 and 2024, according to the report, based on previous research by the Consumer Federation of America. Greenhouse gas emissions, primarily those associated with fossil fuels, are heating the global climate, shifting weather patterns and leading to more extreme disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires. That risk is moving insurance companies to raise rates.

Insurance companies have provided fewer and more expensive options in communities of color compared with white communities, the report said. It highlighted a $17.5 million settlement from the 1990s over a lawsuit alleging the insurance company Nationwide discouraged agents from selling coverage in Black neighborhoods, labeled Black zip codes as undesirable, and used racial profiling to deny insurance to Black homeowners. American Family Mutual Insurance Company similarly agreed to pay more than $16 million in a settlement to Black homeowners who were provided inferior policies and, in some cases, denied coverage based on race.

More recently insurers have adopted new proprietary methods for determining premiums and claims payments, including some incorporating artificial intelligence, that raise concerns about possible discrimination, according to the report. For instance, previous research by the Consumer Federation of America found that homeowners with lower credit scores pay an average penalty of $1,996 annually, or 99 percent more, for insurance, a concern considering longstanding structural factors that have meant communities of color tend to have lower credit scores.

“I’m not saying that they have some secret race factor that they put into their model,” Cornelissen said. “A lot of this bias can kind of creep in if they’re not paying attention to potential unequal impacts. A lot of this could be through AI models or other factors that have a disproportionate impact on Black and Hispanic communities.”

Friedlander said the best way to make insurance more affordable and equitable is by reducing risk through resilience efforts such as strengthening building codes and increasing mitigation funding.

The report called on states to enforce fair housing laws and demand more transparency and accountability.

“Unless the insurance industry wants to give us more information about why this is happening,” Birss said, “it’s pretty hard not to interpret this as pretty serious racial discrimination.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Blue-State Hospitals Are Folding on Trans Youth Care. Parents Are Wondering Why They Moved.

Last week, the Mount Sinai hospital system in New York—which sees about 6 million outpatient visits per year—announced that it had reached a settlement with the Department of Justice, agreeing to stop providing gender-affirming care to trans patients under 18.

That was disturbing news to Angelica Jadunandan, who moved to New York from Florida with her two young daughters three years ago. Her older daughter, who is eight, is transgender, and Angelica wanted to move them to a safe blue state—somewhere her family’s medical care would not be called into question. New York is a self-declared “sanctuary state” for trans people. It seemed like a good option.

“My daughter told me she was trans when she was three years old,” Jadunadan told a group of protesters outside Mount Sinai on September 8th. “It wasn’t ‘I think.’ It was ‘I know.’” So the family moved a thousand miles from home, hoping for safety. “But I know better than most that this fight follows you, wherever you go,” Jadunadan said.

As hospitals continue to fold to Trump’s Department of Justice, gender-affirming care for trans kids, even in blue states, is looking less secure. In 2026, major hospital systems in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Colorado have stopped offering transition-related care to patients under 18 as federal authorities threaten their funding.

Under the Mount Sinai settlement, trans patients under 18 will no longer be able to access treatments including puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy. The hospital also agreed to allocate $2 million to a “detransition clinic” similar to one the Department of Justice has demanded Texas Children’s Hospital establish.

The US Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Texas sent a grand jury subpoena to Mount Sinai and another New York hospital seeking confidential information about patients under age 18 in May. Mount Sinai officials said the settlement was necessary “so that Mount Sinai will not be compelled to produce these highly sensitive patient records to the grand jury,” a spokesperson wrote.

Even before the latest settlement, transition-related care at Mount Sinai was difficult or even impossible for patients under 18 to secure, several speakers at the September 8 rally said. The process “has personally taken me years,” Sam, a 17-year-old Mount Sinai patient, said. “And it’s absolutely soul-crushing that my dream is just one reach of my hand away, yet because of what’s happening with the DOJ and the potential settlement, Mount Sinai might agree to end it before it even started.”

Over the past several years, hundreds of thousands of trans adults and parents of trans children have fled home states with anti-trans laws in search of somewhere they might maintain their civil rights and access to healthcare. But since Donald Trump’s reelection in January 2025, his administration has attacked state-level protections for trans people.

Many of the administration’s efforts have failed. At least eight separate administrative subpoenas which would have forced hospitals to release trans kids’ medical records have been thrown out by judges. Another massive slate of DOJ subpoenas against California hospitals was dropped in January.

But some hospitals have begun to comply anyway. At least three major hospital systems in progressive Massachusetts—Fenway Health, Outer Cape Health Services, and Baystate Health—have cancelled all gender-affirming care appointments for patients under 19, as the Guardian reported in September. New York University’s Langone Health system discontinued its trans youth care program in February. In March 2026, New York Attorney General Letitia James ordered Langone to resume its youth gender-affirming care program, but the hospital system kept the program shuttered.

“To Mount Sinai, and to all of the spineless cowards who have bent the knee to the clowns in charge, the boots you lick today will stomp on you tomorrow!” Jadunadan said, adding, “I did not make that up. I saw that embroidered somewhere.”

Other resources remain available to New York’s trans kids. Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced a $15 million trans care investment in June, and the public hospital system and some Planned Parenthood clinics still offer puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy. Taylor Brown, who leads the city’s newly-established Office of LGBTQIA+ Affairs, spoke at the rally outside Mount Sinai.

“If you are a young trans person and you are in need of healthcare, please reach out to me,” Brown said. “You will not go without healthcare, I can assure you of that. We are here for you, we love you.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Get Ready For OpenAI’s ‘The Social Network’ Movie Moment

“Countries will fall. Industries are gonna collapse,” Andrew Garfield, the actor playing OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, says in the teaser trailer for Artificial. “And we get to be the ones to shepherd people into this new world.”

The film’s set against the backdrop of the five days in November 2023 after Altman was ousted and then reinstated as CEO. The drama of that week is now the stuff of legend: text messages between Altman and then-interim CEO Mira Murati, later released in court documents, show him desperately pleading for the board to reinstate him. Even more extensive reporting from the time turned up dozens of Atlman’s former co-workers, all of whom describe him as someone with an implacable drive for more power. Will Artificial have any sympathy for him? Or will he be a monstrous villain undeserving of such consideration?

The trailer doesn’t do much to dispel this notion. In it, Garfield gets out of a Batmobile-looking car and walks into a futuristic blue-light room stacked with automatic guns encased in glass shelves. The question for audiences isn’t subtle: can and should Altman be trusted with a tool as powerful as artificial intelligence?

The movie’s marketed as a thriller, which makes sense because OpenAI has undeniably done things worthy of the genre. This week, the Intercept reported that the Pentagon asked the company, which signed a $200-million agreement with OpenAI back in February, to design automated tools that would rarely deny their requests.

Then on Monday, OpenAI announced that it had solved a 200-year-old math problem, and on Tuesday, said it only took its AI agents 88 hours to complete and provided its full solution to the public. That would be a monumental achievement, evidence of AI’s efficiency over human intelligence. But mathematician Tristan Buckmaster said on Monday night the company actually rushed to solve the equation after learning about his and his colleague’s, Levent Alpöge, an Anthropic employee, progress on the problem using Anthropic and OpenAI tools. It wasn’t about the good of humanity. It was about competition.

On Tuesday, OpenAI said it heard rumors last week that two complex, long-unsolved math problems had been solved—one of which was the problem Buckmaster and Alpöge were working on. “Inspired by these rumors,” the company said it tried to use one of its internal models to solve it and said it did not realize until later that Alpöge was an Anthropic employee.

The movie, scheduled to release on December 25, also has drama of its own: Amazon dropped the project in June, following its partnership with OpenAI, which integrates the company’s models into Amazon Web Services.

Garfield notably portrayed Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin in The Social Network, a 2010 film about Mark Zuckerberg’s time in college. That film seemed to sympathize with Zuckerberg as a tragic figure leading a company that hadn’t yet leaked tens of millions of users’ personal data, failed to stop its platform from being used to “foment division and incite offline violence” in the ongoing genocide of the Rohingya people in Myanmar, or become a hotbed of dangerous AI slop.

Public sentiment has turned so squarely against companies that profit from social media that even West Wing creator Aaron Sorkin—who also wrote the screenplay for the 2010 film—has returned to the action with another dramatic rendering of Zuckerberg due out in October and aptly named The Social Reckoning.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

A Teachers Union and Microsoft Just Made An AI Safety Deal. But Compliance Remains an Open Question.

On Wednesday morning, in a Manhattan press room containing about 50 reporters and union members, one of the largest teachers’ unions in the US announced an agreement with Microsoft that, among other things, prohibits the tech company from tracking student use of its AI tools and applying student and teacher data to train AI models.

The guidelineslisted in the American Federation of Teachers’ deal with Microsoft apply to any school district “that desires the same principles” when forming their own customer agreements with the company and purchasing its AI products.

The union also gives Microsoft—and any other tech company that signs on (AFT President Randi Weingarten mentioned ongoing conversations with OpenAI and Anthropic during Wednesday’s announcement)—a 180-day deadline to delete records of AI data use from students and school districts on itsactive systems following a request.

Microsoft agreed not to use student and teacher data to train its AI — but there are exceptions. The guidelines point out “narrow safety and security” situations, including letting the company use “the minimum amount” of school user data to detect, prevent, investigate, or remediate harm to users or security threats to its AI products and retain it “for as long as reasonably necessary.”

The contract also lists “contractual remedies” for school districts that sign on, such as the ability to pause or discontinue Microsoft’s deployment of its AI systems if the company commits any material breaches of its agreement obligations.

The current guidelines do not present explicit, quantifiable rules for what is considered remediation by a “reasonable” time—it’s something that both Microsoft and the customer will “engage in good faith” to come up with.

When I askedMicrosoft Vice Chair and President Brad Smith about specific guidelines on how an accountability process will work if Microsoft fails to comply with remediation on Wednesday, he largely dodged the question, saying that Microsoft has to publish reports that provide transparency to the AFT and school districts and have tight deadlines for fixes.

“Obviously, this [remediation process] becomes part of our broader contract with each school district, and all of those [existing] contracts already have built-in remedies,” Smith told Mother Jones. “I think that there’s just an unprecedented amount of transparency associated with the commitments that are in this agreement.”

When I asked again about specific steps that will be taken if Microsoft fails to comply, Smith said they are “connected back into the provisions that we have in our contract with each school district. Those can vary.”

“Mostly, what I find is that what people want when something goes wrong is just to go fix it. People don’t want to end up with more time with lawyers,” he continued. “That’s always an option if somebody wants to take action, but let’s just fix problems when they arise.”

While accountability applies to how each school district will work with Microsoft in the near future, the company seemingly not holding discussions now raises questions about the feasibility of contract enforceability.

Microsoft, and other companies like Google, have a history of promoting their AI products to schools and educators, and a healthy skepticism is needed when relying in part on tech companies to police AI and previous failures of implementing educational technology.

Weingarten and Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers representing New York City public school educators and others, who were also taking questions immediately following the announcement, did not respond to the question.

The contract comes a week after New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced a one-year moratorium on AI use for elementary and middle school students in the city’s public schools, and the Los Angeles Unified School District announced restrictions to generative AI platforms for all students for the 2026-27 school year.

The AFT’s contract with Microsoft contains the sentence “When in doubt, protect the student.” on the bottom of each of the 31 pages. But exactly how any of these policies around AI use in schools will actually work remains unclear.

Continue Reading…