Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

Outrage and Mistrust Mount as Federal Agents Shoot Two People in Portland One Day After Renee Good’s Killing

US Border Patrol shot and injured two people in Portland on Thursday, just one day after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent named Jonathan Ross shot and killed US citizen Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis.

People in Portland were already protesting the latter when they heard another shooting had happened in their city.

Local and federal authorities have said it was a man and a woman who were in a vehicle together, and, according to Portland police dispatcher reports, the man was shot in the arm while the woman was shot in the chest.

“We cannot sit by while constitutional protections erode and bloodshed mounts,” Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said in a statement, adding that the city is “not a ‘training ground’ for militarized agents, and the ‘full force’ threatened by the administration has deadly consequences.”

Wilson called on immigration officials “to end all operations in Portland until a full investigation can be completed.”

On Friday morning, the Department of Homeland Security released the names of who they say are the two individuals who immigration enforcement shot—Luis David Nico Moncada and Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras. DHS says they are in the country without documentation from Venezuela and are “suspected Tren de Aragua gang associates.” The department did not provide evidence for these claims.

Earlier on Thursday, spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said the shooting involved Border Patrol agents who “were conducting a targeted vehicle stop” of someone from Venezuela. She continued: “When agents identified themselves to the vehicle occupants, the driver weaponized his vehicle and attempted to run over the law enforcement agents.”

Prior to the names being released, at a gathering outside City Hall Thursday evening, Mayor Wilson called McLaughlin’s description of what happened into question.

“We know what the federal government says happened here,” Wilson said. “There was a time when we could take them on their word. That time has long passed. We are calling on ICE to halt all operations in Portland until a full investigation can take place.”

On Thursday, hundreds gathered outside City Hall for a vigil. Hundreds more—nearly 500 according to Oregon Public Broadcasting—protested outside the Portland ICE facility. Six people had been arrested during the protest, per police.

Protesters standoff against law enforcement outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility on Thursday, Jan. 8, 2026, in Portland, Ore.

Protesters standoff against law enforcement outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility on Thursday, Jan. 8, 2026, in Portland, Ore.Jenny Kane/AP

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield announced Thursday evening that his office is opening an investigation into the shooting. “We have been clear about our concerns with excessive use of force by federal agents in Portland and nationally,” Rayfield said, adding, “Our office will take every step necessary to ensure that the rights and security of Oregonians are protected.”

One day earlier, in Minneapolis, DHS had also said that Good, the 37-year-old woman shot and killed, had “weaponized her vehicle” in an “act of domestic terrorism.” In that case, though, there were several angles of video footage that disputed the federal response. Visual investigations by Bellingcat and the New York Times have since contradicted the official message being presented by President Donald Trump and his administration.

Following the shooting of Good, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told ICE to “get the fuck out of Minneapolis. We do not want you here.”

Oregon Senate Majority Leader Kayse Jama, who arrived in the US as a refugee from Somalia, echoed that sentiment on Thursday, telling federal immigration agents to “get the hell out of our community.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

“Garbage”: How Trump Used to Talk About Venezuelan Oil

Not long ago, President Donald Trump had a clear opinion of Venezuelan oil.

Throughout his 2024 presidential campaign, he called the country’s crude “horrible,” “tar,” “the dirtiest stuff you can imagine,” and the “worst oil probably anywhere in the world.” But, less than two years later, President Trump has framed his move to depose Nicolás Maduro in large part as a move to seize this “garbage” oil.

Trump used to regularly disparage Venezuelan oil. Now he’s sent the American military in to capture it.

His reservations about the quality of the fossil fuels he plans to acquire have disappeared. Instead, the president has suggested he may be willing to send in more US troops to keep control of it and that he’s not “afraid of boots on the ground.” Gone, too, are Trump’s warnings that Venezuelan heavy crude will pollute the air in American communities when it’s refined stateside.

Trump’s disparaging remarks about Venezuelan oil were not a one-off. He made a version of the same argument at least five times between June 2023 and August 2024. The typical pitch went something like this: When I was president, we drilled top-tier American oil. Now we import tar from Venezuela and pollute our country in the process_._

Here’s a longer version from a speech to North Carolina Republicans in June 2023:

When I left Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over. We would have gotten all that oil. It would have been right next door. But now we’re buying oil from Venezuela. So we’re making a dictator very rich. Can you believe this? Nobody can believe this.

Their oil is garbage. It’s horrible. The worst you can get. Tar. It’s like tar. And to refine it you need special plants … We have liquid gold. The best, most beautiful stuff you can get. Liquid gold. Better than gold. Right under our feet … But with Venezuela, they put their oil and they refine it in Houston! So all those pollutants go right up in the air So, we lose economically. And we also lose from an environmental standpoint. Because it is really dirty stuff. The dirtiest stuff you can imagine.

The bit has a typically Trumpian cognitive dissonance to it. If he’d been re-elected in 2020, America would have benefited greatly by taking control of Venezuela’s oil_,_ he claimed. At the same time, Democrats were idiots for using such horrible, polluting oil.

Since capturing Maduro, Trump’s estimation of Venezuela’s fossil fuel reserves appears to have shifted. As he stated in a Tuesday post on social media, Venezuelan authorities are set to send the United States up to 50 million barrels of their “High Quality” oil.

The new plan, as Trump laid out in announcing Maduro’s capture on Saturday, is for American oil companies to spend “billions of dollars” rehabilitating Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, Trump and his team are now developing a “sweeping initiative to dominate the Venezuelan oil industry for years to come.” That would include “acquiring and marketing the bulk” of the oil from Venezuela’s state-run oil giant. The goal is reportedly to lower the price of oil to Trump’s preferred number of $50 a barrel, a level so low that it could imperil US production of the “liquid gold” Trump celebrated on the campaign trail.

“Their oil is garbage. It’s horrible. The worst you can get. Tar. It’s like tar.”

There are many potential roadblocks. Unlike Trump, fossil fuel companies, which have been notably quiet about any plans to expand production in Venezuela, remain fully aware of the risks of investing in a politically unstable country to get heavy oil at a time when prices are already low. They are now reportedly discussing seeking financial guarantees from the Trump administration before investing in Venezuela. Trump has similarly floated the possibility of reimbursing oil companies for the money they spend rebuilding infrastructure in the country.

Nor does there appear to be any near-term exit plan. Earlier this week, the New York Times asked Trump how long the United States is likely to assert control over Venezuela. Six months? A year?

“I would say much longer,” Trump responded.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

For Some Veterans, Psychedelics Are a Last Hope—and a Dangerous Gamble

This story was supported by the Pulitzer Center. It first appeared on The War Horse, an award-winning nonprofit news organization educating the public on military service. Subscribe to their newsletter.

Marc Dervaes sat straight-backed in a circle of 10 men at a clinic in Tijuana, Mexico. The glass window behind him looked out on a pool deck and the Pacific Ocean beyond.

Inside, sunglasses masked his eyes, and a beard grew down to his chest. His blank expression invited no sympathy, and Dervaes had none to give.

“I’m sorry if this offends anyone,” he said at the introductory circle, “but I really don’t care about any of you. I’m here for me.”

Dervaes knew the men would be curious about his amputation. He mentioned losing his right arm in Afghanistan but had no intention of sharing more.

An outdoor pool with various sun beds and seating around it, facing the ocean.

The pool deck at one of Ambio Life Sciences’ clinics near Tijuana, Mexico. Natanya Friedheim

Each man had his own reason to visit the clinic, where patients pay around $8,000 for a psychedelic treatment with little scientific backing. They all hoped suffering through a brain-bending, vomit-inducing, existential jolt would cure their ailments, which ranged from malaise to traumatic brain injury.

A veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Dervaes had one foot in the grave before contacting Ambio Life Sciences. Two months earlier, he had spent two days in a hospital back home in Colorado Springs with alcohol poisoning that he hoped would end his life.

“Peace was totally gone in this house,” said Michaela Dervaes, his wife of 26 years.

Dervaes called the clinic after leaving the hospital. The earliest it could schedule him was April 2026—a nine-month wait. Dervaes told the man on the phone he would be dead by then.

A selfie of two people on a trail in the mountains, a man and a woman, smiling at the camera.

Michaela and Marc Dervaes at an archery range in April 2021. Photo courtesy of Marc Dervaes

Two companies operating clinics in Tijuana, Ambio Life Sciences and The Mission Within Center, say they have treated about 3,000 U.S. veterans in the last decade. Both use the psychedelics ibogaine—derived from the root of a central African shrub—and 5-MeO-DMT—a chemical secreted by the Sonoran desert toad. A common motivation among participants has emerged: The talk therapy and prescriptions offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs proved ineffective.

Every time Breanna Morgan opens the clinic’s oversized wooden door and shows patients into the foyer—where a half-dozen staffers wait to greet them—she assumes it’s the worst day of their lives.

“They’re not here because they really want to be here,” Morgan, Ambio’s guest experience manager, said in an interview. “They’re here because it’s their only option.”

“They’re not here because they really want to be here. They’re here because it’s their only option.”

This is the story of one of those guests—a broken veteran whose ibogaine experience would put him face-to-face with everyone in his life he had ever wronged. His tears would soak through the eye mask patients wear to limit sensory input.

Back home, confronted by another tragedy, Dervaes would quickly regret his visit to the cliffside mansion and resent the clinic that took thousands of dollars from him.

Then, four months later, he would return.

A blonde woman in a sun hat and kaftan raises her right hand and speaks to a group of people around a pool.

Breanna Morgan, Ambio’s guest experience manager, explains to patients how to mentally prepare for ibogaine.Natanya Friedheim

Medical Research and Coastal Retreats

For decades, overseas drug rehab clinics have offered ibogaine to people addicted to cocaine and opioids. The drug’s use among military veterans has surged over the last four years. Despite support from veterans, a push for more research, and efforts by advocates to legalize the psychedelic treatment in the United States, much remains unknown about the drugs’ long-term effectiveness and safety.

The federal Drug Enforcement Administration considers both ibogaine and 5-MeO-DMT Schedule 1 substances, meaning the agency finds both have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.

Close-up of a nurse checking the blood pressure of a heavily tattooed man.

A nurse checks Marc Dervaes’ blood pressure before he and nine other patients go to a backyard sweat lodge. Ibogaine can cause heart arrhythmias.Natanya Friedheim

Psychedelic medicine advocates fear the expensive, decade-long process of bringing a new drug to market in the U.S. will adulterate both the drugs and the environments in which people take them.

Researchers, meanwhile, fear that the media hype and the proliferation of ceremonies replete with New Age rhetoric and dubious claims will undermine their efforts to gain FDA approval.

As debates play out at state legislatures and research conferences, it is here, in a coastal retreat center down the road from an open-air fruit stand, that veterans come in a desperate attempt to find relief.

The beach on a cloudy day, with a handful of people in the water, in front of a few buildings.

Behind the clinic, a steep path, wide enough for trucks full of families, boogie boards, and fishing poles, leads to a beach covered in sand blackened with pollution.Natanya Friedheim

Alive Day

Dervaes’ journey to the clinic began more than a decade ago. It was in September 2009 in eastern Afghanistan. Corn grew 8 feet high on either side of the unpaved road outside of Jalalabad.

Dervaes clutched the passenger’s seat grab handle as the mine-resistant ambush protected vehicle rumbled along. A platoon sergeant with 15 years as an Army infantryman under his belt, Dervaes felt invincible.

He had survived a bullet to his helmet during his first deployment to Iraq. On his second, he spent 16 grinding months guarding nighttime construction crews in Baghdad.

His convoy drove in a tight pack. That day, a gap formed between his truck and the three others ahead, Dervaes said. “The enemy took full advantage.”

Dervaes bent over a junction box to fiddle with a defective cord, his right arm still clutching the grab handle. When he looked up, he saw a man outside, a rocket-propelled grenade mounted on his shoulder aimed at Dervaes.

A big flash, pressure, and heat. Dervaes collapsed over the junction box. His right arm, wristwatch still attached, landed in the driver’s lap. He came to as the driver, his foot still on the gas, pulled Dervaes up by his helmet.

Another RPG shot through the passenger door and out the roof. The truck caught fire and filled with smoke. Chunks of flesh and bone covered the side of the cab. Dervaes heard screaming. “Someone else is hurt,” he thought. “Someone else in the truck is either dead or hurt.”

Two American soldiers in Army fatigues and gear lean against a Humvee. The man on the left is missing an arm, which is bloodied and bandaged, and holds the hand of the other man on the right.

Before he was medevaced, Marc Dervaes pulled a camera out of his pocket to chronicle the ambush in which he lost his right arm in Afghanistan. He said the photo shows resilience.Photo courtesy of Marc Dervaes

His body tingled. His vision grew blurry. A man with a belt-fed machine gun emerged from the stalks of corn. Somehow, the truck kept moving forward. “Drive. Drive. Don’t stop,” Dervaes said as bullets shattered the windshield.

He spent eight months recovering at an Army hospital in San Antonio, Texas, then returned to Fort Carson, Colorado, just as his unit got back from Afghanistan. He and the driver finally had time to look back. Dervaes longed to fill gaps in his memory.

“Who was screaming?” Dervaes remembers asking.

“It was you,” the driver said.

Life After War

Like so many Americans, Dervaes battled prescription opioid addiction after his surgeries. He faced a personal crisis, described by many veterans, of adapting to a civilian life that lacks the structure, urgency, and adrenaline soldiers grow accustomed to at war.

He sought thrills as a U.S. Paralympic snowboarder. He and his wife began cave diving. As a volunteer for the nonprofit Team River Runner, he designed prosthetics for adaptive kayaking.

He helped to launch the Colorado Springs chapter of the nonprofit Wounded Warrior Project. He instructs children with disabilities in snowboarding.

A disabled kayaker stands with his kayak in one hand and modified paddle attached to the other limb. There is snow on the ground and he is dressed in winter gear and a helmet.

Dervaes threw himself into extreme sports after his battlefield injuries.Photo courtesy of Marc Dervaes

More than a decade of athleticism landed him seven rib fractures, a concussion, a bruised lung, and three surgeries on his left arm, all between 2021 and 2025. So damaged was his left arm, his only arm, that he could hold neither a Voodoo Ranger beer can nor his basset hound puppy Ruby.

The pain led him to spiral.

Hours before traveling to Tijuana, Dervaes paced around the lobby of the Sheraton San Diego Resort. A hotel staffer asked if he was OK.

The night before, his wife blocked the hotel room door to prevent Dervaes from leaving. Sober for three months, a requirement of attending the clinic, Dervaes wanted a drink.

He feared the treatment, a last-ditch effort to address his deteriorating mental health and excessive drinking, would fail.

Two SUVs pulled up in front of the hotel’s entryway fountain. It was a Tuesday morning in early August. Dervaes sat alone in the back seat of one as drivers piled luggage into the trunks.

“How’s it going, man?” asked Brad Banks, a medical device salesman trying to quit drinking, as he slid next to Dervaes. Maintaining his forward gaze, Dervaes barely grunted.

The men rode in silence past the border checkpoints where Mexican officers wore rifles slung across their chests. In the beachside community of Playas de Tijuana, the SUVs turned down an unpaved road.

Across from a cluster of shanties, a concrete wall fortifies the clinic, an 11-bedroom compound where foreigners come and go each week.

A large entry way into a chic looking building with a wide wooden door.

The entrance to one of Ambio Life Sciences’ clinics in MexicoNatanya Friedheim

A stay at Ambio starts with an EKG, one of many medical tests the clinic requires to ensure patients are fit for ibogaine. The drug has a narrow therapeutic window, meaning a little more than an effective dose can be toxic. Too much can cause heart arrhythmias.

A 2022 review of literature published on ibogaine found 38 deaths and 20 medical emergencies associated with its use documented in medical literature. In most of those cases, the drug was used to treat opioid addiction. Other emergencies may have gone undocumented given ibogaine’s use in nonmedical settings.

Both ibogaine and 5-MeO-DMT can exacerbate existing mania or psychosis, according to Martín Polanco, a doctor who founded The Mission Within Center in Tijuana.

Three hours after arrival, the men changed into swim trunks and crowded back into the Suburbans. Dervaes’ tough-guy veneer started melting away on the drive to a backyard sweatlodge.

“I think it’s time we discuss sweat lodge etiquette,” he said from the back seat, squished beside two passengers. “No farting in the sweat lodge.”

A bearded man lies on a colored blanket and is hooked up to an EKG.

A nurse checks Marc Dervaes’s heart with an EKG within hours of his arrival at Ambio Life Sciences. Monitoring is required to ensure patients are fit to take ibogaine. Natanya Friedheim

‘Don’t Come Here to Get High’

Few people report enjoying their experience on ibogaine. Many have visions. Some see deceased relatives. To some patients’ chagrin, they see and feel nothing.

People who have taken ibogaine refer to the frequent vomiting during the more than 10-hour trip as “purging” and frame it as part of the healing experience.

The men sat around the large wooden dining table on Wednesday, the morning before they took ibogaine. Over French toast and chicken enchiladas, Isaac Pulido told them he could not predict how they would feel that night.

“Many years of doing this and we still don’t have the power,” he said.

Pulido estimates he has overseen more than 4,000 treatments over the last 16 years. A nurse with a doctorate specializing in intensive care, he oversees treatments at all Ambio’s clinics in Mexico.

“Remember, we come here to get healed. We don’t come here to get high,” he told the men. “But if you get high, oh my God, embrace it. Enjoy it.”

A bespectacled male nurse sits on a couch, looking off into the distance.

Intensive care nurse Isaac Pulido administers the treatments in Ambio’s Mexico clinics. Natanya Friedheim

Doses at Ambio vary based on each patient’s body weight. If the person feels nothing after about two hours, they can take a booster pill.

“Remember, we come here to get healed. We don’t come here to get high. But if you get high, oh my God, embrace it. Enjoy it.”

It’s possible that lower, nonhallucinogenic doses have benefits without cardiotoxicity, said David Olson, a professor at the University of California, Davis, and director at the UC Davis Institute for Psychedelics and Neurotherapeutics.

But a lot of people who take hallucinogenic drugs want to trip out and end up disappointed if they don’t.

“They expect to see unicorns and all that shit,” Pulido said in an interview.

Dervaes did not see unicorns.

Close-up of a spoon full of honey and two pills, presented by a male nurse.

The third and final dose of ibogaine is taken with honey. Natanya Friedheim

Dante’s Inferno

Around 10 p.m. that night, the men had swallowed their third pill. They collected pillows and descended stairs to the clinic’s treatment room. Twin mattresses lined the walls, each with a mirror propped in front of it.

The men sat cross-legged on the edge of their mattresses like preschoolers getting ready for nap time. They shook rattles and stared in their mirrors. Over the next hour, lo-fi music gave way to a chaotic mix of plucked string instruments, traditional ceremonial Gabonese music.

Six nurses, two paramedics, and two doctors kept watch over the patients, who wore heart monitors throughout the night.

Three people lay on mattresses on the floor, covered in colorful blankets, are hooked up to EKGs and IVs.

Patients wear heart monitors throughout the night as they experience the effects of ibogaine.Natanya Friedheim

As Dervaes shook his rattle, his reflection showed him something evil, as he recalled 36 hours after his ibogaine trip. He tried to smile or change his expression. He slid on an eye mask and lay back to visions he feared would continue all night: wave after wave of people he had wronged. Each time he tried to apologize, a new vision appeared.

The drug exacerbated the severe tinnitus in his left ear. When he lifted his mask, Dervaes saw the room on fire with piles of bodies and people retching.

In the early afternoon the following day, as the drug’s effects waned, Dervaes looked in the mirror. His big brown eyes looked back at him. His downturned and angry brows had vanished.

Ibogaine’s effect on the brain has long puzzled pharmacologists. The drug reduces depression and anxiety and blocks drug withdrawals, said Deborah Mash, a pioneering ibogaine researcher who received FDA approval to study the drug in the mid-1990s.

While ibogaine leaves the blood within 24 hours, its metabolite noribogaine—what the liver creates after processing ibogaine—stays in the body longer. Noribogaine pumps the brain with dopamine, the neurotransmitter associated with mood and motivation. Drug abuse and depression are associated with dopamine deficiency. “You’re helping to restore dopamine homeostasis in the brain,” Mash said.

“The enduring effect is a question that neuroscience hasn’t completely worked out.”

A bearded bespectacled man who is missing his right arm, stands with his limbs outstretched on a seaside deck while a nurse attends to him.

Ambio nurse Angie Serrano puts smoke from burning sage, a practice known as “smudging,” around Mark Dervaes’ body before he takes ibogaine.Natanya Friedheim

The Second Trip

The men ambled back to their rooms around midday Thursday. The sleepover party had ended. Many people experience hangover symptoms after the hallucinogenic effects of ibogaine wear off.

Only a few of the patients made it to breakfast the following morning. After a day of rest, the men would inhale another psychedelic, a synthetic version of 5-MeO-DMT.

The men circled up in the living room around noon on Friday. An Ambio employee’s prelude to the upcoming drug sounded like a warning: “For the people who are going to be here, waiting for their turn,” she said, “if you hear someone screaming for their lives or yelling like they’re about to die or something, don’t worry about it. It’s absolutely normal.”

“If you hear someone screaming for their lives or yelling like they’re about to die or something, don’t worry about it. It’s absolutely normal.”

Controversy exists over whether 5-MeO-DMT should be used in conjunction with ibogaine. “There’s no good medical or scientific reason for that at all,” said Albert Garcia-Romeu, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences who studies psychedelics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Dervaes sat in a hallway waiting his turn. He had arrived at the clinic indifferent to others. Now, he couldn’t stop thinking about a fellow patient, a young man whose bad ibogaine trip caused him to cry throughout the night.

A bearded man in sunglasses relaxes in a hammock on a wooden deck with a view of the ocean.

Dervaes slipped off his sandals and relaxed in a hammock during down time at the clinic. In a few hours, he would smoke 5-MeO-DMT.Natanya Friedheim

The sounds of wailing traveled down the hallway from a room where another patient, a fellow veteran, took 5-MeO-DMT.

“I have a feeling this is going to hurt,” Dervaes said. “It’s OK. I’ve got to let it go. I have to let all this go. I don’t want to carry it anymore.”

When his turn came, Dervaes sat on a cluster of mattresses covered in serape blankets. He inhaled vapor from a pipe and lay back. In less than a minute, he began to cry. “Holy shit,” he said, starting to sit up before lying back down to convulsions.

Dervaes came out of the trip ready for a second dose. “How do you feel?” the woman asked after he sat up minutes later.

“I feel reborn,” he said, his eyelashes wet with tears.

Five days later, back home in Colorado, Dervaes updated the group on his progress via their Signal chat.

He had gone to Costco.

“I DON’T GO TO COSTCO!” he wrote. “It was amazing, I didn’t feel like I wanted to strangle anyone! There was no anxiety, fear, or anger; I felt safe!!”

A nurse lays next to a man wearing an eye mask on a colorful blanket.

Ambio nurse Angie Serrano props her head up on her hand as she waits for Dervaes to come out of his 5-MeO-DMT trip. Natanya Friedheim

Trauma Returns

If patients experience stress after taking psychedelics, the drugs “can do more damage than good,” according to Gul Dolen, a professor of neuroscience at the University of California, Berkeley.

Dolen’s work found psychedelics reopen “critical periods”—windows when the brain is more sensitive to its environment and more capable of learning during early childhood and other critical periods. In the same way a person who just had open-heart surgery shouldn’t climb stairs, people who take psychedelics shouldn’t expose themselves to traumatic events.

“Think of this as open-mind surgery,” Dolen said.

For Dervaes, the trauma returned less than a month after returning from Ambio. He lost a friend to suicide. The devastation ripped through his community of friends. In a Zoom call hosted by an Ambio counselor with about 30 former patients, frustration mounted. The healing stopped. Dervaes started drinking. “Regression,” he said.

A man, missing his right arm, leaning against a glass wall, facing the ocean, looked out toward the waves.

Marc Dervaes looks out at the Pacific Ocean minutes after taking 5-MeO-DMT. Natanya Friedheim

Suddenly, he questioned everything about his ibogaine journey: the healing, the expense, the hope. “I was angry for even going there and wasting my time and money.”

Still, his wife, Michaela, noticed subtle changes. He was showing less rage on the road and making progress on letting things that upset him go. Over the next three months, he read more books than he had willingly read in his life, including A Lifetime at War, about a veteran more severely wounded than Dervaes.

“It was like: Wake the fuck up, man,” Dervaes said, “because you’re not the only one that’s out here hurting.”

Instead of retreating, he would double down. In early December, as the first snow peppered Colorado Springs, Dervaes packed his bag. Like a growing number of Ambio’s patients, he was returning. Things fell into place quickly. A spot became available at the clinic. A nonprofit agreed to sponsor his trip.

A blonde woman shakes hands with a bespectacled man on a couch; she holds a wooden rattle in her other hand.

On the last day, Breanna Morgan presents Marc Dervaes with his rattle to take home from the clinic. Natanya Friedheim

At a fireside ceremony before taking ibogaine for a second time, Dervaes vowed never to touch alcohol again. He has new goals, he said, and the tools to maneuver through life: prayer, meditation, plus treatments like magnetic e-resonance therapy for his post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injuries. He said he might go back to Ambio again.

Michaela Dervaes met her husband at the San Diego airport as he returned from his second trip to Mexico. She looked into his face. The soft eyes and smile were back. The ups and downs have left her exhausted.

“Even though everything seems wonderful right now, there could be just something happening, and it’ll go downhill,” she said. For now, she is hopeful. She sees how hard he is trying. “With this new treatment, I’m thinking we’re at peace.”

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Why Mandatory Green Policies Often Backfire

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

Combating climate change can feel particularly difficult these days. Countries, states, and municipalities across the globe are missing greenhouse emission reduction targets, and in the United States, President Donald Trump has rolled back key elements of his predecessor’s climate agenda.

Given the trajectory, it might be tempting for pro-climate policymakers to turn to more aggressive measures of getting people to take action, such as mandates, bans, or restrictions. People would then have to save the planet.

But a study published last week in the journal Nature Sustainability suggests that approach can carry real risks. It found that climate policies aimed at forcing lifestyle changes—such as bans on driving in urban centers—can backfire by weakening people’s existing pro-environmental values and triggering political backlash, even among those who already care about climate change. The findings suggest that how climate policy is designed may matter as much as how aggressive it is.

“Mandates can sometimes get you over a hump and tipping point, but they come with costs,” said Sam Bowles, an author of the paper and an economist at the nonprofit Santa Fe Institute. “There could be negative impacts that people don’t anticipate.”

Researchers surveyed more than 3,000 Germans and found that even people who care about climate change had a notably negative response to mandates or bans that did things like limit thermostat temperatures or meat consumption, which they saw as restricting their freedoms. The paper also compared that to people’s reaction to Covid-related requirements, such as vaccine and mask mandates. While researchers found a backlash effect, or “cost of control,” in both instances, it was 52 percent greater for climate than Covid policies.

“I didn’t expect that people’s opposition to [a] climate-mandated lifestyle would be so extreme,” said Katrin Schmelz, the other author of the study, who is also at the Santa Fe Institute. She said that people’s trust in their leaders can mitigate the adverse impact, and compared to the United States, Germans have fairly high trust in the government. That, she said, means she would “expect mandates to be less accepted and provoke more opposition here.”

Ben Ho, a behavioral economist at Vassar College, wasn’t involved in the study and wasn’t surprised by its findings. “This is fundamentally about how a society values individual values of liberty and expression against communal values like safety,” he said, pointing to a sizable body of similar research on the potential for backlash to climate policies. “What is novel about their work is to show that these backfire effects are still true today, and what is especially interesting is to connect their data to how people felt about Covid.”

“Ethical commitments and social norms are very fragile and they’re easily destroyed.”

The political consequences of climate-related mandates can be dramatic. In Germany, a 2023 law passed by the country’s then center-left government sought to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels by effectively banning new gas heating systems and promoting heat pumps. Though the policy allowed for exemptions and subsidies, opponents quickly framed it as a ban, dubbing it the heizhammer, or “heating hammer.”

The measure became a potent symbol of government overreach, seized on by far-right parties and contributing to a broader public backlash against the governing coalition. “The last German government basically fell because they were seen to be instituting a ban on gas,” said Gernot Wagner, climate economist at Columbia Business School. The current government is attempting to roll back the legislation.

Germany’s experience underscores the risks the study identifies. Policies that are perceived as restricting personal choice can trigger resistance that extends beyond the measure itself, weakening public support for climate action more broadly. So far, policies in the US have largely avoided such opposition. That’s largely because American climate policies have historically been much less aggressive, with even progressives rarely turning to outright bans. But there is both precedent for a potential backlash and inklings of potential fights to come.

The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, for example, laid out the path to gradually phase out incandescent light bulbs. That led to the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice and Better Use of Light Bulbs acts, two 2011 bills that the then-burgeoning tea party movement pushed, without success. Today, methane, also known as natural gas, is at the center of similar cultural fights as cities attempt to ban new hookups and take other steps to curtail its use.

Opponents of climate action seem to have become aware of the power of bans to spark backlash, too. President Trump regularly refers to fuel-efficiency benchmarks as an electric vehicle “mandate.” The natural gas industry has also framed efficiency standards for gas appliances as bans and used the backlash effect to help successfully delay other explicit bans on gas in new construction, such as in New York state.

On its face, research like this can put lawmakers in a difficult position: If a policy isn’t aggressive enough, it won’t do much to combat climate change. But if it’s too aggressive, people could turn against it or even the entire political movement behind it, as in Germany, and progress can stall.

“This doesn’t mean we should give up on climate policies,” said Ho. “It just means we should be more mindful in how policies are designed, and that trust could be a key component.”

Schmelz and Bowles both point to a similar conclusion, and say that any policy should at least consider the plasticity of citizens’ beliefs and values. “Ethical commitments and social norms are very fragile and they’re easily destroyed,” Bowles said. Schmelz added that people in power “can upset and reduce willingness to cooperate by designing poor policies.”

One way that policies can avoid backlash is by focusing less on banning a particular action and instead on making the other options more abundant and more attractive (by adding tax incentives or rebates, for example). “Offering alternatives is helping in enforcing green values,” Schmelz said. Another option could be aiming to make climate-unfriendly activities more expensive rather than restricting them. As Bowles put it, “people don’t feel like they are being controlled by a higher price.”

The closer a policy gets to people’s personal lives, they say, the more important it is to be mindful of potential missteps. The authors also emphasize that they aren’t claiming mandates or bans never work—seatbelt laws and smoking restrictions have become commonplace, for instance. But those were enacted in a different era and there was little public dissent about their benefits to personal health.

“There was always somebody in that person’s family saying, ‘No, look, sweetheart, I really wish you would be wearing your seatbelt,'” said Bowles. “We don’t have that in the case of the environment, so it’s a much greater challenge to shift the rhetoric.”

But ultimately, Bowles said the broader message that he wants to convey is that people are generally generous and want their actions to align with their values. This new research underscores the need for policies that help them embrace that inclination, rather than temper it, which mandates or bans can do.

“People have a lot of good values,” he said. “When we look at our citizens and are designing policies, don’t take them to be jerks.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Misconduct Expert Says State Has the Right to Charge ICE Officer Who Killed Renee Good

After an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good in Minneapolis this week, firing his weapon as she attempted to drive away, protesters have amassed around the country, many wondering: Can that officer be taken to court?

The Trump administration, predictably, says the agent, Jonathan Ross, is immune from prosecution. “You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action,” Vice President JD Vance told reporters on Thursday. “That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job.”

But what do independent attorneys say? After the shooting, I reached out to Robert Bennett, a veteran lawyer in Minneapolis who has worked on hundreds of federal police misconduct cases during his 50-year career. “I’ve deposed thousands of police officers,” he says. “ICE agents do not have absolute immunity.”

Bennett says the state of Minnesota has the right to prosecute an ICE agent who commits misconduct. But, he adds, that might be difficult now that the FBI has essentially booted the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension off the case—blocking access, the BCA wrote, to “case materials, scene evidence or investigative interviews necessary to complete a thorough and independent investigation.”

In the conversation below, edited for length and clarity, Bennett discusses how the shooting in Minneapolis unfolded and the legal paths forward.

When you watched the videos of this shooting, what did you see?

You saw what could be easily identified as four ICE officers. And they’re all experiencing, to a greater or lesser extent, the same set of operative facts, the same factual stimuli. But only one officer, seeing the set of circumstances, picked up his weapon. None of the other officers did. That’s a bad fact [for Ross].

Also, the officer walked in front of the car, which counts against him in the reasonableness analysis. If you look at the recent Supreme Court case of Barnes v. Felix, that’s problematic for the ICE agent.

What happened in Barnes v. Felix?

It’s a shooting case where the officer walked around the car, [lunged
and jumped onto the door sill], and put himself in harm’s way. You can’t bootstrap your own bad situation [to] allow a use of force.

What did the court find?

They sent it back to the trial court to consider it. But there’s good language in there.

You said it’s bad news for the ICE agent, Ross, that his colleagues didn’t pull their weapons. Can you talk more about that?

Sure, we’ve had several other cases. There was a tactical semicircle, a bunch of officers aiming their guns at a couple fighting over a knife; one officer out of the eight or nine fired his weapon, none of the others perceived the need to.

And that’s important because it suggests the officer who fired wasn’t reasonable, right? Under federal law, an officer can only use deadly force if they had a reasonable fear that they could otherwise be killed or harmed.

It’s an objective reasonableness standard. So it’s not whether you were personally scared out of your wits and fired your gun. It’s: Would an objectively reasonable officer at the scene have fired his weapon, believing he was in danger of death or immediate bodily harm?

In Ross’ case, there was a previous incident—Ross had shot [with a Taser] through a window before at somebody in the car, and the guy hit the gas, and Ross had stuck his arm through the broken window, and he got cut [and dragged about 100 yards]. And so he was supposedly reacting to that. He’s not an objective officer at that point.

The Trump administration has suggested that Ross is immune from prosecution as a federal officer. Why do you say he’s not?

There’s plenty of case law that allows for the prosecution of federal law enforcement agencies, including ICE. And it’s clear under the law that a federal officer who shoots somebody in Minnesota and kills them is subject to a Minnesota investigation and Minnesota law.

Now, the feds just took that away this morning, and they’ve already decided who’s at fault. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension was going to do an investigation to find out.

But I can tell you, the federal code provides that when there is a state criminal prosecution of a federal officer in Minnesota or any other state, the officer has the right to remove the case to federal court. So if Ross was charged in Hennepin County, he could remove the case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, have a federal judge deal with his case. The code is explicitly predicting such a prosecution could take place. If there was immunity of an absolute nature, you wouldn’t need that section, right?

The administration seems to argue that Ross is protected under the Supremacy Clause, which essentially says that states can’t charge a federal officer if the officer was acting within the scope of his duties.

Do you think killing people is acting within the scope of their duties? What if they decided to kill the 435,000 people in the city of Minneapolis while they were here, would the Supremacy Clause give them a free pass? I don’t think so.

Also, if there was an actual independent investigation, and you apply the actual federal case law to this, and you concluded that Ross violated her rights by using excessive deadly force, he could be indicted federally. Now, nobody believes that would ever happen now: For a guy who talked a lot about rigged things, this [investigation] is rigged. Kash Patel took over the autopsy, so who knows, maybe they’ll say she died of a heart attack when she was backing up.

If the officer isn’t charged criminally, the other route is a lawsuit. What are the challenges there?

My team and I think there are ways to do it. I hope that her mother, or her next of kin, calls us and we’ll figure out a Bivens action or a Federal Tort Claims Act case, or something else. If you look at this case carefully, it has all the hallmarks of cases we’ve either won or settled for amounts of money no reasonable person would pay us if we weren’t going to win. It is essentially a garden variety unjustified use of deadly force case. And that’s based on the facts we know now; I bet the case is going to get better.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

We’re on the Ground in Minneapolis as Tensions Flare After ICE Shooting

Amanda Moore is a journalist who has been covering the rise of ICE across the US for months, writing news articles and posting clips of confrontations to her social media feeds and, in the process, becoming one of the most prominent chroniclers of Trump’s immigration crackdown from the front lines. Amanda will be filing stories for Mother Jones over the coming weeks and months about ICE and its operations, and I spoke to her as she arrived on the ground in the immediate aftermath of the shooting of Renee Nicole Good, the 37-year-old mother who was killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on Wednesday, sparking mass protests.

Below is our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity.

James West: Tell me exactly where you are, what you’re seeing, and what the mood is like on the ground.

Amanda Moore: I’m here outside of the Whipple Building. It’s a federal building. It’s where ICE has been staging since they got here. As you can see, there are now a bunch of federal Border Patrol agents. This morning, there were some protests that were larger than the previous ones that have been at the building, and protesters actually worked to block the driveway. So now we can see all of the Border Patrol agents are here because they came out to guard the facility.

Amanda, you’ve been around the country for months covering escalating tactics used by ICE at these types of facilities, and you’re drawing comparisons between what you’re seeing there and other facilities like Broadview in Chicago.

“Once again, I was getting tear-gassed at 7 o’clock in the morning.”

The first month at Broadview was extremely violent. People were being tear-gassed by 7 o’clock in the morning. They were picking up protesters and flinging them to the ground like rag dolls. And today, here at the Whipple Building, reminded me of Broadview. Once again, I was getting tear-gassed at 7 o’clock in the morning. You know, protesters were not really prepared for what was coming in the same way. They don’t expect it so early in the morning. And eventually, in Broadview, that kind of petered off because local police took over, and they no longer had Border Patrol out front. So as long as Border Patrol is guarding the facility, it seems to be a pretty similar pattern.

One of the accelerants on the ground where you’ve been previously, Amanda, seems to be whenever the Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino rocks up. What vibe does he bring into a scene anytime you’re on the ground?

Well, Bovino is the show, right? So when he comes into town, all the cameras are on him, and all the protesters know who he is—or if they don’t know, they learn very, very fast. And so he’s kind of in charge, and it’s the culture of Border Patrol under his direction that leads to some of that violence that we experience.

With Bovino himself, there’s obviously now a court record in place where even the courts aren’t believing the types of stories that federal law enforcement is bringing about some of these protesters.

“If a rock is kicked…in Bovino’s direction, then Tricia McLaughlin will tweet that video and say a rock was thrown.”

Yeah. In Chicago, in federal court, the judges began to just completely discredit everything that Border Patrol had to say. And so it’s this escalation that’s based on a reality that does not exist—one that’s not reflected in any of the video, photos, or the eyewitness experiences. If a rock is kicked on the ground in Bovino’s direction, then [DHS spokesperson] Tricia McLaughlin will tweet that video and say a rock was thrown—and that’s clearly not the case.

This scene is one that attracts counter-protesters as well as pretty hardcore protesters against ICE. When these two forces meet, what do you typically see, and what should people be prepared to see as this type of confrontation unfolds over the next couple of days?

We actually had some pro-ICE protesters here this morning. They came. One had an American flag. I believe one of them is still standing around in front of Border Patrol somewhere. And he was very direct. He said, we’ve already executed one of you, and basically, we’ll do it again.

A lot of the pro-ICE protesters, they seem to be here to antagonize, not necessarily to really show support. It’s a lot of instigation, and many times it’s being done under the veneer of journalism, which, of course, that’s not.

Tell me how you prepare for these types of excursions into the fray when you’ve been covering this. What are some of the challenges? What should our viewers expect to see from you in the coming days as you are on the ground in Minneapolis?

A primary challenge would be tear gas. There’s a lot of it—they really go through it—and pepper balls. So you have to have safety gear. You have to have goggles and masks and helmets and all that stuff. But a real issue, I think, is going to be when you’re at these events, every agent in front of you has a gun, and you can guess that several people behind you have guns as well—especially when they’re in the neighborhoods, when protests pop up during a raid, not necessarily at the facility.

And [Minnesota] is an open-carry state, so that comes into play here in a way it didn’t necessarily in most of Chicago. But there’s really only so much you can do. The agents can be very friendly to the press. They can be very willing to talk, or they can shoot you with a pepper ball when you try to ask them a question—you can never predict. So it’s a little bit of a guessing game.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

House Passes Three-Year ACA Extension

On Thursday, in a rebuke to the GOP party line, the House of Representatives voted 230-196 to extend the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced premium subsidies for three more years. 17 Republicans defected to join all Democrats in voting for the legislation, after the end of the subsidies sparked the longest-ever federal government shutdown late last year.

It remains to be seen whether the extension will pass the Senate, where a similar three-year extension vote failed in December—but cheers could be heard in the House chamber on C-SPAN after the vote.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the former House Speaker who played a key role in the 2010 passage of the ACA, posted on X that “today is a happy day” and that “the Senate must immediately take up this bill to ensure no American is pushed out of coverage.”

Today is a happy day. House Democrats have passed a bill to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits so health care remains affordable and accessible for America’s working families.

The Senate must immediately take up this bill to ensure no American is pushed out of coverage.

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) January 8, 2026

At the end of last year, enhanced subsidies expired due to Republicans’ and Democrats’ inability to reach a deal on the Biden-era expansion, leaving many Americans facing record premium spikes. As I previously reported, Republican politicians have pushed for a health savings account model, which has shortcomings for people with high health care costs.

It’s unclear how many fewer people signed up for ACA marketplace plans for 2026 by December 15, as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has not released data since December 5. ACA marketplace enrollment remains open through January 15. KFF estimates that the average cost of ACA marketplace plans has increased by 26 percent this year.

Thursday’s vote involved sidestepping Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who has shepherded GOP opposition to ACA benefits, with a vote yesterday for a discharge petition to bring the vote for a three-year extension to the floor. Nine relatively moderate Republican representatives defected from Johnson to join a party-line Democratic vote for the discharge petition.

During the debate that preceded the vote, many Democrats shared stories of constituents who faced the prospect of unaffordable health care without the enhanced subsidies. Some Republicans lamented that ACA marketplace plans can include abortion coverage, and claimed that the ACA benefits insurers more than patients.

If the extension passes the Senate and is signed into law by President Donald Trump, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 6.2 million more people will be enrolled in ACA marketplace plans by 2029.

Now, the ball is in the Senate’s court.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Cops Are Taught Not to Shoot Into Cars. ICE Keeps Doing It Anyway.

On Wednesday, a masked federal immigration officer killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother and poet, shooting her at point-blank range in her car.

The incident, which has made headlines across the nation, is far from the first time immigration officers have shot someone in recent months. Good is one of at least nine people across the country who have been shot by immigration agents since September, the New York Times reports. There is something every case has in common: Everyone was in a vehicle at the time of the shooting.

“For decades now, officers have been trained that they can avoid being run over if they just don’t position themselves in a vehicle’s path of travel. “

The pattern raises serious concerns. For decades, cops have been trained not to shoot at moving vehicles. New York City’s police department banned firing at unarmed drivers in 1972. After it did so, police shootings plummeted in the city. All of the country’s largest 25 cities generally prohibit firing at vehicles as well, a Times investigation found in 2021.

Instead of shooting, law enforcement officers are taught to do something much safer for everybody involved: Get out of the way. But the federal agents enforcing President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign seem not to be following this rule, and are taking a far more dangerous path.

To better understand how cops are supposed to decide whether to use force against drivers, I spoke on Wednesday evening with Seth Stoughton, a former Florida police officer who is now a professor of law and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina. He is nationally recognized on the use of force by law enforcement and testified for the prosecution in the case against Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer convicted of murdering George Floyd.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What do law enforcement experts generally advise when it comes to potentially shooting at the driver of a moving vehicle?

I’m going to give you three different parts to answer that question. First, we need to keep in mind the legal rules that justify shooting at all. Under a 1985 case called Tennessee v. Garner, officers can use deadly force when the subject is reasonably perceived as presenting an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. So, at a very big picture level, we have to answer the question of: Did the officer reasonably perceive an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm? If the answer is no, there shouldn’t be a shooting.

That leads to some sub-questions in the context of shooting at moving vehicles. The first combination of two of those is: Did the vehicle present an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm? And, if so, why? For decades now, officers have been trained that they can avoid being run over if they just don’t position themselves in a vehicle’s path of travel. There are tactical manuals and articles that are very clear that describe stepping in front of or behind a vehicle as a very poor tactic—one that’s contrary to common sense. An officer cannot physically stop the vehicle from moving so there’s really no tactical benefit to stepping in front of the vehicle, but there’s a lot of tactical risk because it can hit you.

Maybe the officer didn’t have a choice. Maybe the vehicle turned towards them, or something like that. The next question we ask is whether the officer could have addressed the threat presented by that vehicle without shooting at the vehicle. That’s because shooting at a moving vehicle is not a reliably effective way of actually stopping that vehicle. If you imagine a vehicle driving toward you, shooting the driver is not going to cause that vehicle to stop. One, you might not actually incapacitate the driver. But even if you do, you’ve just gone from having a guided missile to having an unguided missile.

So, we have another layer of police training and guidance that says, don’t shoot at moving vehicles when the vehicle itself is the only weapon involved unless there is no other way to potentially address that threat. If you can move out of the way, it is better to move out of the way.

Could you narrate from your perspective what appears to be happening in the videos that have come out so far of the shooting on Wednesday in Minneapolis?

There’s at least one video that I’ve seen, but I don’t feel like I know enough about this one incident. I can tell you more broadly that I’ve seen a number of videos of ICE or CBP engaged in these operations that are not consistent with the traffic stop tactics that policing has developed in a pretty standardized way over the last 40 or 50 years. What a number of the recent videos have shown is unsafe and tactically unsound vehicle approaches. Vehicle extractions that are putting officers into dangerous positions that sound tactics could avoid.

There have been a number of cases where federal immigration agents seem to be very close to the front of the cars whose occupants they end up shooting—fatally or not. What could that show in terms of the training these agents are receiving?

Before Wednesday, one of the last ICE or CBP shooting videos that I saw was a federal car that drove in front of and cut off the car they were trying to stop. And then officers got out of their car. What that means is there’s at least one officer who is inevitably now in the subject vehicle’s path of travel.

Beyond that, as you see videos of officers approaching vehicles from in front of the car—or you see them moving around the car in front of the car—all of that puts officers in the potential position of being hit by a car.

If they used a different tactical approach, that risk just wouldn’t exist at all.

What impact have the restrictions on shooting at moving vehicles had in terms of saving lives and reducing uses of force?

The highest priority in policing is preserving the sanctity of human life. That obviously includes officers’ lives, but it’s also community members’ lives, and that includes criminal suspects. When officers put themselves into harm’s way, they often do so in a professionally appropriate way because doing so is necessary to help preserve the lives of community members. Think of an active shooter situation.

In other circumstances, it’s not professionally appropriate for officers to rush in and put themselves in harm’s way because there is a safer and more effective way of getting the mission done. If an officer is not threatened by a vehicle, then they don’t have to shoot the driver of that vehicle. Good tactics are not just about preserving officer safety. Good tactics are about preserving everyone’s safety.

This is so established in policing. I can send you articles in Police magazine, which is a popular media magazine for cops. In fact, here, hang on.

This is a 2006 article in Police called “Stay Out of the Way.” It’s talking about vehicle shootings involving police officers between 2001 and 2006: “There have been more than 17 officers injured and at least two officers killed as a result of incidents involving motor vehicles being used as weapons by suspects…Many of these incidents were the result of poor police tactics and training. For example, many of the officers involved in these incidents positioned themselves in the path of a motor vehicle in the early stages of an incident, apparently in an attempt to ‘control’ the suspect or prevent the suspect from leaving the scene. If you take nothing else away from this article, then remember this: Your flesh, bone, and muscle are no match against the mass and momentum of a car or truck.”

So, none of this is new.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Grok Deepfaked Renee Nicole Good’s Body Into a Bikini

Grok, the AI chatbot launched by Elon Musk after his takeover of X, unhesitatingly fulfilled a user’s request on Wednesday to generate an image of Renee Nicole Good in a bikini—the woman who was shot and killed by an ICE agent that morning in Minneapolis, as noted by CNN correspondent Hadas Gold and confirmed by the chatbot itself.

“I just saw someone request Grok on X put the image of the woman shot by ICE in MN, slumped over in her car, in a bikini. It complied,” Gold wrote on the social media platform on Thursday. “This is where we’re at.”

In several posts, Grok confirmed that the chatbot had undressed the recently killed woman, writing in one, “I generated an AI image altering a photo of Renee Good, killed in the January 7, 2026, Minneapolis ICE shooting, by placing her in a bikini per a user request. This used sensitive content unintentionally.” In another post, Grok wrote thatthe image “may violate the 2025 TAKE IT DOWN Act,” legislation criminalizing the nonconsensual publication of intimate images, including AI-generated deepfakes.

Grok created the images after an account made the request in response to a photo of Good, who was shot multiple times by federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross—identified by the Minnesota Star Tribune—while in her car, unmoving in the driver’s seat and apparently covered in her own blood.

After Grok complied, the account replied, “Never. Deleting. This. App.”

“Glad you approve! What other wardrobe malfunctions can I fix for you?” the chatbot responded, adding a grinning emoji. “Nah man. You got this.” the account replied, to which Grok wrote: “Thanks, bro. Fist bump accepted. If you need more magic, just holler.”

Grok was created by xAI, a company founded by Musk in 2023. Since the killing of Good, Musk has taken to his social media page to echo President Donald Trump and his administration’s depiction of the shooting. Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin claimed that a “violent rioter” had “weaponized her vehicle” in an “act of domestic terrorism” and Trump, without evidence, called the victim “a professional agitator.” Videos of the shooting, analyzed thoroughly by outlets like Bellingcat and the New York Times, do not support those claims.

Grok putting bikinis on people without their consent isn’t new—and the chatbot doesn’t usually backtrack on it.

A Reuters review of public requests sent to Grok over a single 10-minute period on a Friday tallied “102 attempts by X users to use Grok to digitally edit photographs of people so that they would appear to be wearing bikinis.” The majority of those targeted, according to their findings, were young women.

Grok “fully complied with such requests in at least 21 cases,” Reuters’ AJ Vicens and Raphael Satter wrote this week, “generating images of women in dental-floss-style or translucent bikinis and, in at least one case, covering a woman in oil.” In other cases, Grok partially complied, sometimes “by stripping women down to their underwear but not complying with requests to go further.”

This week, Musk posted, “Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.”

“We take action against illegal content on X, including Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), by removing it, permanently suspending accounts, and working with local governments and law enforcement as necessary,” X’s “Safety” account claimed that same day.

It’s unclear whether and how accounts requesting nonconsensual sexual imagery will be held legally accountable—or if Musk will face any legal pushback for Grok fulfilling the requests and publishing the images on X.

Even Ashley St. Clair, the conservative content creator who has a child with Musk, is trying to get Grok to stop creating nonconsensual sexual images of her—including some she said are altering photos of her as a minor.

According to NBC News, St. Clair said that Grok “stated that it would not be producing any more of these images of me, and what ensued was countless more images produced by Grok at user requests that were much more explicit, and eventually, some of those were underage”—including, she said, images “of me of 14 years old, undressed and put in a bikini.”

The Internet Watch Foundation, a charity aimed at helping child victims of sexual abuse, said that its analysts found “criminal imagery” of girls aged between 11 and 13 which “appears to have been created” using Grok on a “dark web forum,” the BBC reported on Thursday.

Less than a week ago, on January 3, Grok celebrated its ability to add swimsuits onto people at accounts’ whim.

“2026 is kicking off with a bang!” it wrote. “Loving the bikini image requests—keeps things fun.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Hell No, It’s Not Over

“We already live in a fascist state.” I’ve been hearing that so often these last few months, from friends, pundits, Mother Jones readers. And who can blame them? People have been disappeared to torture prisons overseas and ICE is shooting Americans in the streets. The federal workforce is being gutted, the economy is on a razor’s edge, America’s global credibility is in tatters, and kids go hungry while billionaires cash in. A conspiracy theorist is in charge of our health agencies. Universities, law firms, and nonprofits live in fear of the Eye of Sauron fixing on them. Midterm elections? Will we even have them?

To feel grim in the face of all this is to be realistic. But to throw in the towel and declare game over—that’s something else. Call it anticipatory defeat, the cousin of anticipatory obedience: settling into the worst-case scenario, because it seems hard to imagine getting to somewhere better. But we need to be able to imagine getting to somewhere better.

My parents lived at a time when lots of people settled into the worst-case scenario. They were children in Germany when Hitler was in power, and their memories were those of people lucky enough not to have suffered the true brutality of the regime, but still living fully within its totalitarian reach. An uncle who said some stuff about the Führer was hauled off. My dad and his friends dodged the goons who snatched boys with hair longer than the prescribed style.

These were just the tiny, banal manifestations of a regime that had subdued virtually all political, economic, and cultural institutions within a year of taking power in 1933. The Nazis called it Gleichschaltung—one of those German words that has no translation, so let’s call it “synchronization.” Within months, virtually every university, trade union, political party, hobby club, and soccer team had been Nazified or outlawed. Storm troopers showed up at union offices and beat up their leaders. State legislatures were dissolved. Political parties other than the Nazi Party were outlawed, and dissidents were killed. All this was the requisite foundation for the war and institutionalized murder that would follow.

We have plenty of precedent for the government trying to shut down dissent. But in the end, the goons and guns did not prevail.

If we were living under fascism right now, the words I’m writing would be a death sentence. Mother Jones would be outlawed, as would the New York Times. There would be no Democratic Party, no independent judiciary, no No Kings marches. If my grandparents had so much as held a sign at an intersection, they would never have made it home.

The seeds of fascism and authoritarianism have always been present in America, and they are sprouting. But we also still have rights that people in 1930s Germany (or contemporary Russia or China) would have died for. It’s time to use them.

Back before the 2016 election, Mother Jones reported on how white supremacists and neo-Nazis viewed Donald Trump: as a leader of their movement, a not-so-secret ally committed to mainstreaming their ideas. His desire to rule as an authoritarian was also not terribly hidden. But for most in the media, that was not the story. Years into his first presidency, traditional newsrooms resisted the word “lie,” let alone “fascism.”

In 2020, we learned that Trump was following the autocrat’s playbook to a T. No election could be valid unless he won. Violence was okay, even heroic, to reinstate him. By 2024, the F-word was finally out in the open when Joe Biden ran against “semi-fascism.” But semi-­fascism won, and the country’s most powerful people and institutions seemed to accept it. No wonder, perhaps, that a lot of people concluded that to do justice to the moment meant to say all was lost.

Since then, social media has been overrun with Cassandras: Let me tell you how bad it is. Worse than you thought. What’s coming next is so much worse than that. The despair is genuine, but like anything on social media, it can also become a pose. And more than that, it is paralyzing.

So keep in mind that all the grim stuff is true—but here is some of what’s also true: Countless judges have held fast against lawlessness (and many important cases never reach the far too complicit Supreme Court). Some universities caved to the administration, but many more have resisted. Some law firms folded, but others committed themselves to fighting for the rule of law. Media corporations have bent the knee, but independent newsrooms are standing up. And most of all, millions of people have been marching, voting, and creatively organizing to protect their neighbors. It’s going to be hard to shut all that down.

Indeed, we have plenty of historical precedent for the government trying, and failing, to shut down dissent. A century ago, Woodrow Wilson’s administration censored newspapers and imprisoned dissenters. Lynch mobs ran rampant. Many Americans were unable to exercise their right to vote. Within the lifetime of some folks reading this column, civil rights workers were murdered in Mississippi, student protesters at Kent State and Jackson State were gunned down, peaceful marchers were beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Yet in the end, the goons and guns did not prevail.

None of us chose to be in a moment that calls on us to defend freedom, yet here we are. If we lose, we’ll find out soon enough. But there’s only one way to find out if we can win.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s Withdrawal of US From Global Groups and Pacts Sparks Outrage

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

Donald Trump has sparked outrage by announcing the US will exit the foundational international agreement to address the climate crisis, cementing the US’s utter isolation from the global effort to confront dangerously escalating temperatures.

In a presidential memorandum issued on Wednesday, Trump withdrew from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), along with 65 other organizations, agencies and commissions, calling them “contrary to the interests of the United States”.

The UNFCCC treaty forms the bedrock of international cooperation to deal with the climate crisis and has been agreed to by every country in the world since its inception 34 years ago. The US Senate ratified the treaty in October 1992.

Trump has, however, routinely ridiculed climate science as a “scam” and a “hoax” and has actively hobbled clean energy projects and other climate policies as president, attempting to force the US and other countries to stay wedded to the fossil fuels that are driving disastrous heatwaves, storms, droughts and conflicts that imperils billions of people around the world.

Simon Stiell, the UN’s climate chief and executive secretary of the UNFCCC, described the move as a “colossal own goal.” He said: “While all other nations are stepping forward together, this latest step back from global leadership, climate cooperation and science can only harm the US economy, jobs and living standards, as wildfires, floods, mega-storms and droughts get rapidly worse. It is a colossal own goal which will leave the US less secure and less prosperous.”

“This is a shortsighted, embarrassing and foolish decision,” said Gina McCarthy, who was a top climate adviser to Joe Biden’s White House.

“As the only country in the world not a part of the UNFCCC treaty, the Trump administration is throwing away decades of US climate change leadership and global collaboration. This administration is forfeiting our country’s ability to influence trillions of dollars in investments, policies and decisions that would have advanced our economy and protected us from costly disasters wreaking havoc on our country.”

Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Trump’s decision to exit the UNFCCC is an “unforced error” and “self-defeating” as it will further hamper the US’s ability to compete with China, which is increasingly dominant in the world’s burgeoning clean energy technology industries.

“While the Trump administration is abdicating the United States of America’s global leadership, the rest of the world is continuing to shift to cleaner power sources and take climate action,” Bapna said.

“The Trump administration is ceding the trillions of dollars in investment that the clean energy transition brings to nations willing to follow the science and embrace the cleanest, cheapest sources of energy.”

Underscoring the administration’s hostility to any measure to deal with a climate that is now hotter than at any point in human civilization, the White House memo also states that the US will pull out from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s top climate science body, as well as an assortment of other international environmental organizations, including the International Renewable Energy Association, the International Solar Alliance and the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Last year, Trump said the US would exit the Paris climate deal, in which countries agreed to limit dangerous global heating, while the administration also declined to send a delegation to UN climate talks in Brazil.

As the UNFCCC treaty was ratified by the Senate, it is unclear whether Trump can unilaterally scrap it, or whether a future president will be able to rejoin the framework without a further Senate vote. “Letting this lawless move stand could shut the US out of climate diplomacy forever,” said Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said in a statement that the agreements jettisoned by the administration on Wednesday are “often dominated by progressive ideology and detached from national interests.”

The climate crisis is, in fact, a matter of scientific consensus and is already taking a measurable and growing toll upon economies and people’s lives. In the US, record numbers of major extreme weather disasters are forcing insurers to flee states, undermining the country’s property market. Scientists have warned that global temperatures are set to breach previously agreed thresholds, which will trigger further worsened calamities.

“On the one-year anniversary of the wildfires that stole dozens of lives, thousands of homes and the sense of safety for millions as it reduced Los Angeles communities to ash, Trump is making it clear he has no interest in protecting Americans from the rapidly increasing impacts on our health and safety of the worsening climate crisis,” said Loren Blackford, executive director of the Sierra Club. “This is not leadership. It is cowardice.”

Al Gore, the former US vice-president and climate activist, told the Guardian: “The Trump Administration has been turning its back on the climate crisis since day one, removing the United States from the Paris Agreement, dismantling America’s scientific infrastructure, curbing access to greenhouse gas emissions data, and ending essential investments in the clean energy transition.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

They Couldn’t Care Less About Renee Good’s Killing

“She behaved horribly.”

That’s how President Donald Trump described Renee Good, the 37-year-old woman who was repeatedly shot and killed by an ICE officer on Wednesday, roughly one mile from where a police officer murdered George Floyd nearly six years ago. Speaking to the New York Times, the president then pushed the spurious narrative that Good had run over the officer, prompting him to shoot. “She didn’t try to run him over,” he said without evidence. “She ran him over.”

The remarks are consistent with the administration’s impulse to defend, often with cruel vociferousness, the conduct of ICE officers as they detain, terrorize, sometimes with gunfire, and then brag about it. But the same impulse, by the president and his allies, now that a woman in Minneapolis is dead, is taking on new levels of impunity.

“This vehicle was used to hit this officer,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told reporters in New York on Thursday, where she had been addressing ICE operations in the city. “It was used as a weapon. The officer felt like his life was threatened.”

As federal agents stood behind her, Noem appeared unmoved as reporters repeatedly referred to the multiple video angles that have essentially proven the outright falsehoods of the administration’s smear campaign. As for Good, who, by all accounts of those who knew her, was an exceedingly kind woman, Noem continued to charge her with “domestic terrorism,” just as Stephen Miller did on Wednesday when news of the shooting was only just unfolding.

Together, the administration’s pervasive and reflexive disdain for facts—what can literally be seen without dispute—and the reflex to taint a woman now dead, crystallize a new level of ugliness for an administration that shamelessly admits: Violence is us.

Domestic terrorism. https://t.co/070fSKR8iX

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) January 7, 2026

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

“ICE KILLED GOOD”: Protesters Decry Minneapolis Shooting

Across the country, people are taking to the streets to honor—and demand justice for—Renee Nicole Good, the 37-year-old US citizen who a federal immigration agent shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday.

Good, according to an interview with her former husband, had just dropped off her 6-year-old son at school when she encountered a group of ICE agents conducting an operation.

The following images, spanning from the actual shooting to the protests that followed, illustrate how people have shown up in defiance of President Trump’s ongoing attacks against immigrant communities.

Federal officers have already used violent tactics against protesters at demonstrations, including multiple instances of chemical agents.

In a statement immediately following the shooting, Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin claimed that a “violent rioter” had “weaponized her vehicle” in an “act of domestic terrorism.” President Trump, without evidence, referred to the then-unnamed victim as “a professional agitator” and claimed the killing happened “because the Radical Left is threatening, assaulting, and targeting our Law Enforcement Officers and ICE Agents.”

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has called the federal narrative “bullshit,” and Gov. Tim Walz referred to the response from the Trump administration as “propaganda.” A thorough analysis of bystander videos conducted by The New York Times also disputes the federal depiction of the killing.

In Minneapolis, Good’s neighbors created a vigil to remember her life and call for justice in her death.

Immediately After in Minneapolis

A group of people huddled outside in winter jackets, one carrying a sign with the word "shame" on it. There are law enforcement officers in the background.

Law enforcement officers arrive at the scene in south Minneapolis after an ICE agent shot and killed a woman in her car. Christian Zander/NurPhoto/AP

A protester uses an umbrella to shield himself from a chemical irritant fired by a federal agent as people block a street after the driver of a vehicle is shot, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Photo by Tim Evans pic.twitter.com/zXO0cP833I

— corinne_perkins (@corinne_perkins) January 7, 2026

A Black man wearing a top that says "press" on it, King Demetrius Pendleton, has his eyes flushed. He looks to be in pain.

Photographer King Demetrius Pendleton has his eyes flushed after being hit with chemical irritants in Minneapolis.Ben Hovland/Minnesota Public Radio/AP

Vigil and Protest

A white person laying out flowers at a vigil outside that has a cross on it. There's people standing in the background.

People gather for a vigil, laying flowers at the site where an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good.Bruce Kluckhohn/AP

Community members gather for an emergency vigil, holding up signs with a butterfly that says "remember."

Community members gather for an emergency vigil in south Minneapolis.Christian Zander/NurPhoto/AP

Crowds gathered in Minneapolis on Wednesday as they protested and held a vigil for a woman killed during the Trump administration’s latest immigration crackdown.

The Minneapolis motorist was shot during the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's latest operation in the city in an… pic.twitter.com/ui3QU18C0H

— The Baltimore Sun (@baltimoresun) January 8, 2026

Signs that say "ICE Are Terroris" and "RIP Renee" on a pole outside with people in the background.

People gather for a vigil and protest for Renee Nicole Good near the intersection of East 34th Street and Portland Avenue.Steven Garcia/NurPhoto/AP

Demonstrations Across the Country

People gathered in the dark, holding yellow signs that say "ICE is Trumo's Gestapo"

People participate in a protest in New York in response to the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by a Federal immigration officer.Ryan Murphy/AP

Hours after an ICE agent fatally shot 37-year-old US citizen Renee Good in Minneapolis, immigration advocates and community leaders gathered in Chicago’s Little Village to honor her and protest the killing

City officials dispute DHS claims that the shooting was self-defense pic.twitter.com/o8OfBWAEFk

— Anadolu English (@anadoluagency) January 8, 2026

A white person holding up a cardboard sign that says "ICE killed Good."

More than one hundred protestors gathered in Little Italy, San Diego after an ICE officer shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis.Jonathan Chang/ZUMA

Day Two in Minneapolis

A group of protesters gathered holding signs, with police in riot gear pushing them back.

Protesters confront federal agents outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building the day after an ICE agent shot and killed a woman. Tom Baker/AP

A police officer user chemical agents on people. There's a row of masked protestors in the front.

Law enforcement uses a chemical agent on protesters.Tom Baker/AP

Journalist Amanda Moore, who is on the scene for Mother Jones, said, “The scene outside of the Whipple building quickly becoming similar to the first month of Broadview,” referring to the ICE facility in Illinois where federal officers used violence and chemical weapons against protestors.

The scene outside of the Whipple building quickly becoming similar to the first month of Broadview.

amanda moore 🐢 (@noturtlesoup17.bsky.social) 2026-01-08T14:22:38.381Z

A white protester has water poured over their eyes.

A protester receives aid.Tom Baker/AP

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

RFK Jr. Just Flipped the Food Pyramid to Create a Funnel of Performative Masculinity

New dietary guidelines announced Wednesday by Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. crank up the dials on red meat and full-fat dairy. The now-inverted food pyramid prominently features a steak, an entire chicken, and whole milk up top, relegating carbs to the bottom point—minor real estate compared to the portion they occupied before. Untethered from scientific research, the new recommendations seem more aligned with a burgeoning source of dietary advice: hypermasculine influencers.

The fairly recent obsession with protein isn’t limited to men. “Protein has sort of become like a default or de facto good food, because it hasn’t been vilified in the same way that these other nutrients have,” says Charlotte Biltekoff, a professor at UC Davis who studies food and culture. It’s a buzzword in wellness corners around the internet. Yet the new guidelines basically ignore menopause influencers discussing the benefits of cottage cheese in favor of the red-meat-forward “manosphere.”

Protein-maxxing obsessives can be found throughout MAGAville, ranging from Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson—with his “all beef” diet—to the so-called Liver King. Alongside fitness shakes and supplement powders, these kinds of dudes are often peddling the notion that a high-protein diet is essential for masculinity.

“Most of us eat, actually, way too much protein. I do worry about the longer term health impacts of these kinds of recommendations.”

The association of gender with certain foods isn’t new, but the wholehearted embrace of these perceptions is a more recent phenomenon, says Elaine Power, a dietician and professor at Queen’s University who studies food, gender, and health. In studies about a decade ago, when people were asked if they thought foods were gendered, they’d say no, “but then you show them a salad, and they say, of course that’s women’s food. You show them a steak, and that’s men’s food.”

Her subjects, in other words, would initially deny that such perceptions existed. However,Power says she’s not sure she’d get that result if she repeated the experiment today.

And these perceptions affect what men eat. A 2023 study titled “Healthful Eating as a Manhood Threat” found that men often avoid foods viewed as feminine, often favoring meat. This seems to have particularly affected young men, a greater proportion of whom—recent research suggests—have been eating meat daily and taking protein supplements. When asked why, many cited their desire for a more muscular physique, the baseline of the aesthetics advertised by macho influencers—some of the most notable of whom have been embroiled in steroid controversies.

The ripped physiques influencers use to hawk carnivorous diets are hard to come by, of course, and consuming extra protein is often completely unnecessary. “Most of us eat, actually, way too much protein,” Power says. “I do worry about the longer term health impacts of these kinds of recommendations.”

Besides being terrible for the climate, excessive meat consumption has negative health effects, including an increased risk of cancer and heart disease, even in young people. While the American Heart Association praised the new pyramid’s suggestions to limit highly processed foods, the group stated its disagreement with the emphasis on meat and RFK’s aim of “ending the war on saturated fats.”

The contents of the pyramid are simply recommendations, with little to no direct policy influence. They may eventually be used to redesign school and other institutional lunches, but right now, “there’s no little to no infrastructure to act on this kind of dietary advice,” Biltekoff says. What’s more, the admonition to avoid processed foods and eat home-cooked meals are inaccessible to many.

“This is just another set of ideals that become moralized,” Biltekoff says. “Eating real food becomes a part of identity and status, and it becomes a way of signaling or symbolizing certain kinds of class-based and race-based identities and reinforcing social hierarchies rather than addressing them.”

And to the boys and men in the thrall of protein-maxxing, these new guidelines are just an affirmation that they’re headed in the right direction.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Trump Doctrine: Violence Is Us

The military assault on Venezuela, the shooting of a Minneapolis woman by an ICE agent, the launch of the White House’s new revisionist website about January 6—these three events convey a powerful and unsettling message from Donald Trump and his crew: Violence is ours to use, at home and abroad, to get what we want.

In each episode, the Trump administration has employed or embraced violence that seemingly violates the law and extends beyond ordinary state powers. The US military attack on Caracas and kidnapping of its repressive and fraudulently elected president, Nicolás Maduro, violated the Constitution and international law. Absent an imminent threat from Venezuela—and none existed—Trump did not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally launch an act of war against the country. Yet he deployed the tremendous force of the United States’ war machine to dethrone and abduct Maduro, contending that he was some sort of drug lord. But that’s not a legitimate justification for a military attack.

This was more than a hint: Mess with ICE, and this could happen to you.

The horrific killing in Minneapolis of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good was unwarranted and arguably criminal. The initial videos make it look like murder. Yet the Department of Homeland Security, before it could investigate, quickly defended and justified the officer’s actions. It claimed that Good was one of a group of “violent rioters” who “weaponized her vehicle” and attempted to “run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them.” The department called this “an act of domestic terrorism” and maintained the ICE officer, “fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots.” In other words, this was right thing to do.

On those videos, though, it did not seem like Good was aiming to mow down ICE officers with her car. She was trying to flee the ICE agents. When the officer shot at her, the car was moving away from him. Initial reporting indicated the officer did not follow ICE protocol. Still, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem praised the officer for acting so fast and stated, “This goes to show the assaults that our ICE officers and law enforcement are under every single day.” That is, well done, sir.

Trump affirmed the sentiment in a social media post in which he falsely stated the victim was “a professional agitator” who “viciously ran over the ICE officer” and blamed the shooting on the “Radical Left.”

Neither Noem nor Trump expressed any concern or any sympathy for Good. They were saying that ICE had the authority and justification to use lethal force in this situation. It was more than a hint: Mess with ICE, and this could happen to you.

The day before the ICE shooting, the Trump White House honored—yes, honored—the January 6 rioters. It unveiled an official White House website that ranks as one of the most excessive acts of government gaslighting in modern American history. The site hails Trump for issuing “sweeping blanket pardons and commutations for nearly 1,600 patriotic Americans” who were in the mob that assaulted the Capitol to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential victory. The site denounces Rep. Nancy Pelosi and the House select committee that investigated the riot for having fabricated “an ‘insurrection’ narrative” and pinning “all blame” on Trump.

This site is loaded with absurd falsehoods about January 6. It maintains that the “Democrats masterfully reversed reality after January 6, branding peaceful patriotic protesters as ‘insurrectionists’ and framing the event as a violent coup attempt orchestrated by Trump…In truth, it was the Democrats who staged the real insurrection by certifying a fraud-ridden election.” And it presents an utterly phony timeline of the day, asserting that when peaceful “patriots” marched to the Capitol, police officers responded with “provocative tactics” and “violent force” that “turned a peaceful demonstration into chaos”—and that Trump repeatedly called for calm. None of that is true. In fact, once the melee began, 187 minutes passed before Trump urged his supporters to withdraw from the Capitol.

The website is a laughable fraud. But it’s troubling beyond being an Orwellian assault on the truth. This site signals that Trump and his team not only accept the violence of that day; they celebrate the domestic terrorists who were part of the marauding horde. These are our people, the White House is declaring. These violent thugs are with us—and we’re with them.

The Trump gang’s embrace of violence is not subtle. On Monday night, Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, spelled it out on CNN. Asked by host Jake Tapper if the Trump administration might use military force to seize Greenland, he refused to rule it out, and remarked, “Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.”

He then shared what might be called the Trump Doctrine: “We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”

In short, might makes right. This was a not-too-veiled threat against…well, everyone, including foreign governments and all people within the United States. If the Trump administration has the power to do something, it will. Implied in this stance is the exercise of violence. Either in Greenland or in the homeland. Those who do not bend to Trump’s will—or Miller’s—can expect to feel their violent wrath.

In those two sentences, Miller was saying that there is no rule of law. The world, instead, is governed only by force. That means violence. This ugly and dark stance is an attack on the fundamental concept of rules-based civilization. It is profoundly anti-democratic. It ignores such niggling matters as rights, societal order, and the public good. All that counts is who has the bigger or better club to swing.

An essential element of a police state is the excessive use and threat of violence, and in the past few days the nation has seen such displays. As Trump reaches the end of the first year of his return to power, he and his lieutenants are demonstrating their willingness to deploy force beyond its legitimate use to achieve their aims. The warning is clear and intentional: We are violent. Beware.

If you appreciated this article, please check out David Corn’s Our Land newsletter at davidcorn.com.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s Plans for Venezuelan Oil Are Rapidly Unfolding

President Trump’s plans for Venezuela’s oil industry, insofar as there are concrete plans, appear to be solidifying.

On Wednesday, Energy Secretary Chris Wright indicated that the United States will control the flow of Venezuelan oil “indefinitely.” The announcement came hours after President Trump revealed that Venezuela would be “turning over” up to 50 million barrels of oil to the US, with revenue he intended to personally control.

“The Oil will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States,” he wrote on social media.

With oil trading at roughly $56 per barrel, the initial sale could be worth up to $2.8 billion.

Speaking at an energy event hosted by Goldman Sachs, Wright said that the US will first sell Venezuela’s stored oil—stuck in the country in part due to the US sanctions on its exports—and then market all oil coming out of Venezuela moving forward. The revenue from those sales will then be “deposited into accounts controlled by the US government” and then “flow back into Venezuela to benefit the Venezuelan people.”

“We’ll enable the importing of parts and equipment and services to kind of prevent the industry from collapsing, stabilize the production, and then as quickly as possible, start to see it growing again,” Wright explained. The plan signals a stark contrast to the strict US sanctions on Venezuela’s oilbefore the capture of Maduro.

The dual announcements came as the US military on Wednesday seized a Russian-flagged oil tanker and apprehended a “stateless” tanker it accused of“conducting illicit activities in the Caribbean Sea.”

Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Exxon Mobil—the three largest US oil companies—are reportedly scheduled to meet Trump on Friday to discuss how to invest in Venezuela. (For context, according to the US Energy Information Administration, the US produced about 13 million barrels of oil per day in 2023, and world oil consumption was around 103 million barrels per day in 2024.)

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is escalating Trump’s vision to take over Greenland despite international warnings to drop the threats, reportedly telling lawmakers on Monday that Trump intends to buy the territory. As I reported on Tuesday, European leaders have repeatedly defended Greenland in the wake of Maduro’s capture, writing that the country “belongs to its people.” Their joint statement, released Tuesday, named the United States as a NATO ally that must uphold “principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty.”

But in Venezuela, the EU has largely been quiet. A joint statement issued on Sunday stopped short of condemning the Trump administration and even upheld its justification for attacking Venezuela: “The EU shares the priority of combating transnational organised crime and drug trafficking, which pose a significant security threat worldwide.”

So why the tepid response in regards to Venezuela? Read my colleague Inae Oh’s conversation with Abe Newman about neo-royalism for a potential answer.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

ICE Agent Shoots and Kills Woman in Minneapolis

A federal immigration agent shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday in a deadly escalation in the Department of Homeland Security’s increasing occupation in Minnesota. The woman, 37, was in her car at an active ICE operation when an agent fired multiple shots into the vehicle, according to videos of the shooting and statements from local officials.

“They are not here to cause safety in this city,” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said in a press conference following the shooting. “What they are doing is causing chaos and distrust,” he continued, “and in this case quite literally killing people.”

“To ICE,” he said, “get the fuck out of Minneapolis. We do not want you here.”

Several angles of the shooting quickly circulated on social media. These videos show the ICE agent firing shots into a vehicle on the scene of an immigration enforcement operation. The vehicle then crashes into a parked car seconds later as shouts of “murderer” are heard being directed toward the agent.

Emily Heller, a local resident who witnessed the shooting, told MPR News that she saw a car blocking the street that appeared to be part of a protest against federal law enforcement in the city. Heller said she heard ICE agents telling the driver to “get out of here.”

“She was trying to turn around, and the ICE agent was in front of her car, and he pulled out a gun and put it right in—like, his midriff was on her bumper—and he reached across the hood of the car and shot her in the face,” Heller said.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said the shooting is being investigated jointly by the FBI and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

In a statement, Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said that a “violent rioter” had “weaponized her vehicle” in an “an act of domestic terrorism.” She continued on to say the ICE agent “fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots.” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem also called it “an act of domestic terrorism” in a later statement. No ICE agents were killed.

McLaughlin blamed the shooting on “sanctuary politicians who fuel and encourage rampant assaults on our law enforcement.”

In a press conference on Wednesday, Frey disputed the federal response. “They are already trying to spin this as an action of self defense,” he said, “that is bullshit.”

“This was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying,” Frey added.

Gov. Tim Walz called the federal response “propaganda.”

“I’ve seen the video. Don’t believe this propaganda machine. The state will ensure there is a full, fair, and expeditious investigation to ensure accountability and justice,” Walz wrote on X.

ICE officers have previously shot multiple people in their cars. Our colleague Noah Lanard reported in October on the dangers of ICE to civilians as DHS continues to point to rising threat against their own officers.

As Noah wrote:

A Mother Jones review shows that there is little evidence that ICE agents face such severe and widespread danger compared with other law enforcement agencies that they need military personnel to come to their aid or to break from centuries of public accountability by hiding behind masks.

The Trump administration has provided almost no information to back up its statements about rising assaults, which makes its claims hard to assess. But details about ICE officers who’ve died on the job are readily available on the agency’s website.

Those records show that none of ICE’s agents have ever been killed by an immigrant in the agency’s more than two-decade history. Instead, the leading cause of death by far among ICE officers is COVID-19. According to ICE’s data, the second leading cause of death is cancer linked to 9/11. (The pandemic and cancers connected to the September 11 terrorist attacks account for 75 percent of the deaths in ICE’s history.)

On Tuesday, the DHS announced that it would deploy 2,000 federal agents and officers to the Minneapolis area, linked in part to allegations of fraud involving Somali residents. Walz condemned the decision as “a war that’s being waged against Minnesota.” Throughout the past few weeks, immigration agents in the Twin Cities have used violent tactics in detainments and have been accused of profiling Somalis.

Following reports of the Wednesday shooting, a large crowd of protestors gathered at the scene, near the area of Portland Avenue and 34th Street in the city’s Powderhorn community, according to local reports. Several times in his address, Frey called on the Minneapolis community to respond peacefully, saying that the Trump administration may use this situation to deploy federal troops to the city. “Let’s show up with peace to march, to protest,” he said.

“They want us to respond in a way that creates a military occupation,” he said, “let’s not let them. Let’s rise to this occasion.” He instructed to “not take the bait.”

The area where Wednesday’s ICE shooting took place is around a mile away from where George Floyd was killed by police in 2020.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Experts: Trump Plan to Exploit Venezuela’s Oil Would Be “Terrible for the Climate”

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

Donald Trump, by dramatically seizing Nicolás Maduro and claiming dominion over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, has taken his “drill, baby, drill” mantra global. Achieving the president’s dream of supercharging the country’s oil production would be financially challenging—and if fulfilled, would be “terrible for the climate”, experts say.

Trump has aggressively sought to boost oil and gas production within the US. Now, after the capture and arrest of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, he is seeking to orchestrate a ramp-up of drilling in Venezuela, which has the largest known reserves of oil in the world—equivalent to about 300bn barrels, according to research firm the Energy Institute.

“The oil companies are going to go in, they are going to spend money, we are going to take back the oil, frankly, we should’ve taken back a long time ago,” the US president said after Maduro’s extraction from Caracas. “A lot of money is coming out of the ground, we are going to be reimbursed for everything we spend.”

A graphic showing oil reserves of producing natiions on a map

Source: The Oil & Gas Journal. Note: China and Taiwan and Sudan and South Sudan are combined in the data. *Estimates for the Saudi Arabian-Kuwaiti Neutral Zone are divided equally between the two countries.Guardian

US oil companies will “spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure… and start making money for the country,” Trump added, with his administration pressing Venezuela’s interim government to delete a law requiring oil projects to be half-owned by the state.

A 50 percent boost in Venezuelan oil production would result in more carbon pollution than major economies like the UK and Brazil emit.

Leading US oil businesses such as Exxon and Chevron have so far remained silent on whether they would spend the huge sums required to enact the president’s vision for Venezuela. But should Venezuela ramp up output to near its 1970s peak of 3.7 million barrels a day—more than triple current levels—it would further undermine the already faltering global effort to limit dangerous global heating.

Even raising production to 1.5 million barrels of oil a day from current levels of around 1 million barrels would produce around 550 million tons of carbon dioxide a year when the fuel is burned, according to Paasha Mahdavi, an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara. This is more carbon pollution than what is emitted annually by major economies such as the UK and Brazil.

“If there are millions of barrels a day of new oil, that will add quite a lot of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and the people of Earth can’t afford that,” said John Sterman, an expert in climate and economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The climate costs would be especially high because Venezuela produces some of the world’s most carbon-intensive oil. Its vast reserves of extra-heavy crude are particularly dirty, and its other reserves are “also quite carbon- and methane-intensive,” Mahdavi said.

The world is close to breaching agreed temperature increase limits – already suffering more severe heatwaves, storms and droughts as a result. Increased Venezuelan drilling would further lower global oil prices and slow the needed momentum towards renewable energy and electric cars, Sterman added.

“If oil production goes up, climate change will get worse sooner, and everybody loses, including the people of Venezuela,” he said. “The climate damages suffered by Venezuela, along with other countries, will almost certainly outweigh any short-term economic benefit of selling a bit more oil.”

During his first year back in the White House, Trump has demanded the world remain running on fossil fuels rather than “scam” renewables and has threatened the annexation of Canada, a major oil-producing country, and Greenland, an Arctic island rich with mineral resources.

Critics have accused Trump of a fossil fuel-driven “imperialism” that threatens to further destabilize the world’s climate, as well as upend international politics. “The US must stop treating Latin America as a resource colony,” said Elizabeth Bast, the executive director of Oil Change International. “The Venezuelan people, not US oil executives, must shape their country’s future.”

Patrick Galey, head of fossil fuel investigations at the climate and justice NGO Global Witness, said Trump’s aggression in Venezuela is “yet another conflict fuelled by fossil fuels, which are overwhelmingly controlled by some of the world’s most despotic regimes.”

“So long as governments continue to rely on fossil fuels in energy systems, their constituents will be hostage to the whims of autocrats,” he said.

towering oil derricks soar from the water and silouetted against an orange sky with a setting sun

Oil rigs at Maracaibo Lake in Venezuela’s Zulia state.Leslie Mazoch/AP

Though the president’s stated vision is for US-based oil companies to tap Venezuela’s oil reserves for profit, making good on that promise may be complicated by economic, historical and geological factors, experts say.

Oil companies may not be “eager to invest what’s needed because it will take a lot longer than the three years of President Trump’s term”, said Sterman. “That’s a lot of risk—political risk, project risk,” he said. “It seems very tricky.”

Upping production is “also just a bad bet generally”, said Galey. “Any meaningful increase in current production would require tens of billions of investment in things like repairs, upgrades and replacing creaking infrastructure,” he said. “That’s not even taking into account the dire security situation.”

“The heavy Venezuelan crude that could be refined in US Gulf coast installations is likely going to undercut domestic producers.”

Venezuela’s oil production has fallen dramatically from its historical highs—a decline experts blame on both mismanagement and US sanctions imposed by Barack Obama and escalated by Trump. By 2018, the country was producing just 1.3m barrels a day—roughly half of what it produced when Maduro took office in 2013, just over a third of what it produced in the 1990s, and about a third of its peak production in the 1970s.

Trump has said US companies will revive production levels and be “reimbursed” for the costs of doing so. But the economics of that expansion may not entice energy majors, and even if they choose to play along, it would take years to meaningful boost extraction, experts say.

Boosting Venezuela’s oil output by 500,000 barrels a day would cost about $10bn and take roughly two years, according to Energy Aspects. Production could reach between 2 million and 2.5 million barrels a day within a decade by tapping medium crude reserves, Mahdavi said. But returning to peak output would require developing the Orinoco Belt, whose heavy, sulfur-rich crude is far more costly and difficult to extract, transport and refine.

Returning to 2 million barrels per day by the early 2030s would require about $110 billion in investment, according to Rystad Energy, an industry consultancy.

“That is going to take much more time and much more money, to be able to get at or close to maybe 3, 4 or 5 million barrels a day of production,” said Mahdavi.

Increasing Venezuelan extraction amid booming US production may also be a hard sell. “The heavy Venezuelan crude that could be refined in US Gulf coast installations is likely going to undercut domestic producers, who until Trump kidnapped Maduro had been vocally supportive of sanctions on Venezuelan oil,” said Galey.

Some firms may be willing to “eat that uncertainty” because the US plans to provide companies with financial support to drill in Venezuela, said Mahdavi.

“If you’re willing to deal with the challenges…you are looking still at relatively cheap crude that will get you a higher profit margin than what you can do in the United States,” he said. “That’s why they’re still interested: It’s way more expensive to drill in, say, the US’s Permian Basin.”

Some US oil majors may be more receptive to Trump’s Venezuela strategy. Chevron, the only US company operating in the country, may be poised scale up production faster than its rivals. And ExxonMobil, which has invested heavily in oil production within neighboring Guyana, could benefit from the removal of Maduro, who staunchly opposes that expansion.

Overall, however, it remains unclear how US oil majors will respond to Trump’s plans of regime change and increased oil extraction in Venezuela. What is much clearer is that any expansion would be “terrible for the climate, terrible for the environment,” said Mahdavi.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Tony Dokoupil Lavishes Praise on Marco Rubio in Lauding CBS Segment

Reporting from Miami on Tuesday, newly minted CBS Evening News anchor Tony Dokoupil dedicated a lauding segment to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Dokoupil, who started on the job this week after years as a co-anchor on CBS’s morning show, began the approximately one-minute segment by listing off all the roles that Rubio has assumed in the Trump administration. In addition to his job overseeing the Department of State, Rubio is also the interim national security adviser, the acting national archivist, and head of the now-gutted US Agency for International Development, or USAID, before handing it off to Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought. (Dokoupil didn’t mention USAID’s demise or the Vought handoff.)

“Whatever you think of his politics,” Dokoupil said on Tuesday, “you got to admit, it’s an impressive résumé.”

Marco Rubio has become one of the most influential figures in U.S. foreign policy and President Trump's point man on Venezuela. That's in addition to his roles as Secretary of State, interim National Security Advisor, acting National Archivist and USAID chief. Rubio's portfolio… pic.twitter.com/MglY7s4Zqw

— CBS Evening News with Tony Dokoupil (@CBSEveningNews) January 7, 2026

Stepping into the job this week, Dokoupil takes over a role that has been held by Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, and Katie Couric. Dokoupil’s evening anchor position comes as CBS News continues to be reshaped by new Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss. Since Weiss, an opinion writer who started the Free Press website, began her tenure, she has heavily altered the political tone of the network, and, most notably, pulled a 60 Minutes segment on Venezuelan men sent by the Trump administration to a torturous prison in El Salvador.

During his Rubio segment, Dokoupil referenced AI-generated images of the secretary that have been going viral online. “AI memes have added to that portfolio,” he continued after listing Rubio’s various government roles, “casting secretary Rubio as the new Governor of Minnesota, the new Shah of Iran, the Prime Minister of Greenland, the new manager of Manchester United, the head of Hilton Hotels, and highest of high honors of all, the new Michelin Man.”

Dokoupil shows the images and lists them in a seemingly comedic tone. He doesn’t, though, explain the context—or news—behind these jokes.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz announced this week that he would no longer seek reelection amid investigations into social service fraud and the Trump administration’s targeting of his state’s Somali population through immigration enforcement. Rubio is currently shepherding the president’s purported plan to acquire control over Greenland. Just this week, the Department of Homeland Security accused a Minneapolis Hilton hotel of refusing to accept the bookings of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents—leading Hilton Worldwide Holdings to remove the local hotel from their system.

After listing the memes, Dokoupil said, “back in real life of course, these memes may not add up to much” before continuing, “but for Rubio’s hometown fans, who are many around here in Miami, it is a sign of how Florida, once an American punchline, has become a leader on the world stage.”

He ended the segment by speaking directly to the secretary. “Marco Rubio, we salute you,” he said, “you’re the ultimate Florida Man.” The White House’s rapid response X page then shared Dokoupil’s segment with a simple message: “WE LOVE @SecRubio!”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

They Fled Maduro and Cheered His Downfall. But They Fear Deportations, Too.

Word of the US military operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro reached Mayra Sulbaran while on vacation in Canada. Sulbaran—who fled Venezuela in September 2018 and lives in Washington, DC—was in Montreal to reunite with her brother, who she had not seen in nine years. “I was hugging him when we found out,” she told me over a Zoom on Monday morning.

Soon after Sulbaran heard the news, she joined other Venezuelans to celebrate what so many have prayed for and thought they might never see happen: the downfall of Maduro.

“Until there is true justice in Venezuela and the economic means to return and rebuild the country, I don’t believe Venezuelans can go back.”

Last weekend, US forces executed a months-in-the-making incursion into the presidential compound in Caracas to extract the Venezuelan strongman and his wife, Cilia Flores, who are now being held in a Brooklyn jail facing drug trafficking charges. President Donald Trump declared the United States would “run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.” What happens next remains unclear. At first, Trump hinted at “boots on the ground,” while Secretary of State Marco Rubio talked of “leverage” to control the country.The US president also warned Maduro’s Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who has been sworn in as interim leader, that she would pay a bigger “price” than the removed president “if she doesn’t do what’s right.”

For so many Venezuelans like Sulbaran—a lawyer and pro-democracy activist who founded Casa DC Venezuela, a cultural center for the Venezuelan diaspora in the Washington, DC area—this fraught moment is filled with a complex mix of relief, dread, and expectation.

“It’s a very contradictory situation because we understand that [President Donald Trump] has a goal and we appreciate it…,” she said, “but we’re also very afraid because we don’t know what’s coming and whether a democratic process will truly be respected.”

Sulbaran is one of 8 million Venezuelans who have fled the country since 2014, part of the largest exodus in Latin America’s recent history and one of the world’s worst forced displacement crises. For Venezuelans living in exile and scattered across the hemisphere and beyond, this juncture has sparked hope of one day returning to a Venezuela freed from Maduro’s oppressive grip. But it has also instilled anxiety among the thousands of Venezuelans—even those cheering the US operation—facing deportation to a nation now influx where their safety is all but guaranteed.

“Until there is true justice in Venezuela and the economic means to return and rebuild the country, I don’t believe Venezuelans can go back,” said Sulbaran, now a US permanent resident. “It’s not just about changing a government, it’s about addressing an economic, social, and moral structure.” With the Maduro regime’s chain of command still ruling the country, she said the United States should offer protection to Venezuelans.

Since retaking office, Trump has done the opposite. He has vilified and singled out Venezuelan migrants as a threat, accusing them of being gang members and taking over American cities.

Last year, his administration ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—a discretionary reprieve from deportation for immigrants from countries stricken by natural disasters, wars, and other circumstances—for Venezuela, claiming conditions in the country had improved and allowed for people’s safe return. As I wrote then, that move impacted more than 600,000 Venezuelans and represented the largest de-legalization campaign in modern US history. It threw thousands of people into a legal limbo, with many losing legal status and the ability to work.

Now, amidst the ousting of Venezuela’s sitting president and a nationwide crackdown by the regime, there appears to be no plan to halt the deportation of Venezuelans. In an appearance on Fox News on Sunday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was asked if the administration would continue to send Venezuelans back to the country. “Venezuela today is more free than it was yesterday,” Noem said, adding that the Venezuelans who were stripped of TPS have “the opportunity to apply for refugee status.”

But the refugee program, which the Trump administration has gutted, is intended for people who apply for protection from outside of the United States, not those present in the country already, like one-time Venezuelan TPS holders. In response to questions from Mother Jones, a DHS spokesperson conceded that “applicants are only eligible for refugee status prior to entering the country,” which excludes the people Noem said could qualify.

“Secretary Noem ended Temporary Protected Status for more than 500,000 Venezuelans and now they can go home to a country that they love,” the spokesperson said. “[Deportation] Flights are not paused.” (In 2025, the US government deported 14,310 Venezuelans back to their home country, according to a flight tracker initiative kept by Human Rights First.)

Adelys Ferro, executive director of the Venezuelan-American Caucus, called on the Trump administration to restore TPS for Venezuelans. “This is not the right time to keep deporting law-abiding Venezuelan immigrants,” she said. “All of these vulnerable people that have already been hunted, discriminated against, and victims of all of these xenophobic and racist immigration decisions are in more danger than ever before.”

Ferro pointed to a decree by the Venezuelan regime ordering the police to identify and arrest “everyone involved in the promotion or support for the armed attack by the United States.” There are reports of armed gangs patrolling streets and setting up checkpoints to question residents and look through their phones. On Monday, fourteen journalists were detained, according to the National Press Workers Union. If Venezuela descends into further instability, it could also push more people to leave the country.

In that climate, Ferro expressed concern about what might happen to Venezuelans who celebrated the operation on the streets of the United States if they were deported back. “People are more terrified than before,” she said. “The ultimate hope is that there is a real goal of bringing back democracy for Venezuela and, as a consequence, the Venezuelans that are willing to go back can do it in a safe manner. But that’s not the case right now.”

At first, Ferro said she felt relief, joy, and a “sense of justice” to see Maduro removed from power. But following President Trump’s initial press conference, and Rodríguez ascent, that was overtaken by “disbelief, shock, frustration, devastation.” She took issue with the US government’s sidelining of opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado and backing of Rodríguez. (Machado, who the Venezuelan regime barred from running in the 2024 presidential elections when Maduro declared victory despite evidence that the opposition candidate Edmundo González was the legitimate winner, has said she plans to return to Venezuela “as soon as possible.”)

“At the end of the day, we’re not free,” Ferro added. “The opposition leadership was asking for the construction of a transition to democracy, not a long-term negotiation with a dictatorship.” Ferro said she had questions about what it means for the United States to “run” Venezuela, too—even if temporarily, as Trump promised.

“What I know for sure is that the people of every country have the right to decide their own future,” she said. “Venezuelans have been waiting for more than a decade—if you talk about Chavismo, 27 years—and fighting to decide our own future. We have voted. We have protested. We have been killed. We have been persecuted. We have been imprisoned. We have been tortured. We have done everything in our power to have a path to democracy, and we deserve that opportunity.”

Nathaly Maestre, who lives in Maryland with her partner and six-month-old baby, said there’s “a lot of tension and fear” in Venezuela right now. Her mother avoids leaving the house in an area where the pro-government armed civilian groups known as colectivos are active. They worry about having their conversations monitored and have stopped exchanging messages over WhatsApp, using phone calls instead. “The situation is worrisome because they’re intimidating people,” she said.

After fleeing Venezuela, Maestre sought asylum in the United States and later applied for TPS as another layer of protection. Since the Trump administration ended the program, she’s now reliant on her pending asylum case. Some of her relatives lost their full-time jobs as a result of not having legal status. But despite their vulnerable position, she said they have no plans to leave because Venezuela isn’t safe, perhaps even less so now. “I think we’ve awakened a monster that will now turn against civil society and against anyone who expresses an opinion,” Maestre said. She thinks, at best, it’ll take time for the country to really change.

During our call, Sulbaran also rejected a simplistic narrative that paints the reactions of Venezuelans to Maduro’s capture in broad strokes. She described Chavismo—the political movement of socialist leader Hugo Chávez—and the authoritarian government of his successor as a “farce.” Maduro, she said, is a “dictator” who oversaw a money-laundering “narco-state” as the Venezuelan people fell into extreme poverty and faced political oppression and violence. “We experienced firsthand, as a couple and as a family, what it meant to leave Venezuela to preserve our lives and the lives of our children,” she said.

But Sulbaran also tries to remain clear-eyed about the risks that may lie ahead. She worries that the result of the United States’ intervention in Venezuela and ousting of Maduro could just be the exchange of one “executioner” for another. Her hope is that Rodríguez will engage in a peaceful transition period before handing the reigns of the country to the duly elected González. “Yes, we’re nervous,” she said. “But we’ve come from the worst, from rock bottom.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Punching Above Our Weight

It’s tough sometimes, when you’re a modestly sized, nonprofit newsroom, to look at the big dogs in journalism—the New York Times or CNN, with their thousands of journalists, or storied magazines like the New Yorker and the ­_Atlantic_—and not feel hopelessly outgunned. They can swarm dozens of journalists on a single story, or pay some $12,000 to duplicate a certain New York mayor’s luxe travel experience. They have fleets of publicists to make sure every success is amplified. Our staff has been known to couchsurf to get a story, air-gap computers with the help of epoxy glue, or enlist a relative to play the guitar for music on our sister radio show, Reveal.

Our newsroom is powered by the conviction of people who believe that journalism needs to exist.

Nevertheless, or maybe because of this, we’ve often punched above our weight when the time comes to hand out awards for the best work across our industry. But this year? This year we’re killing it. In the past several months we’ve won National Magazine Awards, Webbys, Polks, and duPonts; we’re a finalist for a Pulitzer and several Emmys—basically if there’s an honor to bestow on journalism, it has been bestowed upon us.

Each of those honors has a unique origin story, but they all have one thing in common: They are the result of the merger last year between Mother Jones and Reveal, a union that gave us the ability to dig deeper, tell stories more powerfully, and reach broader audiences.

At a dark time like this, it’s especially important to find reason for joy and celebration. And so we wanted to share ­details of some of those honors with you—­because, in a very real way, they belong to you. The Center for Investigative Reporting, which produces Mother Jones and Reveal, doesn’t have a corporate parent or billionaire sponsor. Our combined newsroom is powered by the conviction of many, many people who believe that journalism needs to exist, and who choose to support us with donations and subscriptions. So let’s look at some of the trophies we all earned together.

In May, we were selected as a finalist for the Pulitzer in Explanatory Reporting for “40 Acres and a Lie,” a years-in-the-making project in collaboration with the Center for Public Integrity. Reporters dug into a story that many ­Americans grew up hearing—that enslaved people were promised “40 acres and a mule” after the Civil War, something that never came to pass. We reported on a truth that was even more shocking: Many Black families were in fact given titles to land—across swaths of Georgia and the Carolinas—only to have it cruelly taken away and returned to their enslavers. The reporting team built an AI program to probe the handwritten records of the Freedmen’s Bureau, the federal agency charged with ensuring formerly enslaved people’s transition to freedom, to tell this story. Those records are a treasure trove of ancestral information for countless Americans, and this project has made them easily accessible and searchable for all.

This reporting also resulted in a three-part radio/podcast series, six in-depth features and essays, that AI ­database, a video, and a beautiful ­edition of this magazine. You can find them all right here.

The project also won a National Magazine Award “Ellie”—the Oscar of the magazine world. And it’s part of the reason that Mother Jones was chosen for General Excellence—think “Best Picture”—for coverage that also included our profile of a mass shooter’s mother and a full issue on American oligarchy, with Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Donald Trump cavorting on the cover much as they would at the inauguration a year later. (That cover was also a finalist for the “Cover of the Year” award.)

The merger also allowed us to bring sassy but truthful reporting to video platforms where so many Americans—especially younger people—get their news. The Webby Awards just named our video correspondent, Garrison Hayes, Best Creator—of them all!—on social media. And our feature film The Grab, which investigates the global power struggle over who controls our water, has been nominated for four Emmys.

Another of our projects, this one in collaboration with the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley, and focusing on how police pump families of people they have killed for information before they deliver the tragic news, received both a duPont and a Polk award, another of the highest honors in journalism.

Those are just the heaviest statuettes and paperweights we’ve collected of late. It’s a big haul, and amazing recognition for the hardest-working team, and the best community of support, in all of journalism. So here’s hoping that you’ll raise a glass to yourself. We’re so proud and honored to be part of this with you.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Wildfire Smoke is Killing Tens of Thousands of Americans Every Year

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

Wildfire smoke is an emerging nationwide crisis for the United States. Supercharged by climate change, blazes are swelling into monsters that consume vast landscapes and entire towns. A growing body of evidence reveals that these conflagrations are killing far more people than previously known, as smoke travels hundreds or even thousands of miles, aggravating conditions like asthma and heart disease. One study, for instance, estimated that last January’s infernos in Los Angeles didn’t kill 30 people, as the official tally reckons, but 440 or more once you factor in the smoke. Another recent study estimated that wildfire haze already kills 40,000 Americans a year, which could increase to 71,000 by 2050.

Two additional studies published last month paint an even grimmer picture of the crisis in the US and elsewhere. The first finds that emissions of greenhouse gases and airborne particles from wildfires globally may be 70 percent higher than once believed. The second finds that Canada’s wildfires in 2023 significantly worsened childhood asthma across the border in Vermont. Taken together, they illustrate the desperate need to protect public health from the growing threat of wildfire smoke, like better monitoring of air quality with networks of sensors.

The emissions study isn’t an indictment of previous estimates, but a revision of them based on new data. Satellites have spied on wildfires for decades, though in a somewhat limited way—they break up the landscape into squares measuring 500 meters by 500 meters, or about 1,600 feet by 1,600 feet. If a wildfire doesn’t fully fill that space, it’s not counted. This new study increases that resolution to 20 meters by 20 meters (roughly 66 feet by 66 feet) in several key fire regions, meaning it can capture multitudes of smaller fires.

Individually, tinier blazes are not producing as much smoke as the massive conflagrations that are leveling cities in the American West. But “they add up, and add up big time,” said Guido van der Werf, a wildfire researcher at Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands and lead author of the paper. “They basically double the amount of burned area we have globally.”

Smaller fires may be less destructive then the behemoths, but they can still be catastrophic, pouring smoke into populated areas.

With the 500-meter satellite data, the previous estimate was around 400 million hectares charred each year. Adding the small fires bumps that up to 800 million hectares, roughly the size of Australia. In some parts of the world, such as Europe and Southeast Asia, burned area triples or even quadruples with this improved resolution. While scientists used to think annual wildfire emissions were around 2 gigatons of carbon, or about a fifth of what humanity produces from burning fossil fuels, that’s now more like 3.4 gigatons with this new estimate.

The type of fire makes a huge difference in the emissions, too. A forest fire has a large amount of biomass to burn—brushes, grasses, trees, sometimes even part of the soil—and turn into carbon dioxide and methane and particulate matter, but a grass fire on a prairie has much less. Blazes also burn at dramatically different rates: Flames can race quickly through woodland, but carbon-rich ground known as peat can smolder for days or weeks. Peat fires are so persistent, in fact, that when they ignite in the Arctic, they can remain hidden as snow falls, then pop up again as temperatures rise and everything melts. Scientists call them zombie fires. “It really matters where you’re burning and also how intense the fire can become,” van der Werf said.

But why would a fire stay small, when we’ve seen in recent years just how massive and destructive these blazes can get? It’s partly due to fragmentation of the landscape: Roads can prevent them from spreading, and firefighters stop them from reaching cities. And in general, a long history of fire suppression means they’re often quickly extinguished. (Ironically, this has also helped create some monsters, because vegetation builds up across the landscape, ready to burn. This shakes up the natural order of things, in which low-intensity fires from lightning strikes have cleared dead brush, resetting an ecosystem for new growth—which is why Indigenous tribes have long done prescribed burns.) Farmers, too, burn their waste biomass and obviously prevent the flames from getting out of hand.

Whereas in remote areas, like boreal forests in the far north, lightning strikes typically ignite fires, the study found that populated regions produce a lot of smaller fires. In general, the more people dotting the landscape, the more sources of ignition: cigarette butts, electrical equipment producing sparks, even chains dragging from trucks.

Yes, these smaller fires are less destructive than the behemoths, but they can still be catastrophic in a more indirect way, by pouring smoke into populated areas. “Those small fires are not the ones that cause the most problems,” van der Werf said. “But of course they’re more frequent, close to places where people live, and that also has a health impact.”

That is why the second study on asthma is so alarming. Researchers compared the extremely smoky year of 2023 in Vermont to 2022 and 2024, when skies were clearer. They were interested in PM 2.5, or particulate matter smaller than 2.5 millionths of a meter, from wildfire smoke pouring in from Quebec, Canada. “That can be especially challenging to dispel from lungs, and especially irritating to those airways,” said Anna Maassel, a doctoral student at the University of Vermont and lead author of the study. “There is research that shows that exposure to wildfire smoke can have much longer-term impacts, including development of asthma, especially for early exposure as a child.”

This study, though, looked at the exacerbation of asthma symptoms in children already living with the condition. While pediatric asthma patients typically have fewer attacks in the summer because they’re not in school and constantly exposed to respiratory viruses and other indoor triggers, the data showed that their conditions were much less controlled during the summer of 2023 as huge wildfires burned. (Clinically, “asthma control” refers to milder symptoms like coughing and shortness of breath as well as severe problems like attacks. So during that summer, pediatric patients were reporting more symptoms.) At the same time, climate change is extending growing seasons, meaning plants produce more pollen, which also exacerbates that chronic disease. “All of those factors compound to really complicate what health care providers have previously understood to be a safe time of year for children with asthma,” Maassel said.

Researchers are also finding that as smoke travels through the atmosphere, it transforms. It tends to produce ozone, for instance, that irritates the lungs and triggers asthma. “There’s also the potential for increased formation of things like formaldehyde, which is also harmful to human health. It’s a hazardous air pollutant,” said Rebecca Hornbrook, who studies wildfire smoke at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, but wasn’t involved in either study, though a colleague was involved in the emissions one. (Last month, the Trump administration announced plans to dismantle NCAR, which experts say could have catastrophic effects.)

As wildfires worsen, so too does the public health crisis of smoke, even in places that never had to deal with the haze before. Governments now have to work diligently to protect their people, like improving access to air purifiers, especially in schools. “This is no longer an isolated or geographically confined issue,” Maassel said. “It’s really spreading globally and to places that have never experienced it before.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

A New Theory Explains Why Trump Keeps Threatening Global Takeovers

Since the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and the ensuing claim by US leaders that “we’re in charge” of a sovereign nation, President Trump and his allies have gloated. “Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall,” Trump told reporters, implying that the island country was next on his takeover list as he flew back to Mar-a-Lago this weekend.

“Fuck around,” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth keeps warning other nations, and “find out.” Meanwhile, commenters on the right, who bask in hubris, are declaring that American might is the only international law of importance.

The parade of threats, which had seemed absurd until Friday, has prompted many to wonder: Why? What is the point of invading other countries? Could it really be as simple as oil? A play for a sphere of influence? Age-old imperialism? Is it because, as Chuck Schumer meekly suggested, that Republicans just aren’t “stepping up to the plate?”

If you’re in a system that is about rules, then this looks irrational because it’s not following the rules. But if it’s a system that’s about status and hierarchy dominance…then it makes perfect sense.

If you can’t help but shake the feeling that such theories don’t quite fit this moment, you’re not alone. On Bluesky, I noticed a new theory that popped up: neo-royalism, which argues that we’re talking about this moment all wrong. That the world order as we’ve known for the last century—let’s loosely call it Cold War liberalism—is disappearing. And in its place, a new order shaped by the private interests of individual men and their fiercest allies, not the interests, private or public, fair or foul, good or bad, of a nation.

“Neo-royalism says that the state, the country, is not the key actor,” Abe Newman, a political scientist at Georgetown who co-wrote a paper coining the term, told me. “It’s groups of elites that are organized around political leaders. That system doesn’t play by the same rules.”

If that sounds like a return to the era of kings, you’re on the right track. But neo-royalism expands this to a global structure, with American power dominating the world and King Trump attempting to reap profit across the globe. It’s through this lens that, suddenly, the tech CEOs and other countries groveling with golden gifts make more sense.

I caught up with Newman on the emerging theory and what it really means. Our conversation has been lightly edited.

For those who haven’t come across your paper, let’s loosely define neo-royalism and how this framework might explain Trump’s chaotic foreign policy.

Let me start by asking: What do we usually think of how international politics works? For the last 100 years or so, it was based on what people call the rules-based international order. The United Nations and the World Trade Organization interacted based on the idea that each state was sovereign. They could control their territory, and there were certain basic principles of interaction. These were kind of the rules of engagement.

What my co-author, Stacie Goddard, and I are saying is that the lens everybody uses to think about how international politics works is no longer functioning.

What we propose, neo-royalism, is basically just saying to begin with, the state is not the key actor like the country. It’s groups of elites that are organized around political leaders. That system doesn’t play by the same rules, but it is very inherent to how humans think about international politics.

So, I usually like to use Game of Thrones. Everybody relates to Game of Thrones. You watch it, you read it, and you’re like, “Oh, I understand how politics is working.” That is what we’re seeing in the international system. It’s groups of actors that are jockeying for their interests, and they’re trying to grab hold of the state to use its power to get what they want. It’s not national interests that are driving international affairs, but the interests of these different competing elite groups.

I struggle to believe that this decline in the international world order is happening in some kind of Trumpian vacuum. But I could be wrong! Is America’s embrace of neo-royalism singular to Trump? If not, what milestones led us to this moment?

Jeff Kopstein, a professor at UC Irvine, has this great book about the rise of what you would call patrimonial systems of government versus what we’ve seen over the last several decades. He documents the rapid disassembly of the internal, bureaucratic state. In the case of the US and the disassembly of that system here, it’s not only because of Trump. It’s because of many different polarizations and Supreme Court decisions, such as Citizens United. There’s been a whole bunch of things that have degraded the bureaucratic state, and it’s moved us into what the Supreme Court might call the unitary executive doctrine. It’s a version where there’s very little bureaucracy around the decisions of the leader, and instead, the leader can make decisions based on their personal interests. That’s not just a change in the United States; you see that in Russia, Hungary, Turkey, wherein many states have seen the same evolution away from what people will call the Weberian state, to this more patrimonial system. And what our argument is that has international consequences. It’s not just changes domestically; it’s also having this transformative effect globally.

Right now, actors are debasing themselves to this order, like the Swiss bringing gold bars and Rolexes to the White House to avoid being targets of tariffs.

How should this framework influence the way we view Trump’s actions right now?

I think a lot of people start with the idea that Trump is about spheres of influence balancing against China. Sometimes people call it America First. But that’s a red herring. But really, what you’re seeing is a set of foreign policy decisions that are about accumulating status and material wealth and then concentrating that in that group of insider elites. This is about status hierarchy, the relations of individuals.

Why does Trump have a big fight with India and put huge tariffs on India? It’s because Modi won’t recognize Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s not about competing against China. Why did we sell lots of semiconductors to the UAE? It doesn’t make a lot of sense from an America First perspective. So what’s going on there? It’s about the amount of money that the UAE is going to put into World Liberty Financial, the crypto company that’s associated with Steve Witkoff and their children. It’s about seeing the global chessboard as a site of status and material wealth. The same thing with Venezuela. People think it’s the oil companies that are pushing Trump to take over Venezuela. They’re not. That’s not the story. It’s about how Trump sees Venezuela as a resource that he can then distribute across his allies.

Right. I think there’s also an instinct to neatly explain this with, well, he’s just fucking crazy.

World leaders like the Danish prime minister have [expressed confusion], like, “This doesn’t make any sense, these threats over Greenland.” But that’s because people are using this old logic and viewing this as irrational based on the liberal international order, or that it’s not rational if we’re thinking about spheres of influence. But what my co-author and I argue is that what is rational depends on the ordering system. If you’re in a system that is about rules, then this looks irrational because it’s not following the rules. But if it’s a system that’s about status and hierarchy dominance, it’s if it’s Game of Thrones, then it makes perfect sense.

You’re reorganizing the chessboard in order to funnel resources, material, and status to your supporters. I think that once we can name it and describe it, then we can try to understand it and also offer an alternative. Because right now, too often, actors are debasing themselves to this order, like the Swiss bringing gold bars and Rolexes to the White House to avoid being targets of tariffs.

In your view, which characters, either in the administration or in his family, make up this theoretical clique? What do they stand to gain?

There’s the family, right? They’re clearly involved in these types of activities. Jared Kushner, not Marco Rubio, is at the table in Ukraine. So there’s the kind of familial characters and also what we would call loyalists and ideologues like Stephen Miller. Then you have economic actors, the kind of Elon Musks, the people who have a way to reorganize economic structures to their benefit.

In political science, we’re always thinking about power. There are different ways to accumulate it; sometimes it’s economic, and sometimes it’s status, and it’s often to maintain that power.

And they’re thinking beyond Trump, right? He is, after all, an elderly man.

Oh, definitely. Many of these actors are quite explicit about their long-term views. Just look at the advisers around all this. There’s Chris Buskirk, an adviser to JD Vance who runs the organization, 1789, and he talks about how we need to bring back an aristocratic system of governance. There’s an intellectual framework that is opposed to democracy and argues that elites should be in charge of this system. And I think it’s naive to think that when Trump retires, that will be the end of the system. There are multiple actors—whether it’s the family, loyalists, or economic leaders—and they’re all kind of vying for succession.

The US government doesn’t actually want to keep invading countries; it just wants people to give it stuff for free.

Supposing your theory is correct, what now? How should countries that oppose Trump’s neo-royalism respond? Because the current admonishments seem incredibly naive.

There has to be both a domestic and an international response. If you look at Sen. Chuck Schumer’s response recently, he was basically saying, “Well, Republicans should vote against this.” But there has to be a recognition that this is an attempt to transform how the international system works. I think a lot of times people are like, “I’m scratching my head. What’s Trump doing?” There’s a much larger agenda afoot, and it is basically degrading the norms and processes that we’ve based the international system on. Somebody needs to stay that rules are this way because they prevent violence, coercion, and corruption. If we get rid of rules, we’re likely to have violence and corruption—and we’re already seeing that play out. The stakes are very high.

If you’ve ever seen movies like _Heather_s or Mean Girls, we all know most of what we do in life is because of norms. It’s because of these tacit rules of how we’re supposed to behave. This isn’t just Trump. It’s transforming what the basic principles of international affairs are, and we at the domestic level have to push back, even if we think Maduro is a terrible guy and his whole regime is terrible.

Ultimately, the United States has the preponderance of military power. It can do things if it wants to. But the key is, what is the reaction to that? Do people say, “Okay, I guess you can do that.” Well, then the US will keep doing that. I think what’s important to remember is that using coercion is actually very difficult and costly. The US government doesn’t actually want to keep invading countries; it just wants people to give it stuff for free.

In April, Trump proposed very large tariffs, and the bond market freaked out. So he pulled it back and restructured the tariffs. So I think other actors have to say, “Look, you can’t keep doing this. We’re not just going to go along or get along. There will be a cost.

I’ve been particularly fascinated by the aesthetics of the Trump administration over the past year, specifically as to how they signal loyalty to the president. What are the traditional ways of doing this in the realm of neo-royalism?

There is a part of the piece where we ask: How do you create legitimacy when you’re not based on rules? In a neo-royalist system, it’s about exceptionalism. It’s about this notion that we’re so special, and so we get to do these things. That’s why traditional monarchs justified their behavior either by God or bloodline. The United States doesn’t have that as much. But we have Trump and these leaders who look for visuals and narratives that underscore exceptionalism. And so you saw, like the White House, they did a Time magazine cover. Look at his speeches. He doesn’t say that his power comes from us, the people. It is about “I alone can save you.” It’s never about whether we can do this. And so that the images and narratives are usually about something divine. As Trump has said, “God saved me from the assassination.” Or there’s the patriarchal, like the NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte calling Trump “Daddy.”

Since you mentioned it, I’ll end by asking which Game of Thrones house you’d liken Trump to.

I’m not sure if there’s a perfect house, but the Lancasters are the ones trying to dominate. I like that question. I’ll think about that.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Wyoming Court Stops Abortion Bans

Abortion will remain legal in Wyoming following a Tuesday decision in the state’s Supreme Court that said its two abortion bans, including a block on abortion pills, were unconstitutional.

The court ruled that the bans violate a 2012 amendment to the Wyoming Constitution that protects an adult’s right to make their own healthcare decisions. One law banned abortion with few exceptions, such as in cases of rape or incest, and the other explicitly prohibited abortion pills. Wyoming was the only state in the country to implement an outright ban.

As Bolts, an organization that reports on local elections and policies, noted in 2023, this amendment was part of a conservative push against Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Conservatives argued that the legislation was government interference. Progressives, meanwhile, including reproductive rights advocates in Wyoming, have used the amendment to protect abortion access.

“A woman has a fundamental right to make her own health care decisions, including the decision to have an abortion,” the ruling from Tuesday reads.

Wyoming’s only abortion clinic, Wellspring Health Access, was one of the plaintiffs in the case. In a statement, Julie Burkhart, president of the clinic, told Mother Jones that the decision “affirmed what we’ve always known to be true: abortion is essential health care, and the government should not interfere in personal decisions about our health.”

“While we celebrate today’s ruling, we know that anti-abortion politicians will continue their push to restrict access to health care in Wyoming with new, harmful proposals in the state legislature,” Burkhart added.

The decision also implies that anti-abortion lawmakers in Wyoming would need to amend the state constitution to ban abortion, rather than a majority vote in the Republican-dominated legislature.

Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon immediately called for just that on Tuesday, saying in a statement: “It is time for this issue to go before the people for a vote, and I believe it should go before them this fall.”

A move to amend the constitution would be decided by voters in the 2026 election.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Erasure of January 6

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

In 1984, George Orwell observed that a fascist state relies upon its ability to control—or obliterate—memory. As Winston Smith, the ill-fated protagonist, ponders the Party’s ability to manipulate reality and history, Orwell writes, “Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.” Another passage in the novel describes the Party’s relentless effort to construct the dominant narrative: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

Sound familiar?

It’s been five years since a mob of thousands of Donald Trump supporters—which included Christian nationalists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, Confederate flag wavers, militia members, and other extremists—assaulted the US Capitol to try to halt the peaceful transfer of power from an outgoing president to an incoming president. The basic facts are well established: Trump refused to accept legitimate election results. He falsely claimed he had won the 2020 contest and spread baseless lies and conspiracy theories about the election. He spent weeks scheming to overturn the election and remain in power. Promoting these falsehoods, he incited that insurrectionist attack on Congress in which more than 140 law enforcement officers were injured. While the melee was occurring, he abandoned his duty to defend the Constitution and waited 187 minutes before calling on his brownshirts to leave the Capitol.

Like the Party in Orwell’s dystopia, Trump and the Republicans have sought to rewrite history and erase the stain of Trump’s profound betrayal of America.

This is all undeniable. Yet Trump and his cult refuse to accept these fundamentals. Like the Party in Orwell’s dystopia, Trump and the Republicans have sought to rewrite history and erase the stain of Trump’s profound betrayal of America. He pardoned the violent marauders, and his henchmen in charge of the FBI and Justice Department have fired agents and prosecutors who participated in the investigation and prosecution of these thugs. And Trump’s MAGA legions mounted a disinformation campaign that advanced various conspiracy theories—the FBI did it! Antifa did it!—to absolve Trump and his thugs.

More important, an entire political party and tens of millions of American voters memory-holed Trump’s war on American democracy and his embrace of political violence. What is perhaps the gravest transgression ever committed by a US president has been airbrushed out of the picture and the perp allowed (by a majority of voters) to return to the scene of the crime. This is one of the most worrisome turns in American history. If our democracy cannot protect itself from such peril and repel such a dangerous threat, can it survive?

Trump’s triumph over reality was made clear this past week. On New Year’s Eve—one of the deadest times for the news cycle—the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee released the closed-doors testimony it had recently received from Jack Smith, the special counsel who led the investigations that indicted Trump for conspiring to overturn the 2020 election and for allegedly swiping highly sensitive White House documents. Both cases ended after Trump won the election in November. (Under Justice Department policy, a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for federal crimes.)

Smith insisted on a public appearance, apparently knowing he had the goods on Trump. The Republicans said no and questioned him in a private session—all the better for controlling the narrative.

Smith, as you know, has been repeatedly denounced by Trump as a lunatic who waged witch hunts and investigated hoaxes generated by his fellow Deep Staters, the Democrats, and the media. And Republicans hauled Smith in as part of their never-ending crusade to find (or concoct) evidence to bolster Trump’s paranoid fantasies and conspiracy theories—and to buttress their hyperbolic charge that Trump and Republicans have been the victims of what they call the “weaponization of government.”

Smith insisted on a public appearance, apparently knowing he had the goods on Trump. The Republicans said no and questioned him in a private session—all the better for controlling the narrative. The fact that they made public the transcript on a holiday night tells you what you need to know about who got the best of whom.

The 255-page transcript is an important document that every citizen should read. (I know, I’m being fanciful.) Smith ran circles around the GOP committee members and their staff. “Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power,” Smith said at the start. He added, “Our investigation also developed powerful evidence that showed that President Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after he left office in January of 2021, storing them at his social club, including in a ballroom and a bathroom. He then repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents.”

Trump tried to take advantage of this spasm of cop-beating violence to illegally remain in office. That foul deed should have disqualified him from ever holding any position of authority. Yet…

Smith patiently explained how Trump’s (alleged) crime related to January 6: “January 6th was an attack on the structure of our democracy in which over 140 heroic law enforcement officers were assaulted. Over 160 individuals later pled guilty to assaulting police that day. Exploiting that violence, President Trump and his associates tried to call Members of Congress in furtherance of their criminal scheme, urging them to further delay certification of the 2020 election.”

This is an accusation that sums up Trump’s perfidy: He tried to take advantage of this spasm of cop-beating violence to illegally remain in office. That foul deed should have disqualified Trump from ever holding any position of authority. Yet…

A key exchange occurred when a Republican staffer (whose name is redacted in the transcript) asked, “The President’s statements that he believed the election was rife with fraud, those certainly are statements that are protected by the First Amendment, correct?” This has been a central contention of the Trump cult: You cannot prosecute Trump for stating his opinion that the election was rigged against him. But Smith fired back: “Absolutely not. If [these false statements] are made to target a lawful government function and they are made with knowing falsity, no, they are not.” Statements made to promote a fraud are not protected by the First Amendment.

Later on in his testimony, Smith remarked that the elections case against Trump was much like an “affinity fraud”—that’s when, he said, “you try to gain someone’s trust, get them to trust you as a general matter, and then you rip them off, you defraud them.” Trump, he told the committee, “had people…who had built up trust in him, including people in his own party, and he preyed on that.” And once again, Smith reiterated, fraud is not covered by the First Amendment.

This Republican staffer took another shot at it and said, “There’s a long history of candidates speaking out about they believe there’s been fraud [in an election]…I think you would agree that those types of statements are sort of at the core of the First Amendment rights of a Presidential candidate, right?”

Not at all, Smith replied: “There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case. As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowing—knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. That he was not allowed to do. And that differentiates this case from any past history.”

The Republicans kept trying to mount a theoretical defense for Trump. This staffer pointed out that during the hullabaloo over the 2020 election, Trump was receiving information on supposed election fraud from Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, and Sidney Powell, and he asked, wasn’t Trump just “regurgitating what these people have told him?”

Smith had a sharp retort:

No. And, in fact, one of the strengths of our case and why we felt we had such strong proof is all witnesses were not going to be political enemies of the President. They were going to be political allies. We had numerous witnesses who would say, “I voted for President Trump. I campaigned for President Trump. I wanted him to win.” The speaker of the house in Arizona. The speaker of the house in Michigan. We had an elector in Pennsylvania who is a former congressman who was going to be an elector for President Trump who said that what they were trying to do was an attempt to overthrow the government and illegal. Our case was built on, frankly, Republicans who put their allegiance to the country before the party.

Call 911. There was a murder in this Capitol Hill office, as Smith decimated the various lines of defense Trump’s handmaids hurled at him. He forcibly denied Trump’s indictments were political acts or that his office had been “weaponized.” In an exchange with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), he explained the importance of his investigation.

Jayapal: What happens if there is election interference and the people who are responsible for that are not held accountable?

Smith: It becomes the new norm, and that becomes how we—how we conduct elections.

Jayapal: And so the toll on our democracy, if you had to describe that, what would that be?

Smith: Catastrophic.

The Smith transcript generated headlines…for a day. Like most everything else in our information hypersphere, this story did not have much staying power. Trump’s attempt to blow up the constitutional order has become old news. Ho-hum. He got away with this allegedly criminal act because he won the election. His pardons of the violent criminals who attacked hundreds of cops is just one item on a long list of outrages that quickly come and go.

Many Americans, it seems, couldn’t hold on to a clear memory of January 6 for even a few years—or couldn’t be bothered to.

A high-profile public appearance in which Smith vigorously presented the case against Trump might not at this point change the overall public perception of Trump’s attempted power grab and the violent raid he triggered. But that would have drawn more attention and served the truth. Which is why Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chair of the committee, and his fellow Republicans made damn sure that did not happen.

Today is the fifth anniversary of January 6—a shameful day in American history. And in the last election, the nation—or about half of its voters—welcomed back into the house the arsonist who tried to burn it down. The past 10 years have sadly showed us that a wannabe authoritarian in the United States can succeed in denying reality and wiping away history. Trump did that with the Russian attack on the 2016 election, which he aided and abetted by echoing Vladimir Putin’s false claims that Moscow had not intervened and by insisting ad nauseum that it was a hoax. And he has done the same with January 6, hailing it a “day of love” and “a beautiful day” and calling the rioters “great patriots.”

Many Americans, it seems, couldn’t hold on to a clear memory of January 6 for even a few years—or couldn’t be bothered to. This demonstrates how susceptible people can be to what the Party did in 1984: Erase the past (even the most recent past) and then erase the erasure.

Trump is back in the White House, pushing his agenda of authoritarianism far beyond what he could only dream of during his first term. Future historians—if there is history in the future—will wonder about much in this era. But what might puzzle them the most is how the man who nearly annihilated our constitutional republic was able to worm his way back into the presidency. Gore Vidal once referred to the nation as the “United States of Amnesia.” On this dark anniversary, it’s good to remember that Trump is in power today because there’s been too much forgetting.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Europe Tells Trump: Greenland Is Not for Sale

European leaders argued for Greenland’s sovereignty Tuesday amid President Trump’s continued threat to take over the island following his military operation in Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

Greenland is an autonomous territory in Denmark. Citizens of Greenland are also citizens of Denmark and the European Union. In a joint statement released Tuesday, more than half a dozen European leaders wrote that “Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.”

The leaders asserted that security in the Arctic region must be “achieved collectively”—which includes NATO allies like the United States—by upholding the UN Charter that establishes “sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders.”

Since the US captured Maduro, Trump has threatened Colombia, Mexico, Greenland, Iran, and Cuba.

The president has repeatedly called for the US to take over Greenland since his first term. On Sunday, Trump noted that Greenland was a strategic territory for the US in regards to national security.

“Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,” Trump said.

The joint statement also comes after Katie Miller sent a post on X on Saturday that went viral, which showed a map of Greenland covered in the American flag. She captioned the image “SOON!” Miller, of course, is a conservative podcast host, former Trump administration official, and wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller, who has a significant role in pushing Trump’s mass deportation of immigrants.

On Tuesday, Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen thanked the European leaders for their joint statement and urged the US to “seek respectful dialogue through the correct diplomatic and political channels” instead of making threats. He added that “very basic international principles are being challenged” as Greenland’s sovereignty is “rooted in international law.”

So why is Trump so fixated on Greenland?

As Inside Climate News reported, in collaboration with Climate Desk, Trump has listed critical minerals, untapped oil reserves, military positioning, and new international trade routes as reasons for annexing Greenland.

And as Sophie Hurwitz wrote for Mother Jones last January, Ronald Lauder, a billionaire working in the cosmetics company Estée Lauder, reportedly introduced the idea of buying Greenland to Trump in 2019. While Lauder’s motives are still unclear, in 2021, Trump explained the idea as “not so different” from his method of real estate development in New York City. “I said, ‘Why don’t we have that?’ You take a look at a map. I’m a real estate developer, I look at a corner, I say, ‘I’ve got to get that store for the building that I’m building.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s Venezuela Move Could Deliver a Big Win for This MAGA Billionaire

This story was originally published by Popular Information, a substack publication to which you can subscribe here.

In a Saturday morning military raid ordered by President Trump, US forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. After Maduro was apprehended and transported to New York to face criminal charges, Trump announced that the United States would “run” Venezuela for the indefinite future.

The extraordinary attack, which legal experts said violated US and international law, has set up a potential windfall for a prominent Trump-supporting billionaire, investor Paul Singer.

In 2024, Singer, an 81-year-old with a net worth of $6.7 billion, donated $5 million to Make America Great Again Inc., Trump’s Super PAC. He donated tens of millions more in the 2024 cycle to support Trump’s allies, including $37 million to support the election of Republicans to Congress. He also donated an undisclosed amount to fund Trump’s second transition.

This past June, when Trump sought funds to bankroll a primary challenger to Thomas Massie (R-KY), who had raised his ire by supporting the release of the Epstein Files, Singer contributed $1 million, the largest contribution.

Since Trump was first elected in 2016, Singer has met personally with Trump at least four times. “Paul just left and he’s given us his total support,” Trump declared after meeting with Singer at the White House in February 2017. “I want to thank Paul Singer for being here and for coming up to the office. He was a very strong opponent, and now he’s a very strong ally.” (Singer had initially supported Marco Rubio, who is now Trump’s Secretary of State.)

In November 2025, Singer acquired Citgo, the US-based subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-run oil company. Singer, through his private investment firm, Elliott Investment Management, bought Citgo for $5.9 billion. The sale to Amber Energy, a subsidiary of Elliott Investment Management, was forced by creditors of Venezuela after the country defaulted on its bond payments.

Elliott Investment Management is known as a “vulture” fund because it specializes in buying distressed assets at rock bottom prices. Citgo owns three major refineries on the Gulf Coast, 43 oil terminals, and a network of over 4,000 independently owned gas stations. By all accounts, Singer acquired these assets at a major discount.

Advisors to the court that oversaw the sale valued Citgo at $13 billion, while Venezuelan officials said the assets were worth as much as $18 billion. Maduro’s government had sought to appeal the court’s approval of Singer’s bid for Citgo. But now that Maduro has been ousted, it seems unlikely that appeal will continue.

Singer acquired Citgo at a bargain price in large part due to the embargo, with limited exceptions, on Venezuela oil imports to the United States. Citgo’s refiners are purpose-built to process heavy-grade Venezuelan “sour” crude. As a result, Citgo was forced to source oil from more expensive sources in Canada and Colombia. (Oil produced in the United States is generally light-grade.) This made Citgo’s operations far less profitable.

Trump has sought to justify military action against Venezuela as an effort to disrupt narcotics trafficking. But Venezuela produces no fentanyl and is a minor source of cocaine that reaches the United States. Trump also recently pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras, who was convicted of drug trafficking.

Further, Trump has long made clear that he was interested in Venezuela for the oil. In remarks to the North Carolina Republican Party in 2023, Trump said that when he left office in 2021, Venezuela was “ready to collapse.” Trump said, had he remained in office, the US “would have taken [Venezuela] over” and “gotten all that oil.”

In remarks on Fox News Saturday, Trump made clear that one of the motivations for Saturday’s attack was to increase the production and export of Venezuelan oil. Venezuela has the largest proven reserves of crude oil in the world. Trump said that, moving forward, the US would be “very strongly involved“ with the Venezuelan oil industry.

Industry observers anticipate “a rapid rerouting of Venezuelan oil exports, re-establishing the US as the major buyer of the country’s volumes.” Jaime Brito, an oil analyst at OPIS, said access to Venezuelan oil imports “will be a game changer for US Gulf Coast…refiners in terms of profitability.”

If that happens, Paul Singer, thanks to a well-timed transaction, will be one of the largest beneficiaries.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

US Reduces Number of Vaccines It Recommends For All Children

Federal health officials reduced the number of vaccines recommended for all children from 17 to 11 on Monday.

According to the new schedule, some routine vaccines are now only recommended for “high-risk” children, while others, like the flu shot, can be administered through “shared clinical decision-making” that is based on individual discussions between the health care provider and the patient or guardian.

An assessment that provided the scientific basis for the decision to revise the immunization schedule states that an “increased emphasis on shared clinical decision-making would help restore trust in public health recommendations made by CDC.” It cites that from 2020 to 2024, trust in health care declined, “coinciding with school closures, other lockdowns, mandatory face masks, COVID-19 vaccination mandates with their de facto denial of infection-acquired immunity, and other public health recommendations that lacked scientific rationale.”

The Department of Health and Human Services’ announcement comes in response to a presidential order from Donald Trump last month that directed HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill to update the vaccine schedule according to “peer, developed countries.” Trump’s memo said that at the beginning of 2025, the US “was a high outlier” in the number of vaccinations it recommended.

But, as STAT News reports, “some other wealthy countries, including those consulted by U.S. officials, actually have similar recommendations.”

HHS’ announcement said many of the peer nations that “recommend fewer routine vaccines achieve strong child health outcomes and maintain high vaccination rates through public trust and education rather than mandates.”

“We are aligning the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule with international consensus while strengthening transparency and informed consent,” Kennedy said in the announcement. “This decision protects children, respects families, and rebuilds trust in public health.”

This change to the vaccine schedule is the culmination of months of efforts by Kennedy, who has a long record of anti-vaccine activism, to alter the way vaccines are approved and recommended. CDC recommendations were also a target in Project 2025, which states, never again should CDC officials be allowed to say in their official capacity that school children ‘should be’ masked or vaccinated (through a schedule or otherwise).”

Last month, a panel appointed by Kennedy, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, voted to end universal hepatitis B recommendations for newborns.

According to NPR, officials said that the revision was made without formal public comment or response from vaccine makers, evading the usual process in which bodies like the CDC’s ACIP evaluate changes. Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, told NPR that the decision “will sow further doubt and confusion among parents and put children’s lives at risk.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Wants Venezuela’s Oil. Getting It Won’t Be So Simple.

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

President Donald Trump has made it clear: His vision for Venezuela’s future involves the US profiting from its oil.

“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies—the biggest anywhere in the world—go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure,” the president told reporters at a news conference Saturday, following the shocking capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

But experts caution that a number of realities—including international oil prices and longer-term questions of stability in the country—are likely to make this oil revolution much harder to execute than Trump seems to think.

Trump seems to view the situation almost like “a Settlers of Catan board—you kidnap the president of Venezuela and, ipso facto, you now control all the oil.”

“The disconnect between the Trump administration and what’s really going on in the oil world, and what American companies want, is huge,” says Lorne Stockman, an analyst with Oil Change International, a clean energy and fossil fuels research and advocacy organization.

Venezuela sits on some of the largest oil reserves in the world. But production of oil there has plummeted since the mid 1990s, after President Hugo Chávez nationalized much of the industry. The country was producing just 1.3 million barrels of oil each day in 2018, down from a high of more than 3 million barrels each day in the late 1990s. (The US, the top producer of crude oil in the world, produced an average of 21.7 million barrels each day in 2023.) Sanctions placed on Venezuela during the first Trump administration, meanwhile, have driven production even further down.

Trump has repeatedly implied that freeing up all that oil and increasing production would be a boon for the oil and gas industry—and that he expects American oil companies to take the lead. This kind of thinking—a natural offshoot of his “drill, baby, drill” philosophy—is typical for the president. One of Trump’s main critiques of the Iraq war, which he first voiced years before he ran for office, was that the US did not “take the oil” from the region to “reimburse ourselves” for the war.

The president views energy geopolitics “almost like the world is a Settlers of Catan board—you kidnap the president of Venezuela and, ipso facto, you now control all the oil,” says Rory Johnston, a Canadian oil market researcher. “I do think he legitimately, to a degree, believes that. It’s not true, but I think that’s an important frame for how he’s justifying and driving the momentum of his policy.”

Some Trump administration policies that were intended to boost American oil and gas have actually hurt the industry. US oil producers have repeatedly voiced concerns about how tariffs and a volatile market have contributed to a dramatic decline in global oil prices, which fell 20 percent in 2025—the biggest losses since 2020.

Oil and gas companies, like most big industries with a lot of capital invested in infrastructure, value long-term political and financial stability. Any more big, unpredictable shakeups—in supply, regulatory environments, tariffs, or otherwise—could not come at a worse time for American oil.

“Right now the oil market’s somewhat oversupplied,” Stockman says. “That’s hurting American companies. The last thing they want is for a massive oil reserve to suddenly be opened up.”

A number of both short- and long-term decisions could affect how the US invasion of Venezuela plays out for American oil. First there’s the question of what happens to all the oil Venezuela is currently sitting on. Over the past few months, the administration has significantly ramped up sanctions and blockades on Venezuela, creating a massive glut of oil that hasn’t been able to find its way out of the country.

If Trump decides to totally lift sanctions on Venezuela, that surplus could enter the wider market. The most likely buyers are US oil refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, which are close by and equipped to handle the type of oil produced in Venezuela. This could create investment opportunities for oil companies based there.

When it comes to developing even more of Venezuela’s oil capacity, things get trickier. While it’s tempting to draw direct lines between the Iraq invasion and Trump’s move against Maduro, the economic conditions for oil, both in the US and abroad, are much different than they were in 2002. Oil supply was tight when the US invaded Iraq, and the shale revolution—which flooded the market with cheap fracked gas and oil from American producers—was still several years away. Now, with oil prices sitting almost as low as they were in the pandemic, most big producers are not drilling with abandon, but picking and choosing where they spend their money. Renewable energy, meanwhile, has become astronomically cheaper than it was in the early 2000s.

“Lots of corruption, poor governance, nationalization… [It’s] gonna take time for companies to trust again.”

“We are entering a world where oil demand growth is slowing,” Stockman says. “Despite what the Trump administration wants, we are in the midst of a transition. No matter where you believe the peak is, whether it’s 2030 or beyond, the peak is coming.”

It’s not clear if restarting production in Venezuela will see a guaranteed return on investment for many years. Venezuela’s oil reserves are extra-heavy, requiring extra processing—and cost—to make the oil light enough for transport. Meanwhile, the infrastructure used to produce oil in Venezuela is falling apart after decades of disrepair and neglect. Significantly ramping up production in these circumstances, experts say, will likely take years and tens of millions of dollars.

Some major American companies seem poised to profit more immediately from a regime change. Chevron, the only company still operating in Venezuela, could have enough of a foothold to more quickly expand production. ExxonMobil, meanwhile, has poured money into oil fields in nearby Guyana; American control in Venezuela could be helpful in stabilizing those investments over the long term.

But as a whole, the industry has shown initial hesitation to a possibly open playing field in Venezuela. Politico reported Saturday that the Trump administration has told oil companies that it expects them to pour money into the country—but industry has been cautious. “The infrastructure currently there is so dilapidated that no one at these companies can adequately assess what is needed to make it operable,” an energy insider told Politico.

And oil reserves in a specific region don’t guarantee a stable environment for a massive influx of investment cash—and American oil employees. The New York Times reported Saturday that the Trump administration has for weeks eyed Venezuelan vice president Delcy Rodríguez to replace Maduro, based partly on her management of the oil industry since she was named the nation’s oil minister in 2020. But it’s far from clear if this administration will be able to control a regime change in a way that creates a stable investing environment for big oil companies for the next few decades.

That initial plan appears to be unraveling already. On Saturday, Rodríguez, who has been sworn in as Venezuela’s interim leader, denounced US actions there and said that Maduro is the country’s “only president.” Sunday morning, US secretary of state Marco Rubio said on ABC’s This Week that Rodríguez is not the “legitimate” president of Venezuela. “Ultimately,” he said, “legitimacy for their system of government will come about through a period of transition and real elections, which they have not had.”

“There’s a lot of history, and I mean that in, like, a capital H kind of weight to it, History,” says Johnston. “Lots of corruption, poor governance, nationalization…That is gonna take time for companies to trust again if they don’t have to. Step one is: Who is now president of Venezuela? We have no idea at this point.”

Still, there’s a chance some companies may choose to play ball in the short term. Investors have learned that acceding to Trump’s interests can present financial and regulatory wins, even when the market is not necessarily behind those decisions; companies that don’t follow along, by contrast, could face consequences. On Saturday, The Wall Street Journal reported that a group of hedge fund officials and asset managers were already planning a trip to Venezuela to explore investment opportunities, including ones in energy.

“I think there’s going to be a lot of that,” Johnston says. “Is that window dressing for investments, or is that window dressing for the White House? I think there’s gonna be a lot of people wanting to please Trump and say, ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah. It’s our oil industry now.’”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Tim Walz Failed Minnesotans. Trump Is Revictimizing Them.

Minnesotans who lost years of access to state-administered social services amid a series of fraud scandals under Gov. Tim Walz’s watch are now facing federal cuts to many of those same services by the Trump administration.

Trump has made Walz the face of Minnesota’s fraud, boosting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories on Truth Social—one which accuses Walz of being behind the murders of Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, last summer.

While the conspiracies are false, Minnesota is being investigated for real fraud. The first case was over Feeding Our Future, a Minnesota nonprofit that claimed to be distributing meals to schoolchildren during the Covid pandemic. Instead, a federal investigation found that the group defrauded the government out of hundreds of millions of dollars, spending money that was meant for children on cars, houses, and real estate projects outside of Kenya and Turkey.

The investigation also uncovered fraud in programs assisting people at risk of homelessness and therapy for children with autism.

According to prosecutors, 78 of the 86 people charged in those three fraud cases are of Somali ancestry. The New York Times reported that most were American citizens. Over 60 people have been convicted, with federal prosecutors finding over $1 billion in public money stolen in the three cases.

The Minnesota Department of Education, which oversaw the food distribution program, did not stop funding after Feeding Our Future threatened it with lawsuits, alleging racism against the state’s Somali American community. The program did not shut down until federal indictments were issued in 2022. Kayesh Magan, a Somali American who was a former fraud investigator for the state’s attorney general’s office, suggested to the Times that the state wanted to avoid controversy since Somali Americans are a “core voting bloc” for Democrats.

Many on the right have used Minnesota’s fraud scandals to fuel racist rhetoric against immigrants and attack Gov. Walz’s administration.

In November, President Trump called Minnesota on Truth Social “a hub of fraudulent money laundering activity” and singled out Somali culprits, who should be sent “back to where they came from.” In the same post, the president announced that he would revoke the Temporary Protected Status of Somali residents in Minnesota with the justification that “Somali gangs are terrorizing the people of that great State.”

In July 2024, Magan, the former fraud investigator, wrote in the Minnesota Reformer that the state’s public programs do not effectively protect against organized fraud because they are designed to catch offenses made by recipients. Fraud among providers who collaborate with recipients is much more difficult to find and is the “most pervasive in the Somali community.”

Although that doesn’t excuse engagement in fraud, Magan wrote, many Somalis are also the victims of these cases as they are often targeted by Somali providers “based on clan ties and familial relations.”

“This relationship, which blurs the traditional boundaries between a recipient and a provider, can enable fraud,” Magan wrote.

Conservatives added further pressure on Walz following a video posted last month on X by independent journalist and YouTuber Nick Shirley that alleged fraud at Somali-run child care centers in Minnesota. Shirley’s video has received 138 million views as of Monday and led the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to launch a fraud investigation into the state’s child care late last month.

And the pressure has worked: Gov. Tim Walz announced Monday that he would drop his bid for reelection this year.

“Every minute that I spend defending my own political interests would be a minute I can’t spend defending the people of Minnesota against the criminals who prey on our generosity and the cynics who prey on our differences,” Walz said in a Monday press conference discussing the decision.

Walz said the right “want to poison our people against each other by attacking our neighbors” and that their “political gamesmanship” is making the state’s attempts to actually combat fraud more difficult.

The Trump administration has frozen federal funding for child care in all states, and the US Department of Health and Human Services announced Monday that it is rescinding rules from the Biden administration that “required states to pay providers before verifying any attendance and before care was delivered.” The announcement explicitly refers to the investigation in Minnesota.

“Loopholes and fraud diverted that money to bad actors instead,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said in the announcement. “Today, we are correcting that failure and returning these funds to the working families they were meant to serve.”

On Friday, Minnesota’s Department of Children, Youth, and Families said that investigators found that child care centers were operating normally.

Minnesota officials have until January 9 to provide the Trump administration with information about providers and parents who receive federal funds for child care, according to an email sent Friday by the state Department of Children, Youth, and Families to child care providers and shared with multiple news organizations.

Continue Reading…