Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

No Kings Rallygoers in New York Share Their Biggest Fears—and Greatest Hopes

I’ve covered all the No Kings protests in New York City since the start of Trump’s second presidency. What has struck me about all of them is how they fuse people’s fears with their hopes. The fear is what drives people onto the streets: threats to democracy, the war in Iran, attacks on LGBTQ Americans. The hope: each other, the promise of change. So, amid a raucous sea of angry, festive rallygoers along Manhattan’s 7th Avenue on Saturday, I asked people: What is your biggest fear and greatest hope right now?

“I’m here because they’re fucking building concentration camps that they’re locking tens of thousands of people in, and ICE is in our fucking airports,” the artist (and “Mother Jones fan”) Molly Crabapple told me. “Too many people are dying and too many people are in cages.” And while she doesn’t typically think “in hope,” she was inspired by the community. “I know we have each other and I don’t know if that’s enough, but that’s all we have.”

For Matthew Nichols, a 56-year-old arts worker, the greatest fear is November’s midterms — that “there’ll be some significant interference,” he said. “All of these things that seemed farfetched maybe a year ago or two years ago are actually coming to pass.”

Ash, 29, a Mexican agricultural worker, says he fears people being silenced and “losing empathy” but, like others I met, pointed to “all of us,” gesturing around as providing him with hope. “People from all walks of life. Rich people, poor people, white people, black people. Everyone. So, it’s quite powerful.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

At CPAC, the Shah’s Son Promises to “Make Iran Great Again”

Polls show that the majority of Americans oppose President Donald Trump’s war in Iran. Those numbers go even higher when the prospect of boots on the ground is included. The war has even repelled some of Trump’s biggest supporters in the MAGA world, who thought he was serious when he promised during his 2024 campaign that he wouldn’t engage in foreign wars if elected.

But none of those schisms were on display Saturday at CPAC, the nation’s oldest conservative political convention, when Reza Pahlavi took the stage. The son of the last shah of Iran was given rock star treatment and greeted with roars of approval from an audience filled with Iranian-Americans who back Trump’s attack on Iran.

“Can you imagine Iran going from death to America to God bless America?” he asked the raucous crowd. “Well, I, too can.” He pitched Trump’s war as an opportunity for Iranians to finally throw off 47 years of oppressive theocratic rule, and offered up himself as the chosen one who would lead the country through its transition to freedom.

Button with a photo of Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi

A button worn by supporters of Reza Pahlavi at CPACStephanie Mencimer/Mother Jones

“Unlike the regime that worships death and destruction, the Iranian people celebrate life and liberty,” he said. “That’s why I can imagine an Iran that exports engineers instead of extremists, startups instead of suicide bombers, energy instead of hatred.” With echoes of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” motto, Pahlavi said, “I can imagine in the Middle East where Iran is no longer a source of chaos, but an anchor of stability that does not fear its people, doesn’t threaten its neighbors, doesn’t isolate itself from the world. Imagining this is not difficult, because this is exactly what Iran once was, and what it can be again.”

The moment was surprisingly moving. Hundreds of exiled Iranians, many with children in tow, were clearly longing for Pahlavi to deliver change for the good. Yet the crown prince’s future—as well as exiles who hope to return to Iran—rests almost entirely on Trump, which seems like risky business. After all, Trump has the attention span of a gnat, and already he’s facing a revolt from his own party over the war.

Media stars like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan have been openly breaking with Trump for betraying his campaign promises. At CPAC, where most speakers seemed largely supportive of the war, former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) sounded a discordant note, saying, “A ground invasion of Iran will make our country poorer and less safe. It will mean higher gas prices, higher food prices. And I’m not sure if we would end up killing more terrorists than we would create.”

Some Republicans in Congress like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) have joined with Democrats to try to pass a war powers resolution that would limit the president’s ability to wage war in Iran. Gas prices are skyrocketing as Iran continues to strangle the critical Strait of Hormuz, an outcome that seems to have taken Trump by surprise.

Faced with increasing opposition at home to the war, Trump has suggested that “me and the Ayatollah” might jointly oversee the operation of the strait, a partnership that would seem anathema to Iranian exiles in the US.

At CPAC, Pahlavi seemed to recognize the limits of America’s support for regime change in Iran through military action. “What we ask of America now is simple: Stay the course,” he pleaded. “Pave the way for the Iranian people to finish the job.”

The crown prince framed himself as the leader of an Iranian MAGA movement, and his supporters openly pined for the restoration for the shah. In that sense, they seemed much like American conservatives imagining a better past that never was. After all, Iran wasn’t exactly a model of democracy before the 1979 Iranian revolution. While he may have been a modernizing force, Pahlavi’s father was an authoritarian monarch who oversaw a one-party state that also engaged in torture and human rights abuses. Many of the Iranians I met at CPAC were far too young to remember life under the shah, and they seemed to view pre-revolutionary Iran with sepia tones.

“Iran, as it was before 1979, you know, we had a great country,” Sara Paras told me. “We were progressing. But now with the Ayatollah and Islamic regime, they are just destroying our country.” Paras, 29, is an enthusiastic backer of Pahlavi. “He is the representative of the people of Iran. He wants the same thing that the Iranian people want, too. They want freedom.”

T-shirt of the Shah in the style of an Obama poster

A T-shirt spotted on a supporter of Reza Pahlavi at CPACStephanie Mencimer/Mother Jones

While Pahlavi seems to have a large following of Iranians inside the US, Trump and his aides have reportedly called him the “loser prince” because they don’t believe he has much support inside Iran, a country the suburban Maryland resident hasn’t visited in 50 years. At CPAC, however, Pahlavi pushed back on such criticism. “I have unified a broad coalition of dissidents, republicans, and monarchists, left and right,” he said. “Men and women of all ages, religions, and ethnicities. Even people who were former political opponents have joined the movement to free Iran under my leadership.”

One thing Pahlavi didn’t promise to deliver in Iran: immediate elections—though he has said that those will happen eventually.

“The Iran story is not yet finished,” he said, concluding his speech. “Great civilizations outlast even the most vicious occupiers. With your help and with the courage, sacrifice and heroism of Iran’s greatest youth, our best latest chapter is being written right now. When it is done, a free and democratic Iran will stand alongside the United States as a partner, ally, and a friend. President Trump is making America great again. I intend to make Iran great again.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Signs, the Chants, the Crowds: No Kings Protesters Take Over the Country Again

From hundreds of people standing on the side of a road in St. Petersburg, Florida, to tens of thousands in Manhattan, the third round of No Kings protests has once again brought out people across the country to protest President Donald Trump and his administration. Organizers are expecting several million people to turn out in total.

The flagship event at the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul in the afternoon is expected to see around 100,000 people, and there are planned demonstrations in all 50 states. Saturday’s turnout follows two other nationwide events in June and October 2025 from the No Kings coalition, a movement made up of dozens of organizations. The October 18 demonstrations drew millions of Americans to more than 2,700 events, according to organizers.

As the chants, signs, and speeches at Saturday’s events make clear, countless Americas are fed up with federal immigration agents’ violence in American cities, the rising cost of living, the ongoing war against Iran, and the administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

Ezra Levin, the co-founder of Indivisible, one of the main groups behind the nationwide protests, told me in January that this third No Kings mobilization would be “a response to the secret police force that’s terrorizing American communities.” Yet, he continued, “I reserve the right to say that this is in response to whatever more recent atrocity the regime commits. It’s lashing out quite a bit, so we’ll see.”

Here are just some of the scenes from Saturday’s events. This post will be updated as the day goes on.

Minnesota

a protestor holds up photos of Renée Good and Alex Pretti.

St. Paul. AP Photo/Joe Scheller

Washington, DC.

protestors carry depictions of prominent trump admin leaders with a sign that says "arrest them."

AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

Kentucky

Sign reads: This is what democracy looks like.

Shelbyville, Kentucky. on Cherry/Getty Images

Michigan

One sign reads: Make America Kind Again

West Bloomfield, Michigan.JEFF KOWALSKY / AFP via Getty

Texas

People sign onto a giant We The People banner.

Houston.Marcus Ingram/Getty Images

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Scientists Just Discovered an Amazing New Superfamily of Creatures Deep in the Ocean

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

Beneath the neon lights of a laser-scanning microscope, newly classified species glow in vivid greens and oranges—a far cry from the pitch-black abyss of their natural ocean floor.

Researchers have identified 24 new deep-sea creatures and a whole new evolutionary branch in the Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ), a wide swath of ocean between Hawaii and Mexico. The findings surface as the Trump administration, via a January mandate from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has fast-tracked permits for deep sea mining in that zone, one of the planet’s richest rare-earth metal regions.

The identification of a new branch of life underscores the stakes of an international regulatory vacuum: Mining might be allowed to occur before scientists even have the chance to name species that call the seabed home.

Tammy Horton, co-author and researcher at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, explained the significance of a new evolutionary branch this way: “If you imagine that on planet Earth, we know about carnivorous mammals, we know that bears exist and we know that the families of cats exist, it would be like finding dogs.”

That superfamily of amphipods that researchers described dwell 13,000 feet down. Compared to their shallow-water relatives—like common sand fleas tucked under seaweed on beaches—these deep-sea species have evolved in darkness for millions of years. The shrimp-like creatures with a unique conical mouth mostly measure around one centimeter.

NOAA is reviewing an application from The Metals Co. to target more than 25,000 square miles of the zone where the new species live for deep-sea mining.

“It was, and it still is, the most exciting thing I’ve had in my career,” said Horton, highlighting how discovering new species in the deep sea is relatively common, but only very rarely a new superfamily. “It just shows you how little we know about what’s in the deep sea.”

The breakthrough was the result of immense scientific collaboration. Horton and co-author Anna Jażdżewska each individually worked on their collections before realizing they’d reached the same conclusions. Merging datasets and bringing together a team of more than a dozen experts accelerated the often years-long taxonomic process into a single week’s workshop.

Researchers immortalized their finds by naming them. Byblis hortonae and Byblisoides jazdzewskae took inspiration from Horton and Jażdżewska, respectively, while Horton bestowed her daughter’s name on the new superfamily: Mirabestia maisie. The names serve a deeper purpose than mere tribute.

Naming species affords them a “passport for living,” said Jażdżewska, professor at the University of Łódź. It allows people and policymakers to think about a species like the living entity it is.

“Until they are properly named for science in this official way, they are not communicable about,” said Horton. “It absolutely gives them a passport to be discussed, to be talked about, to be conserved.”

However, with over 90 percent of species in the CCZ still unnamed, it will likely be difficult for policymakers to know the true impacts of proposed deep-sea mining projects on fauna.

A map of the Pacific Ocean, with the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, in between Hawaii and Mexico, shaded in purple.

Spanning 1.7 million square miles of the eastern Pacific seabed, the CCZ teems with significant stores of manganese nodules. These potato-sized deposits contain high concentrations of battery-grade metals such as nickel, cobalt and copper.

In January, NOAA finalized changes to the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act that fast-track deep-sea mining projects by allowing companies to apply for a commercial recovery permit at the same time as an exploration license. Previously, companies were required to undertake extensive scientific research prior to receiving an extraction permit.

“This consolidation modernizes the law and supports the America First agenda,” said Neil Jacobs, NOAA’s administrator, in a statement. Earlier this month, NOAA accepted for review an application from The Metals Co. to target over 25,000 square miles of the same zone where the new species live.

Mining exacts an environmental cost. Just two months after commercial machinery plowed the CCZ’s silty seabed in large-scale tests in 2022, species abundance dropped 37 percent and biodiversity fell by almost a third, according to sediment analysis by the UK’s Natural History Museum.

Horton and Jażdżewska plan to keep uncovering the wonders of the deep sea as part of the International Seabed Authority’s Sustainable Seabed Knowledge Initiative to identify 1,000 new species by the end of the decade.

Indeed, while the description of two dozen new species and the discovery of a new superfamily is a monumental leap, researchers know much further identification work lies ahead. Understanding how the animals live, how they reproduce and what they feed on is completely unknown beyond basic inference, said Jażdżewska.

“We’ve just done 24 and that is a drop in the ocean, literally, of how many more we have to describe,” said Horton.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Art Trump Doesn’t Want and the Artists Left Behind

Last year, arts organizations and cultural institutions across the US received an alarming message: Their federal grants had been canceled.

The letters said their projects no longer aligned with new federal priorities and that money was being redirected toward the Trump administration’s agenda. The grants had funded museum exhibits, public art programs, historical research, and community arts initiatives.

Angela Sutton and a team of archaeologists were in the middle of excavating a long-forgotten Black neighborhood in Nashville when she got the news: “Just got an email out of the blue saying, ‘Please stop. You’re done.’”

This week on Reveal, reporter Jonathan Jones travels to Nashville and beyond one year after the cancellations to meet the people living with the fallout. From musicians to visual artists, historians, and arts administrators, they’re confronting a new reality: Federal support now depends on the shifting political priorities in Washington. Some organizations are scaling back their work. Others worry artists will censor themselves just to survive. But many are fighting back.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Watch: Inside the ICE Airport Operation

Like many Americans, Amanda Moore spent a lot of time this week in Houston’s airports. For much of the past year, Moore has reported on the federal law enforcement agencies that President Donald Trump has deployed to cities around the country. So when Trump announced he was sending in ICE to—supposedly—help deal with the hours-long airport security lines caused by the partial government shutdown, she set out to learn what the agents were really up to.

As it turns out, the answer was often: not much. The ICE agents were “sometimes discouraging people from cutting in line, or ushering people up escalators,” Moore reports in a new video for Mother Jones. “Other times, they’re just sitting around chatting with each other.”

Early Friday morning, the Senate voted to restore funding to the Department of Homeland Security, but so far, House Republicans are refusing to go along. Meanwhile, Trump is claiming he will unilaterally pay TSA agents, even without congressional approval. Either way, it’s not clear when or if ICE will be leaving the airports. Some ICE agents in Houston told Moore they don’t expect to depart anytime soon.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Al Gore’s Rallying Cry Ahead of Saturday’s No Kings Protests

Twenty years after An Inconvenient Truth made a devastating case for climate action, American leadership on the issue has all but vanished. But former Vice President Al Gore, the film’s crusading star, hasn’t given up hope.

In a sit-down interview with Reveal’s Al Letson this week, Gore returned to a familiar theme from across his career in activism: people-powered change. “Sometimes the time frames, the time cycles, take a little bit longer than we’re comfortable with,” he admitted. “But I do believe in the resilience of American democracy, and I say all the time that political will is a renewable resource. It is.”

He cast the interview as a rallying cry ahead of this weekend’s No Kings events—nationwide protests against President Donald Trump’s sweeping consolidation of federal power. His message for those in the MAGA movement who have embraced what Gore has called authoritarianism was blunt: “There is a feeling on the part of some that we do need a king, we do need an autocrat,” he said. “Well, to hell with you, we do not. We’re Americans. And the whole spirit of these demonstrations is to reassert that fact.”

Gore pointed to the historic scale of the protest movement so far, noting that earlier demonstrations drew millions, and predicted an even bigger turnout this weekend. “Everybody’s kind of expecting that it’ll blow the roof off of those numbers,” he said. “I think these things matter.”

“If they think we’re going to put up with this, they think we’re fools,” he added. “You watch and see.”

For more from this interview, including Gore’s scathing assessment of Trump’s strategy in Iran, watch our previous clip below, and stay tuned for more on an upcoming episode of More To The Story with Al Letson. Subscribe here.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Incredible Shrinking CPAC

In the days leading up to this week’s opening of CPAC, the nation’s oldest conservative political convention, organizers still seemed to be holding out hope that some brighter MAGA luminary would agree to headline the event. The CPAC app and social media accounts offered a slow drip of news of newly confirmed speakers. There was the HUD secretary, a low-level HHS official, and a Nigerian lawyer who advocates for Christians in his Muslim country. On March 21, CPAC excitedly announced that Todd Chrisley would be joining the lineup.

Who?

You could be forgiven for not knowing about Chrisley. A minor reality TV star, Chrisley was in prison until May last year, serving a 12-year sentence for bank and tax fraud, when President Donald Trump pardoned him. What Chrisley has to offer the CPAC audience is unclear. “To speak on the process of receiving a pardon?” posited one incredulous Facebook commenter responding to the Chrisley announcement.

During the Trump decade, CPAC had been a showcase for the MAGA faithful, and Trump and his family were its biggest stars. Trump himself first appeared at the event in 2011 when he was toying with a presidential run. He hasn’t missed the event in a decade. “Nobody can deny that [CPAC] is the center of political gravity,” CPAC chairman Matt Schlapp told me in 2022.

But the center of gravity has clearly tilted if the modest crowd in the convention hall at the Gaylord Texan resort in Grapevine is any indication. “It’s shitty,” Warner Kimo Sutton told me of the turnout. “Last time this place was packed.” A GOP stalwart who who ran Trump’s 2016 campaign in Hawaii, he was here two years ago, the last time CPAC came to Dallas. He was still hoping more stars would show up. “I’ve heard the widow is coming,” he whispered, saying he had it on good authority that Erika Kirk, the widow of the murdered Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, might be making a surprise appearance.

Whether a late showing by “the widow” is enough to spice up the convention remains to be seen. After all, people book hotels and buy tickets months in advance, often expecting to see Trump and some of his famous children. CPAC doesn’t discourage this view. Trump’s previous appearances feature prominently on the CPAC website. But as of Thursday night, not a single Trump family member was on the 2026 lineup, and Trump has reportedly said he is not coming. (A CPAC intern on Thursday held out hope and told Sutton and me that Trump’s visits are often last-minute affairs.)

Still, CPAC attendees won’t even hear from Trump-adjacent Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former CPAC regular who was exiled to Greece as the US ambassador after Don Jr. ditched her for a younger woman. And the primacy of CPAC as a testing ground for future presidential candidates seems threatened. As of Thursday, not a single 2028 aspirant was scheduled to speak in Grapevine. No Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, no Vice President JD Vance. And Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio was way too busy plotting to overthrow Cuba. The closest he has come to the event was appearing on the big screen in the exhibit hall Thursday morning during a broadcast of the president’s predictably fawning cabinet meeting.

Headlining the annual Ronald Reagan dinner is Texas attorney general Ken Paxton. Currently running for the US Senate, Paxton is an underwhelming candidate to fill a speaking slot once occupied in 1985 by the Gipper himself. Paxton has a long history of scandals, ranging from a 2015 securities fraud indictment to his impeachment in 2023, to his messy divorce that revealed a series of infidelities. Despite Paxton’s popularity among MAGA voters, Trump has thus far declined to endorse him in his primary race against incumbent Sen. John Cornyn.

Part of the problem with CPAC this year may be that many of its biggest draws in the past are now part of the government they long railed against. FBI Director Kash Patel, who wrote a whole book about “government gangsters,” is now one of them. Ditto for Pam Bondi, who just last year shared the mainstage with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz but now runs the Justice Department, where she’s under fire from Trump’s own fans for her handling of the Epstein files.

Former White House National Trade Council director Peter Navarro appeared at CPAC in 2024, shortly before heading off to prison for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena. Now pardoned, he has thus far skipped this year’s event, perhaps to better mismanage the president’s trade war—though he did find the time to show up at Politico’s Economy Summit in Washington, DC, on Wednesday. Those still on the schedule are a sorry lot of wannabes and has-beens. Former Florida representative and catastrophically failed Trump attorney general nominee Matt Gaetz? Check.

What might account for the lackluster affair? Sutton, a three-time delegate to the GOP presidential nominating convention who moved to Texas six years ago, suspects that the war in Iran is likely keeping Trump away. But he also despairs that “there’s a malaise in our party” preventing people from engaging more in this year’s midterms.

Perhaps Americans, even the MAGA faithful, are too pinched by gas prices to shell out for a trip to the resort in Grapevine, where, as Sutton complained, parking costs $29 a day. Maybe a lame duck Trump, whose approval rating has never been lower, has hurt attendance. Or maybe even Republicans have grown weary of an event that has strayed far from its roots as a conservative policy confab and increasingly served as a platform for some of the GOP’s most morally compromised representatives. As conservative radio host Erick Erickson lamented in an X post Wednesday, “’C’ in CPAC is now best represented by the world ‘clown’ than as any semblance of a conservative institution.”

“’C’ in CPAC is now best represented by the world ‘clown’ than as any semblance of a conservative institution.”

It’s also possible, however, that the main problem with CPAC is CPAC itself. The conference has suffered in recent years from competition, most notably from Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk’s conservative youth group. (T-shirts featuring Kirk as martyr are a hot item in the CPAC exhibit hall.) Turning Point’s national convention in December drew a whopping 30,000 people, which seems about 10 times larger than the occupancy of the Gaylord convention hall.

Even CPAC’s relatively paltry numbers seem padded with enough international visitors to make it a juicy target for ICE Director Tom Homan, who was a featured speaker on Thursday. Chief among these retinues is a huge contingent of conservative South Korean “stop the steal” activists associated with former president Yoon Suk Yeol. Yeol was impeached last year, and in February, he was sentenced to life in prison for starting an insurrection.

But the organization behind CPAC also seems troubled. I’ve been attending CPAC regularly since 2009, mostly when it was held in the DC area. It usually seemed like a decently well-oiled machine. But this year, its Grapevine event feels like it’s coming apart at the seams. Its buggy app wasn’t updated with the schedule until late Wednesday night, and it was clearly being tinkered with all day on Thursday, with headlines for sessions becoming snappier by the hour. A panel originally focused generically on “fraud” was transformed into “Ilhan Omar ‘Family’ Values.”

As of 5:30 pm on Thursday, there was still no public schedule available for Friday or Saturday, and new speakers were still being announced on social media throughout the day. “CPAC is proud to announce that Andrew Giuliani is a confirmed speaker for CPAC USA 2026,” came the news Thursday morning. The son of former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani is the current White House director of the FIFA World Cup task force. Former Trump fixer Michael Cohen once famously said that the younger Giuliani “may be dumber than Eric Trump,” making the former pro-golfer’s addition to the CPAC agenda a mixed bag.

Thursday’s announcement of the last-minute addition of HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. may help offset some of the disappointment with this year’s CPAC offerings. Even so, it can’t help the convention’s appeal that Schlapp is its MC. In 2024, the CPAC chairman settled a sexual misconduct lawsuit, reportedly for almost $500,000, filed by a man working on Hershel Walker’s 2022 Georgia Senate campaign who had accused Schlapp of groping him in the car.

Nonetheless, Schlapp still plays an outsized role in the convention, which is reflected in his salary. He earned more than $830,000 in tax year 2023, according to the group’s most recent IRS 990 form. Listed as “the Honorable Matt Schlapp” on the CPAC schedule, apparently in reference to his service as George W. Bush’s White House political director, he is the moderator of a disproportionate number of panels, along with his wife, (the Honorable) Mercedes Schlapp, who worked in the first Trump White House.

In fairness, not everyone seems disappointed with the event. I found Enrique Tarrio, the former chairman of the Proud Boys, hanging out and watching Matt Gaetz record his OAN show in the CPAC exhibit hall. Tarrio seemed glad to be here and not in prison. In January last year, Trump pardoned him, saving him from a 22-year sentence for seditious conspiracy related to his involvement in the January 6 riot. He told me he comes to every CPAC and that this one was the same as in 2018, another non-presidential election season.

Tarrio said that a lot of people want to see Trump, and now that Trump doesn’t seem to be coming, they’re not that interested. He said some people at his hotel had cancelled based on the B-list offerings. But he shrugged it off, attributing the turnout to the normal political cycle rather than as a reflection on the current state of MAGA or CPAC itself. After all, he said, “It’s a midterm year.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

What War in the Middle East Means for the World’s Clean Energy Transition

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

As the deadly war in Iran triggers what the International Energy Agency has described as the worst oil crisis in history, climate advocates are calling for a faster shift away from fossil fuels, but the conflict may also hamper that transition.

US-Israeli strikes on Iran have disrupted supply routes through the strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of global oil flows. The US, Israel and Iran have also all launched strikes on fossil fuel facilities, creating additional market shocks.

Reduced reliance on oil and gas is insulating some regions from the ongoing fuel crisis. “Electricity generated from wind and solar is largely insulated from fossil fuel price volatility—once built, the fuel is free,” said Jan Rosenow, a professor of energy at Oxford University.

But the war is also creating near-term challenges that could slow clean energy growth. Here’s what to know about how the current crisis could shape the expansion of renewable energy.

Clean energy as a shield

Climate advocates are calling for the world to grow its renewable energy capacity to boost energy independence. Former US secretary of state John Kerry this month told the Guardian that oil and gas were a “security challenge,” while the United Nations secretary general, António Guterres, last week said that “our addiction to fossil fuels is destabilizing both the climate and global security.”

Some countries are indeed better positioned to withstand the current fuel crisis because of the growth of clean energy technologies. Spain and Portugal, for instance, have seen electricity prices decline in recent weeks.

“This should be the final wake-up call that there is a better way than continued dependence on fossil fuels.”

Pakistan, too, has seen a surge in the deployment of rooftop solar panels over the past five years, helping the country weather disruptions in the oil and gas market. There, “households and businesses have discovered that rooftop solar coupled with batteries are cheaper than electricity imported from the grid,” Rosenow said.

Electric vehicles have also helped some economies withstand price increases for gasoline, in which crude oil is a key ingredient. Two examples are China, where more than 50 percent of all new cars sold are electric, and Nepal, where that share sits at at 70 percent.

In light of this evidence, countries across the world are being urged to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels. But the Iran war may also make that more difficult.

Challenges for renewables

Though it has re-energized calls for clean technology, the war and resulting supply chain disruptions are also posing problems for the clean energy transition.

Chokepoints in the strait of Hormuz, for instance, are disrupting the transport of metals needed to construct solar panels,such as aluminum. The Middle East also accounts for about 9 percent ​of global aluminum production, and producers in the region have begun to shutter or scale back their operations amid the war.

That could make it difficult to build the new clean power capacity climate advocates are demanding. So could the inflation that the war may spur, particularly because renewable energy projects require significant upfront investment for construction, equipment and installation.

Fossil fuels incentivized

The war and resulting energy shocks have been a boon in the short term for fossil fuels. That includes the dirtiest and most planet-heating energy source: coal.

“Renewables are winners here, but so is coal,” said Ira Joseph, global fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

“War is being used as a false justification for rushed and irresponsible extraction.”

Many Asian countries are heavily reliant on imported liquefied natural gas, much of which passes through the strait of Hormuz. To make up for current shortfalls in LNG supply, countries including India, Thailand and Vietnam are burning more coal to meet energy demand.

And though in 2025 China reduced its coal generation for the first time, disruptions to LNG—particularly after the world’s largest LNG terminal in Qatar was struck by Iranian missiles and drones this month—will probably reverse that trend, said Joseph.

In the short term, disruptions in the oil and gas market are also incentivizing more oil and gas drilling and exploration, as countries scramble to replace disrupted LNG supplies and as higher prices make previously unviable projects profitable.

“High fossil fuel prices generate windfall profits that flow back into exploration, extraction and export infrastructure,” said Rosenow. “We are already seeing this with LNG expansion plans being fast-tracked.”

The US company Venture Global on Monday announced a new five-year contract to supply LNG to Vitol, the world’s largest independent energy trading company. That same day, the Canadian energy company TC Energy said Iran war disruptions were increasing the likelihood that a huge LNG facility export facility will be expanded.

Donald Trump, whose campaign accepted record oil and gas donations and who calls the climate crisis a “hoax” has taken steps to further incentivize oil expansion amid the energy crisis. Most recently, on Monday, the White House said it would pay a French company $1 billion to abandon plans to build offshore windfarms and instead pursue fossil fuel projects.

The risk of this kind of expansion, said Rosenow, was a “carbon lock-in effect” where decision makers keep newly built infrastructure onlinefor decades.

“War is being used as a false justification for rushed and irresponsible extraction. Instead, this should be the final wake-up call that there is a better way than continued dependence on fossil fuels,” said Lauren Pagel, policy director at the environmental non-profit Earthworks. “The decision to double down on fossil fuels doubles down on disaster—for people impacted by pollution, for the climate, and for our global politics.”

Shaping policy

Policy could be shaped to encourage the green transition, with experts proposing a wide variety of schemes.

Rosenow called for governments to reform tax structures. “Right now, electricity bears a disproportionate share of energy taxes in most countries, making it artificially expensive relative to gas,” he said. It’s a widely discussed idea in Europe.

Gregor Semieniuk, a public policy and economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said officials should impose a windfall tax on oil and gas companies amid the war.

“By taxing away excess profit—a windfall from war, rather than business acumen—governments can signal to financial investors and the industry itself that it’s not so extraordinarily profitable, and put less pressure on expanding production,” he said.

Governments could also subsidize materials like aluminum specifically for the buildout of renewables, he said. This could be difficult in the short term, but officials should take the opportunity to engage in “careful study” to see how to do so without “causing undue disruption,” said Semieniuk.

Officials could also work to ensure interest rates don’t go up too high, potentially by imposing strategic short-term price controls, said Semieniuk. But the best thing, he said, would be to end the disruptions outright.

“The most important policy is to end the conflict,” he said.

Pagel said governments should also end fossil fuel subsidies and force polluters to pay for their pollution.

“We need to build in human rights, Indigenous peoples’ rights, and environmental responsibility at every step,” she said. “The tools exist. What we need is the will to use them.”

Though the war is creating incentives to boost fossil fuels, doing so would be shortsighted, said Kingsmill Bond, a strategist for the energy thinktank Ember.

“This is the first oil shock in history where oil faces a superior alternative. Solar, wind and EV are cheaper, local, faster to deploy, and huge,” he said. “They were winning even before the crisis, and this just galvanizes change.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Reckoning With Cesar Chavez Is Reckoning With America

It’s 6:15 a.m. on Wednesday, March 18, and I’m being driven to Los Angeles International Airport by a loved one. The freeway is congested—traffic unrelenting. I bring out my phone to check my messages and am stunned to discover the New York Times’ investigation into the allegations of sexual abuse by multiple women at the hands of United Farm Workers co-founder Cesar Chavez. I tense up remembering that my loved one has suffered sexual abuse at the hands of family members. I’m reluctant to talk to her about the reporting. “Read it out loud,” she says defiantly.

For the next hour and 15 minutes of LA traffic, I find myself awkwardly reading the shocking report out loud, occasionally pausing so that she can catch her breath. After reading that Chavez raped children, I, too, need to catch my breath.

Pain, anger, and betrayal burn through me as I finish the story. I want to talk through what I’m feeling. Not surprisingly, my loved one processes in silence, not unlike the women Chavez abused.

Cesar Chavez was never a squeaky-clean movement leader. I was once undocumented and I grew up knowing he hated the likes of us (“wetbacks” and “illegals,” he called us). I looked past this because I felt U.S. Latinos needed a Mexican American leader to look up to. But the rape of women and children is not something any of us can look past.

I often speak to high school and college classes, and when I ask young people what they know about Cesar Chavez, some identify him as a labor leader while others think he was a boxer, and a few even think he was a revolutionary akin to Che Guevara. Ironic, if you consider that Che Guevara, much like Chavez, was better at revolutions than he was at governing.

According to Miriam Pawel’s The Union of Their Dreams: Power, Hope, and Struggle in Cesar Chavez’s Farm Worker Movement, Chavez’s lack of interest in establishing a well-run union was the main factor in the United Farm Workers weakening over time. Chavez saw how the 1975 Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which offered guarantees for union organizing, would shift the core work of the UFW from protest to administration, and he was not interested. Like Guevara, he was more interested in toppling institutions than in governing them.

The way Latino communities are rallying around the women who were raped and abused by Chavez should serve as an example to the nation for how to handle men who commit such crimes.

Records from those early days show that Chavez’s leadership relied on a kind of cultlike group therapy, known as the Game, which he borrowed from Synanon, the notoriously violent and controlling cult of the 1970s. (You can listen to “American Rehab,” our three-part investigation of Synanon and the rehab industry it spawned, here.) As author Jeffrey W. Rubin wrote for Dissent, “Playing the Game, a harsh variant of the encounter group therapies popular in the 1970s, participants ganged up verbally and emotionally against one member, hurling brutal insults and criticisms, ostensibly with the goal of strengthening the group. By mid-1977, the Game was played weekly at La Paz [the UFW headquarters], and almost everyone there joined in, along with union staff from around the state.” This toxic nature of his management led to the exodus to some of the brightest leaders in the movement.

The way the U.S. Latino community is rallying around the women who were raped and abused by Chavez should serve as an example to the nation for how to handle men who commit such crimes. No man is greater than a movement, and I include our founding fathers, who owned slaves, and Donald Trump, who for some ungodly reason continues to protect pedophiles on the Epstein list.

Chavez was a hero to many of us, yet the cruelty of our current president can be found in his cruelty. How he didn’t allow dissent in the ranks. How he demanded absolute loyalty. The way he assumed the movement was him, and vice versa. It is well documented that Chavez insisted on sacrifice and total commitment from the people within the movement. That’s how he kept power, and as we all know, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

A woman passes by a mural artist in the process of altering one of his mural to remove Cesar Chavez.

Mural artist MisterAlek replaces a portrait of Cesar Chavez that he created in 2021 at the Watts/Century Latino Organization, with a portrait of Delores Huerta, in Los Angeles on Friday, March 20, 2026.Christina House/Los Angeles Times/Getty

As we begin to tear down statues of Cesar Chavez in our public squares, let us also tear down the statues of the Confederates who committed treason against our country. Only then can we begin to imagine a better nation. One where our statues, streets, and holidays are equally named after women—the founding mothers, long unsung and forgotten, but always the backbone of every movement.

As we continue to reckon with Chavez’ legacy, we must highlight the survivors, not just the perpetrator. So when it comes to that list of women and girls who process in silence, it’s important we do what my loved one told me to do that Wednesday morning: “Read it out loud.”

Ana Murguia. Debra Rojas. Dolores Huerta. Let’s put their names on some of those streets and squares.


Rafael Agustin, a member of Mother Jones_’ board of directors, was a writer on the award-winning CW show_ Jane the Virgin and is the author of the bestselling memoir Illegally Yours and a producer of the new documentary Los Lobos: Native Sons.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

This Programmer Wants to Use Your Phone to Fight ICE

The first thing you notice when you enter Sherman Austin’s Long Beach, California, apartment is the sounds. His cellphone buzzes constantly, mostly notifications requiring his attention from StopICE.net, a crowdsourced nationwide alert system he developed to let users know when federal immigration officers are nearby. Then there are the beeps. Follow them and they’ll lead you to Austin’s cramped bedroom, where two large computer screens sit inches from his bed. On one, columns of characters scroll continuously, Matrix-style, tracking traffic and potential attacks on a server he uses for StopICE. The beeps come from the other, which displays security camera feeds outside his apartment. Every time a camera spots a potential intruder, it issues a series of loud beeps. It beeps a lot.

Threats come in two main varieties. The first are promises to hurt or kill Austin himself. “You’re [sic] last days are coming close,” read one February email. A recent commenter on Austin’s Facebook wrote, “You’re just lucky I am out of the US at the moment and it would take me 10+ hours to get there, or I would have already slit your throat in front of your loved ones.”

Austin, who has a long history in activism for which he spent nearly a year in federal prison in the 2000s, isn’t particularly rattled by these messages. “Most are just talk,” he says. But the other type of threat feels far less nebulous. Austin believes it’s only a matter of time before he looks at his security monitors and sees federal agents crouching outside his door.

“I’m not doing anything illegal, but we all know how these things go,” he says. “They look for people to make an example of.”

Austin, 43, is slim and lithe, with a patchy beard covering his angular face. Today, a cold rainy one in February, he’s wearing a gray-checked flannel and has his long dreadlocks partially tucked under a black baseball cap bearing a picture of a black panther. Despite his radical pedigree and a sideline as a competitive boxer—he turned pro in his mid-30s for six featherweight bouts—he’s an unassuming presence.

A set designer could not improve on his apartment’s vibe. The walls are adorned with an electric guitar, boxing gloves, a Malcolm X photo, and a map of tribal lands in the American Southwest. Much of the furniture is handmade. On one shelf are drills he uses doing contract electrical work. On another is a Rubik’s Cube, a xylophone, and three dozen books, including W.E.B. Du Bois’ Black Reconstruction in America, Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow, Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, and the SAS Ultimate Guide to Combat.

Close-up image of a computer screen, showing a long exposure effect and a SEND ALERT button.

Despite death threats and legal scrutiny, Austin’s site provides real-time information to over half a million subscribers.
Gabriella Angotti-Jones

Austin launched StopICE in February 2025, one of a constellation of digital tools that emerged in response to federal agents terrorizing communities. Users can text in sightings of ICE, which are then blasted out to other nearby users. This is legal: “Reporting on the activities of law enforcement is fully protected by the Constitution,” says Eric Goldman, who co-directs the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University. “If the government is doing something in a public space, we’re allowed to report it, monitor it, catalog it, complain about it, protest it.”

Nevertheless, the Trump administration has declared war on ICE-spotting apps. In June, the agency’s acting director, Todd Lyons, accused one app, ICEBlock, of painting “a target on federal law enforcement officers’ backs” and contributing to a “500% increase in assaults” against them. Pressure from the administration prompted Apple and Google to remove the app and others like it, including Red Dot and Deicer, from their app stores in October. That same month, Facebook suspended an ICE watch group in Chicago.

Austin saw this crackdown coming. It’s why he designed StopICE as a text-based web service, not a downloadable app, which meant it survived this purge. “I built it this way for a reason,” he says. “I knew DOJ and DHS was going to pressure service providers to remove the apps.”

But StopICE’s survival means that Austin is under more scrutiny than ever. In September, the Department of Homeland Security subpoenaed Meta to turn over account information related to StopICE’s Instagram page. Austin challenged the subpoena, and it was ultimately withdrawn. But Austin sees traffic daily on StopICE from DHS-owned IP addresses. He suspects Customs and Border Protection agents were behind an attempted attack on StopICE’s main server in January. He believes one of them sent an ominous DM recently—“We’re coming for you. Tracking your every move”—which he traced to an agent whose Instagram bio included “1488 SS,” clear neo-Nazi symbology; CBP did not respond to a request for comment.

“Things have gotten to where people have wanted me not to stay here because there’s so many threats coming in,” Austin says. “But they’re not running me out of my own block.”

As StopICE expands—it now has more than half a million subscribers—Austin is dealing with the kind of growing pains many tech platforms face. He’s constantly adding features and fending off hackers, but doing it almost entirely himself, for no money, in this tiny apartment. Whereas many doing such work closely guard their identity, Austin is adamant that, in contrast with the masked agents he’s alerting people about, he has nothing to hide.

“The government’s narrative is, ‘We’ve got to track these people down who are building these apps, interfering with federal agents, trying not to be caught,’” he says. “My response is: ‘I’m right here. You have my name. You know where I live. If you want to do something, come do it.’”

Close-crop of a computer screen with code displayed; a bearded man in a t-shirt is visible in the reflection.

“You have my name. You know where I live. If you want to do something, come do it,” says Austin.Gabriella Angotti-Jones

Heavily armed federal agents have shown up on his doorstep before. On January 24, 2002, when he was 18 and still living in his mother’s house in Sherman Oaks, his twin sister woke him from a nap to tell him there were suspicious-looking vehicles outside. When he went to the door, two FBI agents pulled him through as more agents emerged from the bushes. He wasn’t surprised.

Austin was already a gifted programmer and a committed anarchist. At 16, he’d launched RaisetheFist.com, which ran stories about Mexico’s Zapatista uprising and anti-capitalist protests in the Pacific Northwest. The site became an organizing hub that also hosted other similarly minded websites on its platform.

“It promoted the idea of taking direct action, whether through nonviolent protests, civil disobedience, or promoting self-defense,” Austin says. RaisetheFist.com became popular enough to draw attention from federal agents. “I’d log connections that would come in from the FBI, the Defense Department, and other government agencies.”

The day the FBI stormed his mom’s home was not his first tangle with the law. Austin hoists his right pant leg to show me several scars on his calf, remnants of an encounter with Long Beach police during a chaotic 2001 May Day protest. “I got shot in the leg,” he says. “It was a rubber shell packed into a shotgun.” He runs his finger over the largest mark. “They couldn’t take this one out in the hospital. It was too close to the bone.”

After 9/11, law enforcement’s interest in RaisetheFist.com intensified. The FBI began intercepting all data crossing his DSL line, gaining access to his AOL Instant Messenger account. Unmarked cars parked outside his house, then quickly drove away when he got home, Austin says. When the FBI eventually raided his home, special agents confiscated Austin’s computers and questioned him for hours but didn’t arrest him. The following week, he drove to New York to protest the World Economic Forum. There, he was arrested by the NYPD, interrogated, released, then immediately rearrested by the FBI, which held him in solitary confinement for more than a week.

“They put me on a cellblock with two people supposedly involved in al-Qaeda,” he says. “One was convicted of the USS Cole bombing and one of bombing the US Embassy in Kenya. I was an 18-year-old kid who had a website.”

Austin was asked repeatedly about crude bombmaking instructions that appeared on a site RaisetheFist.com hosted. Austin hadn’t written them, and such material had previously been considered constitutionally protected speech. He was released and returned to California.

Austin’s case attracted attention from high-profile academic and activist figures like Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and Rage Against the Machine’s Zack de la Rocha. But after federal prosecutors threatened a “terrorism enhancement” that could have added 20 years to any sentence, he pleaded guilty to distributing the bombmaking information. (Notably, the author of the material was never charged.) Prosecutors sought a four-month prison term, but the judge imposed a year. Austin served 11 months and later three years of probation, which barred him from using computers. Once his probation ended, he launched CopWatchLA.org, which collected civilian-submitted police complaints in a searchable database.

When Austin’s kids were born, he stepped back a bit from organizing, but President Donald Trump’s brutal immigration agenda drew him in again. “When I see people kidnapped by ICE, that affects me, because I know what it’s like to be kidnapped by federal agents,” he says. “It affects me physically, like a burning feeling in my stomach.” He worries about the potential impact on his family, but the price of inaction feels steeper. “My kids are teenagers now. I want to be that example to them that despite threats of retaliation and violence, you’ve still got to stand up and fight back.”

When I first spoke with Austin in early April 2025, StopICE had about 9,000 subscribers. After the LA crackdown, it had nearly 300,000. After Minneapolis, 500,000. Because StopICE is a crowdsourced platform, each new user makes it more useful, but there’s a catch. Every alert StopICE sends costs a fraction of a penny, but when alerts go to thousands of subscribers, those fractions add up. So far, it’s cost up to $8,000 or so a month, but as StopICE grows, expenses could rise exponentially.

Austin has raised about $48,000 via GoFundMe, but the budget is tight enough that he has to triage alerts. When one comes in that is vague, it will initially be pushed to only 30 percent of users in that area. If more information emerges, it is sent to more. This metering means some subscribers might not get a needed alert in a timely fashion, Austin acknowledges. “My goal is to continue to increase the capacity of alerts, but a lot of that comes down to resources,” he says.

Austin is the only full-time moderator checking submissions, and for the site’s first several months, no alerts went out until he’d personally reviewed them. He’s since automated some of the process and is working to onboard more human moderators. But StopICE is practically a full-time unpaid job. “He falls asleep on the computer,” says Coyotl Tezcatlipoca, who knows Austin through organizing and from playing in a band together since the two were teenagers. “Sometimes, he doesn’t eat. He’s consumed by it.”

When you subscribe to StopICE, the system asks only the area where you want alerts and the phone number to which to send them. You don’t have to provide any other identifying information. StopICE doesn’t track user locations either. This is intentional: If the government or anyone else accesses StopICE’s data, there’d be little to find.

Close-up image of a man working at a computer, with strong shadows from the window shade falling across the desk.

Austin spent almost a year in federal prison in relation to his work hosting an anarchist website.Gabriella Angotti-Jones

Austin’s commitment to user privacy is another reason he doesn’t shield his own. He wants everyone to know the person behind StopICE is the same one who’s been challenging the federal government for most of his life. “We really can’t trust the information that comes from the apps. But I know Sherman personally, so I trust him,” says Ron Gochez, leader of Unión del Barrio, which runs patrols monitoring immigration agents in Southern California. “I’m glad people like him, trusted members of the community, are doing that work.”

Recently, Austin has added several new functions, including a database of vehicle license plates used for immigration enforcement and a way for users to get alerts via Signal. But because StopICE doesn’t collect user data, measuring effectiveness is tricky. There are no real metrics for deportations averted or immigrants able to go to work without fear.

“People keep telling me it’s an important tool they rely on, whether it’s rapid response groups or just to know what’s going on in the neighborhood,” he says. “Sometimes behind the computer, you’re disconnected from the fact people are using this to help keep each other safe.”

Sitting in his apartment, he told me he sometimes imagines the pretext the FBI might one day use to justify kicking in his door. It goes something like this: A StopICE user sends an alert containing an exhortation to do something illegal, like damage ICE vehicles or attack agents, which slips by the auto moderators and goes to subscribers. According to Lauren Regan, founder and senior staff attorney at the Civil Liberties Defense Center, which represents Austin, whether StopICE would be liable for distributing this kind of information isn’t clear. Social media companies typically aren’t. But Austin isn’t a billionaire with a fleet of lawyers.

“The current test for where the line is drawn between free speech and true threats is whether an individual is named so they’d reasonably be in fear,” she says. “There’s a line between spicy rhetoric and true threat. So there are protections available for rich guys like Mark Zuckerberg. We’d certainly attempt to apply those to Sherman.”

Does Austin find it ironic that the scenarios he worries about so closely mirror what already sent him to federal prison? “Yeah, it brings back a lot of memories,” he says. “When I see them saying, ‘If you track or criticize ICE agents, you’re a domestic terrorist,’ that was the same sentiment when they came after me with RaisetheFist.”

“I’m not looking to get arrested,” he says, nodding toward his front door. “I’m not looking for conflict, but I know conflict is inevitable. To me, what’s more important is being in a fight and using my skill set to contribute something to that fight. Then whatever is going to happen, it’s going to happen.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Democrats Vow to Investigate “Web of Corruption” at DHS

Democrats on Wednesday denounced a massive contract that the Homeland Security Department handed to a company owned by a financial supporter of former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem as an example of what they called rampant corruption under President Donald Trump.

DHS last May awarded Salus Worldwide Solutions a contract worth up $915 million to provide flights out of the country for undocumented immigrants under a self-deportation program set up by the Trump administration. As Mother Jones has reported, Salus had limited prior federal contracting experience but won the business following extensive contacts with top department officials. A DHS contracting officer acknowledged the situation created “an appearance of favoritism,” according to a court document. Salus is owned by a former State Department official who in October 2024 gave $10,000 to a political action committee that supports Noem.

“The web of corruption here will take us some time to fully unpack,” Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) said Wednesday at an unofficial hearing held by House Homeland Security Committee Democrats.

Magaziner and other Democrats also pointed to a $220 million ad campaign Noem launched last year. The ads, crafted in part by firms with close ties to the former secretary and to her adviser Corey Lewandowski, were nominally aimed at urging immigrants to self-deport. But they also appeared intended to promote Noem herself, complete with a now infamous spot featuring the former secretary on horse. CNN recently reported that the department paid $20,000 to rent the horse for Noem. The DHS inspector general has reportedly launched an investigation into that ad campaign.

Additionally, lawmakers cited an NBC News report alleging that Lewandowksi requested that companies seeking DHS contracts pay him, or hire people associated with him. A Lewandowski representative has called those accusations “absolutely false.”

The so-called shadow hearing Wednesday was part of a broad effort by congressional Democrats to trumpet plans to commence aggressive oversight of DHS and federal contractors should they take control of one or both congressional chambers next year—and regain the subpoena power that Republicans are largely unwilling to use to scrutinize the Trump administration.

“We want to assure the public that at some point there will have to be a reckoning for a lot of the contracts and other things that we question,” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the committee’s ranking member, said Wednesday. “We plan to put as many people on notice as possible that the committee in due time will look at it.”

Noem’s rocky tenure at DHS is ending this week with the confirmation of former Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) to lead the department. But Democratic lawmakers have said they still plan to scrutinize Noem’s role in federal contracts as well as that of Lewandowski, who is expected to give up his role as special government employee.

One Wednesday, Sens. Adam Schiff (Calif.), Peter Welch (Vt.), and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), the top Democrat on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, asked federal contractors including Salus to preserve communications with Lewandowski and with people and firms working with him.

Elsewhere in Congress, House Judiciary Committee Democrats unsuccessfully urged that panel’s chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), to subpoena Lewandowski over this role in DHS contracting. House Oversight Committee Democrats have launched their own investigation into the former Trump campaign aide.

Democrats have denounced what they call the unprecedented corruption unleashed by the president and his family, whose personal wealth has skyrocketed since Trump retook office. In previously unimaginable ways, the Trumps have accepted money from people hoping to influence federal policy, including secretive investments by foreign interests in Trump family companies.

The contracting scandals involving DHS, by contrast, involve allegations of fairly traditional graft that would have been understandable to “boss” William Tweed of Tammany Hall. NBC News’ report last week included an allegation that an official at a firm seeking a subcontract under Salus Worldwide was pressured by someone at that company to hire “one of several consulting firms tied to Lewandowski.”

Lewandowski denied this claim, and an attorney for Salus told NBC that the account was “entirely false” and that the company “would never entertain this type of arrangement.” Mother Jones has not independently confirmed these allegations.

“I’m not a lawyer, but this sounds illegal to me,” Jon Golinger, a democracy advocate at Public Citizen, said at Wednesday’s hearing, after the caveat that he did not personally know if the allegations are true.

Mother Jones and the Project on Government Oversight, or POGO, have reported that Salus Worldwide won its $915 million contract with DHS after extensive contacts between the company and DHS officials. A contracting officer at DHS, according to a court document, found that Salus “appeared” to shape the government’s requirements for the contract that the firm was trying to win. The court filing by DHS disclosed that the same officer found that DHS officials had “shared high-level budget and task information with Salus that was not available to the public,” contributing to “an appearance of favoritism toward Salus.”

But the agency waived restrictions meant to prevent conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety, citing factors including the contract’s supposed urgency and “national security considerations.” And after a limited two-day competition, Salus received the massive contract.

Mother Jones and POGO have also reported that Salus’ owner, William Walters— who donated $10,000 to a political action committee backing Noem in 2024—is closely linked to other firms that are selling airplanes to DHS, including a luxury 737 with private bedrooms that was reputedly used by Lewandowski and Noem.

At Wednesday’s shadow hearing, Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, the director of government affairs at POGO, argued that problems with large contracts on the scale or the one held by Salus can occur via subcontracts that firms give to other companies. Those subcontracts are subject to laxer regulation and fewer disclosure requirements than the primary contractors, he said.

Hedtler-Gaudette said there are indications Salus is awarding subcontract work to firms connected to Salus itself. “We are seeing potentially what looks like a shell game of a company and then a number of smaller companies that are linked to that company in some way,” he said.

Committee members said they would come back to the issue. “We’ll go forward in due time holding this administration accountable for this egregious waste of taxpayers’ money,” Thompson said.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Exclusive: Al Gore Slams Trump’s “Astonishing Mistake” on Iran

Former Vice President Al Gore delivered a blistering rebuke of President Trump’s war on Iran this week in his first wide-ranging comments on the escalating crisis, calling Trump’s lack of planning “an astonishing mistake” born of arrogance and corruption. “I never would have believed that any president would do even one-tenth of the atrocious things Donald Trump has done,” he said.

In an exclusive sit-down with Reveal host Al Letson for an upcoming episode of More To The Story, a visibly angered Gore linked the war to Trump’s climate recalcitrance and a slew of broken promises.

As the Pentagon prepared to send about 2,000 paratroopers to Iran, Gore argued that the president had brushed aside decades of war planning for just such a scenario. The energy crisis unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz has “been the number one question for all the war games and plans for 50 years almost,” Gore told Letson. “President Trump said, ‘Don’t worry about it. They’ll surrender before that comes into play.’ Well, that was an astonishing mistake of the kind that you really do not want the president of your country to make because it has put us in a terrible situation.”

“Could he be just as wrong about that as he has been in attacking Iran without a plan for the Strait of Hormuz?” Gore added. “Could he be just as wrong about that as he was when he threatened to invade Greenland?”

Elsewhere in the interview, Gore launched another broadside against a series of back flips and failed promises from the president: “He told us prices were going to come down. He told us we would not get into any more foreign ‘forever wars.’ He told us inflation was going to subside. He told us the economy was going to really boom. None of those things have come true.”

“This is the most corrupt administration.”

“This is the most corrupt administration, not only in American history, but more corrupt than I could ever have imagined a president would be able to get away with to the extent that he has,” Gore said. “It’s shocking to me.”

This is one clip from a series we’ll be posting in the coming days, ahead of our longer interview with the former Vice President soon, in which he discusses climate action, religion, and what’s giving him hope. Stay tuned.

And in the meantime, subscribe to Reveal on Apple Podcasts so you don’t miss the latest.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

An Eyesore Runs Through It

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

An experiment unfolding at the southernmost tip of this state could irrevocably change the iconic Rio Grande and the communities it sustains.

Contractors are installing a 17-mile stretch of cylindrical buoys in the river to prevent illegal crossings from Mexico. These are the first of 536 miles of buoys that the federal government plans to stretch from the Gulf of Mexico deep into South Texas. The Department of Homeland Security has waived environmental laws and issued more than $1 billion in contracts to private companies to install them in continuous chains. Each industrial-style buoy is more than 12 feet long and four to five feet in diameter.

Federal agencies have not made any environmental assessment or flood modeling for the border buoys available to the public. Experts have criticized the secrecy surrounding the project and warn that the buoys could intensify flooding and change the river channel.

“This is an experiment on a continental scale…None of this is based on common sense or science.”

Mark Tompkins, a geomorphologist who studies the flow of rivers and conducted an analysis of the buoys for a group opposed to their use, said the lack of public documentation violates the “basic professional standard of care” for projects of this magnitude. The city manager in Laredo, one community where the buoys are planned, said the city is working to obtain engineering and design information from federal agencies.

Experts consulted by Inside Climate News said they knew of no comparable undertaking on a dynamic river anywhere in the world. They warned that the buoys could speed up flood water in a region that already struggles with flooding. The buoys could also accumulate sediment and create new landforms in the river, provoking treaty disputes with neighboring Mexico. The buoys are planned through Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, Webb, Maverick, and Val Verde counties.

“The design requirements for these barriers, set by CBP and implemented by contractors, mandate that they withstand a 100-year flood event—consistent with CBP established design standards,” a Customs and Border Protection spokesperson told Inside Climate News. “Additionally, the barriers are engineered to endure increased currents and elevated water levels, ensuring operational reliability during extreme weather conditions.”

The spokesperson declined to provide any technical information about the design standards.

A person with purple hair stands next to a river.

Elsa Hull on the bank of the Rio Grande River, where CBP plans to install giant border buoys.Martha Pskowski/Inside Climate News

“This is an experiment on a continental scale,” said Elsa Hull, an environmental advocate and resident of Zapata County, near the buoy’s proposed path. “None of this is based on common sense or science.”

The buoys will also reduce access for boating, fishing and other recreation.

While local opposition grows, day by day, more buoys line the river.

During the first Trump administration, in 2020, the US Army Corps of Engineers sought solicitations for a “buoy barrier system.” That year the Border Patrol Academy posted, and later deleted, photos of a “buoy barrier demonstration” by the Virginia-based company Cochrane USA. The Army Corps of Engineers referred questions for this story to CBP.

The idea wasn’t implemented before Trump left office. But it resurfaced in July 2023, when the state of Texas installed 1,000 feet of buoys in the Rio Grande at Eagle Pass. The buoys provoked a diplomatic dispute with Mexico and a lawsuit from the federal government.

Unlike the buoys the federal government is now installing, the ones in Eagle Pass were spherical and segmented with saw blades. At least one person was found dead, trapped in the buoys. Advocates warned that the buoys made the dangerous trip across the Rio Grande even more deadly for migrants. More than 1,100 people died attempting to cross the Rio Grande between 2017 and 2023, according to a Washington Post investigation.

“The fact that they have waived these laws means they are creating a law-free zone along the border,”

Despite the controversy in Eagle Pass, the Department of Homeland Security hatched a massive buoy project once Trump returned to office in 2025.

On July 3, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem waived more than 30 federal laws in a 20-mile area along the Rio Grande in Cameron County to expedite the Waterborne Barrier Project’s first federal border buoys. Among those laws: the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

“A capability gap has been identified in waterways along the Southwest border where drug smuggling, human trafficking and other dangerous and illegal activity occurs,” Noem wrote.

A humvee parked by a river.

A government Humvee on the bank of the Rio Grande.Martha Pskowski/Inside Climate News

In October, Homeland Security waived contracting and procurement laws along the entirety of the US-Mexico border to speed up construction. Since then, billions of dollars have been awarded to private contractors from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act for border fortifications.

The unprecedented expenditure comes as the number of unauthorized border crossings has dropped precipitously. CBP apprehended 73 percent fewer people in the Rio Grande Valley sector between fiscal years 2024 and 2025, according to agency data.

Noem traveled to Brownsville on Jan. 7 to announce the first buoys. CBP granted access to the conservative news outlet Washington Examiner to see the buoys installed. Border Patrol Chief Michael Banks explained to the reporter that the buoys are designed to roll when someone tries to climb on them. “It prevents them from ever being able to climb up on it,” he told the reporter. He added that the buoys have been tested in pools with dive teams.

President Donald Trump announced on March 5 that he was replacing Noem as homeland security secretary; she leaves the position on March 31.

Unlike the Eagle Pass buoys, the new buoys are much larger, cylindrical and form a continuous barrier across the river. BCCG Joint Venture was awarded a $96 million contract for the first 17-mile section of buoys in Brownsville. At this cost of $5.6 million per mile, the whole project would top $3 billion.

Inside Climate News reviewed federal contracts and identified seven along the Texas-Mexico border, totaling over $2.5 billion, that reference either “waterborne barriers” or “waterborne buoys.” Three contracts that referred exclusively to buoys and waterborne barriers totaled $1.22 billion. Another four contracts worth a total of $1.33 billion referenced both buoys and border wall construction.

Cochrane USA was awarded $641 million for “waterborne barrier construction.”

Tucson-based Spencer Construction LLC has obtained four contracts totaling $1.21 billion. Fisher Sand and Gravel, which built border walls later embroiled in legal challenges, was awarded a $316.7 million contract. SLS Federal Services LLC was awarded $382.3 million for waterborne and “vertical” barriers.

People on a doc next to a large orange bouy in a river.

Contractors install a buoy in Brownsville on Feb. 26, 2026.Courtesy of the South Texas Environmental Justice Network

The federal waivers have allowed this unprecedented project to proceed with little scrutiny. “The laws that have been waived were put in place specifically to protect communities from improperly built structures like the wall,” said Ricardo de Anda, a lawyer in Laredo whose property abuts the river. “The Environmental Policy Act would not have allowed the construction of these structures because they would damage the environment.”

The buoys are planned through the Laredo area, which to date does not have a physical border wall. “The fact that they have waived these laws means they are creating a law-free zone along the border,” de Anda said. “The problem for the country is that if people become comfortable with that … then it’s coming your way.”

In Laredo, landowners and local advocates successfully opposed border wall construction during the first Trump administration. Now, old networks are re-connecting to oppose both renewed efforts to build the wall and the buoys.

“There has been no comprehensive information from the feds,” said Tricia Cortez, executive director of the Rio Grande International Study Center in Laredo. “People need to be aware of this quiet, under the radar, but very aggressive move that the federal government is directing on us at the border.”

The organization decided to commission Tompkins, a geomorphologist with the consulting firm FlowWest, to conduct his own study on the potential impacts of the buoys.

Tompkins presented his findings to Laredo’s Rio Grande Riverfront Coordination Ad-hoc Advisory Committee on March 12. He warned that because of the federal waivers there is “a nearly complete lack” of technical information for the buoys.

“What would happen if we did experience some of those bigger floods?”

Tompkins’ report cautions that the buoys could change the Rio Grande in “unpredictable, damaging, and potentially catastrophic ways.”

He explained that the Rio Grande picks up trash, debris and uprooted trees during floods. This debris forms “rafts” in the river that could accumulate along the proposed border wall and the border buoys. He said because the Rio Grande has a soft bed, the force of high flows could cause the anchors holding the buoys to break. “It is inevitable that portions of the buoy system will break free and portions of the [border] wall will fail,” he wrote.

“Even very small changes can have very big consequences,” Tompkins told the Laredo committee.

Laredo city manager Joseph Neeb put out a statement following the presentation. He acknowledged the concerns that Tompkins and the Rio Grande International Study Center have raised but cautioned that, in the absence of technical data, the study relied on assumptions. Neeb said the city is working to obtain technical information from CBP, the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission and the Army Corps.

“Our responsibility is not only to act, but to act correctly,” Neeb wrote. “Any position taken by the City must be based on verifiable, project-specific information that can withstand technical and legal scrutiny.”

Adriana Martinez, a Southern Illinois University geomorphologist originally from Eagle Pass, has studied how the existing state buoys are changing water flows and sedimentation in the Rio Grande.

Drought has lowered the Rio Grande’s level in recent years. But Martinez referenced floods during Hurricane Alex in 2010, when several communities in the Rio Grande Valley were evacuated. She said she has “significant concerns” about how the buoys will act during flooding. “What would happen if we did experience some of those bigger floods?” she asked.

She said the chains connecting the buoys in Eagle Pass to the riverbed would be tested, likening the design to holding a “giant dense yoga ball” underwater.

Martinez said the federal government’s cylindrical buoys will create an even larger impediment for the flow of water than the spherical ones. The water that the buoys divert has to find a new path, which can change the course of the river.

Low water flows cause a separate set of problems, Martinez said. She observed in Eagle Pass how the buoys rested on a sand bar when the river was low. Vegetation started forming around the buoys. If this process continued, the sand bar could eventually form a new island.

The CBP spokesperson said the buoys will meet “CBP established design standards.”

The federal border wall has been damaged in floods on at least two occasions, both in Arizona. The US Government Accountability Office found in a 2023 report that the border wall has exacerbated flooding.

The CBP spokesperson said the river will remain publicly accessible except in cases when Border Patrol determines conditions are “operationally unsafe.” However, even in normal conditions, the buoys will limit how people can use the river.

While federal laws have been waived, the United States is still bound by its treaties with Mexico.

One federal agency that has been publicly silent on the buoys is the US International Boundary and Water Commission. The US and Mexico are signatories to several treaties dictating the sharing of binational waters and the international boundary. The USIBWC implements these treaties, along with its Mexican counterpart, the Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas.

In 2023, the USIBWC determined that most of the buoys installed by Texas were on the Mexican side of the river, in violation of treaty terms.

A river next to a scrubby landscape

The Rio Grande in Zapata County, Texas, where Customs and Border Protection plans to install cylindrical buoys. Martha Pskowski/Inside Climate News

Upon taking office, Trump pushed out the commission’s popular leader, Maria-Elena Giner, who grew up in El Paso and worked for decades along the US-Mexico border. He replaced her with Chad McIntosh, who previously worked for the Ford Motor Co., Michigan’s environmental regulator, and at the Environmental Protection Agency under Trump.

In response to a detailed list of questions from Inside Climate News, a USIBWC spokesperson only replied, “The USIBWC is fully supporting the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure the border.”

Samuel Sandoval Solis, a water resources professor at the University of California, Davis, said the buoys are likely to violate the 1970 U.S.-Mexico treaty. The treaty sought to resolve outstanding boundary disputes and laid out each country’s responsibility to preserve the international boundary.

“Rivers are meant to bring people together…These buoys are going to be an ecological disaster.”

The 1970 treaty states that both nations will not allow construction in their territory that could cause “deflection or obstruction” of the normal flow or flood flows of the river. The treaty states that if construction by one country causes “adverse effects” on the other country, the offending country must either remove the structures, repair the damage or compensate the other country.

Under the 1970 treaty, the United States would be responsible to repair any damage or compensate Mexico, according to Sandoval Solis.

“We are paying with our federal taxpayer dollars for the border wall and the buoys,” Sandoval Solis said. “But if things move we will also be paying for the restoration.”

The CBP spokesperson said the agency is working with the USIBWC “to ensure that the waterborne barriers deployed by CBP are placed in the United States and do not encroach into Mexico.” He did not respond to other questions about treaty compliance.

Downstream in Brownsville, where buoys are beginning to line the river, environmentalists are raising the alarm.

On February 24, the Cameron County commissioners voted in favor of a resolution presented by local advocates that opposes the border buoys.

“Unfortunately, the federal government, especially the current administration, doesn’t really inquire as to our concerns,” said county Judge Eddie Treviño Jr., a Democrat, before voting in favor. He said there are “numerous questions” about the short- and long-term impacts of the buoys.

The vote came the week of Brownsville’s Charro Days, an annual celebration when colorful parades fill downtown streets and the city celebrates its close ties to Mexico. Residents of neighboring Matamoros, Tamaulipas, join in the festivities featuring mariachis and regional Mexican music.

This year, while charrería dancers paraded down Elizabeth Street, contractors were busy placing buoys in the Rio Grande. Bekah Hinojosa, a longtime local activist with the South Texas Environmental Justice Network, spent a morning driving backroads in Brownsville’s Southmost neighborhood searching for a place where she could see the border buoys.

Protesters hold signs that say "No Bouys"

During a rally in Brownsville along the border wall on February 26, speakers voiced opposition to border buoys in the Rio Grande.Martha Pskowski/Inside Climate News

Hinojosa lamented that even in her lifetime, border wall construction and industrial development have significantly restricted access to the Rio Grande and the Gulf of Mexico. She said the new wall construction and border buoys are just the latest step in disconnecting Rio Grande Valley residents from the river and natural spaces.

“Rivers are meant to bring people together,” she said. “These buoys are going to be an ecological disaster.”

She rushed back to downtown Brownsville to prepare for an afternoon protest against the border buoys.

Dozens of people gathered at a postage stamp park in downtown Brownsville for the protest. On the other side of the steel border wall, the placid Rio Grande flowed toward its terminus at the Gulf of Mexico. Border Patrol vehicles circulated on a levee road in between the river and the wall, rolling slowly past the protest. Cars sat in traffic on the international bridge into Matamoros.

Elsa Hull arrived from Zapata County with a banner denouncing the border buoys. River guide Jessie Fuentes drove the five hours from Eagle Pass to share his experience after the first buoys went into the river. Juan Mancias, chairman of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe, spoke to the long history of human settlement along the river delta. He reminded the crowd that rivers don’t respect international boundaries.

They spoke in defense of the Rio Grande, which distant federal officials call a dangerous frontier that must be barricaded. But the people assembled on its banks in Brownsville embrace it as a part of their home worth protecting.

This reporting was supported by the Water Desk at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Bernie Sanders and AOC Are Pushing a Moratorium on Data Center Construction

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

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) will introduce a bill Wednesday that aims to put a national moratorium on data center construction “until legislation is enacted that safeguards the public from the dangers of artificial intelligence.” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will introduce a similar bill in the House in the coming weeks.

While it’s highly unlikely that the bill will pass—especially given the Trump administration’s full-throated endorsement of AI, and the massive amount of money the industry is set to spend this year in Washington—the bill marks a new line in the sand for progressives seeking to address both concern around data center construction and the potential harms artificial intelligence may bring.

“A moratorium will give us the chance to figure out how to make sure that AI benefits the working families of this country, not just a handful of billionaires who want more and more wealth and more and more power,” Sanders said in a speech on the Hill Tuesday evening. “A moratorium will give us the time to figure out how to ensure that AI is safe and effective and prevent the worst outcomes. A moratorium will give us the time to figure out how to make sure AI does not harm our environment or jack up the electric bills that we pay.”

Sanders’s bill puts an open-ended moratorium on the construction or upgrading of new and existing data centers used specifically for artificial intelligence—defined in the bill via a series of physical parameters, including energy load above 20 megawatts. The moratorium, the bill states, will end only when laws are enacted that not only prevent data centers from contributing to climate change, harming the environment, and raising electricity bills, but also prevent tech companies from producing products that displace harm the “health and well-being of working families, privacy and civil rights, and the future of humanity.” Tech companies, the bill states, must ensure that wealth generated from AI is “shared with the people of the United States.” (A separate section forbids the export of computing hardware, including semiconductor chips, to any country that does not have similar laws.)

“I don’t think there’s very many people who want to have higher energy bills just so some chatbot can corrupt some 13-year-old kid online.” —Ron DeSantis

The bill name-checks wealthy tech executives, including xAI’s Elon Musk, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, who have both profited greatly from artificial intelligence and sounded alarms at just how quickly the technology could change society.

The urgent push to build out data centers across the US has ignited a wave of opposition over concerns about higher electric bills, water use, energy impacts, and land rights. Recent polling from Pew shows that nearly 40 percent of Americans believe that data centers are bad for the environment and home energy costs, while 30 percent say that they have a negative impact on quality of life for people living nearby.

Public opposition to data centers, and the high energy bills they could cause, has played a role in elections in states like Virginia and Georgia, where data center development has accelerated in recent years. Last year, a report found that $98 billion in data center projects had been stalled or canceled due to community pushback in the second quarter of 2025 alone.

In December, Sanders became the first national politician to call for a moratorium on data centers, days after a coalition of more than 230 progressive groups sent a letter to Congress calling for a national moratorium. The letter claimed that “rapid, largely unregulated rise of data centers to fuel the AI and crypto frenzy is disrupting communities across the country and threatening Americans’ economic, environmental, climate and water security.”

Dozens of cities and counties across the US have introduced local moratoria on data center development in response to local pushback. At least a dozen state legislatures—in Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—have introduced state-level moratoriums this year.

But Sanders’s bill marks a significant departure from many of these pieces of legislation. The new bill focuses not only on the environmental and community impacts of data centers, but on AI safety as a whole. Since his announcement in December, Sanders has been outspoken about the potential dangers AI poses to society, particularly to workers.

“It makes sense to me that his bill is going to focus primarily on that aspect,” says Mitch Jones, the policy and litigation director at Food and Water Watch, an environmental watchdog group which has advised Sanders’s office on the moratorium. Food and Water Watch also convened the December letter from progressive groups.

Pew’s polling found that Democrats are more likely to view data centers negatively—but it’s not just national progressives raising concerns. Before Sanders voiced his opposition to data centers, some prominent Republican and MAGA politicians, including representative Thomas Massie, senator Josh Hawley, and then-representative Marjorie Taylor-Greene, were already vocally questioning the data center buildout. Last month, Hawley and Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal introduced a bill to insulate customers from electricity rate hikes due to data centers. In December, Steve Bannon, one of the most influential anti-AI voices in Washington, hosted a segment on his War Room podcast called “Data Centers Are Devouring Public Land.”

Many of the bills introduced at the state level were sponsored by Democratic politicians. (Food and Water Watch helped craft the New York bill.) Bills in some states, including Oklahoma, were introduced by Republicans; Georgia’s bill had both Democratic and Republican cosponsors.

Florida governor Ron DeSantis has been especially outspoken on the potential harms from both data centers and artificial intelligence. “I don’t think there’s very many people who want to have higher energy bills just so some chatbot can corrupt some 13-year-old kid online,” DeSantis said at an AI roundtable in February. In December, DeSantis endorsed legislation that would have established a bill of rights to protect consumers from potential harms from AI, including prohibiting minors from interacting with AI chatbots without parental consent, as well as a data center proposal to strip subsidies from tech companies and prohibit data centers from raising electricity bills. The resulting AI bill of rights legislation passed the state Senate, but died in the House.

Both the White House and Big Tech companies have acknowledged that the push to build out data centers suffers from bad public optics. In March, representatives from top data center developers and AI companies, including Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, and Google, gathered at the White House to sign a nonbinding agreement intended to make data centers pay “the full cost of their energy and infrastructure” and protect consumers from rate hikes.

“Data centers … they need some PR help,” president Donald Trump said at the event. Experts told WIRED that the agreement signed at the White House was largely symbolic, and that some of the key aims of the agreement—including having data centers absorb any additional costs to customers’ bills—are largely out of both the White House and tech companies’ hands.

“A moratorium would limit internet capacity, slow critical services, eliminate hundreds of thousands of high-wage jobs, drain billions in local tax revenue, and raise costs for American families and small businesses,” Cy McNeill, the senior director of federal affairs at the Data Center Coalition, an industry group, told WIRED in an email. The industry, McNeill says, “remains committed to working with communities, local officials, state and federal policymakers, and the Administration to ensure the continued responsible development of this industry while protecting families and businesses.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Officials Claim They Gutted This $400 Billion Climate Program. They Didn’t.

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

In January, the Trump administration announced that it had completed its dismantling of yet another Biden-era climate program. This time, the target was the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office, which Democrats had injected with almost $400 billion to support ambitious new clean energy projects.

The Biden administration pursued climate policy primarily by having Congress pass massive subsidies for solar power, wind energy, and electric vehicles. But much of the infrastructure needed to push the US further away from fossil fuel dependence—like new nuclear power plants, high-voltage transmission lines, and battery factories—needed more than the tax credits at the core of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act to get off the ground. The Loan Programs Office was meant to fill that gap by making prudent loans to ambitious projects that the private sector saw as too risky. With its $400 billion windfall, the once-obscure office became the largest energy lender in the world.

That ambition apparently put the office in the crosshairs of Trump’s secretary of energy, Chris Wright. He said the Biden administration “rushed [loans] out the door in the final months after Election Day,” and said he had rooted out projects that “do not serve the best interest of the American people.”

“I think in some ways, it’s to convince Trump that they’re shutting down loans.”

Wright claimed to have scrubbed or “revised” around 80 percent of the Biden administration’s $100 billion loan portfolio, and he teased plans to advance new loans that would support President Donald Trump’s anti-renewable-energy agenda. He even rechristened the office as the “Energy Dominance Financing” program—a reference to Trump’s catchphrase for his fossil-fuel-friendly energy policy.

The truth, however, bears little resemblance to Wright’s combative rhetoric. Former federal officials and sources who have worked with the Loan Programs Office say that the program has survived the Trump-era purge in something close to its Biden-era form—and that it is still supporting the buildout of clean energy. Wright has vastly overstated his revisions and left untouched projects that will support emissions-free energy at the country’s utilities, including major transmission upgrades and nuclear power plants. (The anonymous sources quoted below requested anonymity to avoid retaliation or because they have ongoing work with the federal government; the Department of Energy declined to answer questions or make Wright and other program leaders available for interviews.)

The quiet about-face by the Trump administration may signal a recognition that carbon-free energy can play a major role in managing the electricity price hikes that have angered voters in recent years.

“It sounds like the Trump administration seems to be responding to the energy affordability politics in a way that is, if not constructive, at least acknowledges that steel needs to get in the ground,” said Advait Arun, a policy analyst at the Center for Public Enterprise, a nonprofit that supports government-led economic development. “There are ways to reframe all these projects for their agenda.”

Here’s how the Loan Programs Office typically works: A utility or startup approaches the Department of Energy proposing to build a new power plant, transmission line, or battery factory. Once the applicant is approved, it borrows money from the US Treasury at a lower rate than it could get from private banks, and the Department of Energy guarantees the loan. If the project falls through, the department pays back the Treasury with the money appropriated by Congress.

This program was first established during George W. Bush’s presidency in 2005, to help spur clean energy development. But under Bush’s successor, President Barack Obama, the Loan Programs Office became a magnet for controversy. That’s because the authority lent around $500 million to the solar cell manufacturer Solyndra, which later collapsed, leading the government to lose almost its entire investment. Republicans seized on the episode as evidence of the program’s failure—despite the fact that the loan authority also financed success stories such as Tesla, and its overall loss rate of 3 percent is much lower than that of many private sector lenders.

The controversy was largely a distant memory by 2022, when Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act gave the office almost $400 billion—around 10 times its initial mandate—in guarantee authority to invest in battery startups, new renewables, and grid upgrades to support a clean energy transition.

But the office was slow to deploy its new authority, and former officials later said it suffered from an excess of post-Solyndra caution and bureaucracy. This led to long negotiations and risk analysis around every individual loan. A report from three former Energy Department staffers later found that the “executive branch machinery…defaulted to caution, process, and reactive strategies.”

It took more than a year for the office to develop a fast-track process for major utility loans, and many deals weren’t completed until after Trump’s 2024 win. The projects that Wright claimed were “rushed out the door” had in fact suffered from too much due diligence, in the eyes of many observers, rather than too little.

When Secretary Wright arrived in DC, he jammed up the program even more. The Loan Programs Office had three different leaders in the first six months of the Trump administration, lost more than half its staff to Elon Musk’s workforce reduction efforts, and halted almost all communication with borrowers.

“They’re sending a signal that they’re only going to approve projects that a New York private equity firm would finance.”

“Moving any application through any milestone would require political appointee approval as part of a new consolidation of decision rights, and approvals were not granted,” said Jen Downing, who served as a senior adviser at the Loan Programs Office under the Biden administration and stayed on for the first few months of the Trump administration, in a letter to Congress last summer.

Downing, who left the office last May and is now a partner at a clean tech investing firm, told lawmakers that the new Trump administration leadership spent months examining almost every loan made under Biden, in an apparent search for wrongdoing or poor lending decisions.

Wright did nix a few major loans such as the Grain Belt Express, a wind power transmission line in Missouri opposed by Republican senator Josh Hawley. But former Energy Department staffers said that many of the $30 billion in loans that Wright claimed to have shut down were in fact cancelled by the borrowers themselves, which is typical for risky and complex projects. Many withdrew even before Trump’s election, including a battery recycling plant project that fell apart due to market conditions.

“The number is fake,” said Jigar Shah, who led the Loan Programs Office under Biden. “I think in some ways, it’s to convince Trump that they’re shutting down loans.”

Other Biden-approved projects have survived, like a $1.45 billion loan to a solar panel manufacturer in Georgia called QCells, which has continued without interruption. In the case of a loan for a mine at Nevada’s Thacker Pass, which was supposed to produce lithium for electric vehicle batteries, the department doubled down and took an equity stake in the project, rather than cancelling the loan.

The new leader of the loan office is Greg Beard, a former executive at the private equity firm Apollo who also ran a crypto mining company. Thus far, Beard has only advanced projects that began under Biden. That includes the office’s most recent announcement of a massive $26.5 billion loan to Southern Company, the regional utility that serves Georgia and Alabama. The loan will fund upgrades at the utility’s new nuclear power plant in Georgia, new long-duration batteries that can store solar power, and upgrades to 1,300 miles of transmission lines.

That said, the final version of the loan also substitutes 5 gigawatts of new gas power in place of a solar project that was included under the Biden-era version of the deal, according to former Loan Programs Office officials. But this change isn’t as big a deal as it might sound; the utility was always planning to build both solar and natural gas as part of its response to surging power demand, and it will still build both. The only thing that changed between administrations is which power plants will receive low-cost federal financing. The Trump administration’s three other announced loans are also holdovers from Biden. They have little to do with fossil energy, despite Trump’s repeated promises to revive coal and oil. They include a new transmission line and the restart of another nuclear plant in Pennsylvania.

The last date that the office can make loans is September 30, 2028.

“I do think that it’s in many ways a branding exercise,” said another former Department of Energy official who worked in the loan division.

Beard has said he wants to use the office to “make energy more affordable,” “win AI,” “bolster the grid,” and “get us out from under the China strategy to dominate certain critical minerals.” But it’s unclear how much appetite utilities have for the reconfigured program. The Energy Department has held roadshow meetings with data center developers, courting hyperscalers such as Meta with the promise that they will build nuclear power for data centers on federal land. Beard told CNBC that he has a pipeline of around 80 projects waiting to move forward, but that’s less than half of the 191 projects that were in the pipeline in December of 2024, as Biden prepared to leave office.

Shah said that was in part due to the fact that Beard has applied similar standards to those he maintained in his private sector job at Apollo. Beard has suggested he wants all applicants to provide corporate guarantees for their debt, which makes it hard for many projects to qualify.

“Not only are they sending the signal that they’re canceling loans, but then the other side, they’re sending a signal that they’re only going to approve projects that a New York private equity firm would finance,” said Shah. Sources familiar with the program said that the office has already received at least one major new loan application, which is related to nuclear energy, but it’s still in the early stages. The loan office is also trying to coordinate multiple utilities to purchase nuclear reactor parts in bulk.

Thanks to a change in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the major tax law signed by President Trump last summer, the program can now directly support fossil generation such as natural gas. This federal loan support was illegal under the Biden administration, when projects had to reduce greenhouse gases. But it’s far from clear that Wright and Beard could succeed in repurposing the loan program for pure fossil fuel finance, if that’s their goal. Interest in new coal plants is almost nonexistent, and there is plenty of other capital available for new natural gas generation, including from data center developers themselves. A more likely outcome is that the revamped office will continue to support a handful of deals for “clean firm” energy projects that Trump and Wright find appealing, like nuclear, as well as critical minerals production.

Spokespeople for the Department of Energy and the Energy Dominance Financing office, as the loan program has been renamed, declined to answer questions or make Beard available for an interview.

Experts say that even if the deal flow in the office slows down, there’s still a silver lining for the energy transition. More important than the exact shape of the new loans is the fact that Congress did not slash the program altogether, as it did with other Inflation Reduction Act programs such as the electric-vehicle tax credits and the Environmental Protection Agency’s “green bank.” Still, the long-term future of the program is uncertain. When Republicans in Congress modified the loan office with Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year, they also added an expiration date. Unless lawmakers choose to renew the program, the last date that the office can make loans is September 30, 2028.

Even so, the fact that two presidents with opposite views on climate policy have both made use of the program may bode well for its survival.

“I still think that the program is an important tool,” said a consultant in the energy field who has interacted with the loan office. “The technology areas that the current administration is prioritizing, all of those sort of squarely fit into the boundaries or the authorities that exist.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Afghan War Allies Were Promised Safety in the US—Until Now

Back in November, two National Guard members were shot just blocks from the White House. One was killed. The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, is an Afghan national who came to the US through a Biden-era humanitarian parole program and had applied for a special immigrant visa, which allows Afghans who worked with the US military to obtain a green card. In the shooting’s aftermath, President Donald Trump halted the visa program and called for a review of all Afghans who have come to the US.

Dozens of American organizations have formed in the past decade to help Afghans with the complicated visa application and resettlement process. Jeff Holder is a pastor with one of them, an organization called Tarjoman Relief made up of military and civilian volunteers.

“I had families that were so very close to getting their visa and being put on a plane when the new administration came in and everything stopped,” Holder says. “I know some of what we’re hearing in the news and from this present administration is: ‘They need to go back. They need to pack up. We didn’t ask them to come.’ But we did promise. We made a promise.”

On this week’s More To The Story, Holder talks with host Al Letson about the Afghan allies now in limbo, the extensive vetting process they undergo to come to the US, and what he sees as lies about America’s Afghan communities being told by people in power.

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Mad Scientist

Editor’s note: O’Rourke ended her candidacy on March 23.

On an unseasonably hot October day, a small crowd gathered at Genesis Farm, a 226-acre nonprofit in Blairstown, New Jersey, to help pull up beets before winter set in. It was the farm’s annual harvest festival and for Megan O’Rourke, a former federal climate scientist running for Congress, a natural campaign stop.

O’Rourke, after all, knows her way around a farm: At 46, she’s spent more than half of her life studying, teaching, researching, or otherwise advocating for sustainable agriculture, most recently at a small agency within the Department of Agriculture that supports food and farming research. Or at least it did. After President Donald Trump took office in 2025, taking aim at climate research and unleashing doge, the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture was forced to freeze its funding and suspend accepting new grant applications. She quit NIFA in July and launched her campaign, in part to resist the policies that drove her from government.

At Genesis Farm, seven or eight festivalgoers gathered around O’Rourke. She’d dressed appropriately for the setting, in cuffed black jeans, hiking boots, and a salmon-colored Oxford shirt. Most of the group didn’t seem to know who she was. “You’re running for…” said one attendee, his voice trailing off. “Congress,” she answered warmly, brandishing a business card.

She hopes to unseat Republican Tom Kean Jr., O’Rourke explained, the second-term congressman who she says “inherited” the seat from his ex-governor father. “I emphasize Junior,” she said. She leaned into her wide-­ranging résumé, which includes a tenured professorship at Virginia Tech, a congressional fellowship, and eight years as a civil servant. “So this would be your first public office?” a guy wearing a Smithsonian cap asked. “Yeah,” she said, adding with a laugh, “Start big.”

There’s no doubt her race has big stakes. While the district narrowly went for Trump in 2024, with control of the House up for grabs, Kean is considered to be among the country’s most vulnerable Republicans, and there’s no shortage of Democrats gunning for him. As of March, at least eight had joined the contest, including a former Navy pilot, a marketing entrepreneur, an icu doctor, and a Biden-era Small Business Administration leader, who will first face each other in June. “It’s a bit of a crowded primary,” O’Rourke told the group.

O’Rourke says science—hustling for grants, spreading ideas—is not all that different from campaigning.

However things go, O’Rourke’s candidacy reflects a shift in how scientists are pushing back against Trump. Since he returned to the White House, researchers—traditionally a politics-averse group—have organized “Stand Up for Science” protests, published letters of dissent from within agencies, rescued datasets erased by the administration, and carried on research that would have been abandoned. If elected, O’Rourke would be among the first women in Congress with a scientific PhD, but she is hardly the only scientist running in 2026. In December, 314 Action, a fund that backs Democratic candidates with science backgrounds, announced it was already working with nearly 100 campaigns—more than double what it says is typical.

This shift, O’Rourke believes, is in part a response to Trump’s “assault” on science, which caused “a shock to the system.” “I think it took us a little while, including me, to even start thinking about becoming an activist, because we haven’t had to,” she says, adding that scientists are now figuring out “what should we do and how do we get organized?”

Growing up, O’Rourke was fascinated by food and where it came from. As the “poor kid” in class, she and her family relied on their church’s food pantry. Her father’s mental health issues and her mom’s long hours meant she and her three siblings typically had to fend for themselves, eating things like dry oatmeal, bread slices rolled up into a ball, or hot chocolate mix poured into a glass of milk. “It wasn’t that we went hungry, per se,” she tells me, “but nobody was feeding us.” She also loved the outdoors. Nearby her childhood house in Blairstown, in a forested wilderness now held by the Nature Conservancy that her family nicknamed “Dinosaur Mountain,” O’Rourke and her brother skipped rocks, fished, and picked berries to supplement their lunches.

Agriculture blended her interests in food and the natural world. As a master’s student in sustainable agriculture at Iowa State University, adviser Ricardo Salvador recalls, O’Rourke was a quiet, steady presence. “Whenever she did engage,” he says, “you could tell that she had been observing, that she had been thinking, asking questions.” She went on to earn a PhD in agricultural ecology from Cornell University, researching insect pest population dynamics on nearby farms while running a small fruit and vegetable farm and raising three children with her husband, Aaron Rust, whom she met as an undergraduate at Brigham Young University. After working as a climate change adviser at the usda’s Foreign Agricultural Service and an environment adviser at the now-dismantled US Agency for International Development, she landed a job at NIFA at the tail end of Trump’s first term. There, she oversaw the allocation of more than $170 million in agriculture research funds related to climate science.

After Inauguration Day in 2025, things turned south. She’d worked under three administrations, but Trump 2.0 and its executive orders targeting climate science were “just so beyond what I’d experienced,” ­O’Rourke says. At NIFA, she recalls, DOGE and other Trump-friendly bureaucrats hunted out work they deemed counter to the administration’s priorities. The agency’s animal reproduction portfolio was flagged, O’Rourke suspects, over the word “reproduction” and its possible proximity to sex and abortion. Her publications on climate change were deleted from the usda’s website, and her projects funded by the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act were terminated. At one point, with so much canceled, including all meetings related to the ­National Climate Assessment, Rust recalls O’Rourke looked at her calendar and found it empty. O’Rourke had read that her congressional district in the state’s northwestern reaches, New Jersey’s 7th, was among those Democrats hoped to flip. Considering a run, she did what any academic would do: study. She took trainings from the Democratic National Committee and Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics. And she resigned from NIFA.

Her calendar is no longer empty. The day I visited the harvest festival, she’d had at least two other events, including a local Democrats meeting. (To save time, she keeps a hairbrush and granola bars in her Prius.) “I work harder at this than I have ever probably worked at anything,” she says, “and I’ll compare that to getting my PhD with three little kids [while] running a farm.” She’s earned key endorsements from science-minded Democrats like Maine Rep. Chellie Pingree, an organic farmer, and former New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt, a plasma physicist. In February, more than 200 scientists across the country publicly announced their support. But so far, that hasn’t led to a windfall in financial support. While she reportedly raised $175,000 on her first day as a candidate, by March, O’Rourke had brought that to only $459,000—significantly less than her better-heeled primary opponents.

In biology, there’s a concept of an ecological niche—how organisms precisely fit into their environment. If the same idea applies in politics, O’Rourke occupies a distinct niche in the Democratic Party: She’s an active member of her Mormon church, a mother, and—as she’d say herself—more of a listener than a talker. When I asked her about political role models, she mentioned Washington state Blue Dog Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (a “rural Democrat,” “working-class,” and “willing to reach out across the aisle,” O’Rourke says), as well as New Mexico Rep. Melanie Stansbury (who also earned a Cornell graduate degree) and New Jersey Sen. Andy Kim (like her, “dorky”)—two lawmakers who’ve been members of the party’s progressive caucus.

If she feels out of place as a scientist in politics, she doesn’t show it. Back at Genesis Farm, she got into the weeds with a farmer on cover crops and seed phenotypes while admiring two species of bees buzz through sunflowers. “I heard you talking about pollinator conservation,” an attendee wearing a flannel and no undershirt said to ­O’Rourke, asking if there were anything the government could do to encourage pollinator-­friendly gardening. On the way out, they posed for a photo.

O’Rourke says doing science—hustling for grants, running a lab, and spreading ideas—is not all that different from campaigning. And, she suggests, more scientists should join her. “I never really wanted to be a politician,” she told me toward the end of my visit. “This is not what I thought I would do with my life.” But “now is the time that our country needs people to step up.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

“Flagrant Violation”: Judge Orders Return of Mother Deported Despite DACA

On Monday, a federal judge in California ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return to the United States of a Sacramento mother who was detained at her February green card interview and deported to Mexico within 24 hours. Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez had active protection from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which temporarily shields undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, at the time of her arrest and removal.

In a 15-page decision granting Estrada Juarez’s motion for a temporary restraining order, Judge Dena Coggins ruled that she must be returned to the US within seven days of the court order. Estrada Juarez, the judge wrote, “was removed in flagrant violation of the regulatory protections afforded to her under DACA” and the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The judge determined that she should have the protections afforded by DACA restored “as if her February 19, 2026, removal never occurred.”

Estrada Juarez’s ordeal began in February, when she attended an appointment as part of her adjustment of status process to become a lawful permanent resident as the relative of a US citizen, her daughter Damaris Bello. Having lived in the United States for almost 30 years, and with her DACA status valid through at least April 2026 pending renewal, Estrada Juarez didn’t think she had reason to fear being detained. Still, at the interview, Estrada Juarez was told her case couldn’t be completed because she had a decades-old order of removal from when she first entered the country in 1998. The government then reinstated that order, which Estrada Juarez didn’t know about, to deport her.

In early March, I spoke with Bello, who accompanied her mother to last month’s scheduled interview. She described what happened that day:

Bello recalled that after a brief period of time, someone knocked on the interview room’s door and asked for Maria Estrada. When she answered, Bello said agents without uniform or name identification came in and said she was going to be detained and deported to Mexico. Before the officers could handcuff her, Estrada Juarez asked if she could hug her daughter one last time. She held Bello’s face and told her to be strong, that God would guide them to the right place.

“It was so sudden and unexpected,” Bello said. “It felt like she never really had a chance.”

By the next morning, Estrada Juarez had been sent to Mexico, a country she hadn’t lived in since she was 15 years old. The separation proved devastating for Estrada Juarez and Bello, an only child. After Estrada Juarez’s sudden deportation, Bello said she would likely have to move out of their shared home because she couldn’t afford rent or utility bills without her mother’s income from her job as a Motel 6 regional manager. “My whole life has to change because she’s not here,” Bello told me. “I feel like I’m grieving my mother.”

On March 10, Estrada Juarez filed a petition in the district court for the Eastern District of California, arguing that her removal was unlawful and violated her due process rights. Estrada Juarez has continuously held DACA status since 2013. In 2014, the government authorized her to leave the country for a short trip, and she was lawfully admitted when she returned. The petition claims Estrada Juarez never received a copy of the 1998 reinstated expedited removal order or notice of the reason for her February deportation. Instead, it says she was handed a document stating she was barred from coming back to the United States because an immigration judge had ordered her removed, even though she didn’t appear before one. Records show Estrada Juarez refused to sign the form.

“They’ve reinstated something that doesn’t exist. The whole thing has fallen apart.”

Still, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied her adjustment of status application on the basis of that decades-old removal order. But Estrada Juarez’s lawyer, Stacy Tolchin, said the 1998 order, which the government submitted as part of the record in the case, wasn’t signed by a supervising officer and can’t be considered final. “They’ve reinstated something that doesn’t exist,” Tolchin said on Tuesday. “The whole thing has fallen apart.” Even if the order was valid, she explained, Estrada Juarez’s DACA status should have prevented it from being enforced. (Tolchin has asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the order of reinstatement of removal and filed a motion to reopen and reconsider the green card denial with USCIS.)

The government opposed Estrada Juarez’s petition, arguing the court lacked the authority to review “discretionary decisions” to execute a removal order and mandate her return. The administration also contended that the court didn’t have jurisdiction over her habeas claims because Estrada Juarez had already been removed and was no longer “in custody.” Judge Coggins disagreed, citing Ninth Circuit precedent allowing a noncitizen unlawfully deported from the United States “under extreme circumstances” to seek their return, despite not being detained in the district where they are challenging their removal. “Indeed, it is difficult to argue that Petitioner’s removal constitutes anything less than an ‘extreme circumstance,'” the judge wrote.

She further rejected the government’s position that Estrada Juarez didn’t meet the “extreme circumstances” standard because she hadn’t, within the less than 24 hours between her detention and deportation, rushed to court to secure an emergency order stopping her removal. “Essentially, Respondents argue that the government is immune from liability from any claim for violation of a noncitizen’s right to due process in removal proceedings so long as that right is violated quickly,” the decision reads.

Judge Coggins recognized that “each day Petitioner remains unlawfully separated from her daughter, they both suffer unimaginable irreparable harm.” In a declaration submitted to the court, Estrada Juarez and Bello described the “severe emotional trauma and financial hardship” they have experienced, adding that her “wrongful deportation has deeply broken [her] family.” Bello wrote in her own declaration that her mother’s removal “has left [her] feeling completely alone and afraid.”

To Tolchin, this case shows why the courts and due process are important. “We’re seeing [the Department of Homeland Security] trying to hide due process and people’s constitutional rights from them,” she said.In a statement, Estrada Juarez expressed relief and hope of coming back to the United States soon: “I followed the rules and trusted the process, and I just want to return to my family and rebuild my life.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

They’re Already Scared to Come to School. Republicans Want to Kick Them Out for Good.

Top White House advisor Stephen Miller, the longtime architect of Donald Trump’s anti-immigration policies, asked Texas Republicans last week in a closed-door meeting to kick undocumented children out of public schools, according to reporting from the New York Times.

It’s an escalation in the right’s push to restrict public education to children who can prove they are US citizens. Such a move could violate a 1982 Supreme Court ruling, Plyler v. Doe, which held that withholding funds to schools teaching undocumented children violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That case was a result of a class-action lawsuit in Texas in the 1970s.

As Mother Jones‘ Isabela Dias reported back in 2022, this isn’t the first time that Miller has attempted this. In 2019, during Trump’s first term, he reportedly led a similar push. One that, according to TIME, he’d been driving at since 2017.

In the decades since Plyler, there have been several unsuccessful attempts to upend the highest court’s ruling. The current one is buoyed by the Trump administration’s multi-pronged anti-immigration campaign that has come to define his second term.

Miller isn’t alone. Also this month, Rep. Chip Roy, a Republican from Texas, led a House hearing to discuss how Plyler “was wrongly decided and how it harms America’s schools and students,” according to his press office.

During the meeting, Roy said in his opening statement: “It’s time for it to go.” Roy went on to criticize programs in schools that taught English to language learners and refugees. Roy is currently vying for Attorney General of Texas in a runoff election.

Zeph Capo, president of the Texas American Federation of Teachers, cited Roy’s hopes in his response: “Toying with children’s futures to win a primary election is the tactic of a small, sad man.”

This enlivened push to restrict access to public education comes as scores of immigrant children are already afraid to go to school across the country as Immigration and Customs Enforcement have repeatedly been seen near schools or bus stops. (The Department of Homeland Security has said they do “NOT raid or target schools” despite “media force-feeding the public stories about parents and children being scared to return to school.”)

In Texas’s largest public school district, in Houston, the immigrant student population plummeted by nearly 4,000 students, or a decrease of 22 percent, this school year. In Maine, absences at some schools hit 25 to 30 percent during a week of heavy ICE presence in January. In Minnesota, up to 40 percent of students stayed home during the agency’s violent operations in the Twin Cities.

As Justice William Brennan wrote in the Plyler majority opinion, “It is difficult to understand precisely what the state hopes to achieve by promoting the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries.”

A lower court judge put it like this two years earlier: refusing to educate children based on of if their parents came to this country without certain documentation, or were in the process of obtaining that documentation, would create “a permanent underclass of persons who will live their lives in this country without being able to participate in our society.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Says He Made Memphis Safer. Locals Told Me It Felt Like 1930s Germany or North Korea.

President Donald Trump visited Memphis on Monday to praise a surge in federal law enforcement there, while some locals took to the streets to protest the surge.

“For years, our leaders allowed entire cities in America to be destroyed by crime, drugs, and gang violence,” he said during a roundtable discussion about the Memphis Safe Task Force, which launched in September. “Tolerating this violence was always a choice.”

Trump credited the task force—a collaboration of more than 30 local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, and the subject of my recent Mother Jones investigation—with a substantial drop in crime in Memphis over last year. Officers have arrested more than 7,000 people.

But protesters say the task force also has changed daily life in less desirable ways. Police are riding around with immigration officers, who ask people of color for proof of citizenship. The law enforcement presence is so pervasive that immigrants have been sheltering at home, afraid to shop for groceries or bring their kids to school.

In November, I saw this firsthand during a visit. I hid in a dark apartment with terrified immigrant parents and their citizen children, who told me they didn’t go outside much anymore because they were scared of police. I also drove around town and talked to activists, business owners, cops, local politicians, teachers, volunteers, and ordinary people. One resident compared the vibe to 1930s Germany—helicopters circling overhead, National Guard patrolling downtown, unmarked law enforcement vehicles roaming the streets, and immigrant citizens carrying their US passports, lest they be detained.

Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris, a Democrat who opposed the task force, speculated that crime—which had been a problem**—**was dropping at least in part because people weren’t venturing out nearly as much. “Our risk is that [America is] gonna become a Yemen or a North Korea or something else altogether, where there is an armed individual with a semiautomatic weapon and military fatigues on many corners,” he told me. “There may be zero crime, but we also won’t be leaving our houses. I know that’s a dark scenario, but that’s kind of where we are.”

Check out the full investigation here.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Case That Could Upend Who Gets to Be an American Is Back at the Supreme Court

Next week, the Trump administration’s bid to deny birthright citizenship to the US-born children of undocumented immigrants and non-green card holders through an executive order will arrive at the Supreme Court—yet again. Last year, the justices didn’t address the constitutionality of the order directly; instead, they ruled on a procedural question to limit the power of federal judges to block the government’s actions nationwide. Now, in Trump v. Barbara, the Court is asked to determine whether the administration’s rewriting of the Constitution has merit.

With its executive order, the government is claiming to want to restore the original meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens of the country. In a brief to the Supreme Court, the administration argues that the amendment—ratified in 1868 in repudiation of the Dred Scott decision that declared Black Americans couldn’t be citizens—specifically intended to extend citizenship to the children of former slaves and their descendants, but not of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors.

Most constitutional law scholars and historians disagree, pointing to longstanding tradition, legislative history, and legal precedent that support a broad understanding of the citizenship clause. (An understanding that includes extremely narrow exceptions, such as for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders.) The courts have also resoundingly rejected the Trump administration’s executive order, finding it unconstitutional in light of the plain 14th Amendment text.

The highest court has grappled with challengesto birthright citizenship before—and turned them down. In the late 19th century, at a time of rampant anti-Chinese bias, immigration restrictionists and the federal government argued that Wong Kim Ark, born in the United States to Chinese parents who couldn’t become naturalized due to exclusion laws, didn’t have a claim to citizenship. The dispute made its way to the Supreme Court and resulted in a landmark ruling reaffirming that the 14th Amendment applies to virtually everyone born on US soil, regardless of parentage.

Ahead of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on April 1, I spoke with Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project and counsel on record in the Trump v. Barbara case. He talked about the government’s ahistorical reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, and how it mirrors previous attacks on birthright citizenship.

The ACLU’s brief to the Supreme Court characterizes one of the government’s arguments in support of its executive order as “atextual, contradictory, and irrelevant,” adding that they relied on “authors engaged in a concerted effort to undermine the Citizenship Clause.” Can you explain what that effort to undermine the 14th Amendment has looked like?

In the late 19th century, there were two threads of legal and political activism that came together. One was ongoing opposition to Reconstruction and opposition to the Reconstruction amendments to the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment. These are the amendments that eliminated slavery and enshrined the principles of equal protection and due process as to States, as well as voting rights, into the Constitution. The other thread was rising anti-Chinese sentiment. There was huge bipartisan opposition to Chinese immigration, which culminated in a whole series of statutes at the federal level excluding Chinese immigrants and imposing extraordinary burdens on those communities. What we see is those two threads coming together in a set of authors that the government is now relying on, who spent years looking for ways to try to limit the text of the 14th Amendment to exclude the children of Chinese immigrants.

These authors essentially opposed what the framers of the 14th Amendment had put into the Constitution and were looking for ways to rewrite it. That argument came up to the Supreme Court in the context of anti-Chinese rhetoric in the Wong Kim Ark case, and the Supreme Court rejected it. It saw through the racist efforts to exclude Asian Americans from citizenship and essentially said, the Constitution means what it says. The fact that the Trump administration is recycling these same discredited ideas to try to exclude the children of immigrants today just goes to show that it is borrowing from the same playbook that the Supreme Court has already rebuffed.

“It’s remarkable that the Trump administration has taken aim at birthright citizenship. It’s a foundational American value that’s enshrined in the text of the Constitution.”

Much of the debate revolves around the meaning of the sentence “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Some scholars supporting Trump’s executive order argue that children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors fall outside the birthright citizenship rule because, under British common law, their parents wouldn’t have owed allegiance to—or been protected by—the king in a type of mutual contract. In the present context, the parents wouldn’t be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and, therefore, their children should be excluded from automatic citizenship. What do you make of that legal theory?

The text of the 14th Amendment says “subject to the jurisdiction,” and that meant then what it means now: subject to American law. There are some people who are exempt from American law in full or in part, and ambassadors are the classic example of that. The government’s argument, echoed by its amici, uses a lot of different words and phrases that don’t carry a whole lot of meaning. At the end of the day, what they’re arguing is that the citizenship clause has this idea of a domicile requirement that a child’s parents need to not only be in the United States and subject to its laws but also be living here with an intention to remain indefinitely.

But the rule before the 14th Amendment was squarely to the contrary. The absolute leading common law case leading up to the framing of the 14th Amendment specifically held that a temporary visitor’s child born in the United States is a US citizen. That was the rule in the treatises. That was the rule across a variety of different sources. That’s what the framers understood, and that’s totally consistent with the language that they use, which is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. What the government’s really trying to do here is muddy the waters enough so that we won’t notice that it is rewriting the clear text of the Constitution itself.

Looking at the Supreme Court case docket, I counted more than 40 briefs against the Trump administration’s executive order—from historians, constitutional law scholars, civil rights groups—and about 25 in support. Do you think these legal theories questioning birthright citizenship have gone mainstream among Republican and conservative circles?

The overwhelming consensus of historians and legal scholars is that we are right, and the government could not be more wrong. This isn’t the first time the principle of birthright citizenship has come under attack. If you think about this historically, the idea that people born in the United States are citizens goes all the way back to the founding of the country and before. At that time, there were racial limits because of the scourge of slavery. But what Dred Scott—that shameful decision that helped trigger the Civil War—said was that Black people were excluded from citizenship, whether they were enslaved or free. It was an attempt to imagine a kind of citizenship based on parentage that would exclude a whole caste of people. And that is exactly what the people who were putting together the 14th Amendment rejected. They wrote these words specifically to reject that idea.

Then you see the same idea coming up again in 1898, in an effort to twist the words of the clause to exclude the children of Chinese immigrants. And we’re seeing that same effort once again to come up with some way to exclude a politically disfavored part of the country from their birthright as citizens, using political rhetoric and concern about immigration. In some ways, there’s nothing new in that, but the rule that has stretched back to the beginning of the country has always been steadfast. The Supreme Court had no trouble turning aside the last effort to restrict birthright citizenship, even at a time of immense anti-Chinese political rhetoric and organizing.

I think that up until recently, most people would have considered the question of who gets to be an American citizen a settled matter. What is the significance of having the Supreme Court now consider an executive order that puts into questionthe historya nd meaningof the 14th Amendment?

It’s remarkable that the Trump administration has taken aim at birthright citizenship. It’s a foundational American value that’s enshrined in the text of the Constitution. But given the executive order that was issued last year, it’s not particularly surprising that the Supreme Court is taking up the issue. The Trump administration told the Supreme Court that this was a top priority for the administration, and that alone is often enough to get Supreme Court review of an issue. But we are extremely confident about the ultimate outcome of this case. The government is wrong on the text, the history, and the tradition, going all the way back to English common law, and we expect that’s exactly what the Supreme Court will say at the end of the day.

This conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Point of No Return: New Evidence Shows Antarctic Melting Is Already Locked In

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

Drilling through 500 feet of floating ice into the Antarctic Ocean floor, climate scientists have retrieved a rare 23-million-year record of sediments that helps demonstrate why the planet’s southern ice shield could determine the fate of distant low-lying coastal areas.

The layers of rock, silt, and fossils are like pages in a book of geological time, revealing how West Antarctica’s vast ice sheets and floating shelves respond rapidly to modest warming, with significant shrinking and melting in climates similar to today’s.

Along with other new modeling studies and analyses of current ice retreat, the core sample of ocean sediments affirms that human-caused warming is triggering an irreversible long-term meltdown that could submerge the southern third of Florida and other low-elevation coastal areas within two to three centuries.

The lines of evidence from paleoclimatology, as well as from modeling and observations, also converge to suggest that the average global sea level rise in the more immediate future will accelerate, reaching 3 feet by the end of the century and up to 5 feet in equatorial island regions, potentially displacing millions of people worldwide.

The landmark drilling expedition at the remote edge of the Ross Ice Shelf is part of a wide-ranging effort “to answer the question of when and under what conditions the West Antarctic Ice Sheet will disappear,” said Johann Klages, a geoscientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany and co-coordinator of the international SWAIS2C project to assess West Antarctica’s vulnerability to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of human-caused warming above the pre-fossil fuel era baseline.

The world could reach that mark by 2050, sooner than expected, according to recent warnings from retired NASA climate scientist James Hansen. And exactly how that level of warming will affect Antarctica’s vast ice fields is the question the 29-member ice core team sought to answer when they set up camp for 10 weeks. Their equipment had to be carried by motorized vehicles across more than 600 miles of ice.

Previous attempts to drill the seabed beneath the ice had failed because of technical and logistical challenges, but succeeded this time with critical technical support from the US Antarctic Program and the National Science Foundation.

Binghamton University associate professor Molly Patterson, co-chief scientist of the SWAIS2C mission, said the core’s sediment layers show how the ice advanced and retreated, but determining the exact timing requires detailed geochemical analyses that could take years to complete.

The sediment core is more than 200 meters deep, an unusual depth compared to previous sub-ice sediment cores, which rarely exceeded 10 meters, providing a continuous record of climate conditions spanning epochal swings between ice ages and warmer interglacial periods.

Reading the core is like reconstructing past environments layer by layer, Patterson said. When the ice is in contact with the seabed, it “bulldozes everything,” leaving coarse, mixed debris. But layers of finer mud, studded with larger stones that dropped from melting ice shelves, suggest floating ice. And when those layers contain fossils of light-dependent organisms like plankton, it signals open water, with no ice. Along with a chemical analysis to date the materials, the scientists can tell where the ice margin was and what the ocean temperatures were at that time.

People tend to focus on what happens by 2100, but the real story is what we’re setting in motion over the next few decades that will play out in the coming centuries.

There are other sediment samples from around the edge of the Antarctic continent, but not such a deep sediment core from the interior of an ice sheet, said Ed Gasson, a glaciologist, associate professor at the University of Exeter in England, and member of the SWAIS2C team.

“This is important,” Gasson said, “because it tells us directly that this part of the ice sheet, which we think is especially vulnerable to a warming climate, retreated in the geological past, leaving behind open seawater.”

Two other studies published in the past month add to concerns about the potential vulnerability of Antarctica’s ice. One research team mapped how Antarctica’s ice flows through interconnected basins, showing how melting in one region can destabilize others, accelerating ice loss and sea levels rise. A separate analysis, based on measurements of West Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier, tested the models’ accuracy and showed that the current rate of ice loss is consistent with long-term projections of significant melting.

The sediment record shows what happened yesterday, and the observations of the Thwaites Glacier provide information about recent melting. But the big question remains what will happen tomorrow, said Jonathan Donges, an Earth system researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and co-author of the paper that examined the dynamic links among the continent’s vast tracts of ice.

By mapping how the icy basins interact, the researchers showed that melting in one area could spread and destabilize others, potentially pushing the entire system past a critical threshold that would lock in thousands of years of sea-level rise.

Such long time scales are easy to overlook, even if the consequences are profound, Donges said. People tend to focus on what happens by 2100, he added, but the real story is what we’re setting in motion over the next few decades that will play out in the coming centuries. His team looked at how the ice basins may affect one another because previous research showed that different areas have different thresholds for significant melting; the loss of even a single basin could raise sea level by 20 or 30 feet.

The Amundsen Sea sector in West Antarctica has already been identified as one of the regions most vulnerable to current levels of warming, he said, adding that its ice will retreat for centuries even if global temperatures stabilize.

As the ice thins and pulls back, the boundary where ice meets ocean and bedrock retreats inland, exposing more open water and accelerating further melt. Over time, that retreat spreads inland, altering ice flow and destabilizing neighboring basins in a cascading process that pushes melting deeper into the continent.

The new paper on the Thwaites Glacier noted faster ice flows, thinning at the glacier’s edges, increasing structural weaknesses, and the retreat of the grounding line, which anchors the ice to the seafloor.

All the findings reinforce the growing scientific understanding that, once key parts of the ice sheet begin to weaken, feedback processes can take over, allowing retreat to continue long after the initial warming.

Donges said that even conservative estimates of about 13 feet of sea-level rise by 2300 seem massive.

“When you’re standing at the beach somewhere, it’s hard to imagine this could happen in the amount of time the United States has existed,” he said.

And it could be even worse. The projections for that amount of sea-level rise don’t include a rapid, major collapse of ice shelves, Donges said, explaining that some studies suggest feedback could cause big tracts of ice to disintegrate faster than expected.

If there is extreme warming and melting on the surface, meltwater “pours into deep cracks and then refreezes, widening the rifts,” he said. “This cracks up the ice sheets, which can then disintegrate much faster.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Wants to End Mail Voting. The Supreme Court’s Conservative Justices Appear Eager to Assist.

President Trump has claimed he is “going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS” and is currently lobbying the US Senate to effectively outlaw the practice as part of his push to pass the Save America Act.

The conservative justices on the US Supreme Court appear eager to assist with Trump’s crusade.

On Monday, the justices heard a challenge from the Republican National Committee and the Trump administration to a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted up to five days after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by the day of the election. Sixteen states have similar grace periods on the books, and 29 states accept ballots from overseas and military voters sent before or on Election Day but received after. The New York Times found that during the 2024 election “at least 725,000 ballots were postmarked by Election Day and arrived within the legally accepted post-election window.”

“Every time you try to state what your rule is, it seems to me it’s a rule that prevents early voting,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most right-wing appellate court in the country, struck down Mississippi’s law in the run-up to the 2024 election in what UCLA law professor Rick Hasen called a “bonkers opinion.”

But at least several Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices want to turn that bonkers decision into settled law—at the very moment that Trump is trying to eliminate mail ballots nationwide and “take over” elections.

During the two-and-a-half-hour oral argument in Watson v. Republican National Committee, several of the conservative justices spread conspiracy theories and crazy hypotheticals about mail-in ballot deadlines and the use of the practice more broadly.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch suggested that mail-in ballots could be given to a neighbor or a notary, then submitted after Election Day but still be counted if they arrived within five days of the election.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, echoing Trump’s complaints about “vote dumps” during the 2020 election, claimed that if ballots arriving after Election Day changed the outcome of a race it would undermine voter confidence in the result.

Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, who defended the law for the state, replied that his opponents “haven’t cited a single example of fraud from post-Election Day ballot receipts.” He argued that “states have broad powers over elections” and that allowing mail-in ballots to arrive during a brief grace period did not change the meaning of Election Day since ballots were still cast by or before that day.

But Justice Samuel Alito bemoaned that “we don’t have Election Day anymore. We have election month.”

The complaints from Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh suggested that at least four of the court’s conservative justices were hostile to Mississippi’s mail-in ballot law and shared Trump’s broader goal of limiting access to mail-in ballots.

The liberal justices noted that if ballots must be cast and counted on Election Day, that would also imperil early voting, which 47 states currently use.

“Every time you try to state what your rule is, it seems to me it’s a rule that prevents early voting,” Justice Elena Kagan said to conservative lawyer Paul Clement, who represented the RNC.

Clement and Trump administration solicitor general John Sauer claimed that early voting would not be impacted by a decision in their favor, since voting happened in advance of the election. But Trump himself, along with top officials in his administration, have called for all voting to take place on a single day, which would end both mail-in and early voting.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states should not change voting laws in the middle of an election. Kavanaugh asked Clement if that would be an issue in this case if the court ruled in his favor by June. Clement said states would have “plenty of time” to prepare for the general election.

In reality, however, changing mail-in ballot deadlines months before the general election could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters who could be unaware of the stricter rules or have their ballots thrown out because of postal delays or because they live in remote, rural locations. And any decision narrowing voting access would embolden Republicans to go even further in their attempts to restrict voting rights. The Supreme Court is also weighing another case that could kill the remaining protections of Voting Rights Act and turbocharge Republican gerrymandering efforts. These two cases have the potential to throw the midterms into chaos.

Many court experts expected the RNC and Trump administration to lose the Watson case given how far-fetched their arguments were. Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett did not tip their hand as much as the other conservative justices, so it’s possible that Mississippi will still prevail. But the fact that a majority of justices or close to it appeared sympathetic to the arguments against mail-in voting is a reminder that the Republican Party’s war on voting isn’t confined to Trump and that even if the Save America Act appears doomed in the Senate, the GOP’s push to limit access to the franchise will continue full steam ahead.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Why Trump Wants ICE to Ditch the Masks at Airports

There is no war in American cities, but masked men shrouded in anonymity, carrying battle weapons and decked out in combat gear, have been hunting down immigrants across the country for nearly a year. In the process, they’ve shot and killed US citizens and terrorized immigrant families. Their tunnel vision of violence has helped the Trump administration manufacture a theater of war where none exists.

But there are limits to this roaming performance, and those limits are now becoming apparent at American airports.

“I am a BIG proponent of ICE wearing masks as they search for, and are forced to deal with, hardened criminals, many of whom were let into our Country by Sleepy Joe Biden,” President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social. “I would greatly appreciate, however, NO MASKS, when helping our Country out of the Democrat caused MESS at the airports, etc.”

The president’s sartorial advice came as ICE agents deployed to airports on Monday, a strategy Trump insists will help TSA agents—who are not getting paid, while the ICE officers now hovering around them are—as they struggle with massive security caused by the partial government shutdown. (Shout out to “Linda from Arizona” for the idea.) When asked about ICE agents dropping the masks, Trump told reporters that airports don’t tend to see “murderers, killers, and drug dealers.”

“I didn’t think it was an appropriate look for an airport,” Trump said. “I think it’s a very appropriate look when they’re out on the street trying to find one of the 11,888 murderers that Sleepy Joe Biden let into the country.” He then insisted that a side benefit of that arrangement would be that ICE agents could now arrest undocumented immigrants entering the country. “It’s very fertile territory,” Trump said.

In essence, the president was admitting to the outsize role that aesthetics have played as ICE terrorizes communities across the country. It’s this blend of violence and optics he clearly wants to keep from a certain class of Americans. These**,** apparently, are not the folks that Trump wants to expose to ICE’s campaign of violence, abuse, and harassment—at least not firsthand.

Of course, that same logic has forced the people Trump hates—immigrant communities and residents of blue cities—to see ICE and the Border Patrol’s masked terror front and center with maximum visibility. As journalist Radley Balko told me in January:

“This administration sees all of that as a benefit. They want to terrorize immigrant communities. They want to be seen as an occupying force. They’ve been clear about this. They want to make immigrant communities so fearful that they’ll self-deport, and they’ll tell others to stop coming here. Making immigration officers as scary and intimidating as possible is part of the strategy.”

By calling on ICE officers to drop the masks, Trump appears to understand, even narrowly, the inherent theater of his mass deportation agenda. But like ICE’s theater of war, which uses optics to inflict real violence, it seems like a matter of time before trouble will start at airports. After all, these are poorly trained federal agents, not trained in aviation security, and yet stationed at airport security lines to mill about. This time, though, we might actually know what they look like.

Federal immigration agents at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport get some breakfast.Emilie Megnien/AP

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Problem With Trump Promoting “Gold Standard Science”

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

Federal agencies have been branding some of their research and policy work as “gold standard science,” a trend that gained new force after an executive order on the term was issued in May 2025. The phrase now appears in speeches and guidance documents from agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. It shows up in social media posts intended to signal credibility, rigor, and authority. The message is clear: This is science you can trust.

The intention may be to reassure the public, but the framing is misleading. The executive order outlines principles that are broadly consistent with good scientific practice, such as transparency, reproducibility, and peer review. These are not controversial. The problem arises in how those principles are translated into a simplified label that suggests a single hierarchy of evidence.

Treating scientific outputs as if they were competing on a single quality scale misunderstands their purpose.

Science does not work in the way that an easy phrase like “gold standard” suggests. From my experience applying scientific findings in community-based settings, I have seen the risk in turning a methodological metaphor into a brand and how it can confuse the public about how evidence is actually produced, evaluated, and used.

In scientific practice, “gold standard” has never meant universally best. It has always been conditional. Researchers have used the phrase to describe the most appropriate method for answering a very specific type of question, under particular assumptions and constraints. Outside of that narrow context, the phrase loses its meaning.

One of the most common examples comes from medicine. Randomized controlled trials are often described as the gold standard for determining whether a drug or clinical intervention causes a particular outcome. The reason is straightforward. Randomization helps isolate cause and effect by reducing bias and confounding. When the question is whether treatment A is superior to treatment B under controlled conditions, randomized trials can be extraordinarily powerful.

But even in medicine, randomized trials are not always possible, ethical, or sufficient. They may exclude populations who most need treatment. They may fail to capture long-term effects. They may tell us whether something can work in limited settings, but not whether it will work in real-world applications.

That is why medicine relies on many forms of evidence, including observational studies, post-market surveillance, qualitative research, and case reports. None of these are inherently inferior. They answer different questions.

The executive order itself does not mandate a single methodological approach. However, its implementation in agency language risks being interpreted as privileging certain methods over others, regardless of context. The problem arises because the logic of “gold standard” is now being stretched beyond its original purpose. Presenting “gold standard science” as a general category, rather than a context-dependent judgment, implies that some kinds of science are categorically better than others. That implication does not hold up under even modest scrutiny.

Science begins with questions. What are we trying to understand? What decisions need to be informed? What constraints exist: ethical, practical, or temporal? Only after those questions are clearly defined can methods be responsibly selected.

The language of “gold standard science” can make it harder to communicate uncertainty honestly.

Different questions demand different approaches. If the question is whether a new medication lowers blood pressure under controlled conditions, a randomized trial may be appropriate. If the question is how a public health policy affects different communities over time, randomized trials may be impossible or misleading. In that case, natural experiments, administrative data analysis, community-based research, or qualitative methods may provide more useful insight. If the question is how an intervention is implemented in practice, mixed methods (those that use multiple research tools like surveys, interviews, and observations) may be essential.

None of these approaches is automatically better or worse than the others. Their value depends on whether they are suited to the question at hand.

This distinction matters because different questions yield different kinds of answers. Some answers estimate causal effects. Others describe patterns, contexts, or mechanisms. Some inform immediate decisions. Others shape long-term understanding. Treating these outputs as if they were competing on a single quality scale misunderstands their purpose.

When agencies promote a single “gold standard” label, they flatten this diversity. They encourage the view that evidence can be classified as approved or unapproved, rather than evaluated on the basis of relevance, limitations, and uncertainty. That may simplify communication, but it does so at the cost of accuracy.

Branding science in this way also risks undermining scientific literacy. The public already struggles with the idea that evidence can be strong without being definitive, useful without being conclusive. When scientific authority is wrapped in logos and slogans, it reinforces the false expectation that good science produces clear, final answers. When those answers later evolve, as science always does, trust erodes.

Ironically, the language of “gold standard science” can make it harder to communicate uncertainty honestly. If something has been labeled as the gold standard, acknowledging limits or gaps can sound like backtracking rather than transparency. Scientists know that uncertainty is a feature of good research, not a bug.

There is also a policy risk that should not be ignored. Once a single standard is named and institutionalized, it can be used to exclude evidence that does not conform to it, even when that evidence is appropriate to the question at hand. Research can be dismissed not because it is unsound, but because it does not fit a preferred methodological mold. Over time, this narrows the range of questions considered legitimate in the first place.

None of this is an argument against rigor, transparency, or accountability. Those values are central to scientific practice and public trust. But rigor is not a checklist, and credibility is not a logo. They emerge from careful alignment between questions, methods, and interpretation.

If we want science to inform policy responsibly, we need to be precise in how we talk about it. That means explaining why certain methods are appropriate in certain contexts, being honest about what different kinds of evidence can and cannot tell us, and resisting language that suggests a one-size-fits-all hierarchy of truth.

There is no such thing as gold standard science.

There is only science that is well matched to its questions, conducted transparently, and interpreted with care. Anything else may look authoritative, but it ultimately obscures how knowledge is actually made and how it should be used. They are selling pyrite.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

What Exactly Will ICE Do at Airports? No One Seems to Know.

Surprise! Just one day before Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are supposed to be deployed to airports around the country to help reduce long lines caused by the partial government shutdown and spring break crowds, the Trump administration appears to have no coherent plan for what they will do.

Following Donald Trump’s announcement that ICE agents will be sent to airports starting on Monday to fill in for Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees who have been on the job without pay for more than a month, administration officials gave conflicting statements about what exactly this would entail.

Officials at ICE were caught off guard by the president’s directive and have been rushing to create a plan, CBS News reported.

White House border czar Tom Homan, who Trump said would be in charge of the operation, told CNN on Sunday that ICE agents will be assigned to jobs like securing exit gates, allowing trained TSA officers to focus on checkpoints and reducing wait times.

“I don’t see an ICE agent looking at an X-ray machine because they’re not trained in that,” Homan said.

But when CNN host Dana Bash asked for confirmation about whether ICE agents would be posted at security screening lines, Homan responded, “Those discussions are going on now.” He said the administration hoped to have a plan “by the end of today.”

BASH: Are ICE agents going to move into American airports starting tomorrow?HOMAN: Yes. I'm currently working on the plan. We'll execute tomorrow.BASH: Are ICE agents even remotely trained to handle security at airports?HOMAN: ICE agents receive high-level training.

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-03-22T13:40:22.724Z

Meanwhile,Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy contradicted some of Homan’s statements on Sunday, telling ABC News that ICE agents could work on airport security lines because they “run those same type of security machines at the Southern border.”

“We have ICE agents who are trained and can provide assistance to agents,” Duffy continued.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees TSA as well as ICE, says more than 400 TSA workers have quit since a partial government shutdown starting on February 14 left them working with no pay. On Saturday, almost 12 percent of TSA employees didn’t come to work, the highest rate since the shutdown began, according to ABC News.

The Trump administration blames the government shutdown and TSA shortages on Democrats. As Mother Jones’ Michael Mechanic has pointed out:

Democrats [have] refused to provide more funds until Republicans agree to various reforms related to deployment, training, and management of ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents. . .

Democratic lawmakers also seek to curtail ICE’s rampant use of surveillance technology and ensure the rights of states and lawmakers to investigate alleged human rights abuses at the immigrant detention centers the administration has set up.

But on Saturday, every single Republican voted against the latest Democratic bill to fund the TSA while the negotiations continue over DHS reforms. “This is the seventh time Republicans have blocked pay for TSA,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York posted on Bluesky. “Seven. Times.”

The funding impasse does not directly affect ICE, Mechanic noted, but the shutdown has frozen other DHS activities, including the processing of paychecks for TSA staff, who are considered essential employees.

It remains unclear whether ICE agents will simply carry out the same tasks as TSA employees or if they will make airports another hub for violence under the guise of “immigration enforcement.”

Trump posted on Truth Social on Saturday that ICE agents would “do Security like no one has ever seen before, including the immediate arrest of all Illegal Immigrants.” In his post, he singled out immigrants from Somalia, who he claimed have “totally destroyed” Minnesota—a narrative that he and his administration used to justify the ICE crackdown in Minneapolis this winter.

Referring to the deaths of Renée Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of federal agents in Minneapolis in January, House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) responded on Sunday, “The last thing the American people need is for untrained ICE agents to be deployed at airports across the country potentially to brutalize or to kill them.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Treasury Secretary Insists Trump Is “Jiu-Jitsuing the Iranians”

“Sometimes you have to escalate to de-escalate.”

That’s how Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended Donald Trump’s threats against Iranian leaders and infrastructure on Sunday, insisting on NBC’s Meet the Press that such bluster is “the only language the Iranians understand.”

On Saturday night, the president posted on Truth Social that if Iran doesn’t “FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT” the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours, the US military would “hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!”

Around 20 percent of the world’s oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran has effectively blocked transit since the US and Israeli strikes beginning on February 28.

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s Parliament, was defiant on Sunday, warning that that attacks on Iran’s infrastructure would mean “energy and oil facilities across the region will be considered legitimate targets and will be irreversibly destroyed.”

The US has steered away from hitting Iran’s oil infrastructure in the past month, and Trump reportedly told Israel that they should not repeat strikes on major energy plants after Iran responded to an Israeli attack on a key gas field last Thursday by hitting Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City, which processes about a fifth of the world’s liquid natural gas.

Last week, Bessent announced that the administration was lifting sanctions on approximately 140 million barrels of Iranian crude currently stranded on tankers, in an attempt to relieve skyrocketing oil prices. On March 12, Bessent said the administration was temporarily lifting sanctions on Russian oil also stranded at sea that were imposed because of its war on Ukraine.

Bessent doubled down on defending Trump’s actions on Sunday, telling Meet the Press host Kristen Welker repeatedly that she has “terrible framing” when she questioned the administration’s plans in Iran. “We are jiu-jitsuing the Iranians,” he insisted. “We are using their own oil against them.”

In one instance, Welker asked Bessent whether Trump would ever raise taxes to fund the war—a pertinent question as the Pentagon is reportedly seeking $200 billion from Congress to pay for the conflict.

“It’s a ridiculous question,” Bessent said. After an awkward pause, he said, “Why would we do that? We have plenty. We have a trillion dollars in this year’s budget for the military.”

WELKER: Would the administration ever raise taxes in order to fund this war?BESSENT: Again, Kristen, terrible framingWELKER: It's a simple questionBESSENT: It's a ridiculous questionWELKER: Can you answer it?BESSENT: Why would we do that? We have plenty. We have a trillion dollars.

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-03-22T14:22:16.706Z

Speaking on whether Trump would deploy troops in Iran to secure the Strait of Hormuz or another operation, Bessent said, “The command and control system of the Iranian regime is in chaos. This is Hitler’s bunker. Hitler is dead.” And because of the disarray among its leadership, he asserted, Iran’s retaliation to strikes are mostly “lone wolf activities.”

“It’s like they’ve never read a history book,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said on Meet the Press shortly following the Treasury secretary’s appearance. “That’s exactly what our leaders said in the middle of Vietnam and in the 20 years of mismanagement in Afghanistan.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Threatens to Send ICE to Airports to Ease TSA Security Delays

The DHS shutdown battle heated up on Saturday as President Donald Trump threatened to send “brilliant and patriotic” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel to the nation’s airports to do security and relieve TSA workers, who are starting to rebel after going without pay since February 14.

The shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security began on midnight that day, as Democrats refused to provide more funds until Republicans agree to various reforms related to deployment, training, and management of ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents. The intrusive and violent conduct of federal agents in Minneapolis—where they killed two US citizens and assaulted and detained many more—fueled widespread outrage and contributed to the recent ouster of former Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem.

TSA officers require two to three weeks of academy training and months of on-the-job training. ICE agents would have none of that.

Democratic lawmakers also seek to curtail ICE’s rampant use of surveillance technology and ensure the rights of states and lawmakers to investigate alleged human rights abuses at the immigrant detention centers the administration has set up.

The funding impasse does not directly affect ICE, which the Republican-controlled Congress has bankrolled at unheard-of levels, but the shutdown has frozen other DHS activities, including the processing of paychecks for TSA staff, who are considered essential employees.

It is a felony offense for federal workers to go on strike, but after more than a month without pay, a fair number of TSA personnel have been missing days, calling in sick, and seeking jobs elsewhere. This has created nightmarish security lines at airports, putting pressure on both parties to make a deal. It’s been quite the a war of words.

This is the only thing you need to know. Democrats want to open TSA. Republicans are refusing because they want to attach ICE funding. That’s why there are long lines. ICE.

Chris Murphy (@chrismurphyct.bsky.social) 2026-03-21T12:42:49.078Z

ZERO Republican Senators voted to fund TSA.This is the seventh time Republicans have blocked pay for TSA. Seven. Times.They would rather hold TSA hostage to try to force billions more for an unrestrained, out of control ICE. Despicable.

Chuck Schumer (@schumer.senate.gov) 2026-03-21T19:08:10.113Z

Nobody wants long lines, in any case. Trump’s solution? Unleash the hounds!The same ones whose aggressive, legally dubious tactics and disrespect for the public helped to inspire this mess in the first place. Naturally, Trump couldn’t pass up on the opportunity to take a shot at his latest favorite targets: Somali immigrants and arch-nemesis Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)

It could indeed be “security like no one has ever seen.” Because if Trump is serious about sending ICE to perform TSA duties, it raises questions as to what, exactly, they would be doing—and their eligibility to perform those tasks. To become a Transportation Security Officer requires two to three weeks of immersive academy training, followed by months of on-the-job training.

ICE agents are poorly trained even for their own duties (ditto CBP), and that, together with government officials publicly signaling that agents are above the law, has been a recipe for disaster.

Of course, ICE agents wouldn’t have to complete TSA academy training if they were merely serving in the role of Security Support Assistants. These are the people who manage lines and do “bin control,” typically as they await the results of a background check so they can move on with their training—one Redditor called them “glorified bin pushers.”

But even then, the ICE personnel may not qualify. “TSOs and SSAs spend a lot of time interfacing with the public and providing customer service,” the TSA careers website notes.

One key qualification: “You’re a people person.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Judge Sides With New York Times Against Pentagon’s Press Restrictions

In a blow to the Trump administration’s ongoing campaign against a free press, a federal judge on Friday ruled in favor of the New York Times in its December suit against the Pentagon’s restrictions on news outlets.

Senior US District Judge Paul L. Friedman, a Clinton-appointee, ruled that a policy the Defense Department established in October, saying the Pentagon could revoke press credentials of any reporter who asked for information the department didn’t want to release was unconstitutional.

“A lot of things need to be held tightly and secure,” Friedman wrote. “But openness and transparency allows members of the public to know what their government is doing in times of peace and, more important, in times of war and upheaval.” The United States ongoing war against Iran, the judge said in his ruling, makes it “more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing.”

In the wake of the Pentagon’s restrictive decree, dozens of reporters—including seven Times journalists—turned in their access badges in protest instead of bowing to the new policy. Five major broadcast networks, too, announced that they weren’t going to comply with the Pentagon’s new rules, writing in a joint statement that the “policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections.” NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, and CNN signed on, along with Fox News Media, where Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth used to work before heading up the world’s biggest military operation.

In the absence of these journalists, the Defense Department filled in the ranks with pro-Trump commentators and influencers. Friedman noted in his ruling that the policy rewarded those “willing to publish only stories that are favorable to or spoon-fed by department leadership.” On Friday, he tossed out the policy for all journalists covering the Pentagon and ordered the DOD to restore the press passes of the seven Times journalists.

In a social media post, Sean Parnell, chief spokesman at the Pentagon, said it is “pursuing an immediate appeal.”

Friday’s ruling is a key win for press freedom in the administration’s ongoing legal battles againstmedia organizations he views as unfriendly. Trump is currently embroiled in legal battles against the Wall Street Journal and News Corp. founder Rupert Murdoch, the New York Times (in a different case), the British Broadcasting Company, the Des Moines Register and veteran pollster Ann Selzer, the Pulitzer Prize board, Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward and his publisher Simon & Schuster, along with media giant Paramount, and CNN.

While some organizations—like Paramount Global and ABC News—have settled with the President, others, like the Times, have pushed back on Trump in court—and won.

On the whole, these legal attacks represent an unparalleled offensive on press freedom from a figure who has been raging against news organizations and individual journalists for decades. During his first term and beyond, on social media and face-to-face, he has attacked the media relentlessly as the “enemy of the people” and incited followers to harass reporters covering his rallies. He calls journalists treasonous and says they should be jailed.

According to a US Press Freedom Tracker database, from the moment Trump announced that candidacy in 2015 to early 2021, he posted negatively about the media more than 2,490 times on Twitter. He often reserves his most biting personal insults for women—since Trump was re-elected he has called female reporters “stupid,” “nasty,” “ugly,” “piggy,” and “maggot.” He also criticized CNN’s Kaitlan Collins for not smiling—a misogynistic trope—as she was asking him a question about Jeffrey Epstein.

Following Judge Friedman’s ruling on Friday, a spokesman for the Times wrote that the decision “reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf.”

Continue Reading…