Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

DHS Is Spending $1.5 Billion to Block ICE Oversight

The Department of Homeland Security has purchased two privately-run detention facilities from the for-profit prison company CoreCivic, the company announced Monday, in a move that may serve to shield the facilities from state oversight.

DHS bought the two Southern California prisons, Otay Mesa Detention Center and California City Detention Center, for about $1.5 billion on Monday. But the facilities will still be operated by CoreCivic employees, meaning the company will still generate income, over and above the sale price, from both prisons.

California law requires that privately held detention centers be subject to oversight by local and state authorities, as well as members of Congress.

Now that DHS owns the buildings, finding out what’s going on inside of them is likely to become harder.

“It seems like a very clear attempt to evade oversight and accountability,” said Alexa Van Brunt, a civil rights attorney with the MacArthur Justice Center. “If they own the building, then there is a very good argument that a state law cannot trump federal ownership,” Van Brunt explained. That sets up a potential oversight battle between California’s state government and the Trump administration.

DHS said as much. “ICE can not rely on local state and county partners for detention space in California,” where “politicians continue to push legislation to outlaw or make private prisons financially infeasible,” an agency spokesperson said in response to a request for comment. “Now, with federal ownership of these detention centers which are crucial to ICE’s detention network on the west coast ICE retains the detention capacity needed to arrest, detain, and remove illegal aliens,” the spokesperson concluded.

The purchase could also protect the detention centers from legal attacks. As Katya Schwenk of The Lever put it in March, when the plans were first reported, federal ownership may help ICE evade not only state monitoring but “some lawsuits tied to alleged abuse, including labor violations.”

One such lawsuit concerns Otay Mesa: Owino v. CoreCivic, ongoing since 2017, is a massive class-action suit alleging forced labor practices there. It’s one of many attempts to curb or regulate ICE detention in California: just this week, the state sued to stop the construction of a new detention center outside the town of Gilroy.

“California created oversight for private detention facilities because we have seen too many abuses, including deaths, behind closed doors,” said state Sen. María Elena Durazo, who co-sponsored legislation to strengthen state oversight. “It is shameful for any government agency to try to sidestep basic health and safety protections for people in its custody. If the federal government believes that purchasing these facilities allows it to avoid oversight, that is unacceptable.”

CoreCivic representative Ryan Gustin did not respond to questions about how federal ownership of the facilities might impact oversight. “Asset transactions of this nature are not uncommon for government,” Gustin said in a written statement. “We have previously completed facility sales to government partners, and operating government-owned facilities is a well-established model within our business.”

Other firms are indeed exploring the model. George Zoley, CEO of GEO Group—the other major ICE detention contractor—said on an earnings call in May that “as some blue states are considering more active involvement in oversight of facilities, I think the logical solution to much of that is federal ownership,” as The Appeal’s Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg reported.

If the federal government owns the buildings, it will “provide stronger credibility in the courts,” Zoley added, such that “states can only have very limited involvement in those policies and programs.”

ICE facilities across the country, both privately and publicly owned, have been slammed with lawsuits over detainee mistreatment, forced labor, health code violations, and deaths in custody. At least 21 people have died in ICE custody this year, according to data collected by lawyer and journalist Andrew Free, as the number of people detained by ICE skyrockets from around 45,000 last year to more than 63,000 as of this week. Denying state officials the right of inspection makes investigating those deaths—as UN human rights chief Volker Türk demanded this week—far harder.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) conducted oversight visits at Otay Mesa when it still belonged to CoreCivic—and, like lawmakers in other states, was sometimes denied entry.

“Too many people who pose no threat to public safety and should not be in detention are nevertheless being held in unacceptable conditions with inadequate access to medical care, legal counsel, clean water, nutritious food, and other basic necessities,” Padilla said. “Whether these facilities are operated by a private contractor or owned by the federal government, my expectations remain the same.”

Setareh Ghandehari, of the advocacy group Detention Watch Network, described the purchase as one facet of ICE’s mass expansion of incarceration: converting warehouses into detention centers, buying existing jails, and contracting to build new ones, all of which will “intensify the already cruel and inhumane conditions in ICE detention and streamline the agency’s ability to target and dehumanize immigrant communities to achieve its stated goal of ‘Amazonification’ of mass detention and deportation,” Ghandehari said.

“There still will be avenues for accountability,” Van Brunt, of MacArthur Justice, said. Even without the right of inspection, ICE-owned detention centers could be sued on constitutional grounds. But this purchase “does make it harder for people to get in those detention facilities at the state level and find out what’s actually going on,” Van Brunt continued. “It makes it much more of a black box, and it makes the people who are held there much more vulnerable to abuses and to poor conditions.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Palantir Has a Hand in NIH’s Most Ambitious Health Initiative

During his 2015 State of the Union address, then-President Barack Obama announced what he promised would be an ambitious public health project. “Tonight, I’m launching a new Precision Medicine Initiative to bring us closer to curing diseases like cancer and diabetes, and to give all of us access to the personalized information we need to keep ourselves and our families healthier,” Obama said with confidence. “We can do this.” He was met with applause.

That announcement introduced the National Institutes of Health’s “All of US” initiative, designed to organize and provide to researchers the health data of up to a million Americans who opted in to donate their blood, general electronic health records, and more. People’s names are replaced with a code before researchers access their data, and NIH asserts that only a few people have access to the list of codes that correspond with names. As of late June, data from nearly 750,000 participants is available to researchers who are studying such diseases like Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes, as well as overall health patterns like sleep.

Since then, proponents of the program have highlighted how it has addressed urgent issues. A 2022 study from the University of California, Irvine, study that used the NIH data, for instance, was the first to find that Latino immigrants have higher rates of liver cancer than Latino people who were born in the United States. In a 2024 speech, the head of the All of US initiative said that 87 percent of its participants belong to “underrepresented groups in biomedical research,” such as Latino and Black people.

“Palantir is not a company that is pro–public interest or welfare, or public health.”

What many participants may not know is that the defense technology and data giant Palantir, which has deep links to both the intelligence community and the Trump administration, is one of thefirms involved with the project—the same Palantir that the Trump administration has tapped to gather information for ICE and which already worked extensively with the Department of Defense.

Palantir’s involvement with All of US is a matter of public record; it has been announced in press releases. However, experts I spoke with about the firm’s connection to the massive federal health data project have raised ethical concerns about what it means for a company involved in Trump’s deportation machine—a choice that has reportedly troubled even some of Palantir’s own employees—to manage such sensitive information.

Palantir’s involvement with All of Us was announced in 2023, through its role in the Center for Linkage and Acquisition of Data, which is now hosted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The company was brought in by an NIH awardee, the University of Colorado Anschutz, a major medical research center. An NIH press release from October 2023 announcing the center boasted that the sub-awardees were “comprised of leading academic, data, security, and software organizations.”

“That it was approved during the Biden administration only underscores how much unfortunate buy-in the tech industry has across both Democrats and Republicans,” said Anita Chan, chair of Indiana University Bloomington’s department of information and library science and author of a 2025 book that looks at the use and misuse of data.

“Palantir’s CLAD role is limited and non-research: no participant interaction, no study administration, no scientific analysis,” an NIH spokesperson said in response to a request for comment, adding that “data aren’t owned by Palantir or available for independent use, and can’t move into external corporate databases,” and that Palantir “doesn’t control the data, use it independently, or decide how it’s shared or analyzed.

“To be clear, there’s no partnership with Palantir,” the spokesperson said, emphasizing that the firm was a subcontractor.

A University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill spokesperson noted in response to a separate request for comment that “Protecting privacy is a top priority for the university while using technology in research,” and that “Every action on the data is captured in tamper-proof audit logs, and because the data stays inside this controlled environment, it cannot be copied out, sold, or used for any purpose” not approved by the research project.

Palantir’s involvement in the sphere of personal health data is fairly expansive. In 2020, near the end of the first Trump administration, NIH awarded Palantir a contract to work with data related to Covid, a database that has also been used for Long Covid research. Palantir also has a contract worth the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars with the UK’s National Health Service to create a health data platform.

“[It] is concerning to have one company that has such a large role in [handling] so many different kinds of data,” Center for Genetics and Society executive director Katie Hasson told me. “I don’t think people hoping to benefit public health by sharing their genetic data were really thinking that that’s the kind of company that would be handling their information.”

Kenny Morris, of the American Friends Service Committee, which is running a campaign to encourage divestment from Palantir, said he was concerned that the company was “involved in health data at all,” citing its relationships with the Israeli military, which has used Palantir technology in Gaza, the US military, which has employed it in attacks on Iran, and the Department of Homeland Security, which relies on Palantir’s “ImmigrationOS” and other software to help carry out the dictates of Palantir stockholder and White House deputy Stephen Miller.

Someone holding up a sign at a protest that says "Palantir: ICE & War endabler and profiteer"

A still from a March 2026 protest in New York City against Palantir. Camara Porter/AdMedia/Zuma

A Palantir spokesperson said that the firm was “not in the business” of storing, collecting, mining, or selling data: “We don’t ‘use’ data from customers for other efforts,” the spokesperson said. “In all cases, our customers control and retain their own data. We are simply the software that helps them make sense of it. And in all deployments of our software, we strictly uphold our enduring commitment to protecting privacy and civil liberties.”

All of Us has been able to attract a diverse set of participants through the outreach of community engagement partners, including the Asian Health Initiative, the National Alliance for Hispanic Health, and the American Association on Health and Disability. (The University of California, San Francisco’s hospital system reached out to me in 2024 to ask if I wanted to participate Palantir’s potential involvement wasn’t mentioned.)

“I don’t know if all of the hospitals or institutions that have been involved in recruiting people into the study at various times would necessarily even know” about Palantir’s involvement, Hasson said.

There are many questions about how visible Palantir’s involvement is, including if any hospitals disclose it to patients and if researchers are acutely aware of Palantir’s involvement, despite the public press releases. Sample consent forms for patients on NIH’s website do not mention Palantir.

“Palantir is not a company that is pro–public interest or welfare, or public health, or sort of traditional obligations of democratic institutions and states,” Chan said. “Its vision of civic accountability is non-existent.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Democratic Party Failed Us With Graham Platner

A woman who dated Graham Platner said he sexually assaulted her, allegations that followed the stories of several other women who reported abuse at the hands of Maine’s Democratic nominee for US Senate.

The woman, Maine resident Jenny Racicot, provided substantiated details of the alleged incident in a Monday Politico report.

“These allegations are troubling, serious, and false,” Platner responded in a Monday statement. “Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically untrue.”

While several Democrats have begun dropping their endorsements of Platner as their US Senate nominee following Racicot’s credible rape allegations, many have not, as of Tuesday morning.

The Democrats who have pulled their endorsements since Monday did not do so after several women detailed Platner’s abuse in a June New York Times report. Some even campaigned for Platner. Perhaps they believed the Democratic nominee’s repeated denials. Perhaps they simply didn’t care.

They did not rescind their endorsements when reports revealed Platner’s tattoo of a symbol used by Nazi paramilitary organizations, including Adolf Hitler’s SS police. Perhaps they believed Platner when he dismissedit as just a design he got while drunk with fellow US Marines during his third deployment, or were satisfied when he said he later covered the tattoo. Perhaps they simply didn’t care.

Prominent voices across the “leftofcenterpolitical spectrum backed Platner—from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to the hosts of the popular podcast Pod Save America (Both Sanders and Pod Save America have since called on Platner to drop out of the Senate race). Some called the allegations against Platner politically motivated. Many justified their endorsements with Platner’s so-called progressive values and the idea that the party must oust Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to have a better chance at winning a majority in the November midterms.

“We all say Democrats should fight harder, but what does it mean to fight harder?” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) said at a June campaign event for Platner regarding the effort to flip the Senate. “To me, it means you show up when an ally who challenges power is under attack.” The event took place one day after the New York Times report, which detailed Platner physically assaulting one woman he dated, Lyndsey Fifield, and trapping her in a bedroom during an argument and saying he would rape or kill people he considered a threat.

One only has to look at the reaction to Platner’s Monday announcement that he would continue his campaign, taking time “to reflect on the best path forward.” Considering his denial of “non-consensual behavior,” Platner’s statement suggests public relations strategizing rather than accountability. The Senate nominee and others have spread conspiracy theories that political opponents are actively coordinating the allegations.

View this post on Instagram

But this perspective only considers the good abusive men like Platner can contribute and dismisses the people they abuse. It treats survivors with disdain, devaluing what they add to their communities. It slams shut any pathway to speak out and denies survivors personhood by condemning them for even daring to exercise the right to speak. It forces survivors to feel like they should stay silent due to fear that it could hurt others.

“One of the reasons I didn’t come forward sooner was, the huge moral conflict that I had between supporting his politics, but not supporting him as a person,” Racicot told Politico. “I just want the truth out there. I just want people to have a whole scope of who he is as a person.”

As many have stated, Platner already hurt his chances of becoming a senator with his abuse. The Democratic Party must reckon with how it continued to support an abusive man and prop up a system that allows those in power to skirt responsibility and actively harms survivors.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s “Personal Vendetta” Against Wind Is Messing With American Livelihoods

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

Donald Trump has blamed everything—from “national security” issues, the deaths of birds and whales, and cancer—in his decades-long campaign against windfarms. But as the Trump administration continues to undermine the industry, what worries workers most are their jobs.

Since taking office for a second term, Trump has issued an executive order aiming to halt all wind-energy leases and permits, attempted to issue stop-work orders on wind projects under construction, and paid more than $2.6 billion in settlements to buy out wind energy leases. And hundreds of workers have been affected.

Thomas Kilday, a furnace electrician with IBEW local 99 in Providence, Rhode Island, was in the midst of a four-week shift onboard a vessel off the Atlantic coast working on the Revolution Wind Project in August last year when the Trump administration issued a stop-work order on the project.

“No one really knew what was going on. We didn’t know what it meant for us. We just knew that everything was up in the air,” said Kilday. “You plan your whole life around being gone for 28 days, and to come out here and have it thrown up in the air, worrying what does this mean for me, for my pay for the next four weeks, what’s going to happen? There’s a lot of uncertainty.”

Construction on the project is done on shifts of 28 days on and 28 days off, with workers residing on a vessel on the ocean and taking helicopters to work on the turbines.

“What the Trump administration is doing is just throwing money away for the sake of their ideology.”

A federal court granted an injunction to block the stop-work order in September last year. In December, the Trump administration issued another 90-day stop-work order, citing national security, before a second judge issued an injunction in January.

When the second stop-work order was issued, Kilday was celebrating Christmas with his family and preparing for another four-week shift. “That was really difficult,” he said. “I just spent a bunch of money on Christmas gifts for my family, and it was not what I wanted to be thinking about. Six months out of the year we’re away from home, and for what little time we do have at home, not to be able to just focus all of that time and energy on our families, it’s tough. It’s not a great feeling to be worried about your job when you’re supposed to be home.”

“We’re proud of the work that we do out here, and we want to be able to continue to do it. We think it’s important work,” added Kilday. “When I’m at home, and I drive down my street, I look up at those power lines. I helped create the power that’s running through those power lines, and I’m proud of that.”

Revolution Wind announced in March that it began delivering power to New England, citing the work of more than 1,000 local union workers, and is expected to power more than 350,000 homes and businesses. The project’s construction is over 90 percent complete.

In June, the Trump administration abandoned an effort to try to halt all wind projects and leases across the US, giving up a challenge in court to a judge tossing Trump’s executive order to freeze all permitting and leasing for wind projects.

Instead, the Trump administration has opted to buy out wind project leases.

Trump’s Department of Interior has completed four deals so far to cancel wind project leases, paying energy corporations a sum of more than $2.6 billion, including paying $765 million to Invenergy to abandon four wind projects in California, New York, and Maine and nearly $900 million to Bluepoint Wind and Garden State Wind to cancel offshore wind leases in New York and California.

“I think it’s a foolish policy that the Trump administration is engaging in trying to buy out these leases,” Pat Crowley, president of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, told the Guardian. “These projects are not only helping to reduce our carbon emissions, they’re providing good-paying union jobs for thousands.”

Crowley said that workers would have had long-term job stability from working on these projects. He noted the Trump administration had lost in court in its attempts to issue stop-work orders on five wind projects in the Rhode Island area.

“It’s a personal vendetta… Good union jobs—we shouldn’t be trying to take those off the table. That just doesn’t make any kind of sense.”

“We’re five for five taking on the Trump administration,” he said. “What the Trump administration is doing is just throwing money away for the sake of their ideology.”

Will Gonzalez, a construction laborer with the Laborers’ local 385 in Fairhaven, Massachusetts, worked on the Vinyard Wind 1 project off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, a project the Trump administration attempted to halt in January. The project is now completed and fully operational.

He criticized the Trump administration’s efforts to halt wind turbine projects, claiming the opposition from Trump stems from his experiences trying to stop a wind turbine project near his golf course in Scotland, losing an appeal in December 2015. “It’s a personal vendetta,” said Gonzalez. “Good union jobs—we shouldn’t be trying to take those off the table. That just doesn’t make any kind of sense. Families obviously need good jobs…Why take those jobs away?”

Gonzalez said he and his co-workers were leaving training and certifications unused because of the halting of wind power projects. “All of us that worked on that Vinyard Wind 1, obviously, we would have loved to segue right into another project,” he said. “We’re fully trained, ready to go, willing and able, so it directly affected us. But you move on. You [have] got to move on. You can’t sit and dwell on that, because that’s not going to pay the bills.”

The White House directed comment to the Department of Interior.

A spokesperson for the department denied the cancellation and stop-work orders of projects had had any impact on jobs, even on projects under construction when halted. The spokesperson did not respond to a question asking for clarification and did not comment on Trump’s prior animus toward wind turbine projects involving his golf courses.

“No jobs were eliminated because none of these leases were operational or supporting employment,” the spokesperson said. Rather than waiting years for the projects to materialize, they added, the Trump administration is prioritizing investments in existing infrastructure and functioning supply chains that can create jobs now and deliver economic benefits faster. “This approach puts more people to work more quickly, using proven, affordable, and reliable energy rather than relying on projects tied to leases that were not producing jobs in the first place.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

What Author and Poet Victoria Chang Learned From Trees

Eucalyptus trees have been scattered across California since the 1850s**,** when they were brought over by Australians flocking to the Gold Rush. The trees are now considered invasive, and their bark contributes to wildfire risk. But even so, they’re a staple of the area, their scent and stature intrinsic to the California coast.

In 2023, author and poet Victoria Chang watched as the massive eucalyptus tree across the street from her home in Los Angeles was cut down. As the men lopped off the tree’s limbs, Chang realized she hadn’t spent much time really looking at it. She reflected that the tree had probably taken years to grow and was so easily cut down in just a few days. Chang felt compelled to write poems about this feeling that would later evolve into her latest poetry collection, which asks what it means to be human in the face of nature.

With the same name as Swedish artist Hilma af Klint’s painting series, Chang’s new book Tree of Knowledge is a meditation on abstract art, mortality, language, home, and history. Chang writes in both absolutes and inquiries she artfully taps into what it means to be human while parsing through both personal and collective histories.

At the core of the collection is the long poem, “Eureka” which examines the violent expulsion of Chinese Americans from Eureka, California. On February 6, 1885, about 300 Chinese residents were ordered by a committee of 15 men to leave their homes within 48 hours after a white city council member was killed by a stray bullet from a shootout near Chinatown. Through the poem, history collapses, we’re both in the present and past. We, as readers observe Chang try to process the atrocities Chinese Americans faced as they were forced onto two steamboats and shipped to San Francisco amid threats of hanging. We see this processing throughout the collection in the images of Chinese Americans working in canneries around the Eureka area that have red thread stitched through them.

In our conversation, Chang discussed the earth’s memory, the experience of first generation Americans, and motherhood. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

The collection has so many genres of history wrapped in it. There’s a personal history, collective history, and art history. In the book, you also talk about how art and writing are acts of archival. Could you speak more to that sort of collective history that you’re highlighting?

I’m interested in all sorts of things. I love visual art. I love to make art. I love to go to any museum or gallery or just anything to look at. For me, I started noticing there’s so much artwork that had these gorgeous trees in them. And once I started noticing that I couldn’t unnotice it.

That’s something I love about being human, is once someone points something out to you, once you start seeing something, you start seeing it everywhere. I think that is maybe partially, a key to empathy. Once you start seeing people, different kinds of people, you really start humanizing them in ways that are not a form of othering or objectifying in terms of people as objects.

So once I started seeing trees and artwork, I started seeing it everywhere. Then I started sort of writing in conversation with these paintings and other sculptures and artworks.

I think that’s the beauty of art and nature. If you actually start talking to these things, just like if you start talking to people that might seem different from you, things start opening, the aperture widens, and that’s how my mind works, and that’s kind of how this book feels. There’s a little bit of everything in here because I like looking at things, reading things, meeting trees, meeting art, and they all end up being a part of my life experience in my art too.

I wondered about the environmental politics in this collection. How much it seems that, especially now with AI data centers, we’re taking the earth for granted. What role did that play for you as you were writing?

While I was writing this collection, I was also traveling a lot. I wrote a whole bunch of poems related to my visit to Alaska. I was so struck by how we are stewards of this earth. We are guests, and it’s our job to actually be good stewards to what we have. It occurs to me every single day how we are all absolutely awful stewards of this earth.

I went to [the redwood trees in Eureka, California], and there was not a single car in the parking lot. I walked amongst these massive trees that had been here for so long~~,~~ by myself. I realized I’m just sort of energy, like my time here is so short. These trees are really going to be here long after my time, anyone’s time, and that it’s our role to respect them and to kneel before them.

In the poem “The Bird Cage,” you write about the tension surrounding immigration, which reminded me of a similar conversation in your 2021 memoir, Dear Memory. Thatfeels especially urgent right now.

Ever since we’ve been alive, and especially recently in this administration, every day, there’s so much conflict and there’s so much anger.

I think so much about how my parents came [to the US] during a time period where people like them were welcomed. I was just pulling out some of my parents’ archives, and my mother sponsored all of her relatives to come here after she came here as a technical person during the 60s.

Once she got here, she filled out these forms to sponsor all of her siblings, and it was so easy and welcoming. Some of my uncles and aunts were approved to come here in like five days after filling out this form. It seemed so different than it is now. I just don’t understand where that hatred comes from because I think about my own parents and how they did so much in this country and experienced so much, but also gave a lot back and how I’m a direct result of that.

There’s nothing wrong with people coming here and wanting to experience this beautiful place. When I wrote [“The Bird Cage”], I thought about how some people have to leave countries they’re born in, like my parents. Other people, like me, have to leave countries they’ve never seen. And others have to install their own countries; they have nothing, I’m the latter.

So, I was thinking about how I’m so grateful to be here and to have been born in this country and to live here, but in order for me to live here, I’ve had to leave countries that I’ll never know. Which is like a weird thing to think about, because this is my country, but I don’t ever feel like it’s really my country.

I think many people of color are interested in hearing different perspectives of America, and want to see more representation. How does it feel to think about this book in the context of the 250th anniversary of the US?

Since I was a very young child, I’ve been so confused as to why the history that we were presented in school and in the media was always one thing. I didn’t understand why so many things weren’t talked about. As I became older, I started learning more and more about my own history, about all the marginalized people in this country, and how there are so many incredible stories that weren’t being told and still aren’t being told.

It’s such a short history now that you’re mentioning it. Our country is so short and we’ve done so much damage in such a short time, which is quite frightening. But being an optimist by nature, it’s never too late to change things. As a person with a historian kind of background, the only way we can move forward is to learn about the past. So, I’m interested in the past and stories from the past, and it’s our obligation to try and tell those stories as much as we can.

In the center of the collection, there’s a long poem about the violent expulsion of Chinese Americans from Eureka, California in 1885. I know you also tackled this topic in your 2026 children’s book of the same name, Eureka. Why has this specific moment in history stuck with you so much?

It struck me once I learned about it. It struck me how few people knew about it, including myself. My parents were not from the part of China that a lot of these Chinese people were from, but obviously, I’m a Chinese person, and I felt completely struck and horrified by what I read and what I learned. The more I read, the more I learned, the more I realized that there were actually a lot of people in Eureka, California that were working to keep this history alive and to tell these stories.

Before I wrote this long poem, I wanted to go find these people. I wrote a children’s book [about the expulsion] 10 years ago. In typical publishing, no one was really interested in that story. It just kept on bothering me and so I wanted to keep learning about it. Ten years later, I went up to Eureka, California and met all these people that were trying to keep the story alive. So I wanted to do my part, and so I wrote this long poem that explores these themes and also explores my time when I was up there. I think when I wrote this adult poem, I didn’t know that the children’s book was going to be published, so the timing just kind of worked that way.

In the long poem, you write, “Who has the rights to imagination? Who has the rights to illumination? What if history must travel through us?” I think that those sorts of questions illuminate these ideas of what a lot of marginalized people feel in America about who owns history, and who can tell history.

My parents aren’t from this area, which is in the southern part of China, where these Chinese people came from. My mother was from a different region of China and spoke a different dialect. My father was Taiwanese.

So I thought a lot about, should I even tell this story, do I have the right to tell this story, and how do I do it in a way that feels respectful, and that honors these people and honors the differences between myself and those people who are no longer here.

Because they have ancestors who are still here, who maybe aren’t writers or artists. If you’re going to speak in another’s voice that’s not your own, how do you do that with the utmost care and respect?

So even though I know other people would say, “Oh, she’s a Chinese person, of course, she has the right to speak about these things,” I am much more nuanced than that as all marginalized people are. We know the nuances and the subtle differences between all of the people that other people clump in one category, and I wanted to be very careful thinking about those things.

It’s really interesting what you do with grief and this acceptance of death, and how that makes us recontextualize history and time. I was also thinking about the themes of motherhood and raising children and how that sort of affects our idea of time too. When you’re talking about grieving your parents and then raising these children who will one day leave to live their own lives, how does it feel to put that out there and have your daughters engage with it?

It goes back to some of the environmental things we were talking about earlier, like “What does it mean to move toward leaving the earth and help bring the next generations? Raise them and help grow them in ways that they could be good stewards to this earth, both environmentally, historically.”

I think about that all the time. Every day, I’m thinking about that and what can I do, as more of a senior person, with a lot of life experience, to sort of help the next generation who are going to be here much longer than I will. My own children are now like older teenagers, one is 19, and the other is 17. They’re young adults and every day, I think about what I could say to them, or how I could show them through my actions, or the things I do to sort of help them become better citizens of this earth, in this country, in this world.

I think these are things we all should be doing, no matter how old we are and where we come from. It’s a job of ours.

How do you not pass down racism and hate and misogyny and consumerism and capitalism? How do you actually help the next generation be aware of their own complicity, and how do you do that as one human being, whether you’re a parent or not? I think that’s the big question for us as adults, to be honest with you.

I think it’s our responsibility to be communal and to build community and to pass along whatever knowledge, wisdom, ideas, offerings that we might have. That to me is so important as a human being, but especially important as an artist. Today it’s like, “please read,” like just getting younger people to read, to think more deeply in the age of AI, where everything is being stripped down and simplified. To know we want complexity, we want nuance; those are the things that I feel like I’m fighting for now.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

US Soccer Doesn’t Need a Big, Orange Thumb on the Scale

As the US men’s national soccer team prepares to face off against Belgium on Monday night, the question isn’t whether their aggressive and quick play style can defeat an opponent that humiliated them 5-2 back in March—it’s what Donald Trump’s role in the decision to suspend star striker Folarin Balogun’s one-match ban means for the integrity of the World Cup.

FIFA, the international soccer governing body, on Sunday suspended the red card Balogun received in Wednesday’s match against Bosnia-Herzegovina, which would normally bar him from the next game as well. In case you haven’t followed the flurry of developments since, here’s a non-exhaustive list of events as of Monday afternoon:

First,FIFA suspended Balogun’s one-match ban by applying Article 27 of its disciplinary code, which allows it to cancel or delay a suspension without explanation. The governing body could have easily just stated that the match officials’ video review system was not applied correctly by showing slow-motion and still images to evaluate the severity of Balogun’s foul, which is typically against protocol—but it didn’t.

The other side was, unsurprisingly, outraged.

Reports came out the same day that President Trump called Gianni Infantino, the president of FIFA, just hours after the Wednesday match, asking him to review the suspension—the first of what were reportedly three such calls.

By Sunday, Trump was thanking FIFA in a Truth Social post for “reversing a great injustice” by suspending Balogun’s ban.On Monday morning, FIFA granted Belgium the right to appeal against its decision—and promptlydismissed Belgium’s challenge the same day, stating that since the soccer federation was “not a party to the proceedings,” it had “no standing to appeal the decision.”

UEFA, the soccer governing body in Europe, said that FIFA crossed “a red line” with the move. “When the certainty of rules is no longer guaranteed by its guardians, the integrity of the game is at stake and the credibility of a competition is undermined,” it added.

Belgium’s soccer federation released a statement, saying that “to safeguard the legitimate rights of all participating teams and to protect the fundamental principles of fair play in our sport,” it was “investigating all potential options” to push back against the move. Even the country’s foreign minister risked Trump’s ire, saying bluntly, “If a phone call really is what explains this incomprehensible decision, it would amount to undermining the most basic rules of soccer and sports.”

Belgium’s soccer federation said that it did not receive an explanation of the decision and would leave “all further actions open,” suggesting a potential dispute at the Council of Arbitration for Sport.

While this is not FIFA’s first in-game controversy—including allegations of match-fixing in favor of host Argentina in 1978—the debacle has already set an alarming precedent. France has now asked FIFA to rescind their talented player Michael Olise’s yellow card against Paraguay. England coach Thomas Tuchel joked that Trump could help overturn defender Jarell Quansah’s red card against Mexico.

As Christina Unkel, a former soccer referee and current sports executive, wrote on X on Sunday, FIFA’s refusal to state any reasons both raises a variety of questions and invites other countries to bring their political weight to bear to appeal calls by referees, although no other leader shares Trump’s close relationship with FIFA’s top official.

Regardless of how Belgium’s appeal and France’s request shake out, the White House’s role in the controversy will likely follow Folarin Balogun—who didn’t ask for the reversal—throughout the rest of his international career. Balogun was a good sport about the red card: He shook all the match officials’ hands after the match on Wednesday, and later told reporters that he accepted the referee’s initialdecision.

“You can feel something unjust has happened to you, but it’s not an excuse to not do the right thing,” Balgun said. “Every game I try to shake the referee’s hand and this game was no different. It’s important to give the correct example to people watching.”

It’s an idea that FIFA should take into consideration.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

In Defense of Taylor Swift’s Bad Taste

“The more I read, the more embarrassed I am for everyone involved.”

Secondhand humiliation was the looming theme of a group chat on July 3, as friends and I, like the rest of the world, took in the details that emerged from Taylor Swift’s wedding to Travis Kelce inside Madison Square Garden. There was the couple’s own logo, a personalized T&T that appeared on everything from wedding handkerchiefs to custom furniture, before dramatically showing up on the “JUST&T MARRIED” signs that flashed outside the venue. Nearby, the Empire State Building lit up as Swift’s “something blue.” There were the raffled off luxury gifts that included Cartier watches and a vintage car. Blown-up couple photos draped across the walls.

It’s easy to imagine the superstar going feral as she brainstormed all the ways she could bend the world’s most famous arena to her local prom queen sensibilities. Swift, after all, is a billionaire, and the possibilities for cringe are endless. Plus, people tend to lose their minds when they’re planning the most heteronormative, ordinary, domestic thing anyone can do. How else do you explain inviting 1,000 people to a wedding?

It’s easy to imagine the superstar going feral as she brainstormed all the ways she could bend the world’s most famous arena to her local prom queen sensibilities.

Yet for all the skin-crawling aesthetics, there was something joyful about watching the most famous woman alive so unapologetic in the same corniness that has always accompanied her meteoric fame and throw a giant-ass party. Was it intimate? Wasn’t there, couldn’t tell ya. Is beer-soaked MSG my idea of romance? Yuck. But these are the choices of a woman who has been singing about imaginary weddings for an entire career, and the stress of whittling down the guest list for a small event was something she already told us she’d be avoiding. (“I’m not gonna do that,” is what Swift told Graham Norton, one of the 1,000 guests eventually invited.) It was as if by drenching her wedding in extreme ridiculousness, Swift was confirming, as Tyler Foggatt wrote in the New Yorker, that she, like her fans, viewed her nuptials as the grand “narrative closure” to years of public heartbreak and pining. That might seem embarrassing to admit for some. But that’s probably one of a billion reasons why you and I aren’t Taylor Swift.

Still, do storybook endings grant unlimited license to committing some of the goofiest wedding details I’ve ever come across, when private islands for the ultra-wealthy are right there? Some of the sneering has been justified; the extravagant details from Swift’s wedding are indeed the consequences of what happens when billionaires exist. Others, mad about the event, blamed Swift for causing power outages in the area. (It “absolutely did not,” a Con Ed spokesperson later confirmed.) But did you really expect anything less? Creating a spectacle out of romance is bread and butter to Swift’s lore, and even for all the tackiness, I can’t help but admire Swift’s dedication to decidedly unhip, unabashed romantic kitsch when everyone’s in an arms race to exercise taste these days.

That’s especially true for the other billionaires of the same set. Take, for instance, Lauren Sánchez Bezos, a try-hard who operates under the assumption that style can be purchased; Mark Zuckerberg palling it around with Kylie Jenner after sitting front row of Prada like that’s not awkward as hell; the AI overlords who think taste can be developed and sold for profit. Sure, Swift’s own proclivities might be steeped in the same luxury. But the context in which Swift’s money appears, at least when it comes to her wedding, is rooted in something different, a quality that can’t be bought or machine-learned: earnestness. It’s the same quality that has been central to both Swift’s art and enormous popularity. How else do you explain a 20-minute vow that leaves a grown man in tears? It certainly wasn’t anywhere in the last headline-making billionaire wedding.

Taylor Swift might be the uncoolest bride on earth, and that’s refreshing. Then again, to be unbothered with externally imposed notions of what a “cool” bride should look like is its own kind of luxury.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Wall Street Just Won’t Stop Financing the Fossil Fuel Industry’s Expansion

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

For the past two years, more than a dozen major banks have been not only reneging on their climate commitments, they’ve been actively making the crisis worse.

In 2024 and 2025, during the leadup to President Donald Trump’s second inauguration, all six of the nation’s largest banks abandoned the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, a voluntary climate coalition, precipitating the Alliance’s complete shutdown in October. Since then, others including Royal Bank of Canada, Scotiabank, HSBC, NatWest, Santander, and JPMorgan Chase have either weakened or scrapped their decarbonization targets.

Now, new evidence shows banks are ramping up spending on fossil fuels. Beyond helping companies extract more oil and gas, they are bankrolling the industry’s pivot to plastics, fertilizers, and other petrochemical products.

“Petrochemicals are a deliberate and pivotal strategy to ensure that we continue using fossil fuels.”

Two reports released earlier this month illustrate the trend. An analysis from the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), and other environmental groups found the world’s top 65 banks contributed $508 billion to companies expanding fossil fuel development in 2025. That’s a 27 percent increase since 2024, and more than any other year since at least 2016, based on the organization’s past analyses.

The second report comes from the nonprofit Center for International Environmental Law. It found that, between January 2019 and June 2025, big banks gave the world’s top 15 petrochemical companies at least $591 billion in loans and underwriting. Some of that benefited integrated oil and gas corporations; the amount CIEL could directly attribute to petrochemical activities was $252 billion. (For context, New Zealand’s GDP is about $279 billion.)

Together, the reports suggest that large financial institutions are enabling a long-term viability strategy for the fossil fuel industry, one in which declining demand for oil and gas in energy systems and transportation is offset by a boom in petrochemicals. Indeed, in recent years oil majors including ExxonMobil, Shell, and Saudi Aramco have invested heavily in that field by, among other things, acquiring majority stakes in plastics and chemical companies and retrofitting oil refineries to accommodate a shift in production.

These investments reflect projections from the International Energy Agency that plastics, agrichemicals, and other petrochemical products will account for more than one-third of the growth in oil demand through 2030, and nearly half of it by 2050—much more than other sectors like aviation and shipping.

“Petrochemicals are not just a general growth area for fossil fuel companies,” said Ximena Banegas, a plastics campaigner for CIEL and the author of the organization’s report. “They are a deliberate and pivotal strategy to ensure that we continue using fossil fuels.”

“Banks are unfortunately continuing to put profits over responsible societal action.”

Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and the Japanese bank Mizuho Financial were among the top banks increasing financing for fossil fuel expansion last year, RAN’s analysis found. All 65 banks it analyzed boosted funding across the board for new oil and gas exploration, transportation, and refining. But the largest growth by far was for transportation—including new pipelines and capital-intensive LNG export terminals, which can create a decades-long commitment to using methane gas.

“It’s overall disappointing,” said Allison Fajans-Turner, a senior energy finance campaigner for RAN. “Banks are unfortunately continuing to put profits over responsible societal action.” She noted that fossil fuel financing is becoming more concentrated among a smaller number of large banks, primarily those based in North America and Japan, as several European banks have begun to scale back funding.

RAN’s report didn’t look directly at financing for the production of petrochemicals, but some of its findings indicate growing interest in this portion of the industry. A significant increase in loans and underwriting for coal expansion, for example, is at least partially linked to a recent spike in the number of coal-to-chemical plants planned globally—mostly in China and India. Environmental advocates say these investments risk giving coal “a new lease of life.”

Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Mizuho Financial are also among the top funders of petrochemical activities, according to CIEL’s report. The top 15 recipients of this funding include a mix of oil and gas, agriculture, plastics, and chemical companies, such as ExxonMobil, Syngenta, LyondellBasell, and Dow.

Although CIEL didn’t compare each year between 2019 and 2025, it did notice a significant jump in petrochemical finance in 2024, the last full year examined. As evidence of the industry’s ongoing expansion, Banegas pointed to a recent report estimating that 127 new polyethylene projects will come online between 2025 and 2030.

CIEL’s report also notes the petrochemical industry’s outsize contribution to toxic chemical pollution and global warming. As of 2020, petrochemicals’ annual greenhouse gas emissions amounted to 1.9 billion metric tons, more than twice that of aviation and shipping.

“If we’re serious about sustainable materials, then we need to put our money where we want to go.”

Fredric Bauer, a senior lecturer at Lund University in Sweden, has conducted similar research on petrochemical financing between 2010 and 2020. He said it’s not surprising to see continued interest in big plastics and chemicals projects, although it is perhaps counterintuitive. Despite warnings from industry analysts that the petrochemical industry is in “structural decline”—as shown by a large number of canceled or delayed projects, downgradings from multiple credit rating agencies, and the recent plastics and agrichemicals price shocks due to the war with Iran—companies keep investing because they often “do not respond to conventional market signals,” he said.

Rather than say, ‘“Oh, there’s oversupply, we should probably not invest in more supply or production capacity right now,’” their priority is “to ensure long-term markets for oil and gas.”

A coalition of advocacy groups including CIEL are calling on big banks to end their support for fossil fuel and petrochemical expansion. They’d like to see policies against financing companies building facilities to produce virgin plastics and fossil fuel-derived fertilizers. They also want banks to require clients to adopt credible transition plans to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees C, which may include targets to reduce plastics use and phase out some pesticides.

Fajans-Turner said the upward swing in fossil fuel financing reveals the weakness of voluntary sustainability commitments and reinforces the need for regulation. She suggested that, in addition to mandating more robust decarbonization plans from financial institutions, governments should require improved incorporation of climate risks when determining a borrower’s creditworthiness. “That would actually have many downstream consequences about who gets funding and who does not,” she said.

Joel Tickner, a professor of public health at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and founder of an independent research initiative on sustainable chemicals, said it’s important that governments scale back loans and tax incentives supporting the fossil fuel industry, subsidies that amount to more than $1 trillion annually. Some of this money could help finance the development and commercialization of greener chemistry.

Fossil fuel companies “have received decades of subsidies and financial support,” Tickner said. “If we’re serious about sustainable materials, then we need to put our money where we want to go.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

“Morally reprehensible”: Prediction Markets Offer Bets on Wildfires

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

Sylvie Andrews and her partner didn’t just lose the new house they’d helped build when the Eaton Fire ripped through Altadena, California, in January 2025. They lost an entire decade’s worth of sacrifices they’d made to put down roots in their hometown, and the community they’d created. “We put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into it,” Andrews said. “That’s what we lost in the fire.”

That fire, along with the Palisades Fire to the west, destroyed over 16,000 structures and killed 31 people. But while Andrews and thousands of Angelinos were racing to evacuate, other people saw a financial opportunity. Using Polymarket, the world’s largest prediction market platform, they made bets on the fires—how they would grow, how long they would last and how much they would destroy.

Prediction markets are essentially gambling websites where people bet on the outcome of events, including elections, sports, the weather and more. Anything is fair game, from oil prices and the spread of infectious diseases to international incidents. Markets usually frame questions in a “yes” or “no” fashion, with the price of a “contract” fluctuating between $0 and $1. A price of 50 cents on a “yes” contract means that the people doing the betting collectively believe the event has a 50 percent chance of happening. Market hosts make money by charging a fee on wagers.

“When you start gambling on somebody’s potential death or harm, you’re really diminishing the value that you’re placing on human life.”

In January 2025, Polymarket listed almost 20 questions, created by the platform’s “markets team,” related to the wildfires burning up Southern California. How many acres will the Palisades Fire burn by Friday, three days after it ignited on a Tuesday? Will the Palisades Fire reach Santa Monica by Sunday? When will the Palisades fire be 50 percent contained? Will the Palisades and Eaton fires be contained before February?

People spent $1.2 million betting on these queries, according to Aeon Magazine. “Wow,” Andrews said repeatedly when she learned the figure. “My first take is that it’s morally reprehensible,” she said. “The fact that someone would feel OK doing that flabbergasts me.”

“The prediction markets are just the wild, wild West,” said Susan Sherman, who grew up in the Pacific Palisades. She lost her childhood home in the Palisades Fire; her late parents had owned it since 1963, and now, it was gone. She sold the empty lot a few months ago. “I look at (betting on the fires) as just being very crass and heartless.”

As prediction markets boom and a new wildfire season begins, fire survivors and ethicists say that the betting encourages and rewards callous thinking—and dangerous behavior, too.

One major concern stemming from wildfire prediction markets is arson. “That’s what has me nervous,” Sherman said. Theoretically, making a bet could give someone the perverse incentive to start a fire, or help one grow. Unlike other disasters, such as hurricanes, flooding or extreme heat, a fire can be manipulated in minutes by just one person. “Systems that tie financial gain to wildfire outcomes risk encouraging misuse, including arson, and are not compatible with our mission,” a spokesperson for the US Forest Service said.

“Imagine what a bad actor might do,” said Ann Skeet, the senior director of leadership ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. “A market that might support that kind of activity, I think, is a dangerous market.” Firefighters or land managers with exclusive information about a fire’s behavior or an agency’s firefighting plans could even be tempted to bet on a fire, which would be considered insider trading.

But the biggest dilemma is largely an ethical one. “When you start gambling on somebody’s potential death or harm, you’re really diminishing the value that you’re placing on human life,” Skeet said.

Betting on a wildfire’s outcome isn’t just limited to general prediction market platforms anymore. This year, ahead of what’s likely to be a busy fire season in the West, a new prediction market specifically focused on California fires was launched. Called “Wyldfyre,” it bears the tagline: “You can’t predict wildfire. But you can trade on it.” High Country News was unable to determine the platform’s owner or the owner of its website’s IP address; the website is opaque, with no contact information listed.

Currently, Wyldfyre users can only simulate trading, but according to the site, the ability to bet with real money is “coming soon.” The platform purports to be the first prediction market of its kind, pricing county and city wildfire risk in real time. “California burns. Every year. And it’s getting worse. The question isn’t if— it’s where and when,” the site reads. It includes hotspot data from NASA and National Interagency Fire Center fire perimeters to help gamblers make predictions.

“If someone won money in gambling with our fate, I would hope that they might be ashamed of themselves.”

Proponents of prediction markets say the platforms generate useful information through crowdsourcing. Wyldfyre frames its platform as providing a public good. “Wyldfyre turns collective intelligence into better wildfire forecasting—one trade at a time,” the site reads.

But entities with a real need for wildfire forecasting, including federal and state firefighting agencies, say they aren’t interested in prediction market data. “The Forest Service does not use information from prediction markets for wildfire forecasting, and we do not rely on any system that treats wildfire as an event for speculation,” an agency spokesperson told _High Country News. “_Our priority is protecting firefighters, communities, and public lands, and our fire analysts use validated science, proven predictive tools, and data from federal partners such as the National Weather Service, NOAA, and the National Interagency Fire Center.”

California’s state firefighting agency has a similar policy. “CAL FIRE does not use prediction‑market-derived data in wildfire forecasting or operational decision‑making, nor are we currently evaluating that type of system,” said Phillip SeLegue, staff chief of CAL FIRE’s intelligence program.

The agency uses a “scientifically based fire-behavior modeling” program to generate a fire-spread prediction when a 911 call for a wildfire is processed, SeLegue said. The automated program uses weather observations, forecast data, fuel and vegetation conditions, topography, location data and information on available resources. “Our modeling is deterministic and physics‑based; it is not informed by markets, wagering systems, crowd predictions, or any other form of prediction‑market mechanism,” SeLegue said.

As prediction-market betting soars in popularity, politicians are beginning to try to rein it in. Representatives from Utah and California introduced federal legislation in March that would prohibit betting “related to terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or illegal activity,” according to a press release. A California senator introduced companion legislation that would also prohibit contracts about “an individual’s death.”

Meanwhile, Minnesota just became the first state to outlaw hosting or advertising (though not betting on) prediction markets; the federal government promptly sued the state for over-stepping its authority. None of the proposed restrictions at a state or federal level explicitly include wildfire—at least not yet.

While state and federal governments struggle to control prediction market betting, Andrews has an idea. “If someone won money in gambling with our fate, I would hope that they might be ashamed of themselves,” she said, “and take that money and donate it directly to fire survivors.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Celebrating America Doesn’t Have to Mean Erasing Our History

In the leadup to the semiquincentennial, President Donald Trump has waged a war on topics he deems “divisive,” from DEI to critical race theory. As a reporter and fact-checker, I’ve examined this attack on our history closely. I’ve interviewed historians about how our past shapes our current moment, observed the spectacles put on by administration, and chronicled an organization’s fight to preserve local historic memorials.

Through this work I’ve realized how much my own personal relationship to patriotism and history has evolved. As a kid in school, learning about the disproportionate amount of violence marginalized people faced throughout history made me pessimistic about the future. It was bizarre to read textbooks that minimized and dehumanized those moments of oppression along with the moments of achievement by anyone who wasn’t a white man. In American history marginalized people’s stories are often asides or relegated to stereotypes— if mentioned at all. Over time I became almost desensitized by the erasure as a way to focus on the ever-changing present moment.

In September, I spoke to former Alabama poet laureate Ashley M. Jones about her book, Lullaby for the Grieving, where she described “political grief”—the feeling of “being in a place which never wanted you to be human and reminds you every day that it still doesn’t consider you a human.” I realized that my political grief created a skepticism about how American history is told and those who chose to celebrate it at all.

Though I was skeptical, speaking with historians, nonprofit organizers, and protestors about America’s 250th birthday has made it clear to me that “celebrating” American history doesn’t have to mean ignoring historical moments that the Trump administration says “undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light.” Telling an honest and complete history that actually acknowledges the harm marginalized people endured in this country helps us reckon with what we’ve been through in the nation, and what we’d like to see in the next 250 years.

Culling American history also just leaves gaping holes in the American story that make it unintelligible. I keep returning to one of the administration’s most literal displays of this erasure: an animated show projected onto the Washington Monument itself which tells the American story from the Declaration of Independence to space exploration, while blatantly omitting historic systemic oppression like the expulsion of Native Americans or marginalized people’s contributions to the nation, like the three Black women who were essential to the space race.

The alternative to these revisionist displays is to accept that history is more complex and ambiguous than we often like to see it. As historian and American Association for State and Local History senior staff member John Garrison Marks noted during our conversation in April, when we use American history as a tool to win political and cultural fights, that argument over the past prevents us from seeing the future. Marks hoped that this anniversary would be an opportunity to bring people together and have complex conversations, an idea I heard echoed by many others.

Kitcki Carroll, the United South and Eastern Tribes executive director and I connected in April to talk about how to honor Native American perspectives during this anniversary, and he told me that for many Indigenous people, the semiquincentennial and events surrounding it are an opportunity to “course correct and make sure that for the next 250 years we’re not dealing with the same shortcoming and failures.”

While historians and community leaders have reminded me of the importance of keeping our eyes on the past for our future, I’ve been inspired by those who continue to fight for preservation as a link between the two. In response to Trump’s 2025 executive order to get rid of materials that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living,” a group of librarians, public historians, and data experts created Save Our Signs. Through this online archive, people take pictures of National Park signage and inform others of ones that have been removed. There’s also a map that highlights materials that were flagged for removal from leaked NPS Data. This effort has created a database of over 15,000 photos from 422 sites, an archive of material that is otherwise at risk of disappearing.

I got to see resistance to the administration’s erasure in person, too, when the Philadelphia organization, Avenging the Ancestors Coalition fought for the reinstallation of the President’s House slavery exhibit they helped get installed 15 years ago. During one of the rallies, Hannah Gann, a high school African American history teacher, said when her students heard the memorial was torn down, they were “upset that their real history was being erased and a huge part of our city’s history was being taken away and covered up.”

Though we often picture history as a stagnant thing that can be engraved on plaques, behind plexiglass in museums, or written in textbooks, really our story belongs to all of us, and there are numerous ways to preserve it. In art and literature, I’ve talked to creatives and academics like Jones, Carmen Emmi, Victoria Chang, Isaac Butler, and Kimberlé Crenshaw who’ve emphasized the importance of personal histories to the larger historical canon. Their art highlights lesser known events, like the 1885 expulsion of Chinese Americans from Eureka, California or overpolicing and history of entrapment of queer people. These artists’ perspective on the American story also adds personal weight to the historical moments the public is already familiar with, like censorship during the AIDS crisis or the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

These sorts of personal stories are a reminder of the inherent humanity in history that sometimes gets lost in the big picture of it, and show how honoring a diversity of perspectives helps connect us back to it. Diversity isn’t just about race or ethnicity, for many it’s about where they’re from. As a former resident of Alabama, when I first learned about the 250th I thought I’d be more of a spectator to the celebration happening in DC. Yet, I realized the semiquincentennial isn’t just about the founding, and although Alabama has its share of shortcomings, it has a complex culture and history, from its pivotal role in the Civil Rights movement to being home to the Muscle Shoals Sound Studio where legends like Aretha Franklin and the Rolling Stones recorded hit songs.

It’s cliche to say that “those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it,” but the more reporting I’ve done, the more I’ve found it to be true. San Francisco State University history professor Marc Robert Stein told me that history isn’t cyclical—it has patterns. Often, in interviews with historians, I ask them where they think our society stands and where they think we’re headed, and usually they start by pointing out the patterns they’ve seen over time, highlighting how the past can’t be removed from our present or future.

Despite what’s happening on the National Mall, in many ways, the necessary conversations about how we mend our relationship with history and move forward are happening. To me, the hope of this semiquincentennial is that more people are listening.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

America’s 250th Birthday Will Be a Scorcher Not All Will Survive

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

As New York City braces for an extreme heat wave amid the July 4th weekend and World Cup festivities, government officials and local hospitals are ramping up efforts to prevent heat-related illness.

Temperatures were expected to reach 100 degrees F on Thursday, with a heat index between 105 and 110 degrees—unusually hot for New York. Friday was expected to be just as sweltering. “These are extremely dangerous conditions, and they will affect every part of our city,” New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani said in a press conference on Tuesday.

Many major cities have heat emergency plans that involve setting up cooling centers, conducting outreach to vulnerable populations, and sending out emergency alerts. With heat waves becoming more intense and common as the planet warms, more cities are writing and implementing these types of plans to keep residents safe.

The risk of heat-related death and illness is expected to grow as extreme heat events become more frequent and intense.

This year, New York City first activated its heat emergency plan on May 19—the earliest it’s ever done so—due to a severe spring heat wave that pushed temperatures past the 90-degree mark across the Northeast. It activated that plan again in preparation for this latest heat wave.

As part of that emergency plan, the city will have more than 650 cooling stations up and running, including at libraries, recreation centers, and Petco stores, as well as some extra “nontraditional” cooling stations, which include government buildings, says Christinia Farrell, commissioner of the New York City Emergency Management Department. She says excessive heat warnings are becoming more common in New York.

The Mamdani administration is deploying cooling vans across the city to provide wellness checks, medical care, water, electrolytes, sunscreen, as well as transportation to cooling centers or health care facilities. LinkNYC kiosks, which have replaced old pay phones throughout the city, will also be programmed to display walking directions to the nearest cooling center, another new initiative under Mamdani.

To help the grid cope with more residential cooling demand, business owners are being asked to set their thermostats to 78 degrees, which the Department of Energy recommends during peak summer months.

Workers with the city’s Department of Social Services will be conducting in-person outreach to unhoused people. Individuals who need short-term housing will not be required to go through the typical intake procedure at shelters under the heat plan.

Philadelphia is also bracing for high heat. The city—which is hosting a World Cup match on July 4—has activated its heat emergency plan and has moved the hours for its FIFA Fan Festival to the evening. The city will have cooling and tents, free water refill stations, shaded areas, and multiple medical stations for fans. Still, the match between Paraguay and France will kick off at 5 pm ET, when it’s forecast to still feel well above 100 degrees with the heat and humidity.

The risk of heat-related death and illness is expected to grow as extreme heat events become more frequent and intense. A recent study from Yale University found that deaths associated with high temperatures nearly doubled in the US over the past two decades, from an annual average of 2,670 between 2000 and 2009, to more than 4,000 between 2010 and 2020. Most heat-related deaths occur indoors after prolonged exposure to heat without air-conditioning.

“Anybody who has an altered mental status who is hot, that is an indicator that they may be critically ill.”

New York emergency departments say they’re preparing to handle an increase in patients with acute heat illnesses in the coming days.

Erik Blutinger, an emergency medicine physician at Mount Sinai Queens, says the hospital is stocking up on towels, fans, and other supplies to make sure patients with heat sickness can be adequately treated. He says it’s important for people to be able to recognize the symptoms of heat-related illness so they can seek treatment as soon as possible.

Heat exhaustion can cause excessive sweating, nausea and vomiting, muscle cramps, and weakness. While it can often be managed outside the hospital with hydration and cooling down the body, heat exhaustion sometimes turns into heat stroke, which is more severe and can be life-threatening. People with heat stroke have dry, hot skin and a rapid pulse. They may feel confused, have slurred speech, or become unconscious.

“Anybody who has an altered mental status who is hot, that is an indicator that they may be critically ill,” says Reed Caldwell, chief of service at Tisch Hospital’s emergency department, part of NYU Langone Health.

When a person’s body temperature gets dangerously high, clinicians mimic sweating using a technique called evaporative cooling that involves stripping away clothing, misting the patient’s skin with water, and fanning them continuously. Cold water immersion and even ice-filled body bags can be used for the same purpose.

Excessive heat also worsens heart conditions, lung disease, and kidney problems, and people with chronic diseases are more vulnerable to severe heat sickness. Babies and older adults are also at higher risk because their bodies are less efficient at regulating temperature.

Prevention is key. “It’s important that we all drink water before we are thirsty,” Caldwell says. Sunscreen is also important, he says, since sunburns make the skin feel hotter and pulls fluid from other areas of the body, which can lead to dehydration. Limiting alcohol before going out in the heat is also a good idea, since alcohol causes dehydration—advice that’s particularly salient on a holiday and during World Cup matches, both of which feature plenty of day drinking. “There’s great value in pre-hydration and even greater value in not being dehydrated before you go somewhere.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Why America at 250 Still Cannot Face Slavery

When Bryan Stevenson moved to Montgomery, Alabama, in the 1980s, the city—one of America’s most prominent slave trading spaces before the Civil War—had dozens of Confederate monuments and memorials, but nothing commemorating slavery.

Today, thanks to Stevenson’s efforts, the city looks much different. Over the last decade, the executive director of the nonprofit Equal Justice Initiative has transformed parts of Montgomery through markers acknowledging the legacy of slavery while building the Legacy Sites, a museum and memorials that commemorate the nation’s history of lynching, enslavement, and racial terror across the South.

“We have to now fight to correct the historic record, to have an honest accounting of what happened to our parents and grandparents and their parents,” Stevenson says. “Because without an honest accounting, we will not make it to the next step.”

This week on Reveal, host Al Letson travels to Montgomery to interview Stevenson as America marks its 250th anniversary. He talks about the importance of memorializing the nation’s darkest chapters as the Trump administration attempts to erase slavery from America’s museums and explains why he sees today’s narrative struggle for racial justice as a generational battle.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

America is 250 Years Old. Have You Ever Read the Declaration of Independence?

On a glorious morning walk about a week before America’s 250th birthday, I was listening to Jon Stewart’s podcast on that theme. I recommend it. One of the things he discusses with his historian guests, Yale’s David Blight and Harvard’s Annette Gordon-Reed, is the Declaration of Independence, which both historians called a “dangerous document” in terms of its focus on the right of the people to overthrow an unjust ruler.

Indeed, as my colleagues David Corn and Tim Murphy pointed out exactly one year ago, certain of the tyrannical acts my co-author, Thomas Jefferson, cited as grievances in that founding document are uncannily evocative of the usurpations of our current presidential administration.

You can agree with that or not. But whether you are MAGA or a democratic socialist, it’s worth reading our founding document in full. It’s not too terribly long, and—problematic language notwithstanding—it offers some perspective as to the frustrations of the men, flawed as they may have been, who laid down a case for independence and a foundation for the American experiment.

Ben Franklin famously responded, in 1787, to the question of whether we had a republic or a monarchy: “A republic, if you can keep it.” And with that, I turn over this post to Mr. Jefferson and his peers.

In Congress, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

John Hancock [et al]

Happy Birthday, America!

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

I Talked to Trump Supporters About Cuts to the Train… on the Train

If you want to understand U.S. politics, take the train.

The Trump administration’s federal budget request for the next fiscal year includes steep cuts to passenger rail. According to an analysis by the High Speed Rail Alliance, a pro-rail advocacy group, the budget proposal would slash Federal Railroad Administration funding by 81 percent. This includes a 69 percent funding cut to Amtrak.

But rural Republicans have historically relied on passenger rail. They also elected the same administration now cutting this service that they rely on. At this point, this paradox is nothing new: From cutting healthcare subsidies to immigration dragnets to costly and devastating wars, President Donald Trump’s assault on human rights and domestic programs has ensnared the very people whose support he has relied on.

So, how is this playing out with voters in real time, particularly ahead of the midterm elections?

I took the train to find out.

From Newark to D.C. to Pittsburgh, I met people across political lines. People who love Trump, and people who want to invoke the 25th Amendment. People who hope cuts to trains and other services will change conservative hearts and minds, and people who can imagine passenger rail funding going to things they view as more important.

Across these differences, one common theme emerged: Daily life in the U.S. right now costs way too much. To me, it underlined the way power has worked before Trump and will work after. If people who have been deprived of wealth and influence unite against the power players leveraging those things against us, then what could we achieve?

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Watch: Trump’s Dystopia Takes Over the National Mall

“Loitering is not permitted in this area,” an audio recording sternly warns, as uniformed National Guard troops patrol Washington’s iconic, algae-plagued reflecting pool. “Please proceed to a designated location.”

Journalist Amanda Moore’s dystopian video, shot last weekend just steps from the Lincoln Memorial, instantly went viral—a perfect 8-second encapsulation of American democracy under Donald Trump. Amanda has spent the past 18 months documenting the chaos and brutality of the administration’s militarized takeovers and immigration raids in cities across the country. Her footage has been shocking, often horrifying. But it’s never before been quite so absurd. (Well, maybe once.)

In her latest video report for Mother Jones, Amanda takes us on a tour of the Trumpified National Mall as the nation attempts to celebrate its 250th birthday. Not far from the reflecting pool’s nanobubblers and security theater, there’s a very different scene: Trump’s Great America State Fair. When Amanda visited this marquee anniversary event, she found a dearth of visitors, a shortage of napkins, and a decaying model of the triumphal arch the president wants to build across the Potomac.

The symbolism here is about as subtle as a Jon McNaughton painting. If I hadn’t seen Amanda’s reporting, I never would have believed it was real.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The State Department’s New Recruiting Contractor Wants More Christian Diplomats

Foreign Service Officers play a pivotal role in the US Department of State—and in the world. According to the agency’s website, these high-ranking officials “engage with foreign governments, advocate for American interests, and help shape global policy across political, economic, and humanitarian priorities.” Because of the importance of their duties, the vetting process for Foreign Service Officers is famously intense and includes both a rigorous screening process and a difficult multi-hour exam.

Last year, the Trump administration announced sweeping changes to the program, vowing to end hiring practices that it said relied too heavily on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The Secretary of State was to “remove any reference to the Core Precept entitled ‘Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility,'” Trump ordered in a March 2025 memo. “The Secretaries shall promptly direct all employees of their Departments not to give this Core Precept any force or effect.”

Later that year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio abruptly recalled 29 ambassadors and fired 246 Foreign Service Officers. The moves were part of a restructuring that, Rubio wrote in a Substack post, aimed to rid the State Department of a culture where “radical ideologues and bureaucratic infighters have learned to…push through their own agendas that are often at odds with those of the President and undermine the interests of the United States.”

Now, the US Department of State is looking to hire a new generation of Foreign Service Officers. To recruit applicants for these coveted and vital positions, the agency just signed a contract with a company called Military Hire, a subsidiary of the employment firm RedBalloon, which describes itself as “America’s non-woke job board.” At $978,750, the amount of the contract is not particularly high, but the company nevertheless has lofty ambitions. It aims to give the Foreign Service an anti-woke makeover by attracting ideologically “aligned” candidates—hopefully Christians.

Earlier this week, RedBalloon CEO Andrew Crapuchettes appeared on CrossPolitic, a podcast that says it is “helping Christians apply God’s law to politics.” CrossPolitic is a project of CanonPress, the publishing house connected to Christian nationalist Idaho pastor Doug Wilson’s Church. Perhaps not coincidentally, Crapuchettes is an elder at Wilson’s Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, and Wilson has robust connections to the Trump administration through defense secretary Pete Hegseth.

“It was focused on trying to get in the guy with a PhD in Black dance, rather than people who can actually do a good job.”

In the CrossPolitic episode–called “Could 1,000 Employees Change the State Department Forever?”—Crapuchettes says that before the current administration, “a lot of the recruiting was focused on DEI. It was focused on trying to get in the guy with a PhD in Black dance, rather than people who can actually do a good job.”

Those DEI hires, Craphuchettes charges, were often reluctant to follow directives that aligned with the administration’s “America First” ethic. “What they’re finding is all these Foreign Service Officers are like, ‘Yeah, I don’t really want to. Yeah, that sounds really hard, so I’m not going to,’ because they’re, more than not, leftists, and they don’t want to do President Trump’s agenda,” he says. “They want him to look bad, and they want to drag their feet.”

Because of this mismatch of values, Crapuchettes says, the State Department “got rid of the entire recruiting department…like 50 people,” and now is in the process of “cleaning house.” That means “removing a lot of people who are not aligned with the current administration’s agenda, and they want to get people who are more aligned.”

Crapuchettes then invites Christians to apply for jobs in the foreign service. “I would love to see a lot of Christians applying, taking the test, doing the hard work, becoming a foreign service officer, going to Germany for two years, or Botswana, or Thailand,” he says. “You’re working for the ambassador; you’re going to build connections and relationships that you can’t get any other way, and all of a sudden you’re in a position where you can have a huge influence for the rest of your life on the US government.”

Elsewhere in the interview, Crapuchettes explains that RedBalloon is working on developing similar recruiting contracts with the Department of War and the Department of the Interior. He also claims that the company “just got another contract” with the Department of Veterans Affairs to perform “political appointee level recruitment for them.” Neither the State Department nor the VA responded to our questions; a spokesperson from the Department of War declined to comment.

Crapuchettes founded RedBalloon in 2021. At first, the company attracted applicants who were seeking jobs without Covid vaccine mandates. But as the pandemic faded into the background, the company’s remit expanded. A 2023 Wired profile noted that Donald Trump, Jr. called RedBalloon “a HUGE advance in the culture war.” Today, it boasts a network of “tens of thousands” of job seekers “who value freedom, hard work, and merit-based recognition.” The employers hiring through it include Turning Point USA, the Christian cell phone service Patriot Mobile, and the conservative media company The Daily Wire.

In the podcast, Crapuchettes boasts that RedBalloon has developed a reputation for working with government agencies unpopular with the political left. “We’re already doing stuff for like Border Patrol, which gets us in trouble—ICE, Border Patrol, we do hiring for them,” he tells Wilson. He suggests that Military Hire is a less controversial brand. “RedBalloon’s a little hotter to handle than Militaryhire.com, and so on a PR front, Militaryhire.com’s got the contract, not Red Balloon,” he says, “which is fine with me.” (A Border Patrol spokesperson clarified in an email to Mother Jones that the agency “has worked with Military Hire since 2022 and was under contract with them when they were acquired by RedBalloon.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

Doug Wilson, who heads the Idaho church where Crapuchettes is an elder and also oversees a small fiefdom of businesses and schools connected to his church, is increasingly influential in national politics. A spiritual adviser to US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, he delivered a sermon on manly, godly warriors at the Pentagon earlier this year. A self-proclaimed Christian nationalist, Wilson is a firebrand online. In previous interviews, he has told me that women’s suffrage was “a mistake” and that in his ideal version of the United States, public flogging would largely replace prisons. In a 2024 address at the National Conservatism conference, he described a society under siege by identity politics and anti-Christian bias. “It used to be that the sexually troubled had to keep their kinks hidden away in the closet,” he said. “Now it is the conservative Christian who needs to keep his virtues hidden in the recesses of the closet.”

On matters of woke-ism, Wilson appears to be firmly aligned with the Red Balloon ethos. In a post on his blog last year, he thundered against DEI initiatives. “It is not enough for us to be against woke, or DEI, or social justice, or whatever new term our lizard overlords have decided to foist upon us,” he wrote. “We must be hostile to all such verbal iterations.”

Job seekers don’t pay to use RedBalloon and Military Hire; rather, employers pay to recruit through these companies—hence the State Department’s contract. Crapuchettes says in the podcast that his platform will offer opportunities to take practice tests—an important feature because applicants are only allowed to take the test once a year. In an emailed statement, RedBalloon spokesperson Isaac Lopez said that the company does not “screen, filter, or evaluate any applicant based on political affiliation, religion, or ideology, and we have no policy, written or unwritten, that does so, consistent with federal hiring law.” Lopez added that Crapuchettes’ comments on the podcast “reflected a personal hope that more public-service-minded people of faith consider federal careers. His sentiment was not a company screening criterion.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Is Using Your Money to Pollute Our Air This July 4th

The Trump administration’s July 4th fireworks show will likelyproduce unhealthy levels of pollution at the National Mall and the surrounding area—a fitting byproduct of the president’s 250th American anniversary celebration.

Internal documents from the National Park Service, which hosts the annual DC fireworks celebration, and obtained by the Washington Post, say that people in the area should “remain indoors as much as possible during and after the show” and “wear an N95 mask when outdoors” to prevent “irritation symptoms.”

A significant contributor to these warnings is the scale of the fireworks display: theapproximately 850,000 fireworks for 40 minutes. This is about 50 times more than the usual number of fireworks and double the typical show duration.

To fund the extravagance, Trump is using $1.6 million in revenue from entry fees to national parks—five times more than what’s usually spent on the show. According to the Washington Post, the president is funneling a total of at least $90 million from national park entry fees for his plans to remake DC in his own image**.** This includes $76 million for repairing fountains, such as the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Surely, this is the best use of these funds, considering the US Department of the Interior states that, as of September 2025, it needs $35.4 billion for maintenance and repair tasks that have already been postponed.

As my colleague Dan Friedman noted in May, some watchdog groups say the Trump administration skipped past congressional oversight by funneling money to the public-private partnership Freedom250.

It’s just another set of opaque business deals to serve one man’s vanity.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

This Supreme Court Term Was About Weakening Democracy

Chief Justice John Roberts famously promised that he would run the highest court like an impartial umpire calling balls and strikes. Instead, Roberts and his fellow Republican appointees have studiously moved forward a radical agenda. This term, the justices inRoberts’ six-three majority not only advanced their priorities, they accomplished them. As a result, Americans now live in a different constitutional order. The court reshaped the government, shifting it away from a multiracial democracy and toward a racially-stratified autocracy.

The Roberts Court is predictable. Not because it follows the law, but because it never passes an opportunity to push its ideological vision. Once you know where Roberts and his colleagues want the country to go, you can figure out how almost every relevant case will end. The roadmap is simple.

First, Roberts and the majority fundamentally disagree with the premise that we have three co-equal branches of government. They believe in the idea of a “unitary executive” with total control over the machinery of government, with the justices themselves serving as the main check on the president. The biggest loser is Congress. Despite it being designedas be the most powerful branch, the court takes every opportunity to trample legislative authority. Second, this court has allies it seeks to help whenever it can, namely, the Republican Party, President Donald Trump, and the wealthiest Americans and the businesses they run. Finally, this majority is animated by a dislike of the Reconstruction amendments, civil rights laws, and using the laws or the Constitution to protect disfavored groups. If they have a chance to strike a blow to a minority group, they take it.

This term, the court didn’t move the ball down the field, they scored tournament-changing goals. In two major cases, Roberts and his allies can claim victories for the conservative movement decades in the making. The country is already feeling the consequences.

The message to Trump was clear: the law is not binding, and we will not stop you from ignoring it.

First, on April 29, the court effectively killed the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a law that for 61 years guaranteed racial minorities a political voice. In Louisiana v. Callais, the court ruled that states can gerrymander communities of color so that they never have a shot at electing their choice of representative. Not only did the court deal a death blow to the VRA, its ruling also took away Congress’ ability to enforce the 15th Amendment’s prohibition on racial discrimination in voting. The Reconstruction amendments are worth little if the court won’t enforce them and Congress can’t. Yet the Callais decision all but forecloses Congress’ ability to protect voters of color. “I can’t even imagine what statute Congress would enact protecting racial equality in voting, especially when it comes to dilution, that would survive a Supreme Court judgment that will rely on Callais,” said Berkeley law professor Bertrall Ross.

Some Republican-controlled states immediately set about eliminating majority-minority Congressional districts ahead of this year’s midterm elections, including in Louisiana, Alabama, and Tennessee. But that’s only the beginning. Not only will Congress grow whiter as GOP states, mostly in the South, draw Black and brown people out of power as they were free to dobefore the VRA, but so will state andlocal governments. Legislatures, school boards, municipal councils—states can now cut minorities out of all levels of government, rendering them, effectively, subjects rather than equal citizens.

In another case that is an earthquake to government, the court eliminated independent agencies in Trump v. Slaughter. This case fundamentally shifted the balance of federal powers in America, neutering Congress and handing vast new authority to the president. It’s an anti-democracy, pro-corruption decision that will affect everyone.

Since the country’s earliest days, Congress has had the ability to create what we now call independent agencies, insulated in various ways from direct presidential control. These proliferated in the 20th century as the federal government adapted to the exigencies of modernity. In 1935, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of independent agencies whose members can only be removed by the president for cause, as opposed to political disagreement. Relyingupon this decision, Humphrey’s Executor, Congress created dozens of independent agencies over the last 90 years, to regulate everything from major mergers to the safety of consumer products. Until Monday, these agencies were run by bipartisan, multi-member commissions whose members have removal protection.

But on June 29, the court’s 6-3 majority declared that the president can remove the heads of these agencies for any reason. It overturned Humphrey’s Executor and effectively handed all the powers of these agencies over to one man. It’s clear where this will lead: allies and donors can ask for favors when it comes to any regulatory decision that concerns them, and the president can reward them. Likewise, the president can weaponize these agencies—which were supposed to be insulated from presidential politics—for his own political and financial gain. If any commissioner chooses not to act at the president’s behest, Trump can simply remove them. In fact, the opinion may ripple down from the commissioners to the civil servants who work for them. The ruling’s logic, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in dissent, could lead the court to overturn civil service protections and herald a return to a spoils system.

The decision is not just a boon to corrupt government and presidential power, it is a body blow to Congress. The legislative branch is simply not equipped to make every regulation, decision, or adjudication necessary to carry out its laws. As a result, it created agencies to do that work. And in some cases, Congress determinedthe agencies should have at least some insulation from presidential control. By taking away that independence, the court has done violence to Congress’ ability to ensure its laws are followed. Lawmakers can still hold hearings if they are concerned about an agency’s actions, or even withhold funding—although doing that undercuts its ability to see that its laws are carried out. This decision is a “nuclear bomb for the separation of powers,” Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote. If the president doesn’t want to follow the law, there’s little Congress can do to enforce its directives.

In his majority opinion in Slaughter, Robertslets his loathing for Congress spill onto the page. He chided Congress for “taking more power for itself” by creating independent agencies, and decried how they result in an “‘increased subservience to congressional direction.’” But ironically, it is the court that is grabbing power. The only explicit exception to its holding is the Federal Reserve Board, which the court claimed had a different history, but which was transparently an acknowledgment that placing the board’s monetary decisionsunder one man could destroy the economy. The 6-3 majority reserved the right to exempt other agencies from presidential control on a case by case basis, placing their own judgement about the necessity of independence over Congress’.

This disdain for Congress was a theme in three major immigration cases, in which the same GOP-appointed majority let the administration ignore laws passed by Congress commanding how the president should implement immigration laws. In a decision that will have massive human consequences, the majority allowed the Trump administration to eliminate Temporary Protect Status for Haitian and Syrian immigrants, even though, in the case of TPS for Haitians, the administration did not follow the rules Congress laid out to legally end such a designation. Now, Trump can unilaterallytake legal status from some 1.3 million people without following the required process. The court’s message to the president was clear: the law is not binding, and we will not stop you from ignoring it. In a case over the rights of asylum seekers, the court ruled the administration doesn’t have to process asylum seekers as mandated by law if border officers can simplyblock them from physicallystepping into the US. Finally, the court gave immigration officers more discretion to take away a lawful permanent resident’sgreen card at the border, a decision that, in Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s words, undermines the “benefits and security that come with having” that status. In all three cases, the president’s prerogatives took primacy over the law.

The court is a single vote away from undoing our nation of equals.

As if going after Congress’ ability to enact voting rights laws, to determine who carries out its laws, and the legitimacy of its immigration laws wasn’t enough, the court dealt a serious blow to its authority to enforce rules it attaches to its spending. Under the Constitution, Congress can spend money for the “general welfare,” which is called spending clause legislation. Sometimes these laws dole out money, but come with strings attached: Famously, highway funding requires states to set the drinking age at 21. But in a case called Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, the 6-3 majority weakened Congress’ ability to enforce such rules.

One such spending clause law requires that prisons that receive federal funds respect inmates’ religious rights. In violation of this law, guards in Louisiana shaved the head of an incarcerated Rastafarian man, despite the religious dictate that he not cut his hair. The court found that the former inmate, Damon Landor, could not sue the guards. This will likely result in more disregard for prisoners’ religious rights. But the broader picture is even more troubling. “The Court reduces some of Congress’s greatest legislative achievements—federal laws that secure civil rights, environmental stability, healthcare, and more—to nothing more than the wheelings-and-dealings of an especially wealthy private party,” Jackson warned in her dissent. If Congress can’t enforce the terms of its spending, it has lost an enormous source of power, with victims left in the lurch.

On the final day of the term, the court struck down one of Congress’ last standing campaign finance rules, giving the wealthiest Americans another way to influence politicians. The ruling in NRSC v. FEC limits how Congress can guard against corruption through campaign finance regulations, and specifically allows wealthy donors to circumvent the $7,000 limit they can directly give to a candidate by routing over half a million to them through the party apparatus. As Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent warns, this promotes corruption, degrades our system of government, and substitutes the court’s judgement for Congress’. Again, because the biggest winners are Republicans and billionaires, and the loser is Capitol Hill, this 6-3 outcome was predictable.

Just as the Roberts Court has dedicated itself to destroying the VRA and ending independent agencies, it has likewise taken every opportunity to weaken campaign finance laws, allowing billions of dollars to flow into American elections, reorienting American politics toward rewarding the biggest donors. Callais, Slaughter, and NRSC v. FEC are all creatures of this 20-year agenda. All three cases rely almost exclusively on other Roberts court decisions. Again and again, they fail to find any help for their arguments that date back to before Roberts’ 2005 ascension to the high court. (The only exception is that Slaughter uses a 1926 case, Myers v. United States—but it’s a contrived reliance that takes the precedent beyond its bounds and ignores its deep and well-documented flaws.) The combined result of the rulingsis stunning: thesemajor cases have rolled back civil rights and reshaped the government in the image of the current permutation of this court.

The conservative bloc also continued its march against civil rights for minorities. Beyond Callais, the court upheld state laws that ban transgender women and girls from participating in school sports. The decision locks transgender girls and young women out of the educational and social benefits of athletic competition in 27 states with bans, continuing this court’s anti-transgender turn. But all girls and women are likely to be affected. The court’s reasoning would logically extend to laws that treat the sexes differently, enabling more laws that discriminate on the basis of sex.

Though the court gave Trump massive wins over the course of the term, it held back when it deemed the consequences too potentially damaging to the economy. These losses for Trump demonstrate an understanding of what is best for the president and his allies, even if he doesn’t agree. In particular, Trump claimed the power to impose emergency tariffs on any nation, as well as the power to fire governors of the Federal Reserve over flimsy allegations. Both would have enormous economic consequences that would imperil Trump’s reigning political coalition. So in two opinions, both by Roberts, the court struck down most of his tariffs, and it blocked his attempt to immediately remove Lisa Cook from the Fed. (The Cook decision was narrow, leaving the robustness of Fed independence uncertain.)

Hanging over the entire term was a case over the Trump administration’s attempt to take birthright citizenship away from the children of temporary visitors and undocumented immigrants. The policy, an executive order signed on Trump’s first day back in office, violates the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, which states unequivocally that “all persons born” in the country and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. This sacred provision overturned Dred Scott and with it the era of inherited status. There is no American dream—the idea that anyone born here can get ahead through hard work—if all Americans are not born citizens on equal legal footing. Perhaps because this case struck at the heart of what this country is and what it stands for, it was widely presumed that a large majority would strike down Trump’s unconstitutional order and uphold the 14th Amendment.

But when the decision came down on June 30, it was shockingly close. A bare majority, 5-4, ruled that birthright citizenship applied to virtually all people born in the country. Though spared this time, the closeness of this case did not settle the issue but brought on more nativist, anti-immigrant agitation on the part of Trump and his allies. Justice Brett Kavanaugh invited Congress to limit birthright citizenship, writing that he believed lawmakers couldredefine citizenship. The decision is a warning that the entire project of multiracial democracy and legal equality hangs by a thread.

The court ended a term in which it disempowered minorities and shifted power to the wealthy, to the president, and to itself, by unambiguouslyshowing just how radical it is—a single vote away from undoing the basic tenet of a nation of equals. The court not only made radical changes to our system of government: it showed how much worse it could get.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

On the Longest Day of the Year, Ocean Surface Temperatures Hit a Record High

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

Temperatures on the ocean surface have hit a record high, raising fears of another burst of extreme heat this summer.

On June 21, temperatures outside the polar regions exceeded the extraordinary highs observed at the same time in 2023 and 2024, the Copernicus Climate Change Service said on Wednesday.

It warned the new peak would probably bring “consequences for weather patterns, global climate, and marine ecosystems,” not least because it would coincide with the earliest phases of an El Niño event they forecast to be the strongest in decades.

In 2020, the heat being added to the oceans was equivalent to about 5 Hiroshima bombs per second. Last year, it was closer to 11 .

When the previous ocean record for June was set in 2023, scientists described the trends as “worrying,” “terrifying,” and “bonkers” because they were so far outside their expectations. That presaged an El Niño and a period of devastating global heatwaves, floods, and storms.

That 2023 record has now been surpassed and much of the world is once again seeing an alarming rise in temperatures. Last month, the UK and many other countries in Europe sweltered amid new heat records while Antarctica experienced unprecedentedly balmy winter conditions.

Although the focus is usually on land temperatures, oceans give a fuller picture of how much the climate is being pushed out of balance by human-caused warming.

Surface temperatures are affected by solar radiation, water currents, and the buildup of heat in the depths.

Oceans absorb more than 90 percent of the excess energy in the Earth system, which is primarily caused by burning fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and gas. That imbalance hit a record 23 zettajoules last year, more than double the average of the previous two decades.

As a result, the oceans are warming at an accelerating rate. In 2020, the amount of heat being added to the oceans was equivalent to about five Hiroshima bombs per second. Last year, it was closer to 11 Hiroshima explosions per second. The UN’s secretary general, António Guterres, has warned “Earth is being pushed beyond its limits.”

Scientists said it was too early to say whether the sea surface heating would prove temporary or even worsen because annual peaks are usually registered in July and August.

But Carlo Buontempo, Copernicus director at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, warned it could indicate the beginning of a new phase, leading, once more, to uncharted territory: “With ocean temperatures at these levels and El Niño on the horizon, we are likely to see more temperature records fall in the coming months.”

Copernicus is part of the EU’s space program.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

SCOTUS Just Issued Its Biggest Privacy Ruling in Nearly a Decade

The Supreme Court dealt Big Brother a blow on Monday with a landmark ruling for digital privacy rights in Chatrie v. United States. Conservative Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch joined the liberal blocof Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jacksonin finding that smartphone location data is subject to privacy protections under the Fourth Amendment. Though consequential, the case has gone largely overlooked amid this week’s deluge of high-profile rulings, including the decision to block President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order attempting to overturn the guarantee of birthright citizenship. It marks the Court’s first decision on digital surveillance since 2018, when it found that law enforcement’s warrantless search of cell site location history violated the Fourth Amendment.

To better understand the implications of Chatrie, I hopped on the phone with Stevie Glaberson, director of research and advocacy at Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy and Technology. The Center filed an amicus brief in the case alongside the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU. Glaberson helped break down Chatrie and what the Court’s ruling means in an age of growing digital surveillance.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

At the center of Chatrie is law enforcement’s use of a “geofence warrant” to identify the potential suspect of a bank robbery in 2019. What are geofence warrants, and how do they differ from regular search warrants?

A geofence warrant is one of the kinds of warrants that people sometimes refer to as “reverse warrants.” When you think about a traditional warrant, the police are supposed to have particularized suspicions—they’re supposed to be going to a neutral decision maker, like a judge or a magistrate, to show their reasons for suspecting that a certain person or a certain place has evidence of a crime that they’re investigating.

In the case of geofence warrants, [the police] don’t have a particular person in mind, and they sort of work backwards from a location. They draw a line around that location and ask the company, in this case Google, for all the devices that can be found within that location at the relevant time.

In this case, the police drew a line around the bank and asked Google for all of the devices that could be found within that space during the time the robbery occurred. That space didn’t just involve the bank. There was a church in the immediate area, and there might have been people’s homes or other businesses.

Have police increased their use of geofence warrants in recent years? How long has this search tactic been used?

“What was happening here is something that the founders could not have imagined when they were debating the Fourth Amendment.”

This technique did not exist previously. It’s only possible because of the way technology works now, and a big part of what the Court said in its opinion is that what was happening here is something that the founders could not have imagined when they were debating the Fourth Amendment—a kind of surveillance and a kind of police investigation that would not have been possible. It was not previously possible for the police to retroactively tail all of us into private businesses and homes, throughout our days, at this level of granularity.

The interesting thing about the Chatrie case is that the particular three-step process that happened here, Google had already said that they are no longer doing it the same way. But that does not mean that there are not other ways for the police to access this type of information.

Can you explain that three-step process ?

The more common thing is for police to just ask a company or a person for a specific thing in a specific location. Here, the warrant described this three-step process that, once the judge approved it, Google and the police would just go through [the data] on their own without returning to the magistrate.

First, Google would look in that physical location, the box the police had drawn, and return anonymized information about all the devices. The police would then look at what Google gave them and try to narrow down which of the devices they wanted more information about. In this case, the initial step returned 19 devices. And the police said, Okay, we want information about these nine.

And what’s important to note is that in this case they were only looking for one suspect. So, at each of these steps, they’re getting the data of people that are affirmatively not the suspect. And it’s important to recognize that these kinds of searches could draw in all of us, regardless of any suspicion or not.

So the police asked Google for more information about those nine accounts to look at where else those devices went before and after the crime. The identities of the people were still not being revealed to the police, but they could now see two hours of really granular location information about all the places those devices came from and went to during that period. Google captures location data once every two minutes, and it’s pretty precise about where a person is. It also can capture elevation data—if this person went to the doctor’s office on the third floor, rather than the insurance salesman on the tenth floor.

“We found…that the majority of American adults, as of 2021, were in Department of Homeland Security immigration databases and could be located by ICE and CBP.”

From that return of nine sets of more granular information over two hours, the police then were supposed to look through that and identify the devices they wanted unmasked, to learn the identities of the people who owned those devices. And in this case, they didn’t just ask for the person they eventually prosecuted, Mr. Chatrie. They asked Google to de-anonymize three accounts—so, once again, people who affirmatively were not then the suspect.

What did the Supreme Court have to say about this process?

Six justices got in line behind the idea that the decision [from a lower court] should be vacated—that a search did happen here according to the Fourth Amendment and needs to be more closely reviewed. Five justices signed on to the main opinion written by Justice [Elena] Kagan. And Justice Gorsuch wrote his own opinion that gets to the same place, but through a different avenue.

Justice Kagan’s opinion goes through the most recent, really seminal opinion on Fourth Amendment privacy in the digital era, which is Carpenter. That’s a case about cell site location information, which is pretty similar to the Google location history that was at issue here. And the majority opinion decides that, in accordance with Carpenter in 2018, a search did occur here when the government went to Google and asked for all of this information, and so we need to look very closely at whether the warrant that the police got was appropriate. The opinion leaves for another day the questions that will ultimately resolve the case about whether the warrant itself was appropriate, but it decides that, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, the government did conduct a search here.

One thing that’s really important about this decision is that it says a third-party doctrine does not apply in this case. The third-party doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment that risks really swallowing the rule for all of us in today’s digital economy. It’s the idea that once you voluntarily share information with someone else, a third party [like Google], you lose all reasonable expectations of privacy in that information and the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply. And in this case, Justice Kagan’s opinion really importantly says the third-party doctrine does not apply here—just by using a cell phone the way cell phone users do, we don’t give up our rights to our private information.

What are the broader implications of the Court’s ruling? Do you expect this case to have a ripple effect?

So if you read Justice [Samuel] Alito’s dissent, he basically says this is coming for all digital surveillance—which in our book is probably a good thing, but he says it as though it is a terrible thing.

I think this is probably the most significant Supreme Court ruling on the Fourth Amendment since Carpenter. What practical impact it will have remains to be seen, but I think it is an incredibly important development that the Supreme Court is not just extending the third-party doctrine to to all cases and saying that the introduction of a layer of corporate interaction in our lives removes all expectations of privacy.

Because basically, in the last few decades, every single thing we do—from communicating with our families to managing our finances to even thinking our own private thoughts—corporations have sort of wormed their way into all of those processes and are mediating all of our human interactions, sometimes the most sensitive facets of our lives.

“Everybody should recognize that placing these limits on police and on government is vital…for community and for democracy.”

And if the mere fact that a corporate tool was in the middle of all of that meant that we had no expectation of privacy whatsoever, that would be the exception that swallows the Fourth Amendment. I don’t know whether this opinion will meaningfully change our day-to-day, but it is a step in the right direction to say that the Fourth Amendment really does still mean something. Privacy is still a value, and one that we’re going to protect.

It seems like people are increasingly aware of and concerned about surveillance, but thinking about things like First Amendment concerns, why does this decision matter for everyday people who haven’t committed or aren’t suspected of having committed any crimes?

All of these techniques—from geofence reverse location searches to police use of facial recognition technology—impact all of us. The companies and the police and the federal government don’t necessarily distinguish when they vacuum up information—when they buy information from data brokers, or when they use facial recognition on a crowd, they don’t distinguish between folks that they have a particular interest in and folks that they don’t. They are just vacuuming up information on everybody.

We found in our research that the majority of American adults, as of 2021, were in Department of Homeland Security immigration databases and could be located by ICE and CBP. So, at a practical level, it impacts all of us, and it has really serious implications on our ability to live our lives and do the things that we want to do together. Because very quickly information about one of us becomes information about a whole group of us, and the police can use these kinds of techniques to surveil and track us from afar, without our knowledge, and identify when we go to protests or come together in community.

So everybody should recognize that placing these limits on police and on government is vital to maintain any kind of any hope for communal action for community and for democracy.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

I’d Seen It From The Ground, But Wait Until You See It From The Sky

On a hot, sunny day in California, I crawled into the tiny cockpit of a small Cessna aircraft to fly around one of the state’s most active volcanoes, Mt. Lassen.

Video by Peter Berger

I wasn’t looking for lava. The volcano in Lassen Volcanic National Park hasn’t erupted in more than 100 years. Instead, I was looking for the telltale signs of herbicide spraying across vast stretches of forestland. I’d already seen it from the ground: seemingly endless expanses of land devoid of plant life because glyphosate—a.k.a. Roudup—or similar herbicides were deployed to kill everything except young tree saplings being grown for timber. But it was hard to fully get a sense of the scale.

What would it look like from the sky?

I knew record amounts of glyphosate were being sprayed in California’s forests, much of it in the wake of the megafires that have hit the state in recent years. For our Mother Jones investigation, my colleague Melissa Lewis and I analyzed more than 5 million state records and found that the state’s fastest growing market for the controversial chemical was to spray forestlands.

That’s when the scale of the destruction hit me.

As the cramped little plane took off from an airfield in Chico, with me sitting in the co-pilot seat, I had to fight the urge to nervously press my feet down, because they rested on pedals that—insanely to my mind—could send the plane careening off in some unwanted direction. Pilot Gary Kraft, who’d agreed to take me up as part of his nonprofit EcoFlight’s mission to show people nature from the sky, initially said not to worry about the pedals, but then, sternly, warned me against pressing on them. I didn’t need to be told twice.

As our Cessna ascended, my anxiety waned, and the birds-eye beauty of the volcanic landscape took shape. Mount Lassen marks the southern end of the Cascade Range, and the northern beginning of the Sierra Nevada mountains. This confluence of sparsely populated mountains is among the most majestic in a state brimming with natural beauty.

The plane headed out of the farm-rich Central Valley and took us over oak-studded foothills, cut with deep canyons whose cascading creeks are home to some of the state’s last remaining spring run chinook salmon—a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Soon, the oak trees gave way to the Christmas-shaped trees so many of us associate with the mountains, towering conifers like firs and cedars. And that’s when the scale of the destruction hit me.

First, we spotted the dead hillsides where two of the state’s largest infernos—the 2021 Dixie Fire and the 2024 Park Fire—had burned across mountainsides.

Wildfire-burned forest in Northern California.

Wildfire-scarred woodlands in Northern California.EcoFlight

Then, there it was: the telltale signs of herbicide spraying. All the trees had been cleared, and rather than fresh spring grasses and green bushes, the mountainsides hosted nothing but dirt.

Barren, sparsely forested landscape, likely sprayed with herbicides.

Landscape with the telltale signs of herbicide spraying.EcoFlight

A hillside covered in orange dirt.

A hillside with signs of glyphosate spraying.EcoFlight

The United States Forest Service and timber companies say they use glyphosate to reforest land after it is harvested by loggers. They say killing all other plant life helps trees regrow faster by reducing competition for sunlight, water, and soil nutrients. In Lassen National Forest, the federal government plans to spray about 10,000 acres.

Our reporting showed that private timberland around Lassen was the state’s heaviest sprayed forestland in recent years. Seeing the destruction from the sky, mountainside after mountainside, this scale of lifeless earth felt surreal—like I was watching a movie about some other planet.

One supposed fact that glyphosate proponents repeat a lot is that the herbicide binds with soil, meaning it won’t move and contaminate other places. Yet a 2020 study by the US Geological Survey found it in 74 percent of American streams tested. Peer-reviewed studies also have found the herbicide is toxic to fish and other aquatic life, like those spring-run Chinook salmon. The Environmental Protection Agency has said it likely harms 93 percent of endangered species. And the World Health Organization has called glyphosate a probable human carcinogen.

Bayer, Roundup’s manufacturer, insists it is safe when used according to the EPA-approved label. In 2020, the EPA deemed glyphosate reasonably safe for people and the environment, but a collection of labor and environmental groups sued, arguing that the EPA was wrong and hadn’t properly conducted its review. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying the agency did not provide adequate evidence for its conclusion. The EPA is now in the process of reassessing the herbicide.

But even as the federal government works to make that determination, the spraying of environmentally sensitive forestlands is continuing at a breakneck pace. And the impacts of all this spraying, which only recently came to the public’s attention following our yearlong investigation, will undoubtedly take years or even decades to fully assess.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Even FIFA and Trump Can’t Ruin This World Cup

Despite the countless problematic aspects of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup—power-hungry fascistsand the wealthy elite grabbing every ounce of political and monetary gain they can imagine at the expense of fans, national team players and staff, workers, and more—there are a few inspiringstories that I have been following.

Among them: A national team playing in itsfirst World Cup, outplaying established opponents with their spirit and tactics; a friendship between residents of a Kansas town and the national team players training there; and a young player showing the world what his sister always saw in him.

As Jules Boykoff, a former US men’s national team and professional soccer player—and current politics professor at Pacific University in Oregon—told me just before the tournament started, soccer has the power to spark new connections within our communities and organizing. More simply, it can be fun.

Cape Verde’s ascent to the knockout stages

Cape Verde, a nation of about 530,000 people (about the same population as Atlanta), qualified for its first World Cup last year. This year, they earned draws against their three group stage opponents: Spain, one of the favorites to win the whole tournament, Uruguay, and Saudi Arabia. Vozinha, the goalkeeper, had a star performance against Spain with seven saves and gained 14 million followers on Instagram as a result, but beyond that, the Verdean team genuinely challenged Spain during the match in ways that they had no answer to.

Against Uruguay, Cape Verde scored its first two goals—including Kevin Pina’s stunning, long-distance free kick that punished their opponents’ flimsy defensive wall—and the team created much better chances to score than Saudi Arabia.

Prior to the start of the tournament, Cape Verde was projected to have the fourth-lowest chance of making it out of the group stage behind Iraq, Curaçao, and Haiti. They beat the odds with flying colors and will play Argentina, led by perhaps the greatest player of all time, Lionel Messi, on Friday.

Lawrence, Kansas, residents connect with Algerian national team players and fans

At the start of the World Cup, a video of two Lawrence residents enthusiastically welcoming Algerians to town after the national team set up their training camp there went viral. If you didn’t get the chance to watch it, one resident explains to a reporter that he attended what appears to be a fan event because he was “so happy” that “they chose our town for their base camp.” While both he and another resident said in the interview that they didn’t know much about Algeria, they were already adopting their fan chants: “1, 2, 3, vive l’Algerie,” or “1, 2, 3, long live Algeria”—a phrase with ties to Algeria’s fight for independence from French occupation.

Local outlets have done some great reporting on the new Kansas-Algeria bond, which I highly recommend you give a read.

The friendship has led to some of my favorite videos to come from the tournament:

Bless this man, his excitement about Team Algeria and their base camp in Lawrence, Kansas, is just 🤌

Anne Thériault (@annetheriault.bsky.social) 2026-06-13T03:35:16.643Z

Algerian fans chanting THANK YOU LAWRENCE

Rodger Sherman (@rodger.bsky.social) 2026-06-28T19:20:03.383Z

Ivory Coast’s star winger Yan Diomande plays a great tournament for his first fan

I sometimes find myself searching for the personal stories of the soccer players I enjoy watching. Diomande plays for the major German club RB Leipzig; his story in the Players’ Tribune, a platform that publishes first-person stories from athletes, really moved me.

You should take a look at it yourself—his words are so powerful that any description I come up with wouldn’t do it justice—but Diomande talks about his sister Roxanne, who believed that he would become a great soccer player, taking him to tryouts for professional teams, and about his shock and grief whenRoxanne died at the age of 15 after someone spiked her drink at a party. Yan Diomande has achieved so much at just 19 and is attracting the attention of the best teams in the world.

His dribbling is mesmerizing, and his decision-making after the dribble—whether that be a pass or shot—is impressive for how early he is in his career. His Ivory Coast teammates are so cleverly organized and look to get him the ball often to cause chaos in the opposing team’s defense.

Given that, I still think about one quote from Diomande’s story, entitled “Dear Roxanne”: “Everything I do on a football pitch, it’s for you.”

Although the Ivory Coast lost 1-2 against Norway on Tuesday, he and his teammates have achieved so much, reaching the knockout stage for the first time in their World Cup history.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Presidency Is Making Trump Exponentially Richer

Donald Trump added billions to his net worth in the year and a half since his return to the presidency—much of it paper wealth in the form of cryptocurrency, but plenty of it in hard cash paid to him by business partners, including the investment firm run by the United Arab Emirates’ national security advisor.

In total, it appears that Trump added about $2.2 billion to his net worth in 2025—by far his most lucrative year in the presidency, and far more than in 2024, when he reported earning about $600 million.

Trump filed required personal financial disclosure forms on Tuesday evening that revealed his earnings, but there are some major caveats—most of the gained wealth is in the form of cryptocurrency or crypto-related businesses, and the crypto industry has had a steep decline since the start of this year, led by crashing Bitcoin prices.

And the forms do reveal some new details. Trump was closely involved with the launching of a Trump meme coin cryptocurrency shortly before taking office, but it wasn’t clear how much that had earned him. On his new forms, Trump disclosed earning $635 million from a company called Celebration Coins, which is believed to be behind his meme coin.

While Trump was paid for the creation of the coins and was awarded a significant number of them, the coin’s price has collapsed from a high of $44 on his inauguration day to $1.69 on Wednesday. No matter the price, Trump’s stake in the coin is all profit to him—but a recent analysis found buyers of the coin had likely lost in the neighborhood of $700 million trying to trade on $Trump coins.

There’s another $290 million in cryptowallets that appear to be associated with Trump’s other crypto venture, World Liberty Financial, but again, the price of the WLFI cryptocoin has also dropped by about 65 percent since the end of 2025. And as with the meme coin, an analysis suggests that investors in WLFI may have lost as much as $700 million.

One very real bit of wealth Trump added in 2025 was $65 million from sale of equity in World Liberty Financial, a deal that was reportedly the sale of 49 percent of the company to a firm controlled by Sheikh Tahnoun bin Mohammed Al Nahyan, the brother of Mohamed bin Zayed, the ruler of the United Arab Emirates. Sheikh Tahnoon is the UAE’s national security advisor as well as the chairman of several of the wealthy country’s investment funds.

Reaping large sums of money from overseas sources was a theme on Trump’s disclosure. In addition to the money from Sheikh Tahnoun’s fund, Trump also reported huge payments for lending his name to a slew of new Trump-branded properties around the world. And it appears he has signficantly upped his fees.

In 2014, Trump signed a deal with a Dubai-based company called DAMAC to build a golf course with his name on it—over the course of the next four years, he earned somewhere between $2 and $10 million for the deal. In 2025 alone, DAMAC paid Trump $12.5 million, including $5 million a piece, just to use his name on two new Trump properties.

And it wasn’t just DAMAC, which is owned by Emirati billionaire Husain Sajwani, who has frequently appeared at Trump’s side at Mar-a-Lago and has been given special access at Trump’s inaugurations. Trump was paid more than $25.2 million by a Saudi development firm for the use of his name on properties in Dubai, Saudi Qatar, and Oman. Partners in India, Vietnam and the Phillipines added even more money to Trump’s pocket for using name there, the reports show.

While those are impressive numbers, Trump’s war in Iran, just across the Strait of Hormuz from his Oman development, has reportedly helped sink other potential deals, including one deal in Australia.

The forms also appear to show a new deal—Trump reports being paid $2 million in a non-refundable development deal by a company called Base Co. LTD. According to a report in a Korean business publication in February, the Trump Organization and a large Korean construction company signed an agreement to work together, and Eric Trump was hosted at a lavish dinner attended by top Korean politicans and business executives.

Trump also listed hundreds of investments in stocks. Many of these appear to be standard blue-chip stocks or municipal bonds that might appear in any diversified portfolio, recent stock trading disclosures show Trump has been investing in companies and then lauding the company’s products in speeches.

While the forms require Trump to disclose earnings, debts and valuations of his businesses, it doesn’t necessarily require him to report profitablity. While crypto has far surpassed Trump’s traditional busineses of hospitality and real estate in terms of importance for his wealth, it’s not necessarily clear whether his Trump properties are thriving.

What is clear is that Trump has taken some of his new cash and used it to get rid of old debts—in the last year, he has paid off mortgages on his Seven Springs golf course and his 40 Wall Street commerical building in New York City. He also paid off a personal mortgage on a house next to Mar-a-Lago, which he purchased from his sister in 2018 for $18.5 million.

That mortgage repayment actually raises another potential caveat about all of Trump’s newfound wealth—Trump loves to say everything is worth more than it is. That house he bought for $18.5 million eight years ago? This year, Trump listed it as being worth an open-ended and optimistic “over $50 million.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Venezuela’s Earthquake-Hit Health System Is in Crisis

It’s been a very long week for Beatriz Armada, the Venezuela operations manager for the humanitarian nonprofit Humanity and Inclusion. Hers is just one of many non-governmental organizations that have been responding to the devastation of two massive earthquakes that struck Venezuela last week, which have left, by a conservative estimate, some 1,700 people dead and thousands injured, with more than 15,000 displaced from their homes.

Many survivors who were pulled from the rubble needed amputations, Armada told me, a further challenge for Venezuela’s health care system—and health care workers in Caracas were affected as well, making it “very complicated to be able to give medical attention,” she said.

Armada told me that around 38 structures related to health care infrastructure had been decimated by the earthquakes, including one that specifically provided help for disabled people, who are disproportionately impacted by earthquakes.

“There was nothing left of the entire building, and so many people with disabilities who lost their lives in this, in this particular space,” Armada said.

One disabled man and his family that Armada spoke to lost everything in their home, including hard-to-replace equipment “that he would normally need to be able to have dignity.”

“We’re mobilizing resources to be able to more directly support people with disabilities,” Armada said, including with mobility devices and rehabilitation, “which is also quite a main need at the moment.”

Armada says she’s heartened by the responses of people across other parts of Venezuela, where people are also being transferred for medical care, and by international support. She hopes it doesn’t end prematurely.

“We need this [support] to continue in the upcoming months, because I think it’s going to take months, or even years, to be able to fully recuperate from,” Armada told me.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

ICE Finds a New Way to Dodge Congress About a Secret Protester Database

In response to lawmakers’ ongoing questions about ICE’s surveillancepractices, a previously unpublicized letter to Congress reveals Homeland Security officials are taking an increasingly evasive approach when asked if the Trump administration created a database of protesters labeled as “domestic terrorists.”

The administration has repeatedly denied that DHS maintains a specific database of US citizens who protest ICE operations or photograph federal agents. But this letter, which was addressed on May 22 and comes amid mounting litigation over ICE’s alleged intimidation of protesters, appears to sidestep the question of a standalone protester database entirely.

“ICE does not independently approve adding individuals or entities to the U.S. government’s Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS),” John Cooper, Assistant Director of ICE’s Office of Congressional Relations, wrote in response to a February inquiry from Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.).

The TSDS is a publicly known, interagency terrorist watchlist that is not maintained by ICE and was not the subject of Markey’s questioning. The letter is the first time ICE has publicly mentioned the TSDS in response to questions about a potential protester database.

DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In February, Todd Lyons, then-acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, appeared before the House Homeland Security Committee and testified emphatically that ICE was not surveilling US citizens.

“There is no database for protesters, sir,” Lyons told Rep. Lou Correa (D–Calif.), who asked Lyons about threats ICE agents made on camera to legal observers in Maine. “I can assure you there is no database that’s tracking United States citizens.”

“The public deserves clear and consistent answers about ICE’s surveillance activities and its infringement of Americans’ civil liberties.”

Lyons echoed these statements againin an April 21 letter to Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D–Fla.). But this time, he added a caveat for law enforcement investigations: “Where individuals decide to go beyond protected speech and commit crimes against federal personnel and property or threaten, or forcibly impede, assault, or interfere with lawful operations, ICE remains steadfast in exercising its authority to investigate and prosecute violators.” Put simply, Lyons denied that ICE was keeping a “separate, standalone database” of protesters, but admitted the agency had “collected information” on citizens suspected of breaking federal law.

These carve-outs were already broad and vaguely defined enough to raise concerns among civil liberties advocates. Now, while evading Markey’s specific questions about an ICE database, Cooper’s letter raises new concerns that anti-ICE protesters and legal observers are, in fact, being added to the TSDS based on so-called “antifa” activity.

Cooper’s May letter went on to cite a “whole-of-government process,” administered by the FBI, in which nominations to the TSDS are reviewed and approved “based on federal criteria derived from statutory definitions of terrorism.” Notably, President Trump designated “antifa”—which is not a single group and generally defined as anyone who is against fascism—as a domestic terrorist organization in September. And in May, as my colleague Sophie Hurwitz reported at the time, the White House released a new counterterrorism playbook that “prioritize[s] the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist.”

Today, in a letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Acting ICE Director David Venturella, shared exclusively with Mother Jones, Markey and Rep. Frost are demanding answers.

“ICE’s shifting and carefully worded responses prevent Congress and the public from determining the extent of ICE’s surveillance activities,” Markey and Frost wrote. They pressed Mullin and Venturella on whether “DHS, ICE, or any component agency of DHS” is “maintaining their own database, list, or record of individuals engaged in protest activity, outside of the TSDS” or creating any “record of individuals identified as threats to officer or facility safety, including those who have not been accused of any crime.” The congressmen also requested a copy of an internal ICE memo, first reported by CNN in January, that instructed agents to “capture all images, license plates, identifications, and general information on hotels, agitators, protestors, etc.” for inclusion in a “consolidated form.”

“These attempts to evade congressional oversight are unacceptable,” Markey and Frost wrote. “The public deserves clear and consistent answers about ICE’s surveillance activities and its infringement of Americans’ civil liberties.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Anna Paulina Luna Held a Hearing on CIA Mind Control. It Went Off the Rails.

On Tuesday, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) held a House oversight hearing on MKULTRA, the notorious and failed CIA mind control program that is believed to have operated from 1953 to 1973. Luna heads the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets; the two witnesses called were authors who both wrote excellent books on different aspects of MKULTRA, and who used their testimony to call for the declassification of more documents related to the program. But Luna, a Trump loyalist, muddied the proceedings by trying to link MKULTRA with her own pet conspiracy theories. She made it clear that she thought MKULTRA could still be active today, asking one witness if USAID, the international humanitarian aid organization dismantled by the Trump administration, “may have been used overseas” on “prisoners of war” to further the CIA program, a suggestion for which she provided no direct evidence.

As with a hearing she held on the JFK assassination last year, Luna implied that the MKULTRA hearing was merely the opening salvo, and that further revelations about bygone conspiracies would come. She said that she had “received reports” about “new MKULTRA boxes that were discovered,” and that the CIA was in the process of declassifying what was in those files, which appeared to relate to a “forgery program that was being housed under MKULTRA.” Luna promised that the documents would be released as soon as possible.

“Why were they talking about COVID and Anthony Fauci at a hearing about MKUltra?”

It was obvious to knowledgeable observers that Luna would likely use the hearing to promote conspiracy theories. Mike Evans, an author at the National Security Archive at George Washington University, warned as much in a blog post earlier this week. (The National Security Archive is an NGO that focuses on government transparency and holds a large collection of declassified government documents.)

“Instead of focusing on the real and enduring secrets surrounding MKULTRA, there are strong indications that Luna will use the hearing as a platform to incite panic about vaccines, something she has done time and time again,” Evans wrote. “Luna’s preoccupation with the perceived dangers of ordinary vaccines was also what originally inspired her to call for a hearing on MKULTRA, according to a February 24 post to her account on X.com.”

One of the authors called to testify was Dr. Stephen Kinzer, the author o_f Poisoner In Chief_, a book about Sidney Gottlieb, the infamous chemist who headed the CIA’s Technical Services Division in the 1950s and 1960s and oversaw both MKULTRA and multiple attempts to kill or discredit Cuban leader Fidel Castro. The other was Tom O’Neill, author of Chaos, a book that documents his decades-long quest to determine whether Charles Manson or members of his murderous Family may have been subject to CIA experiments, served as FBI informants, or both.

“I would urge this committee to fill out all the blank spaces in the documents that we have,” Kinzer said in his opening statement.

The task force, Kinzer added, “could also consider trying to determine whether some new incarnation of MKULTRA exists today,” arguing that some kind of mind control technology could exist that did not in the ‘60s and ‘70s. “In the many decades since then, there have been enormous advances in cybertechnology and artificial intelligence, in neuroscience; covert agencies may have access now to tools for mind control that Sidney Gottlieb could not even have imagined.”

The question of whether mind control “might now be possible under our new circumstances,” Kinzer said, “is something that has presumably occurred to scientists who work for secret services, including our own.”

O’Neill also pointed out that a key promise of the 1977 hearings into MKULTRA and other governmental abuses was never fulfilled. “Committee members like yourselves,” he told the panel, “promised that the victims of MKULTRA would be identified, compensated and provided lifetime medical care. None of that ever happened.” Later in his remarks, O’Neill also argued that the documents that have thus far been discovered, “warrant a thorough reexamination of what this program accomplished, what Congress was told, and what may still remain hidden.”

Luna also noted during the hearing that more documents related to MKULTRA could and should be declassified, but presented an incomplete picture of what’s been released already. Documents about MKULTRA released by a Senate committee beginning in 1975. Two years later, in 1977, records containing far more detailed revelations were made public, including that the CIA had given drugs like LSD to unwitting civilians. One particularly infamous operation related to MKULTRA was Operation Midnight Climax, in which sex workers in CIA safehouses drugged patrons with LSD while CIA agents watched behind two-way mirrors. At least one person is known to have died as a result of MKULTRA: Frank Olson, a CIA scientist who was drugged with LSD at a CIA meeting in 1953 and either jumped or was pushed from a hotel window the same night. His death remains one of the most hotly-contested and infamous incidents in US intelligence history. (Gottlieb, meanwhile, the architect of MKULTRA, was allowed to retire quietly after his time in the CIA, living in rural Virginia, taking up folk dancing and breeding goats.)

During a 1977 hearing, the late-Sen. Edwardy Kennedy (D-Mass.), denounced MKULTRA’s bizarre and unethical pseudo-experimentation in stark terms.

“The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense,” he said. “The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers. The test subjects were seldom accessible beyond the first hours of the test. In a number of instances, the test subject became ill for hours or days, and effective followup was impossible. Other experiments were equally offensive. For example, heroin addicts were enticed into participating in LSD experiments in order to get a reward—heroin. Perhaps most disturbing of all was the fact that the extent of experimentation on human subjects was unknown.”

The present-day hearing was considerably less focused, and no one involved—elected officials or witnesses—seemed able to answer the questions they were raising, particularly about whether MKULTRA or a similar program might still exist in some form. House Democrats also didn’t appear to know what to do with this strange event; they called as a witness a former NIH employee, Dr. Elizabeth Ginexi, a research psychologist who had no specific knowledge of MKULTRA, but who warned that the agency is being stripped, warped, and politicized beyond recognition.

In response to Ginexi’s presence on the panel, Republicans grilled her about Anthony Fauci and the origins of Covid. “Do you believe the NIH or Dr. Fauci lied to the American people about Covid?” Rep. Nancy Mace, (R-SC) asked, in one representative exchange.

“No,” Ginexi replied.

Mace questioned why Ginexi had been sent to participate in the panel at all, if she wasn’t an expert on MKULTRA. Ginexi responded that she’s an expert on human subjects research; not appearing to understand the connection, Mace moved on.

Ginexi also tried to tell the members of Congress that canceling government-backed clinical trials, something that’s happened repeatedly under the Trump administration, was harming people’s trust in science and in the government, and would make it hard to recruit patients for such trials in the future. Republican members of Congress seemed uninterested in discussing that idea, instead focusing repeatedly on Covid and Covid conspiracy theories.

“You just brought up trust,” shot back Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.). “Do you think the NIH has a trust problem, based on how they handled Covid?”

“No, I do not,” Genexi responded. “I think the NIH is beloved by the American people because we know about the advances in human health and cancer treatment and heart disease and diabetes and all the health gains the research has produced.”

“Well I think you’re wrong, ma’am,” Crane responded. “I think the public has a serious mistrust issue with the NIH. Do you deny that the NIH tried to cover up the origin of Covid?”

Mike Evans of the National Security Archive told Mother Jones on Wednesday that the hearing had proceeded more or less as he expected.

“I think that the two main witnesses did their best to stay focused on what the committee can do to illuminate the historical record,” he told me in an email. “But l just don’t think that this is a sincere effort by the Task Force to do that. Why were they talking about COVID and Anthony Fauci at a hearing about MKULTRA?”

Evans was also confused by Genexi’s inclusion: “I also have to say that I found the decision by the minority members to call a former NIH staffer with no background in researching MKULTRA to be rather baffling. I still don’t understand why they did that.”

By far “the most underwhelming part,” Evans added, was Luna’s announcement that files will be reviewed related to an apparent forgery program. “What does that have to do with MKULTRA or CIA mind control efforts?” he asked. “That’s just basic intelligence tradecraft. My guess is that CIA felt like they needed to produce something to satisfy the task force, but if that’s the extent of it, then these hearings were a total failure.”

“In the end, the hearing didn’t break any new ground as far as I can tell,” Evans added. None of what was presented at the hearings, he said, “is really new. So why are they holding hearings now?”

In all, the hearing was a neat demonstration of current Republican priorities, their interest in promising disclosures that never really come, as well as their energetic embrace of any conspiracy theory that does not directly implicate Donald Trump. A neat, if accidental, encapsulation of what happened during the hearing was provided by Kinzer, the Poisoner in Chief author, near the end of the proceedings.

“There’s a reason why conspiracy theories are so widespread in America,” Kinzer told Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.). “It has to do with the dissociation between what we say we are and do, and what we really are and do. This has become more and more clear to more and more people. Therefore, they’re suspicious of nefarious dealings by the US and they’re also suspicious of other things that aren’t nefarious at all.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s War in the Middle East Has One Clear Winner: China

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

China has emerged as the sole winner in Asia from the strait of Hormuz crisis, according to a report published on Tuesday.

The report by the geopolitical consulting firm Asia Group concluded that China had weathered the storm of the global commodities crisis resulting from the closure of the Middle Eastern waterway, and also stood to gain from the economic and geopolitical trends sparked by the wider conflict.

“China weathered the initial shock better than any regional peer.”

Iran virtually closed the strait, a vital waterway through which much of the world’s oil and gas flows, after the US and Israel launched joint strikes on February 28, targeting government and military sites and killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. The ensuing crisis has sent global energy prices soaring, with Asia particularly exposed.

The report noted that before the strait’s closure, roughly 80 percent of the oil and nearly 90 percent of the liquefied natural gas transiting the waterway was destined for Asian markets, along with a significant share of other critical commodities.

The report looked at Asia’s largest economies—China, India, Japan, and South Korea—as well as emerging markets across south-east Asia. The researchers mapped the economic and political repercussions of the crisis and its impacts across key sectors including manufacturing, energy, and agriculture.

They concluded that China was a clear winner from the crisis caused by Donald Trump’s foray into the Middle East.

The country’s large stockpiles of oil and the hugely ambitious rollout of renewable energy mean it has been less exposed to the energy shock than other countries.

China has long maintained strategic reserves of energy, and last year took advantage of cheap prices to build up even bigger stockpiles. Its crude imports grew from 11.1 millin barrels a day to 11.6 million in 2025, with over 80 percent of that increase being sent to stockpiles, according to analysis by Erica Downs, a senior research scholar at the Centre on Global Energy Policy. As of January, China had enough stockpiled to cover 104 days of imports at the 2025 level.

The country has also been building massive amounts of renewable energy infrastructure in recent years. Last year it installed 315GW of new solar capacity, more than half of the world’s new solar. The year before, it added 277GW. Beijing is aiming for half of China’s energy to come from non-fossil sources by 2030, with the share from wind and solar reaching 30 percent, up from 22 percent in 2025.

Although China’s energy mix is still largely based on coal, which accounts for more than 50 percent, renewables’ share is increasing rapidly.

“It’s tempting to see any loss of credibility in the US as a benefit for China, but that’s not necessarily the case for Beijing.”

The Asia Group’s report said: “With 1.4 terawatts of operating renewable capacity already online and a reported 90-110 days of crude import cover in reserve, China weathered the initial shock better than any regional peer.”

China has also benefited from other countries reacting to the crisis by accelerating its clean energy buildout. Beijing dominates the global supply chain in solar and other clean technology industries and in recent years has been pushing much of this production overseas at low prices, to the chagrin of western leaders worried about their own industries.

China’s electric vehicle exports soared by more than 110 percent in May compared with the previous year, while solar shipments in April increased by 60 percent.

Beijing has called for a ceasefire in the Middle East, and when Trump visited in May and met China’s president, Xi Jinping, he claimed the two countries were united in wanting to find a settlement. But the Asia Group report noted: “The crisis allows Beijing to cast the United States as the destabilizing actor whose Middle East entanglements impose costs on the world.”

There are some risks to China from the instability. Drew Thompson, a senior fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said: “It’s tempting to see any loss of credibility in the US as a benefit for China, but that’s not necessarily the case for Beijing, which does not want to supplant Washington as a Middle East hegemon or provider of security for the region.”

Wen-Ti Sung, a non-resident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub, based in Taiwan, said the crisis could also make Beijing think twice about a future military assault on Taiwan because it showed the difficulty of navigating ships through hostile territory.

The Asia Group’s report concluded: “Ultimately Beijing views the pain points not as existential threats, but as challenges to be managed and even opportunities to be exploited.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Space, “Star Trek,” and Social Justice

Growing up in Los Angeles in the 1980s and ’90s, a daughter and granddaughter of social justice activists, Chanda Prescod-Weinstein fell in love with math and the physical sciences and developed a profound curiosity about the cosmos (though the smoggy night sky of her childhood blocked her view of the stars). She soon developed a detailed plan for her life that led to a career writing and teaching about physics and gender studies at the University of New Hampshire.

Today, Prescod-Weinstein’s work stands out for the ways she weaves her identity as queer, Black, and Jewish into her work. In her latest book, The Edge of Space-Time: Particles, Poetry, and the Cosmic Dream Boogie, Prescod-Weinstein brings a Black feminist lens to cosmology, quantum physics, poetry, and popular culture to help unlock the mysteries of the physical universe.

The Edge of Space-Time is a much more intimate book because this is my brain,” Prescod-Weinstein says. “This is how I see the universe. These are the things that I am passionate about in my quiet moments.”

On this week’s More To The Story, Prescod-Weinstein talks about the need for diversity and inclusivity in the sciences and puts science fiction’s various hypotheses for space travel to the test with host Al Letson.

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Left-Wing Challenger Melat Kiros Upsets 15-Term Incumbent in Colorado

Melat Kiros, a 29-year-old democratic socialist, has won the high-profile primary for Colorado’s first congressional district, the Associated Press and other outlets projected Tuesday. With more than 90 percent of votes counted, Kiros leads Diana DeGette, Colorado’s longest-serving Democratic member of Congress, by a comfortable 51-42 margin.

DeGette—who has held her position since before Kiros was born—was seeking a 16th term in the House. She leads Colorado’s congressional delegation.

I covered Kiros’ outsider challenge to DeGette as part of a wave of young congressional candidates running in part to challenge the Democratic establishment on Gaza:

And in a primary taking place Tuesday in Denver, Melat Kiros, a 29-year-old democratic socialist who calls herself a “recovering lawyer,” is running against incumbent Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette, who has held her seat since 1997.

Two years ago, as a new lawyer in New York, Kiros wrote an open letter defending law students who organized for Palestine. “I myself am from the northern region of Ethiopia, where a genocide had also taken place a few years ago,” Kiros, whose parents immigrated to Colorado when she was a baby, said.

Her employer asked her to take the letter down. Kiros refused, was fired, and moved back to Colorado within a week. She took a gig as a barista (“the best job I’ve had”) to make ends meet, and is now running on a familiar progressive platform: Medicare for All, universal childcare, AI regulation, ICE abolition and an arms embargo on Israel.

The only poll in the race, by progressive firm Data For Progress, showed Kiros up by five points earlier in June.

“Every single thing that you care about, from social justice to economic justice to environmental justice, all of these things are intertwined with who has the money and the influence to wield power over our government,” Kiros said to me in an interview June 10.

In the final weeks of Kiros’ race, millions of dollars flooded in to support her DeGette. The largest outside group spending on DeGette’s behalf, Pro-Choice Majority Action, has ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. The biggest spender backing Kiros has been the super PAC of the progressive group Justice Democrats, which endorsed her in December.

Kiros is also backed by the Democratic Socialists of America and high-profile supporters like Bernie Sanders and streamer Hasan Piker, who was urging voters to get to the polls in Denver minutes before they closed. (“What do you guys think about the data center that just popped up over here?” Piker told audiences. “Diana DeGette, who’s represented this district for 30 years in Congress, is saying nothing about the data centers, because she’s in the pocket of big corporations.”)

Kiros will join a group of left-wing insurgent candidates who have upset the Democratic establishment by winning decisive primary victories on unapologetically progressive platforms. Only half an hour after polls closed, with the race not yet called, Republicans were already treating Kiros as the presumptive winner. Democrats are “showing their true colors and saying we want socialism, inevitably we want communism,” said Republican Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert on Colorado’s News9. “You’re seeing this in New York—you have the Mamdani allies, who won their candidacy.”

Two politicians aligned with Mamdani—former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander and socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier—knocked out incumbents; a third, Claire Valdez, will replace retiring Democratic veteran Nydia Velázquez.

Kiros says she will work with them to push the Democratic Party leftward. “If enough of us share that commitment to Medicare for All, to ending corporate capture, to an arms embargo [on Israel], we should absolutely say: here are our conditions,” she told Axios. “If you want our votes on leadership, on appropriations, this is what it costs.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Supreme Court’s Trans Athlete Ruling Is a Threat to Gender Equality

In a widely anticipated defeat for transgender rights, the Supreme Court upheld state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender girls from playing on girls’ school sports team. The decision, issued on Tuesday, does not impose a nationwide ban on trans athletes. But it does preserve laws passed in 27 states by GOP politicians and anti-trans activists who argued that transgender women threaten safety and fairness in women’s athletics.

All nine Supreme Court justices agreed that Title IX, the federal law forbidding sex discrimination in schools, allows states to ban trans girls from girls’ sports. They also ruled 6-3, along ideological lines, that such bans do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

“He’s not only creating a bad precedent for trans people, he’s significantly lowering the protection all women get under Equal Protection.”

The science is far from settled about whether trans girls who have received gender-affirming treatment actually have a competitive advantage or pose a greater risk of injuring other players. But the majority opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, glosses over those unknowns—reasoning that “biological sex” is a good enough proxy for athletic ability for states to categorically ban trans girls from girls’ sports.

“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable,” Kavanaugh writes. “Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition.”

Yet the ruling has much broader implications. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out that the majority opinion is allowing states to make laws based on broad differences between boys and girls, without looking closer at the subcategories of people who may not fit into those generalizations. “In so concluding,” she writes, “the Court…lowers the State’s burden for justifying the use of sex classifications in potentially all cases.”

In other words, the decision makes it easier for states to justify treating men and women differently. In the past, Sotomayor argues, the court has overturned laws that used “overbroad generalizations” that suited most men and most women but failed make exceptions for a minority who did not conform to sex stereotypes. But this case breaks that longstanding pattern: The court on Tuesday failed to account for the minority of students who have received gender-affirming treatment and thus may not conform to sex stereotypes about their athletic performance.

As a result, the ruling could threaten decades of progress on gender equality, Sotomayor warns.“The majority applies its diminished view of equal protection to the sports context today,” she writes. “One can only hope that the same misguided approach does not and will not extend to other contexts tomorrow.”

The legal cases, known as Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., began in 2020 and 2021, when trans students’ participation in sports had not yet become a culture-war flashpoint or presidential campaign-defining issue. Back then, conservative political strategists had just begun to invest in messaging on trans athletes, and Republican legislators began to introduce legislation banning them —even though many couldn’t identify a single trans athlete playing school sports in their state.

“There was a concerted effort to use this issue as the wedge for establishing…that transgender women are not women.”

The issue of trans athletes in sports proved persuasive. Soon, Republican legislators were introducing and passing a wide array of anti-trans laws, targeting LGBTQ-inclusive school curricula and medical gender transitions for minors, and even successfully passing the kinds of bathroom bans that had failed in the past. “There was a concerted effort to use this issue as the wedge for establishing, both in law and in public opinion, that transgender women are not women, and that they should be treated differently from cisgender women,” explained Joshua Block, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who argued one of the cases before the Supreme Court, in an interview last year.“They go right from ‘transgender women don’t belong on our sports teams’ to ‘and they don’t belong in our restrooms or in our social clubs.’ It’s been a very potent political weapon for them.”

When Idaho and West Virginia passed their sports bans, trans students in each state sued,arguing that the laws were discriminatory and unjustified—not just because there are so few trans athletes, but also because the science remains unsettled about whether athletes who medically transition from male to female retain any physical advantage. The plaintiff in the West Virginia case, Becky Pepper-Jackson, had identified as a girl at school since the third grade, and, thanks to puberty blockers, never went through a male puberty; still, she was banned from trying out for her middle school’s girls’ cross-country team. Meanwhile, in Idaho, Boise State University student Lindsay Hecox was also barred from running women’s cross-country, even though she had medically transitioned and suppressed her testosterone for a year, as NCAA rules at the time required. In response to their challenges, federal appeals courts blocked the bans in both states. Then the Republican-led state governments asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court overruled those appeals courts decisions. “This is a heartbreaking ruling for our clients and transgender girls like them who’ve asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers,” Block said a statement following the ruling. “The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls.”

The court’s decision on Tuesday is limited in some important ways.

For one thing, it doesn’t require all states to ban trans girls and women from women’s sports. “This ruling does not require any state to follow West Virginia’s or Idaho’s cruel, overly-broad approach, and it does not mandate categorical bans on transgender students participating in school sports,” Chris Erchull, Senior Staff Attorney at the nonprofit GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, said in a statement following the ruling.

On top of that, the Title IX ruling is specific to sports—citing an amendment made to Title IX in 1974 that allowed schools to separate athletic teams by sex—and does not say whether Title IX allows or forbids discrimination against trans students in other contexts. That means trans students can continue to use Title IX to fight back when schools impose policies that harm them—such as rules that restrict their bathroom use, forbid teachers from using their preferred pronouns, or forcibly out them to unsupportive parents or guardians.

And while the justices decided that trans sports bans are allowed under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, they didn’t rule on a broader question: Whether judges, when analyzing other anti-trans laws, should apply the same rigorous legal analysisthey use for laws that treat men and women differently. That bigger, still-unresolved question has enormous consequences for transgender rights. If that answer is yes, courts must examine whether anti-trans laws are “substantially related” to an “important government” objective. That standard, known as “intermediate scrutiny,” is tough, and it makes it more likely that anti-trans laws of all kinds will be overturned.

In Tuesday’s ruling, Kavanaugh said that trans sports bans must be analyzed under intermediate scrutiny—because they treat people differently based on “biological sex.” But the court still hasn’t decided whether other laws that treat people differently based on transgender status qualify for the more rigorous legal analysis.

Still, Tuesday’s ruling could have much wider consequences for gender equality under the Constitution—affecting not just trans people but cisgender men and women.

As I reported in depth earlier this year, feminist legal scholars have been sounding alarms about the conservative legal movement’s strategic use of anti-trans laws to chip away at the Equal Protection Clause’s protections against sex discrimination. The term “biological sex” has become “the new takedown strategy for anti-discrimination law,” legal historian Mary Ziegler, of the University of California, Davis, explained:

“What they’re trying to do is to replace sex discrimination law with a Trojan horse sex discrimination law that no longer prohibits sex discrimination,” Ziegler says. Rather than attacking protections head on, she explains, “they’re going to say, ‘American anti-discrimination law means you can treat men and women differently because they have different bodies.’” If courts embrace this logic, Ziegler says, it would be much harder to fight back against potential restrictions on women’s lives—laws that limit job options for pregnant workers, for example, or that ban women from military schools—by arguing they violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Sotomayor points out a similar threat in her dissenting opinion. Under the court’s previous precedents, Sotomayor explains, states are not allowed to treat people of different sexes differently based on generalizations about “the way women are.” Instead, they have to account for the subset of women who might not fit into sex stereotypes. In a famous case, the court ruled that the Virginia Military Institute couldn’t categorically exclude women by reasoning that most women wouldn’t do well under its adversarial style, since at least a small subset of women would, in fact, succeed there.

In the case of the trans girls who have received gender-affirming care, Sotomayor argues that it’s too soon to say whether or not they fit into generalizations about the athletic ability of “biological” boys. “West Virginia might be right that transgender girls retain some inherent athletic advantage over cisgender girls due to their sex identified at birth even after receiving the hormonal therapy B. P. J. identifies,” she writes. “At this point, however, neither the District Court nor the Fourth Circuit has passed upon any of the available evidence or made the necessary factual findings about the state of the scientific debate.”

Trans girls who have received gender-affirming treatment may, in fact, not threaten safety or competitive fairness in girls’ sports. The court simply doesn’t have enough evidence to tell.

In other words, trans girls who have received gender-affirming treatment may not, in fact, threaten safety or competitive fairness in girls’ sports. The court simply doesn’t have enough evidence to tell, Sotomayor argues. Instead, she says, Idaho and West Virginia’s laws “[rest] on exactly the kind of overbroad generalizations based on sex the Equal Protection Clause is supposed to root out.”

“Even if most trans athletes would have strength advantages or potentially raise safety concerns, not all of them would, and that’s what intermediate scrutiny requires you to look at, and [Sotomayor] thinks that the court is watering down that part of equal protection,” Ziegler explains.

That’s important, explains Albany Law School professor Ava Ayers, because Kavanaugh’s decision on Tuesday could make it easier for courts to uphold other laws that generalize about all men and women based on sex. “What really concerns me about this decision is that he’s not only creating a bad precedent for trans people, he’s significantly lowering the protection all women get under Equal Protection,” Ayers says.

In the immediate term, the people whowill have to live with the Supreme Court’s decision are mainly teenage girls. Disturbingly, Idaho’s law allows a “dispute” about a student’s sex to be resolved by a “physical examination” of their “reproductive anatomy.”

Many of the transgender girls seeking to play on the girls’ team simply want to play sports with their friends. “Where are they supposed to go?” says Ayers, who clerked for Justice Sonia Sotomayor before she was appointed to the Supreme Court. “It’s not safe for a trans girl to play on a trans boy team, or at least she’s very justified in feeling that way.”

And there are the harder-to-quantify consequences for teenagers encountering rigid gender policies at school—no matter whether or not they’re trans. “I didn’t realize I was trans until I was about 40, but I was deeply confused and perplexed by gender when I was a kid, and sports is a fraught experience,” Ayers says. “I think there are lots of kids who may not grow up to identify as trans, but who benefit immensely from a space in which they can think about their gender with a measure of freedom that these laws deny to people.”

Continue Reading…