Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

The Supreme Court Looks Likely to Uphold Transgender School Sports Bans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

— Federal Reserve (@federalreserve) January 12, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Scenes of Escalating Violence, Chaos, and Resistance in Minneapolis

Minneapolis remains on edge after the ICE killing of Renée Good last Wednesday. As ICE and Border Patrol operations intensify—Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Sunday that “hundreds more” agents are being sent to the city—residents continue to spill into the streets, filming, heckling, and tracking federal vehicles, block by block.

Following this drama closely is reporter Amanda Moore, who puts it simply: “Yeah, it’s chaos.” Over the weekend she captured confrontations she describes as “extremely violent,” including a St. Paul gas station scene where agents “busted out the window of a car.” (According the DHS, the man driving the car was a Honduran national with a final removal order.)

Amanda says the mood is a mix of fear and fury, with residents watching arrests unfold up close and, at times, finding themselves surrounded by “masked men… banging on your windows carrying guns.” Her bottom line on the enforcement posture: “Everything is very aggressive.”

Even the timing, she notes, might be a signal of escalation. Amanda says Sundays were normally a day off from the front lines—“you could do your laundry and watch TV.” With the ramp-up of federal agents, “I guess not anymore.”

Check out her latest dispatch.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Thank the Supreme Court for Trump’s Latest Attack on the Federal Reserve

In their swift march toward installing a kind of Oval Office monarchy over the past year, the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority has signaled that it would give the president unfettered power over federal agencies, even ones Congress tried to carve out as independent from partisan politics. But last spring, the GOP wing attempted to insulate the Federal Reserve, whose independence is a cornerstone of retirement accounts and the global economy, from presidential manipulation. In a mere sentence in a shadow docket order, they assured investors that the Fed was simply different from all other agencies, and so President Donald Trump could not fire its leaders at will.

The GOP-appointed justices foolishly thought they could secure the Fed’s independence.

The idea that the justices could empower Trump but also contain that power is a folly we see repeated throughout history. It is the hubris of a group of people who think they can control a would-be authoritarian; that he will be useful to their purposes without ever turning on them. If you give someone like Trump every power but one, he will find a way to take the last one too.

And so late Sunday, news broke that the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, over testimony he gave to Congress about the renovation of the Fed’s Washington headquarters. On Sunday night, Powell, who has tried to avoid a confrontation with Trump for months, released a defiant video accusing the administration of using the Justice Department investigation as a back-door means to control interest rates. “This unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration’s threats and ongoing pressure,” Powell said. “This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions—or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.”

That is exactly right. The GOP-appointed justices foolishly thought that if they insulated the governors of the Fed from presidential removal without cause, that would be enough to secure the board’s independence, and with it the economic stability that comes with an independent body setting monetary policy. But the court’s rapid expansion of presidential power elsewhere had already swallowed that possibility.

In 2024, as Trump was staring down a criminal trial for trying to overturn the 2020 election results while running for president, the Republican-appointees rode to his rescue with a shocking new doctrine of presidential immunity. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court’s rightwing majority announced that presidents could not be prosecuted for criminal acts that are within their core powers, and have near total immunity for other official acts. What counts as a core power is not entirely clear, but one of them is: the power to investigate and prosecute. Roberts’ infamous decision in Trump v. United States did not just protect Trump from prosecution, it gave him the power to use criminal investigation and prosecution to harass, intimidate, impoverish, and coerce anyone—even with sham prosecutions ginned up for political purposes.

With the immunity case, Roberts handed Trump a loaded weapon. Now, he is using that weapon to take control of the Fed. Even though the norm of prosecutorial independence was not ironclad, Trump v. United States discarded the idea that the attorney general serves the people rather than the president. Further, it okayed the use of the DOJ’s prosecutorial functions in the furtherance of a presidential crime. “The Trump Court said explicitly that the president’s exclusive and preclusive power over investigation and prosecution includes the power to direct sham investigations and prosecutions, i.e., ones that have no lawful basis,” former New York University School of Law dean Trevor Morrison told me last year. Prosecutions no longer need to be tethered to reality.

Back in office, Trump’s administration has taken the decision to heart: the president himself is unconstrained, while politically-motivated prosecutions hound his critics. You can see that in Trump’s October directive to Attorney General Pam Bondi, which he accidentally shared publicly, to investigate three people he doesn’t like: former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Leticia James, and Sen. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California who oversaw Trump’s first impeachment in 2019. While there is no such public directive from Trump to Bondi or his longtime toady Jeanine Pirro, the US attorney in DC, ordering up an investigation into Powell, it’s clear that the prosecution is Trump’s brainchild. Trump has spent months contemplating Powell’s removal while criticizing the expensive renovation project.

Powell isn’t the first member of the Federal Reserve that Trump has targeted. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments over Trump’s attempt to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook while a criminal case against her proceeds—one that likewise appears to be bogus and inspired by a desire to take control of the Fed.

“The Trump Court said explicitly that the president… includes the power to direct sham investigations .”

Frighteningly, the Fed does much more than set interest rates, and control of its bottomless money supply and other powers could transform it into a slush fund to reward loyalists and family members and to de-bank and financially destroy Trump’s enemies. Moreover, access to the Fed’s coffers could allow Trump to circumvent Congress’ spending authority, transforming Trump into a government of one. What could be more tempting to a wannabe king?

The idea that the justices could give Trump such a weapon but control where he aimed it was always absurd. The immunity decision built upon a series of rulings issued by Roberts which embraced the so-called unitary executive theory, the idea that the president must have total control over the executive branch. This theory has been a hobbyhorse of the right since the 1980s, used to circumvent Congress and agency expertise in favor of deregulation. Since Trump’s return to office, the justices have deployed the theory to greenlight Trump’s power grabs, including his assertions of complete control over independent agencies—the ones the justices promised were somehow different from the Fed.

In recent years, critics have warned that the unitary executive theory is a fast-track to autocracy, because agency expertise and independence are key elements of modern democracies. The all-powerful presidency envisioned by the unitary executive theory, by contrast, mimics authoritarian takeovers in countries like Turkey and Hungary where democracy has recently eroded, giving an intellectual gloss to what looks, under Trump, to be a constitutional coup. But Roberts and his colleagues have plowed ahead, using Trump’s power grabs to create their long-sought uber-powerful presidency. Roberts’ opinions justified this expansion of presidential power on the grounds that the president was uniquely democratically accountable; but predictably, the more power he has given Trump, the less accountable he has become.

The criminal investigation of Powell demonstrates Trump’s insatiable desire to control the levers of the economy. It also shows how silly Trump’s allies in robes have been in assuming that Trump would stay within the limits they set for him. A thoughtful court would have surely realized that handing the president control over almost every lever of power would give him the tools to take over the rest. But this court’s GOP-appointed majority has rushed breathlessly forward, not willing to contemplate either the ramifications of their own actions or the limits of their power.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s War Against Jerome Powell Enters a Dark New Chapter

Anger is mounting among Republicans after Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell revealed on Sunday that the Justice Department had opened a criminal investigation into him, marking an extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s public efforts to coerce Powell into lowering interest rates.

“If there were any remaining doubt whether advisers within the Trump Administration are actively pushing to end the independence of the Federal Reserve, there should now be none,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, said in a scathing statement on Sunday. “It is now the independence and credibility of the Department of Justice that are in question.”

Tillis then vowed to oppose the confirmation of any nominee for the Fed until the legal matter is “fully resolved.” This includes the upcoming Chair vacancy as Powell is due to step down as Chair in May, though he may continue to serve on the board afterward.

Calling the investigation “nothing more than an attempt at coercion,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) appeared to go a step further, suggesting that it is the Justice Department that should be investigated—not Powell. “If the Department of Justice believes an investigation into Chair Powell is warranted based on project cost overruns—which are not unusual—then Congress needs to investigate the Department of Justice,” she added.

According to Powell, the Justice Department’s investigation relates to testimony he gave before the Senate Banking Committee last June about renovations of the Federal Reserve’s office headquarters in Washington. The costly renovations have prompted the president and his allies to baselessly suggest that fraud may have been committed. As Powell said in his video statement on Sunday, such assertions are widely viewed as a cover for Trump’s campaign to pressure Powell to cut interest rates and lower the cost of federal debt.

“This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions—or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation,” Powell said in a rare video message.

Powell, a Republican who was first nominated as a member of the Federal Reserve board by Barack Obama and later promoted to Chair by Trump during his first term, vowed to continue his duty of public service, which “sometimes requires standing firm in the face of threats.”

News of the criminal investigation comes as the Fed’s rate-setting meeting is scheduled to take place later this month, where it is expected to halt its recent rate cuts.

Shortly after Powell’s announcement, Trump claimed in an interview with NBC News on Sunday that he did not have any knowledge of the DOJ’s investigation into the Federal Reserve. The president also denied that the subpoenas had anything to do with pressuring Powell on interest rates.

“What should pressure him is the fact that rates are far too high,” Trump said. “That’s the only pressure he’s got.”

But Trump’s own words leading up to the subpoenas appear to contradict his denials. In fact, it was as recently as December 29 when Trump publicly suggested that he may pursue legal action against Powell about the Federal Reserve building renovations.

“It’s going to end up causing more than $4 billion—$4 billion!” Trump said in a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, insisting it was the “highest price of construction per square foot in the history of the world.”

“He’s just a very incompetent man, but we’re going to probably bring a lawsuit against him,” Trump added.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), who sits on the House Financial Services Committee, told Politico that “the independence of the Federal Reserve is paramount and I oppose any effort to pressure them into action.”

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Powell’s statement or criticism from Republican lawmakers.

The dollar has since dropped, with the price of gold jumping to a record price after news of the DOJ’s investigation broke.

Trump’s attacks on the Federal Reserve go well beyond Powell. In August, the president attempted to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the board, based on unproven allegations of mortgage fraud, as part of the same campaign to pressure the Fed into lowering rates. The Supreme Court temporarily blocked Trump’s move, and it is scheduled to hear arguments next week. The case will decide whether the president has the power to fire a board member of the Federal Reserve for any reason.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Protesters Decrying the Killing of Renée Good Know What They Saw with Their Own Eyes

In the immediate aftermath of the ICE killing of Renée Good in Minneapolis last week, the Trump administration smeared her as a “domestic terrorist,” claiming that she had weaponized her vehicle. They labeled Good a “violent rioter” and insisted every new video angle proved their version of the truth: Good was a menace and the ICE agent a potential victim. That’s despite video evidence to the contrary, showing Good, by all appearances, trying to leave the scene of the altercation, while ICE agents acted aggressively. Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, spent Sunday doubling down, insisting that Good had supposedly been “breaking the law by impeding and obstructing a law enforcement operation.”

Last Thursday, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz invoked Orwell’s 1984 to describe this break between what millions of people saw, and what Trump and his allies insisted had taken place: “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears,” he quoted. “It was their final, most essential command.”

So, on Sunday, I joined the throng in Manhattan for one of many dozens of protests held around the country this past weekend. In the middle of Fifth Avenue, surrounded by raucous, defiant New Yorkers, I asked protesters the simple question: What did you see?

“I mean, it seems like the bottomless, self-radicalizing thing that the government is going through,” said Anne Perryman, 85, a former journalist. “Is there any point when they’re actually at the bottom, and they’re not going to get any worse? I don’t think so.”

“I think there’s a small minority of Americans who are buying that,” said Kobe Amos, a 29-year-old lawyer, describing reactions to the government’s gaslighting. “It’s obviously enough to do a lot of damage. But if you look around, people are angry.”

“I saw an agent that overreacted,” he added, “and did something that was what—I think it’s murder.”

Protesters also described a growing resolve amid the anger sweeping the country. “This moment has been in the works for too long,” said Elizabeth Hamby, a 45-year-old public servant and mom. “But it is our time now to say this ends with us…Because we want to be a part of the work of turning this tide in a different direction.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Invaded Venezuela to Restore an Oil Industry He Helped Destroy

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

The middle-of-the-night kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro shocked the world on Saturday. Military helicopters bombed Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, as U.S. special forces breached Maduro’s residence, captured him, and flew him to New York to stand trial on unproven charges of narcoterrorism. President Donald Trump has offered several justifications for Maduro’s ouster, including the collapse of Venezuela’s oil industry. But the very conditions Trump has been pointing to were exacerbated by the actions of past US presidents—including Trump himself. If the Venezuelan oil industry is in tatters, it’s at least partially because of US policies dating back at least a decade.

On Wednesday, Trump’s Department of Energy put out a “fact sheet” stipulating that the US is “selectively rolling back sanctions to enable the transport and sale of Venezuelan crude and oil products to global markets.” This outcome is doubly ironic because U.S. sanctions are one of the reasons the Venezuelan oil industry is diminished in the first place. The announcement also states that the US will market Venezuelan oil, bank the proceeds, and disburse the revenue “for the benefit of the American people and the Venezuelan people at the discretion of the US government.”

“They were pumping almost nothing by comparison to what they could have been pumping.”

Maduro first drew the ire of President Trump in 2017 after the Venezuelan government stripped powers from the opposition-controlled legislature and violently suppressed mass protests. Trump responded by imposing sanctions on Maduro, several senior officials, and Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, significantly broadening the targeted sanctions that the Obama administration first imposed in 2015. Speaking to reporters at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, that August, Trump said he would not rule out a “military option” in Venezuela.

Two years later, after Maduro secured a second term in a contested election, the Trump administration dramatically escalated its pressure campaign, announcing a full oil embargo on the country. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves and produces a kind of heavy crude used to make diesel fuel and petrochemicals. At the time, the United States received roughly 40 percent of Venezuelan oil exports. The embargo severed not only that trade but also exports to European Union countries, India, and other US allies. Suddenly, Venezuela was largely cut off from global markets.

By the time sanctions kicked in, Venezuela’s oil production was already slipping. Low oil prices in the early 2010s caused instability for an industry that had long been plagued by mismanagement, corruption, and underinvestment. But the sanctions delivered a devastating blow.

“When they cut off the ability of the government to export their oil and access international finance, it was all downhill from there,” said Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, an economic policy think tank. “It was economic violence to punish Venezuelans.”

Even as global oil prices rose again, the sanctions had limited Venezuelan exports and prevented the country from rebuilding its oil sector. With few buyers and little access to financing or technology, oil output collapsed by nearly 80 percent by the end of the decade, compared to its 2012 peak. Most of those sanctions remained in place under the Biden administration, and experts say the cumulative effect was the near-total collapse of Venezuelan oil production—damage that President Trump is now using as justification for his military strike against the country this week.

While the Trump administration’s precise motivations are not entirely clear, the president has described Venezuela’s oil industry as a “total bust” in interviews following the US capture of Maduro.

“They were pumping almost nothing by comparison to what they could have been pumping and what could have taken place,” Trump said on Saturday. He added that US oil companies will spend billions of dollars to “fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”

But there are few signs that oil companies are eager to return. For one, prices are hovering around $60 a barrel, which is roughly the break-even point for many companies. And without political stability, oil majors are unlikely to commit the billions of dollars necessary to restart production in Venezuela’s oil fields. The Trump administration has reportedly scheduled a meeting with oil companies for later this week to discuss a possible reentry. For now, Chevron is the only US company with active operations in the country.

The sanctions reshaped the global flow of oil. When the United States banned Venezuelan oil, the US Gulf Coast refiners who specialize in heavy crude turned to new suppliers in Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. Elsewhere, countries that had depended on Venezuelan oil increasingly turned to Russia. Other oil-producing countries also increased their production to make up for the declining exports from Venezuela.

The sanctions also had ripple effects far beyond the oil sector. By cutting off Venezuela’s ability to access international finance, they dealt a huge blow to an economy highly dependent on imports. Unable to borrow, the country struggled to purchase basic necessities such as food and medicine. At the same time, the oil embargo blocked the export of its most profitable asset. The result was a stranglehold on the country’s economy that drove poverty and deaths. Patients with HIV, diabetes, and hypertension were not able to access life-saving drugs. One study at the time estimated that some 40,000 additional deaths could be attributed to the economic conditions caused by the sanctions.

“When you can’t get the things that you need to produce electricity and clean water, all kinds of diseases get worse,” said Weisbrot.

Even before the latest attacks against Venezuela, the United States’ sanctions against the country were described as “economic warfare” by a former United Nations rapporteur and other international law experts. While it’s unclear how the Trump administration plans to proceed, restoring the semblance of a functional economy in Venezuela and undoing the damage of past US policy may take decades.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Kristi Noem Claims Trump Is Enforcing the Law Equally. That’s Obviously False.

Kristi Noem spent Sunday defending the actions of ICE agent Jonathan Ross, who shot and killed Renée Nicole Good in Minneapolis last week. The Trump administration, she asserted, was fully committed to ensuring that laws are enforced evenhandedly.

But it quickly became clear that wasn’t true.

During the Sunday interview on CNN’s State of the Union, the Secretary of Homeland Security reiterated the Trump administration’s position on the shooting, insisting that Good had supposedly been “breaking the law by impeding and obstructing a law enforcement operation.” Noem repeated the extremely dubious allegation that Good had “weaponized” her vehicle to “attack” Ross in “an act of domestic terrorism.” And she said that Good had “harassed” law enforcement at additional locations throughout the morning.

“These officers were doing their due diligence—what their training had prepared them to do—to make sure they were handling it appropriately,” Noem insisted.

But when anchor Jake Tapper played video of the January 6 insurrection, Noem struggled to explain how Trump’s mass pardons for the Capitol rioters could be reconciled with the administration’s current support for federal law enforcement.

“Every single situation is going to rely on the situation those officers are on,” she said, without directly mentioning the Capitol attack. “But they know that when people are putting hands on them, when they are using weapons against them, when they’re physically harming them, that they have the authority to arrest those individuals.”

Tapper to Noem: "I just showed you video of people attacking law enforcement officers on January 6. Undisputed evidence, and I just said, President Trump pardoned all of them. You said that President Trump is enforcing all the laws equally. That's just not true. There's a… pic.twitter.com/WjZPqgCVhj

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 11, 2026

As Tapper pointed out, Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of every single January 6 defendant on his first day back in office—suggesting that the president is willing to tolerate some assaults on federal law enforcement. But Noem, improbably, maintained that the Trump administration was consistent. “When we’re out there, we don’t pick and choose which situations and which laws are enforced and which ones aren’t,” she said. “Every single one of them is being enforced under the Trump administration.”

“That’s just not true,” Tapper responded. “There’s a different standard for law enforcement officials being attacked if they’re being attacked by Trump supporters.”

Later in the show, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey rejected Noem’s allegation that Good was intentionally attacking Ross and said that the Trump administration’s portrayal of Minneapolis as an unsafe city that requires more federal law enforcement is unfounded.

“You know how many shootings we’ve had this year? Two. And one of them was ICE,” Frey said. “ICE and Kristi Noem and everything they’re doing is making it far less safe.”

According to an analysis of Minneapolis crime data by the Minnesota Star Tribune, gun violence peaked during pandemic lockdown, but shootings have declined since then in all but one of the city’s five police precincts.

As Noah Lanard reported on Thursday, immigration agents across the country have shot at least nine people since September. All of them were in cars, despite cops being trained not to shoot at moving vehicles and, instead, to get out of the way. Noah spoke with Seth Stoughton, a professor of law and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina and a former Florida police officer, who cited the long history of people getting hurt when police shoot at moving vehicles.

Meanwhile, many Democrats have called for new rules to curb abuses by federal immigration officers, including a requirement to show warrants prior to making arrests. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) is expected to introduce legislation to push these changes.

“In many ways they’ve become lawless at this point,” one House Democrat said Friday, according to the Hill. “No search warrants. Masks. Refusing to tell people why they’re being picked up. Deporting people to places without telling their family. You can’t have that.”

On Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC, Murphy said that his proposal is not a “sweeping” reform but simply aims to return to when ICE “cared about legality.”

“It’s reasonable for Democrats, speaking on behalf of the majority of the American public who don’t approve of what ICE is doing, to say, ‘If you want to fund DHS, I want to fund a DHS that is operating in a safe and legal manner,’” Murphy said.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

They Want You to “Quit Demonstrating”

Two days after an ICE agent shot and killed Renée Good in Minneapolis, Rep. Roger Williams issued an ultimatum to the Trump administration’s critics in Minnesota and beyond.

“People need to quit demonstrating, quit yelling at law enforcement, challenging law enforcement, and begin to get civil,” the Texas Republican told NewsNation. “And until we do that, I guess we’re going to have it this way. And the people that are staying in their homes or doing the right thing need to be protected.”

Rep. Roger Williams: "People need to quit demonstrating, quit yelling at law enforcement, challenging law enforcement, and begin to get civil." pic.twitter.com/r5TFLgFHy1

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 9, 2026

That’s a pretty clear encapsulation of MAGA-world’s views on dissent these days. You aren’t supposed to protest. You aren’t supposed to “yell at” or “challenge” the militarized federal agents occupying your city. And anyone who wants to be “protected” should probably just stay “in their homes.” Williams isn’t some fringe backbencher; he’s a seven-term congressman who chairs the House Small Business Committee. He is announcing de facto government policy.

For nearly a year, President Donald Trump and his allies have been engaged in an escalating assault on the First Amendment. The administration has systematically targeted or threatened many of Trump’s most prominent critics: massive law firms, Jimmy Kimmel, even, at one point, Elon Musk. But it’s worth keeping in mind that some of the earliest victims of the president’s second-term war on speech were far less powerful.

Early last year, ICE began arresting and attempting to deport people with legal immigration status—such as Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk—who had engaged in pro-Palestinian activism or expressed pro-Palestinian views. The administration was explicit about the new policy. Troy Edgar, Trump’s deputy secretary of Homeland Security, made clear that the government was seeking to remove Khalil in large part because he’d chosen to “protest” against Israel. Asked about such cases, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that engaging in “anti-American, antisemitic, pro-Hamas protest will not be tolerated.”

It should have been obvious at the time that Trump allies were laying the groundwork for an even broader crackdown. “When it comes to protesters, we gotta make sure we treat all of them the same: Send them to jail,” said Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) in March, discussing Khalil’s arrest on Fox Business Network. “Free speech is great, but hateful, hate, free speech is not what we need in these universities.”

That’s pretty close to Williams’ demand on Friday that “people need to quit demonstrating.” It also sounds a lot like Attorney General Pam Bondi’s widely derided threat in September that the DOJ “will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

Hate speech—regardless of what the Trump administration thinks that means—is protected by the First Amendment. Bondi can’t prosecute people for expressing views she dislikes. And ICE can’t deport US citizens like Good.

But of course, federal law enforcement has more direct ways to exert control. “The bottom line is this,” said Rep. Wesley Hunt, a Texas Republican running for US Senate, in the wake of Good’s death. “When a federal officer gives you instructions, you abide by them and then you get to keep your life.”

Rep. Wesley Hunt: "The bottom line is this: when a federal officer gives you instructions, you abide by them and then you get to keep you life" pic.twitter.com/JhA09qoT8r

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 7, 2026

Moment’s later, Newsmax anchor Carl Higbie complained to Hunt that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) had “literally told Minnesotans to get out and protest and that it is, quote, ‘a patriotic duty.'”

“People are going to go out there,” Higbie warned ominously. “And what do you think is going to happen when you get 3, 4, 5,000 people—some of which are paid agitators—thinking it’s their ‘patriotic duty’ to oppose ICE?”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

LA Wildfire Victims Remain Stuck in Toxic Homes: “We Have Nowhere Else to Go”

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

One year on from the Eaton Fire, long after the vicious winds that sent embers cascading from the San Gabriel mountains and the flames that swallowed entire streets, a shadow still hangs over Altadena.

Construction on new properties is under way, and families whose homes survived the fire have begun to return. But many are grappling with an urgent question: is it safe to be here?

The fire upended life in this part of Los Angeles county. By the time firefighters brought it under control, 19 people were dead, tens of thousands displaced and nearly 9,500 structures destroyed, primarily in Altadena but also in Pasadena and Sierra Madre.

A black-and-white graphic showing the extent of the Eaton fire in orange.

Guardian graphic. Fire extent source: Cal Fire. Building damage source: analysis of Copernicus Sentinel-1 satellite data by Corey Scher of CUNY Graduate Center and Jamon Van Den Hoek of Oregon State University. Using building data from Oak Ridge National Laboratory and fire perimeters from NIFC/FIRIS. All times are localGuardian graphic. Fire extent source: Cal Fire. Building damage source: analysis of Copernicus Sentinel-1 satellite data by Corey Scher of CUNY Graduate Center and Jamon Van Den Hoek of Oregon State University. Using building data from Oak Ridge National Laboratory and fire perimeters from NIFC/FIRIS. Note: all times are local

The flames incinerated many older homes and businesses filled with lead paint and asbestos. They showered the community with toxins, leaving tall piles of ash and unseen traces of heavy metals in the soil and along and inside standing structures. Research has indicated some hazards remain even after properties have undergone remediation, the clean-up process that is supposed to restore homes and ensure they are safe to occupy.

As Altadena fights to return, residents—some eager to stay in the community and others who simply can’t afford to go anywhere else—are facing immense challenges while trying to rebuild their lives and come back home.

Official information about the health risks was limited early on and those returning often only learned about the dangers as they went. Some people have developed health concerns such as migraines and respiratory issues. Many are still battling their insurance companies to fully cover their costs, and make certain their homes are habitable.

Their predicament highlights the increased dangers that come with urban fires, and shows how Altadena has come to serve as a sort of living laboratory with scientists and residents learning in real time.

Nicole Maccalla, a data scientist, and her family moved back into their Altadena home over the summer after their property underwent an extensive cleanup process, but their air purifiers still register high levels of particulate matter, heavy sediment appears when they vacuum and when it rains the distinctive smell from the fire returns.

“The toll of displacement was really high on my family. And I just had to move home and try [to] mitigate risk and keep fighting the good fight,” she said. “There’s always that back-of-your-mind concern: Did I make the right choice? But I also don’t have other choices.”

Early on in those first careening hours of the fire, as thick smoke and ash fell like snow over her yard, Dawn Fanning was sure her home would not be spared. The wind was blowing from the fire straight to the Spanish bungalow the producer shared with her adult son, and it seemed there was no way to stop it.

A woman leans against a wooden pillar, posing for a portrait.

Dawn Fanning outside her home in Pasadena, California, on December 28 2025. The interior of her home has been found to have lead and asbestos after the Eaton Fire.Stella Kalinina/Guardian

Fanning’s home, miraculously, escaped the flames. But, while the stucco structure was intact—clothes still hanging undisturbed in her closet and her son’s baby photos packed carefully in bins in the garage—it hadn’t been unscathed either. Virtually nothing in Altadena was.

“It’s dusty and there’s piles of ash in the windowsills and on the floor. At first glance, it doesn’t look any different,” Fanning said. “Your house looks the same—but it’s not. There’s toxicity in your attic and in your crawlspace and on your mattresses and on all the things.”

Confused and frustrated with the local government’s handling of health concerns, Maccalla and Fanning joined other fire survivors to form Eaton Fire Residents United in hopes of ensuring the impacted areas recover safely. The community group is developing testing and remediation guidelines, gathered hygienic testing reports of hundreds of homes, and advocated for fire survivors and workers.

“When she awoke at 3 a.m., the blaze had formed a horseshoe shape around her house, and smoke filled the room.”

“There [have been] huge threats to the health and safety of residents, children in schools, elderly and immunocompromised, workers that are coming into this area that are being exposed to hazards in the workplace,” Maccalla said. “We’re still trying to work on that and get the protections people need.”

Barely 15 miles north-east of downtown Los Angeles, Altadena at the start of last year was home to some 43,000 people, many lured by the affordable home prices, proximity to the mountains and bucolic feel. It has long been one of the most diverse cities in the region with a thriving Black community that began to grow during the great migration.

In the early evening on January 7 2025, Fanning, who had lived in her home in the area for two decades, had a feeling she couldn’t shake that something could go very wrong. There were treacherous winds that forecasters warned posed a serious fire risk. Already, a fire was spreading rapidly on the other side of the county in the Pacific Palisades, where frantic residents were trying to evacuate and firefighters were clearing the area.

Some 35 miles away, Fanning and her son were watching coverage of the unfolding fire while readying their property. Then came an alert—not from officials—but from a local meteorologist who was telling his followers to get out now_._ Fanning spotted flames several blocks away and she and her son decided it was time to leave.

A few miles to the east, Rosa Robles was evacuating with her grandchild in tow, leaving her husband and adult children. She wanted them to go—but they were protecting the home. Armed with garden hoses, they tried to save the residence and the other houses on their block. Sometimes the wind was so strong it blew the water back in their faces, Robles said.

Maccalla’s power had gone out that morning, and she and her children were sitting around watching the TV drama Fire Country on an iPad in the dark when they got the call about the fire. It seemed far away at the time, Maccalla recalled, and she felt prepared as a member of a community emergency response team.

They got out lamps and began packing in case they needed to leave. She set alarms hourly to monitor the progress of the fire while her children slept.

When she awoke at three, the blaze had formed a horseshoe shape around her house, and smoke filled the room. The family evacuated with their two dogs and two cats.

Tamara Artin had returned from work to see chaos on the street, with fierce winds and billowing smoke all around the house she rented with her husband. Artin, who is Armenian by way of Iran and has lived in Los Angeles for about six years, always loved the area. She enjoyed the history and sprawling green parks, and had been excited to live here.

Now the pair was quickly abandoning the home they had moved into just three months earlier, heading toward a friend’s house with their bags and passports.

Fanning and her son had gone to a friend’s home too. As they stayed up late listening to the police scanner, they heard emergency responders call out addresses where flames were spreading. These were friends’ homes. She waited to hear her own.

“We were worried, of course, because we were inhaling all those chemicals without knowing what it is.”

In the first days after the fire began, the risk remained and there was little help available with firefighting resources spread across Los Angeles. Maccalla and her son soon returned to their property to try to protect their home and those of their neighbors.

“I was working on removing a bunch of debris that had flown into the yard and all these dry leaves. I didn’t know at the time that I shouldn’t touch any of that,” she said.”

The devastation in Altadena, as in the Palisades, was staggering. Many of the 19 people who died were older adults who hadn’t received evacuation warnings for hours after people in other areas of town, if at all.

Physically, parts of Altadena were almost unrecognizable. In the immediate aftermath of the fire, bright red flame retardant streaked the hillsides. Off Woodbury Road, not far from where Robles and Artin lived, seemingly unblemished homes stood next to blackened lots where nothing remained but fireplaces and charred rubble—scorched bicycles, collapsed beds and warped ovens. The pungent smell of smoke seemed to embed itself in the nose.

Robles would sometimes get lost in the place she had lived her whole life as she tried to navigate streets that had been stripped of any identifiable landmarks. Fire scorched the beloved community garden, the country club, an 80-year-old hardware store, the Bunny Museum and numerous schools and houses of worship.

Artin and her husband returned to their home, which still stood, after a single night. They had no family in the area and nowhere else to go—hotels were packed across the county. For nearly two weeks they lived without water or power as they tried to clean up, throwing away most of their furniture and belongings, even shoes, and all of the food in the fridge and freezer.

“We were worried, of course, because we were inhaling all those chemicals without knowing what it is, but we didn’t have a choice,” Artin recalled.

As fires burn through communities, they spread particulate matter far and wide, cause intense smoke damage in standing structures and cars, and release chemicals even miles beyond the burned area.

After one round of remediation, “six out of 10 homes were still coming back with lead and or asbestos levels that exceeded EPA safety thresholds.”

When Fanning saw her home for the first time, thick piles of ash covered the floors. She was eager to return, but as she tried to figure out her next steps, reading scientific articles and guides, and joining Zoom calls with other concerned residents, it was clear she needed to learn more about precisely what was in the ash. Asbestos was found in her home, meaning all porous items, clothing and furniture, were completely ruined.

“You can’t wash lead and asbestos out of your clothing. I was like, OK, this is real and I need to gather as much evidence [as I can] to find out what’s in my house.”

In Altadena, more than 90 percent of homes had been built before 1975 and likely had lead-based paint and toxic asbestos, both of which the EPA has since banned, according to a report from the California Institute of Technology. All sorts of things burned along with the houses, Fanning said: plastic, electric cars, lithium batteries. “The winds were shoving this into our homes,” she said.

The roof on Maccalla’s home had to be rebuilt, and significant cleanup was required for the smoke damage and layers of ash that blanketed curtains and beds.

Despite these concerns, residents grew increasingly frustrated about what they viewed as a lack of official information about the safety of returning to their homes. Many also encountered pushback from their insurance providers that said additional testing for hazards, or more intensive remediation efforts recommended by experts, were unnecessary and not covered under their policies.

So earlier this year a group of residents, including Fanning and Maccalla, formed Eaton Fire Residents United (EFRU). The group includes scientists and people dedicated to educating and supporting the community, ensuring there is data collection to support legislation, and assembling an expert panel to establish protocols for future fires, Fanning said. They’ve published research based on testing reports from hundreds of properties across the affected area, and advocated that homes should receive a comprehensive clearance before residents return.

Research released by EFRU and headed by Maccalla, who has a doctorate in education and specializes in research methodology, found that more than half of homes that had been remediated still had levels of lead and/or asbestos that rendered them uninhabitable.

“There’s still widespread contamination and that one round of remediation was not sufficient, the majority of the time. Six out of 10 homes were still coming back with lead and or asbestos levels that exceeded EPA safety thresholds,” said Maccalla, who serves as EFRU’S director of data science and educational outreach.

A blue sign with a yellow border and white text rests on a window sill; it reads, "Eaton fire residents united," with a URL below.

The interior of Dawn Fanning’s home has been found to have lead and asbestos after the Eaton Fire.Stella Kalinina/The Guardian

Maccalla moved back home in June after what she viewed as a decent remediation process. But she hasn’t been able to get insurance coverage for additional testing, and worries about how many people are having similar experiences.

“We’re putting people back in homes without confirming that they’re free of contamination,” she said. “It feels very unethical and a very dangerous game to be playing.”

She couldn’t afford not to come home, and the family couldn’t keep commuting two hours a day each way from their temporary residence to work and school or their Altadena property where Maccalla was overseeing construction. But she’s experienced headaches, her daughter’s asthma is more severe, and her pets have become sick.

“I don’t think anybody that hasn’t gone through it can really comprehend what [that is like],” she said. “For everything in your environment that was so beloved to now become a threat is mentally a really hard switch,” she said.

Robles settled back to the home she’s lived in for years with a few new additions. Seven of her relatives lost their homes, including her daughter who now lives with her. “I thank God there’s a place for them. That’s all that matters to me.”

A woman kneels down in the grass, wrapping her arms around a white and brown dog.

Nicole Maccalla with her dog, Cami, outside her home in Altadena. Stella Kalinina/The Guardian

After the fire, she threw away clothes, bed sheets and pillows. The family mopped and washed the walls. Her insurance was helpful, she said, and covered the cleanup work. Robles tries not to think about the toxic contamination and chemicals that spread during the fire. “You know that saying, what you don’t know?” she said, her voice trailing off.

Artin said she received some assistance from her renter’s insurance, but that her landlord hadn’t yet undertaken more thorough remediation. She’s still trying to replace some of the furniture she had to throw away. The fire had come after an already difficult year in which her husband had been laid off, and their finances were stretched.

“I don’t know if I’ll ever feel safe again.”

She shudders when she recalls the early aftermath of the fire, a morning sky as dark as night. “It was hell, honestly.”

Her rent was set to increase in the new year, and while she fears exposure to unseen dangers, moving isn’t an option. “We don’t have anywhere else to go. We can’t do anything,” Artin said.

Fanning has been battling her insurance company to cover the work that is necessary to ensure her house is safely habitable, she said. Her provider is underplaying the amount of work that needs to be done and underbidding the costs, Fanning said. She and her son have been living in a short-term rental since late summer, and she expects they won’t be able to return home before the fall.

Sometimes she wonders if she’ll be up to returning at all. Even now, when Fanning drives through the area to come get her mail or check on the house, she gets headaches. “I don’t know if I’ll ever feel safe, no matter all the things that I know and all the things that I’m gonna do. I don’t know if I’ll ever feel safe again.”

In between trying to restore her home, she’s focused on advocacy with EFRU, which has become her primary job, albeit unpaid. “There are so many people that don’t have enough insurance coverage, that don’t speak English, that are renters, that don’t have access like I do … I feel it’s my duty as a human.”

There’s much work to do, Fanning said, and it has to be done at every single property.

“It’s a long road to recovery. And if we don’t do it right, safely, it’s never gonna be what it was before.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Hundreds of Anti-ICE Protests Are Happening Across the Nation This Weekend

Scores of people are once again taking to their streets this weekend to protest the Trump administration’s ongoing offensive against immigrants and those who attempt to stand up for them.

More than 1,000 demonstrations are slated for Saturday and Sunday after federal immigration agents shot three people in the past week. On Wednesday, ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renée Nicole Good in Minneapolis in her vehicle, and on Thursday US Border Patrol shot a man and a woman in a car in Portland.

“The murder of Renée Nicole Good has sparked outrage in all of us,” Leah Greenberg, co-executive director of Indivisible, one of the organizations spearheading the nationwide demonstrations, told Mother Jones. “Her death, and the horrific nature of it, was a turning point and a call to all of us to stand up against ICE’s inhumane and lawless operations that have already killed dozens before Renee.”

Just got home from our local ICE OUT protest. 24 degrees and snowing, hundreds came out. Others were in the next town over responding to ICE trapping roofers.

Ashley 🐓🌱 (@coyotebee.bsky.social) 2026-01-10T19:08:06.443Z

The weekend protests are happening or poised to happen in blue cities like New York and Chicago, as well as Republican strongholds like Lubbock, Texas, and Danville, Kentucky.

The demonstrations are being organized by the ICE Out For Good Coalition, which in addition to Indivisible, includes groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, Voto Latino, and United We Dream.

“For a full year, Trump’s masked agents have been abducting people off the streets, raiding schools, libraries, and churches,” Katie Bethell, the civic action executive director for MoveOn, another organization in the coalition, said. “None of us want to live in a country where federal agents with guns are lurking and inciting violence at schools and in our communities.”

According to tracking from The Guardian, 32 people died in ICE custody in 2025—the most of any year in more than two decades.

Additionally, The Trace reports that since June 2025, there have been 16 incidents in which immigration agents opened fire and another 15 incidents in which agents held someone at gunpoint. The outlet writes that, in these incidents, four people werekilled and seven injured. The Trace noted that the number of incidents involving guns could likely be higher, “as shootings involving immigration agents are not always publicly reported.”

Members of Concord Indivisible gathered outside First Parish in Concord, Massachusetts, to protest the killing of Renée Nicole Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross.

Members of Concord Indivisible gathered outside First Parish in Concord, Massachusetts, to protest the killing of Renée Nicole Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross.Dave Shrewsbury/ZUMA

Since Wednesday, an already tense situation in Minneapolis—and in other cities—boiled over. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, officers on the scene met protesters with chemical irritants. In the days since, border patrol agents outside the Whipple Building in Minneapolis have used violent tactics against protesters, including using chemical agents on demonstrators.

Online, some videos show escalating moments between immigration agents and those resisting them. In one instance, a border patrol agent is seen telling multiple women sitting in cars in Minneapolis: “Don’t make a bad decision today.” The women were seemingly attempting to interrupt immigration agents by taking up road space.

The coalition hosting the protests said in its list of stated goals that the groups hope to “Demand accountability, transparency, and an immediate investigation into the killing of Renee Nicole Good,” “Build public pressure on elected officials and federal agencies,” and “Call for ICE to leave our communities,” among other aims.

Huge turnout for anti-ICE protest in Newport News. They’re along a street so hard to get everyone in one photo. Hampton Roads does not often see these sorts of numbers. #ReneeGood

Zach D Roberts (@zdroberts.bsky.social) 2026-01-10T19:09:00.009Z

These are just the latest protests to take over cities since President Donald Trump was sworn in for the second time. In April, it was the “Hands Off!” protest against Trump and Elon Musk’s gutting of government spending and firing of federal workers. Months later, in October, the “No Kings” demonstrations sought to call out Trump’s growing, often unchecked executive power. According to organizers, each saw millions of protesters. And now, only the second weekend of the new year, people are once again angry and outside.

“The shootings in Minneapolis and Portland were not the beginning of ICE’s cruelty, but they need to be the end,” Deirdre Schifeling, chief political and advocacy officer with the ACLU, said. “These tragedies are simply proof of one fact: the Trump administration and its federal agents are out of control, endangering our neighborhoods, and trampling on our rights and freedom. This weekend Americans all across the country are demanding that they stop.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Out of Spite, Trump Used Veto Power to Punish Florida Tribe That Opposed “Alligator Alcatraz”

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

On Thursday, Republicans in the House failed to override President Donald Trump’s first two vetoes in office: a pipeline project that would bring safe drinking water to rural Colorado, and another that would return land to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians in Florida. Their inability to block the president’s move signals their commitment to the White House over their prior support for the measures.

The Miccosukee have always considered the Florida Everglades their home. So when Republicans in Congress voted to expand the tribe’s land base under the Miccosukee Reserved Area Act—legislation that would transfer 30 acres of land in the Everglades to tribal control—the Miccosukee were thrilled. After years of work, the move would have allowed the tribe to begin environmental restoration activities in the area and better protect it from climate change impacts as extreme flooding and tropical storms threaten the land.

“The measure reflected years of bipartisan work and was intended to clarify land status and support basic protections for tribal members who have lived in this area for generations,” wrote Chairman Cypress in a statement last week, “before the roads and canals were built, and before Everglades National Park was created.”

The act was passed on December 11, but on December 30, President Donald Trump vetoed it; one of only two vetoes made by the administration since he took office. In a statement, Trump explained that the tribe “actively sought to obstruct reasonable immigration policies that the American people decisively voted for when I was elected,” after the tribe’s July lawsuit challenging the construction of “Alligator Alcatraz,” an immigration detention center in the Everglades.

“It is rare for an administration to veto a bill for reasons wholly unrelated to the merits of the bill,” said Kevin Washburn, a law professor at University of California Berkeley Law and former assistant secretary of Indian affairs for the Department of the Interior. Washburn added that while denying land return to a tribe is a political act, Trump’s move is “highly unusual.”

When a tribe regains land, the process can be long and costly. The process, known as “land into trust” transfers a land title from a tribe to the United States, where the land is then held for the benefit of the tribe and establishes tribal jurisdiction over the land in question. When tribal nations signed treaties in the 19th century ceding land, any lands reserved for tribes—generally, reservations—were held by the federal government “in trust” for the benefit of tribes, meaning that tribal nations don’t own these lands despite their sovereign status.

Trump’s veto “makes absolutely no sense other than the interest in vengeance.”

Almost all land-into-trust requests are facilitated at an administrative level by the Department of Interior. The Miccosukee, however, generally must follow a different process. Recognized as a tribal nation by the federal government in 1962, the Miccosukee navigate a unique structure for acquiring tribal land where these requests are made through Congress via legislation instead of by the Interior Department.

“It’s ironic, right?” said Matthew Fletcher, a law professor at the University of Michigan. “You’re acquiring land that your colonizer probably took from you a long time ago and then gave it away to or sold it to someone else, and then years later, you’re buying that land back that was taken from you illegally, at a great expense.”

While land-into-trust applications related to tribal gaming operations often meet opposition, Fletcher says applications like the Miccosukee’s are usually frictionless. And in cases like the Miccosukee Reserved Area Act, which received bipartisan support at the state and federal levels, in-trust applications are all but guaranteed.

On the House floor on Thursday before the vote, Florida’s Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz said, “This bill is so narrowly focused that [the veto] makes absolutely no sense other than the interest in vengeance that seems to have emanated in this result.”

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.), did not respond to requests for comment. In July last year, Gimenez referred to the Miccosukee Tribe as stewards of the Everglades, sponsoring the bill as a way to manage water flow and advance an elevation project, under protection from the Department of the Interior, for the village to avert “catastrophic flooding.”

“What you’re asking is for people in the same political party of the guy who just vetoed this thing to affirmatively reject the political decision of the president,” Fletcher said.

The tribe is unlikely to see its village project materialize under Trump’s second term unless the outcome of this year’s midterms results in a Democratic-controlled House and Senate. Studies show that the return of land to tribes provides the best outcomes for the climate.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

What Police Weren’t Told About Tasers

Kansas City police Officer Matt Masters first used a Taser in the early 2000s. He said it worked well for taking people down; it was safe and effective.

“At the end of the day, if you have to put your hands on somebody, you got to scuffle with somebody, why risk that?” he said. “You can just shoot them with a Taser.”

Masters believed in that until his son Bryce was pulled over by an officer and shocked for more than 20 seconds. The 17-year-old went into cardiac arrest, which doctors later attributed to the Taser. Masters’ training had led him to believe something like that could never happen.

This week on Reveal, we partner with Lava for Good’s podcast Absolute: Taser Incorporated and its host, Nick Berardini, to learn what the company that makes the Taser knew about the dangers of its weapon and didn’t say.

This is an update of an episode that originally aired in August 2025.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

A New Clip of the Minneapolis ICE Killing Was Leaked to a Site Sympathetic to Derek Chauvin

A video reportedly filmed by the federal agent who shot and killed Renée Nicole Good in Minneapolis earlier this week was released on Friday by a conservative Minnesota outlet whose most prominent reporter is married to the city’s former police union head.

Alpha News—notable in part for its sympathetic coverage of Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer convicted in 2021 of murdering George Floyd—has since Wednesday published a flurry of articles including “ICE shooting in Minneapolis: Minnesota attorney explains how presumed innocence has been ignored again” and “REPORT: Woman killed by ICE agent was member of ‘ICE Watch’ group working to disrupt immigration arrests.”

Conservative commentators have seized on the 47-second clip to argue that it exculpates Ross and shows Good driving towards him.

100 percent confirms they were left wing agitators intentionally trying to provoke an altercation with law enforcement, and then they drove right at him.

Any “conservative” who bought the media narrative on this case is permanently discredited and there’s no coming back from it https://t.co/mTvu5KBOUi

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) January 9, 2026

Other viewers see the clip as further evidence against Ross.

I synced up the video from the Johnathan Ross and a bystander to help show what was happening when he fumbled his camera. He was already out of the way at that point and already had his gun drawn. It wasn't him being hit, it was him shooting Renee Good.

RagnarokX (@ragnarokx.bsky.social) 2026-01-09T19:20:37.388Z

Vice President JD Vance has shared the Alpha News video multiple times as of early Friday evening, writing in one post, “What the press has done in lying about this innocent law enforcement officer is disgusting. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.” The Trump administration has maintained that Good was a “violent rioter” who “weaponized her vehicle” in order to carry out “domestic terrorism.”

Visual investigations by publications including the New York Times, Bellingcat, and the Washington Post have refuted that account.

Yet the fact that the video from the shooter’s perspective was released at all, and with such speed, is remarkable—as is who it was leaked to.

Alpha News, founded in 2015, is a Minnesota outlet that has distinguished itself for years by running pieces that suggest Derek Chauvin suffered a miscarriage of justice. Its highest-profile reporter, Liz Collin, is married to former Minneapolis police union president Bob Kroll; in 2022, Collin published a book titled They’re Lying: The Media, The Left, and The Death of George Floyd.

In 2020, the ACLU of Minnesota sued Kroll in connection with claims that Minneapolis police used excessive force against protesters, according to Minnesota Public Radio, leading to a settlement that barred Kroll from serving as a police officer in Hennepin County, where Minneapolis is located, and two neighboring counties, Ramsey and Anoka, for the next decade.

A 2020 article by Mother Jones‘ Samantha Michaels details decades of allegations against Kroll of extreme brutality, as well as another lawsuit—filed by Medaria Arradondo, then the city’s chief of police—who accused Kroll of wearing a white power patch and referring to a Muslim congressman as a “terrorist.” (Collin’s book, in an excerpt published by Alpha News, decries protests against her husband: “‘Bob Kroll is a racist’ was a popular theme,” Collin writes.)

It’s unclear how Alpha News obtained the video apparently taken by Ross as he killed Good. Collin and Alpha News’ editor-in-chief did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In the video, Ross exits a vehicle and begins circling Good’s SUV before pointing the camera at Good, who says, “That’s fine, dude, I’m not mad at you.” Ross films the rear of the vehicle and the license plate. The camera pans to Good’s wife, also filming, who speaks to Ross—saying, among other things, “Go home.” An agent instructs Good to “get out of the car.” Good reverses before appearing to turn away from Ross and drive away. Simultaneously, the angle of the video shifts quickly, no longer pointing at Good, and several gunshots are audible. The camera briefly refocuses on Good’s car, turning away moments before it runs into a nearby vehicle.

In the background, a voice says, “Fucking bitch.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I would say much longer,” Trump responded.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then, four months later, he would return.

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

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

Medical Research and Coastal Retreats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alive Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Who was screaming?” Dervaes remembers asking.

“It was you,” the driver said.

Life After War

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

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

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

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

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

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

The pain led him to spiral.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Don’t Come Here to Get High’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dervaes did not see unicorns.

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

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

Dante’s Inferno

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Second Trip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He had gone to Costco.

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

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

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

Trauma Returns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Why Mandatory Green Policies Often Backfire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened in Barnes v. Felix?

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

What did the court find?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

House Passes Three-Year ACA Extension

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

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

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

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

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

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) January 8, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, none of this is new.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Grok Deepfaked Renee Nicole Good’s Body Into a Bikini

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Hell No, It’s Not Over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

“She behaved horribly.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) January 7, 2026

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

“ICE KILLED GOOD”: Protesters Decry Minneapolis Shooting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately After in Minneapolis

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

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

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

— corinne_perkins (@corinne_perkins) January 7, 2026

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

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

Vigil and Protest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demonstrations Across the Country

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

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

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

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

— Anadolu English (@anadoluagency) January 8, 2026

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

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

Day Two in Minneapolis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A white protester has water poured over their eyes.

A protester receives aid.Tom Baker/AP

Continue Reading…