Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

RFK Jr. Will Oversee Disability Education Policy

On Tuesday, the Trump administration announced that it would move two key functions of the Department of Education**—**disability education oversight and the department’s Office for Civil Rights—to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice, respectively, in a move that would give HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. oversight over the nation’s disability education system.

In a press release, Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who is overseeing the Project 2025–mandated dismantling of the department, said without elaborating that the decision was made after “careful deliberation and collaboration with stakeholders.” Many disability and other equity-focused organizations have been afraid since President Trump resumed office that he would go through with threats to eliminate the department, long a target of right-wing institutions like the Heritage Foundation.

Even setting aside who runs them—Kennedy at HHS, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche at the Justice Department—the new agencies aren’t appropriate choices to oversee those functions, experts say. “HHS and DOJ have important roles, but they weren’t built to replace the Department of Education’s school-specific expertise,” said Robyn Linscott, The Arc’s director of education and family policy, in a statement. “Moving [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] oversight into HHS pushes students with disabilities toward a medical model, where disability is treated as a diagnosis to manage instead of a natural part of human life.”

The National Down Syndrome Congress also called for Congress to halt the changes. “For decades, IDEA, vocational rehabilitation, and the Office of Civil Rights have helped expand educational opportunities, employment, and community inclusion for people with disabilities,” roles that would now be under threat, said Stephanie Smith Lee, the group’s policy and advocacy co-director and former director of the Office of Special Education Programs under George W. Bush, in a press release opposing the plan.

At HHS, disability education would fall under the oversight of an agency head, Kennedy, who has spent decades spreading disinformation about autism and villainizing autistic people.

“As autistic people, we don’t feel safe having RFK Jr. in charge of our education,” Autistic Self-Advocacy Network policy analyst Cameron Lynch said to me. “Autistic students deserve to have their education accommodated for them and provided with the services and supports that they need, rather than trying to be cured from their autism, as RFK Jr. has suggested.”

Carrie Gillispie, New America’s project director of early development and disability, voiced similar concerns. “Successfully supporting the education of students with disabilities requires a scientific and social understanding of disability and learning science,” she said, “neither of which is reflected in [Kennedy]’s rhetoric and policy decisions.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The White House Cage Fight Was Spectacular—And Spectacularly Corrupt

As the UFC fighters left their locker rooms Sunday night and headed out to the Octagon, they strutted through the Oval Office—a space once so revered that Ronald Reagan wouldn’t enter it unless he was wearing a suit jacket. A select group of spectators had been invited to the White House grounds, and the public was allowed to join a watch party on the National Mall. But anyone outside the DC region could only tune in to “the most historic sporting event of all time” via Paramount+, a paid streaming service owned by David Ellison, the son of one of Trump’s biggest donors.

Throughout his second term in office, Trump has conducted private business ventures, mixed his financial interests with government policy, and even invited business partners into the Oval Office. But Sunday’s night’s fight at the White House took things to a new level, the most open and blatant example—so far—of Trump and his allies mingling personal financial interests with the institution of the presidency.

The fight itself was a mega-event for the UFC, which was allowed to put a giant steel claw to illuminate the fighting cage on the White House lawn. UFC is owned by the publicly traded TKO Group, shares of which the president owns.

It was a commercial sell-out of the White House—a private, for-profit event. The majority of the seats on the White House lawn were allocated to members of the military, and the remainder to VIP guests of Trump, including David Ellison himself and Mark Zuckerberg. Members of the public could register to join the free watch party several hundred yards away at the Ellipse.

In addition to the taxpayer-owned venue and the use of the Oval Office for walk-ups, there was an unusually spectacular flyover from the Navy’s and Air Force’s flight acrobatic teams, and all the pomp and circumstance granted the president. And on the other side, beyond the benefits to the UFC and TKO, there were sponsorships and branding for businesses with close ties to Trump and his inner circle.

The Trump-family-owned World Liberty Financial—a crypto company that ostensibly aims to democratize banking, but so far has mainly managed to infuriate token holders and attract huge cash investments from the spy-chief-prince of the United Arab Emirates—wasn’t just a sponsor. UFC actually announced that it was using one of World Liberty’s core products, a stablecoin called USD1, to pay out bonuses to the fighters. USD1 is a cryptocurrency with a value pegged to the price of the US dollar, meaning the form of the payment was largely symbolic. But that symbolism is invaluable to Trump’s struggling crypto venture, which hopes to encourage the use of USD1 for buying and selling other crypto assets on a far grander scale.

As part of the deal, World Liberty “branding will be on display in the world-famous Octagon and will be featured within the broadcast, giving WLFI meaningful visibility in front of a potential worldwide audience across an estimated 1 billion broadcast and digital households in 210 countries and territories that receive UFC programming,” a press release declared.

And speaking of coins, the Trump Organization, fully owned by the president, sold special silver and gold commemorative coins for the event, etched with portraits of Trump and UFC chairman Dana White. One gold coin, which was marketed as weighing one ounce, was selling for $11,999; a regular ounce of gold—one lacking the visages of Trump and his friends—currently goes for around $4,350.

Then there was the mat of the Octagon, just feet from Trump’s front-row seat, which was emblazoned with the logo of Polymarket—the prediction market that is lobbying Trump to keep state and federal regulators off its back. Donald Trump Jr., you will perhaps not be shocked to learn, is a Polymarket adviser and investor.

Even setting aside the financial relationship between the president’s family and Polymarket, the relationship between prediction markets and government insiders is fraught. In April, federal prosecutors charged a US Army special forces soldier with trading on his insider knowledge of the mission to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, spawning a well-justified round of hand-wringing about how to keep Polymarket at a greater distance from DC policymakers than was evident at Sunday’s fight.

Riyadh Season, a large cultural festival hosted in Saudi Arabia’s capital, was another major fight sponsor, with its logo visible on the mat. The festival is part of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030 effort—a multi-billion project to overhaul his kingdom’s international reputation. Trump has always been warm with the Saudis, but following Salman’s involvement with the murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, relations between the US and Saudi Arabia hit a nadir.

It wasn’t any individual part of Sunday night’s event that was shocking—there have always been athlete visits to the Oval Office and fancy flyovers. But what made the whole affair so appalling was also what made it so spectacular: layer upon layer of excess, hype, and the blurring of lines between what belongs to the American public and what belongs to Trump. If the president has his way, there will soon be no lines at all.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

It’s Not Only the Iraq War—Climate Change is Spiking US Household Costs

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

For decades, American politicians have been slow to take on climate change and curb carbon dioxide emissions, under the assumption that doing so might pass along costs to their voters. Ironically, their failure to rein in fossil fuel emissions has yielded the same result: Expenses for everyday Americans have soared as a result of more extreme flooding, fires, and heat.

“What’s striking is that already, households are bearing serious costs,” said Kimberly Clausing, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. She co-authored a paper from earlier this year finding that families were paying between $400 and $900 more each year because of the effects of climate change, with the costs above $1,300 in the 10 percent hardest-hit counties, many of them found in Florida, Louisiana, Nebraska, Colorado, and California.

“Geographically rural areas are actually facing some of the highest costs.”

On Wednesday, the Commerce Department reported that the annual inflation rate reached 4.2 percent in May, the highest rate in three years. Though the war in Iran is mostly responsible for this recent increase, a surprising number of Americans are attributing the general economic pinch they’re feeling to the changing climate. Two-thirds of US voters agree that global warming is affecting the cost of living to some degree, according to new survey data from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, including most Democrats and moderate Republicans. Of those two-thirds, a majority of them said that climate change was driving up what they pay for groceries, utility bills, and home insurance.

Rising energy prices were at the top of people’s lists, a concern that some climate advocates are tapping into ahead of the midterm elections this November. On Monday, the LCV Victory Fund, a political action committee, announced that it will target “energy bill voters” with messages about how clean, affordable energy can trim their monthly expenses, and how Republicans have held back renewable power. That follows successes for Democrats in the off-year elections in 2025, where energy prices played a role in state races in Georgia, New Jersey, and Virginia.

There are many factors pushing up electricity prices, but in some parts of the country, the effort to revamp the electric grid to handle more extreme weather is the primary reason. In California, utilities are upgrading their infrastructure to reduce wildfire risk; in the Southeast, they are rebuilding after hurricanes and flooding and billing their customers for it. In Arizona, residents are cranking up the air conditioning during scorching heat and paying more for power simply because they’re using more AC.

Even Republican-leaning voters—42 percent of conservative Republicans, and 57 percent of moderate ones—are linking their rising costs to global warming, according to the Yale survey. “It makes perfect sense that they would do so, given the results from our study, which show that the geographically rural areas are actually facing some of the highest costs,” Clausing said. From wildfires to hurricanes, rural areas are often facing the brunt of the damage. Her study found that the largest household costs occurred in parts of the West, the Gulf Coast, and Florida.

As the effects of global warming grow more extreme, it’s becoming clear that they’re posing a problem for the budgets of lower-income Americans.

Utility bills, despite being a top political issue, are actually one of the smaller price-point impacts of climate change, according to Clausing’s research: Households are spending an average of about $35 more on electricity per year, compared with an extra $356 on homeowners’ insurance premiums, the highest cost. Clausing, who owns a house in Portland, Oregon, said the insurance premium on her home skyrocketed from around $1,000 five years ago to about $2,200 today—an increase that her insurance company said was to help recoup the costs of wildfire damage in Oregon.

Another major category of costs in Clausing’s study was the health effects of climate change. As wildfire smoke grows more common, exposing people to harmful particulate matter, it’s leading to early deaths. The estimated economic damage of these premature deaths works out to $103 for every household in the United States each year. That’s not to mention the other ways climate change damages the public’s health, from lengthening allergy seasons to expanding the geographic spread of infectious diseases as temperatures warm, allowing ticks and mosquitoes to explore new territories.

But it seems like many Americans haven’t made the connection: Only 35 percent of those in the Yale survey who agreed that climate change was driving up prices saw a link to higher health care costs. That’s because these health risks haven’t been adequately communicated to the public, said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “Health is one of the most powerful ways we have of saying, ‘Actually, this affects our lives right here, right now. It’s already affecting the people and places and things that we love,’” he said.

Though most of the respondents thought climate change made groceries more expensive, it’s hard to measure the effect of extreme weather on food costs, according to Catherine Wolfram, a co-author of the study and a professor of applied economics at the MIT Sloan School of Management. That’s mainly because the United States’ food supply comes from all over the world, mitigating the impact of, say, a drought in Brazil or a heat wave in the Great Plains. Still, other research has found that hot summers can lead to higher food prices, with more increases projected as the world warms.

As the effects of global warming grow more extreme, it’s becoming clear that they’re posing a problem for the budgets of lower-income Americans. Clausing is studying ways to design policies that tackle climate change without burdening poor families, through rebates or other mechanisms that can offset costs.

“I’m glad people are connecting the dots,” Clausing said. “I think, at the moment, if you pursue better climate policy, the benefits to households, for the country as a whole, would exceed the costs.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

She Froze After Being Released by ICE. The Medical Examiner Ruled It a Homicide.

Daphy Michel, a 31-year-old Haitian asylum seeker, was found dead of hypothermia at a Pittsburgh bus stop March 2, three days after being released from ICE custody 30 miles from her home.

This week, the Allegheny County Medical Examiner’s office ruled her death a homicide.

“Ms. Michel was a vulnerable adult, suffering from untreated severe mental health issues and a significant language barrier when she was released from federal custody on February 27,” spokesperson Jim Madalinsky said in a statement. “Based on all available information during the investigation, the pathologist ruled Ms. Michel’s death a homicide.”

A medical examiner’s homicide declaration, Madalinsky added, is “not to be interpreted as a declaration of criminal guilt.” It simply indicates that “ the death was caused by the actions of another individual.”

Michel started the asylum process after arriving at the southern border in 2022, Joseph Patrick Murphy, her family’s attorney, told the Associated Press. She was granted humanitarian parole based on urgent need. In the year before her death, she spent six months in Washington County Jail, Murphy said, until a judge said he could not hold her for trial for threatening imaginary people. Then, she was arrested by ICE and taken 30 miles away to Pittsburgh.

“She had mental challenges,” Murphy told Pittsburgh’s KDKA-TV on Friday. “She was arrested for at one point screaming at imaginary people, and they knew this. They just dumped her in a bus shelter — language barrier, educational barrier, and psychiatric barrier — and left her to fend for herself. The bus shelter, she never figured out how to leave. She sat there for days, and ultimately froze to death.”

“The ruling by the medical examiner, that is a homicide, means that the death was caused by the action or omission of someone,” Murphy said. “That means there’s some sort of culpability.” DHS, however, denies responsibility: “ICE had NOTHING to do with this woman’s death. She passed away THREE days after ICE encountered her,” they wrote on social media in mid-March. DHS also accused her of “terroristic threats and harassment,” charges which were dismissed in September of 2025.

Advocates are now calling on ICE to answer for Michel’s death.

“Daphy’s death was preventable and is the result of a violent system that cages people, surveils them, abandons them, dehumanizes them in life, and smears them in death to escape accountability,” said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa).“She deserved care, shelter, language access, and medical support. ICE and every agency that failed her must answer for this.”

The Trump administration announced last week that they would stop publishing data on the deaths of people recently released from ICE detention. But Michel’s is just one of multiple high-profile cases in which detainees were released and allegedly left to die.

In late February, Nurul Shah Alam, a blind Rohingya refugee from Burma, was found dead in Buffalo, New York five days after Border Patrol dropped him off on a street corner without notifying his family. His death, too, was ruled a homicide. Like Michel, Alam was disabled; and like Michel, he was jailed for some time before his death.

“Daphy was a person with a kind heart, who loved her family very much,” Michel’s family wrote in her obituary. “Since she was a child, she showed great respect, courage, and love for everyone. She was always ready to help those who needed her help and her presence brought joy and happiness and light into the lives of all who knew her.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The UFC’s Despicable Night at the White House

I had never heard of Josh Hokit until the other week. But the little I quickly learned about the immigrant-bashing, trans-hating Ultimate Fighting Championship fighter was enough to guess, correctly, that Hokit was the man behind the UFC Freedom 250’s most despicable moment on Sunday.

“Michelle Obama is a man,” Hokit belted out. “Am I right, America?”

The slur, which came during a post-fight interview with Joe Rogan,was met with a mix of cheers and boo’s. Others, like Rogan, seemed taken aback, appearing to wonder: Even for a corruption-soaked night already teeming with vulgarity, did this Hokit guy go too far?

UFC president and CEO Dana White seems to think so. “I’m completely against saying nasty and false things about people’s families,” he has since told Time. But what had White been expecting? Here was a man made notorious through “nasty and false” insults. As Kyle Green, a sociologist who writes on the intersection of sports and politics, told me in advance of Sunday’s spectacle:

There’s also Josh Hokit, who’s going to fight on the [White House card]. People who know him from his days as a college wrestler say he’s just playing a character in the UFC. But when he gets in front of the mic now, he wears an American flag bandana, and he says that he wants to kick Mexicans out of the country, or he’ll say that he wants to beat up transgender people, that Brittney Griner is a man. He’ll say the most offensive things, leaning into the MAGA fan base. Again, I don’t know if he believes it or not. But it doesn’t really matter, right? Because that’s the thing that sells.

It’s the kind of behavior long excused as “smack talk,” fighting words intended to antagonize one’s opponent. But over the past decade, the UFC’s bear-hug embrace of more distinctly hateful rhetoric follows the contours of the broader permission President Trump gave to such language. It also, as Green told me, speaks to the increasing pressures some fighters have to play characters they think will appeal to their fanbases:

Trump has enabled it, and that’s how I think about it outside of the UFC. We see people, whether it’s online or on the street, much more willing to say racist and sexist things. I don’t think he caused it, but I think he’s enabled it. What fighters have to do now, [taunting and smack-talking], is, in part, because the UFC labour model is a really grotesque one, in that fighters are technically independent contractors with very few protections and rights. It’s very different from boxing, where they have the Muhammad Ali Act.

Which isn’t to say that Hokit may not believe the cruelty that animated his slur on Sunday night. Nor is it to blame the UFC’s terrible labor rights for incentivizing it. But to even contemplate Hokit’s motivations is to extend this man unearned, far-too-generous consideration. Because hurling a vulgar insult against a Black former first lady during a White House event, ostensibly to honor America’s 250th birthday, is a choice—and Hokit enjoyed making it. Let reminders of it attach itself to every oligarch, Republican, Trump family member, and corporation that went along with this cage fight.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

People Living Near xAI’s Dirty Data Centers Are Right Pissed About the SpaceX IPO

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

SpaceX, Elon Musk’s behemoth company that launches rockets and runs data centers, went public on Friday with a target valuation above $1.75 trillion. The move will make Musk, already the richest man in the world, vastly wealthier.

A public offering will allow SpaceX to raise even more money to fund its AI ambitions, including building more data centers, faster.

But even as Musk and other SpaceX investors see a huge windfall, the community hosting xAI data centers already in operation are demanding accountability from the company’s use of polluting gas turbines and a water-treatment facility put on pause earlier this year.

“We’re the extracted and exploited colony of what is going to be one of the most highly valued entities in the world,” says Justin Pearson, who represents portions of Memphis in the Tennessee House of Representatives. “People are going to die because of this pollution.”

“People don’t matter to SpaceX, or Anthropic, or whoever is building these data centers.”

xAI is selling $15 billion per year in compute at its Memphis campuses to Anthropic, another company planning a blockbuster IPO in the coming months. “People don’t matter to SpaceX, or Anthropic, or whoever is building these data centers,” Pearson says.

President Donald Trump has suggested the US government could take a financial stake in frontier AI companies in order to begin “giving back” to the American public. But it’s unclear what form that would take—or if such a move would even happen.

SpaceX didn’t respond to a request for comment and Anthropic declined to comment, though its head of public policy and Memphis’ mayor have touted the company’s engagement with the city.

xAI’s Colossus 1 campus in Memphis shot to national notoriety in 2024 when community members began sounding the alarm that the company was running natural gas turbines without permits. Regulators said that a loophole in the Clean Air Act allowed xAI to run what appeared to be as many as 35 turbines without a permit for a year. (Last year, local regulators granted xAI a permit to run 15 turbines on the site until 2027.)

Natural gas turbines emit microscopic particles of fine particulate matter, dubbed PM2.5, which is linked to a variety of health issues, including heart attacks, high blood pressure, and premature deaths in people with preexisting conditions. Experts warn that PM2.5 pollution can be harmful even below levels set by regulators.

xAI’s first data center was built in Boxtown, a historically Black neighborhood in Memphis that already has some of the highest asthma rates in the country from legacy industrial pollution.

“All of us who have family in South Memphis, we know somebody who has died as a result of a bronchial ailment, or a random cancer that has no place in our family tree,” says Richard Massey, a community organizer in Memphis.

A group of environmental justice groups, led by the NAACP, filed a lawsuit earlier this year against xAI, alleging that the company installed gas turbines “without an air permit or regard for the health and safety of people living nearby.” Earlier this week, residents of Southaven filed a separate class-action lawsuit against xAI and SpaceX, claiming that construction on the data center was disturbing the community.

“Everywhere [Musk] has gone, it’s been the same result…People suffer, especially in marginalized, low-income communities.”

The Environmental Protection Agency issued guidance in January that seemed to close the Clean Air Act loophole xAI was using to run its turbines without permits. However, the company had already begun setting up unpermitted turbines in Southaven, Mississippi, to power Colossus 2. As of mid-May, the company had brought in at least 46 unpermitted gas turbines to run on-site, according to emails xAI sent to regulators.

xAI has brought significant tax revenue to the region. Officials have estimated that Shelby County could net up to $28 million in property taxes from xAI’s Tennessee campus this year alone—a big injection to the county budget, which collected just over $800 million in property taxes in 2024. Last year, the city council mandated that 25 percent of xAI’s tax revenue be used to fund projects that enhance the neighborhoods where its data centers are located, including Boxtown.

Residents have been debating a list of projects, including funding for home repair and an environmental dashboard, to use the $3 million collected in 2025. That’s about .001 percent of the $250 billion that xAI was valued at when it was purchased by SpaceX in February in advance of the IPO.

But the revenue from taxes, some residents say, pales in comparison to what’s needed to offset the health impacts of the gas turbines in both Boxtown and Southaven. An initial survey released by two nonprofits earlier this week of air pollution collected from community-run air monitors at three sites throughout southwest Memphis shows that PM2.5 levels were consistently above EPA limits between November 2025 and March of this year.

A separate analysis prepared as part of the NAACP lawsuit found that if the 41 turbines listed on xAI’s permit application to power just the Colossus 2 campus ran continuously, they could possibly cause up to $44 million in health-related damage each year. (While xAI’s Memphis campus does draw some power from the local power grid, it’s not clear how often the company plans to run the gas turbines at either of its sites.)

Community members are also concerned about xAI’s water use. The Colossus 1 facility alone could require more than 5 million gallons a day to cool the computers at peak times. When xAI first came to Memphis, the company said that it would be building a water reuse facility to avoid impacting the aquifer.

xAI broke ground on the site in October. But it abruptly stopped construction in mid-April, just a few months ahead of the IPO, leaving advocates in the dark about the future of the project. “We need to focus on finishing Colossus 2 and ensuring it is extremely stable, then will build the water recycling plant,” Musk said in a tweet in early April.

Earlier this week, Memphis city attorney Tannera Gibson told the City Council in a hearing that conversations with SpaceX about the site were “pretty positive and pretty strong based on recent conversations.” Lawmakers, including some who stated that they have had similar behind-the-scenes conversations with the company, pressed for more information to be made public.

“We’ve all gotten reassurances, but I want to hear those in public for everybody else,” Memphis city council member Jerri Green said at the hearing.

Despite the outcry from the public and the multiple lawsuits it faces, SpaceX has continued adding unpermitted turbines to its data center sites. The company’s IPO revealed that it has committed more than $2.8 billion to buy gas turbines in recent months; while it called water availability a risk factor in its IPO filing documents, it made no mention of the construction of the water-treatment site. The Justice Department, meanwhile, indicated last month that it may intervene on behalf of xAI in the NAACP lawsuit.

Massey says that Musk’s track record of environmental conflicts at other sites he owns, from California to Texas to Germany, means the Memphis community is skeptical of SpaceX, despite the economic benefits the tax revenue and potential water-treatment plant could bring.

“Everywhere [Musk] has gone, it’s been the same result,” he says. “People suffer, especially in marginalized, low-income communities.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Wants Reporters to Know He’s Very Mad at Netanyahu

President Donald Trump is telling reporters that he expects an Iran peace deal to be signed this afternoon, giving him ample time to make it to his UFC fight beneath the White House claw this evening. The war began on February 28, when the US and Israeli militaries launched a series of coordinated strikes against Iran, including the bombardment of a girl’s school, which killed at least 168 children.

Since then, Trump has announced imminent ceasefires and peace deals many times. Few have held for long. And today, Israel threw a wrench in the latest plans for a ceasefire, by failing to cease fire. Instead of standing down, Israel launched an attack on Lebanon’s capital, Beirut, supposedly in retaliation for drone- and rocket-fire from the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah. The Israeli operation killed at least three people.

Trump, now, wants reporters to know he’s very, very mad at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “This morning’s attack on Beirut should not have happened, particularly on a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran,” he wrote on Truth Social. “This could be the beginning of a long and beautiful peace — Let’s not blow it!”

Axios reporter Barak Ravid spoke to the president today and learned the following: “President Trump told me: ‘Why did Bibi have to do a fucking attack? I was so pissee [sic] off. I let him know. He has no fucking judgement. I let him know that.’”

🚨President Trump told me: "Why did Bibi have to do a fucking attack? I was so pissee off. I let him know. He has no fucking judgement. I let him know that" https://t.co/qkMkbkNYxJ

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) June 14, 2026

Trump made similar comments to Fox News’ Trey Yingst.

Spoke with President Trump. He says the deal with Iran is expected to be signed in the next 2-3 hours.

President Trump said he asked Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu “what the fu*k are you doing?” on a call after the Israeli strikes against Beirut. He told Netanyahu not to…

— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) June 14, 2026

Trump, lately, has been making a habit of not-so-secretly directing profanities at Netanyahu. Earlier this month, Ravid reported that Trump told Netanyahu: “You’re fucking crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel.”

Having enthusiastically started this disastrous war alongside Israel, Trump now seems frustrated that Netanyahu is making it difficult for him to declare victory and go home. But as president of the United States, Trump actually has the power to change this situation, beyond his latest barrage of expletives and thank yous for your attention to this matter—he’s just choosing not to use that power.

The US is a major funder of Israel, having given the Israeli military well over $300 billion since its 1948 founding. And that material aid to Israel, which allows the country to bomb its neighbors with impunity, shows no sign of slowing. There’s currently a proposal to essentially merge the US and Israeli defense-tech systems in the National Defense Authorization Act making its way through Congress. The proposal, called the “Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” is just one Israel-supporting provision in the NDAA; a cluster of others would provide an additional $850 million in military aid to Netanyahu’s government. Trump has not spoken on any of these measures, which would help fund strikes of the sort Israel just carried out in Beirut. Instead, he’s posting about Netanyahu.

Performatively angry rhetoric, coupled with total material support, is a familiar tactic. President Joe Biden, too, told reporters he was really, truly, steaming mad at Netanyahu—all while ensuring the flow of weaponry to Israel stayed consistent. He called Netanyahu an “asshole” back in February of 2024, which did nothing to prevent Israel’s mass killing in Gaza. And despite Trump’s erstwhile attempt to brand himself as an antiwar leader, he’s nothing of the sort. Between administrations, the rhetoric stays frustrated—but the unconditional support for Israel’s military stays the same.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Oligarchy Attends a Cage Fight

While New Yorkers nurse Knicks-championship hangovers in Donald Trump’s hometown, the president is celebrating his 80th birthday tonight by inviting his friends to a party designed to honor himself: a multimillion-dollar cage fight on the White House grounds. The UFC Freedom 250 event is being billed (by its promoters, anyway) as “the most historic sporting event of all time.”

“From the Revolution to the Octagon,” the extravaganza’s Crytpo.com-sponsored website declares, “this historic event will connect fans through cinematic storytelling and unrivaled competition on the world’s greatest proving ground.” According to the Guardian, fighters will earn bonuses to be paid out in a digital asset issued by the Trump family’s crypto company, World Liberty Financial.

Yesterday’s scenes—motocross dirtbikers doing flips against a backdrop of the White House, on a lawn torn up to become a fight stage—were surreal. There were parachute team performances and at least one bald eagle.

Maryland native Travis Pastrana and the Nitro Circus stunt team performed a dirt bike backflip over the octagon on the White House South Lawn, celebrating America’s 250th anniversary and President Donald Trump’s birthday.

🎥: Jeffrey Bill pic.twitter.com/9JAffwQn65

— The Baltimore Sun (@baltimoresun) June 13, 2026

One particularly notable aspect of tonight’s fights will be who is in the audience. David Ellison, whose $111 billion Paramount-Warner Bros. merger was approved by Trump’s Justice Department late last week, will be there. The president and top Republican officials are also expected to personally attend, even as Trump attempts to negotiate a long-awaited agreement with Iran.

“We are very close to a Deal that will bring peace to the region, including to Lebanon, and all sides should stand down,” Trump wrote on Truth Social at 10:46 am, as he criticized Israel for striking Lebanon “on a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal.”

Whatever happens abroad, Trump will spend the evening watching the title fight between Ilia Topuria and Justin Gaethje. On the off chance that you weren’t invited, it’ll be streamed on Ellison’s Paramount+.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Nature No Longer Smells So Natural—and That’s Our Fault

This story was originally published b_yYale e360 a_nd is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Across the globe, human activities are changing the way our planet smells. In Egypt, increasing temperatures are shrinking yields of aromatic jasmine flowers; in France, extreme drought has reduced the production of fragrant, night-blooming tuberose, a major ingredient in many perfumes; in Italy, climatic extremes are altering the characteristic floral, citrusy scent of bergamot.

But anthropogenic factors are also reshaping environmental smellscapes, a word coined in the 1980s to describe the totality of scents in a given geographic area, in ways that are far more subtle—and potentially much more harmful.

While humans largely rely on sight and sound in our interactions with each other and with the world around us, many other creatures rely on smells. Ants, for example, require scents for colony cohesion; turkey vultures let scent guide them to far-away carrion; and male moths use scent to find females hundreds of meters away. “Scent is very important because it mediates so many interactions within an ecosystem,” says James Blande, a chemical ecologist at the University of Eastern Finland.

A growing number of scientists are documenting how humans are changing the chemical signals of plants and animals.

These scent-based interactions are crucial for the maintenance of ecosystem services that directly benefit humans, from the bees and moths that pollinate crops to the flies and dung beetles that recycle the nutrients from dead and decomposing matter. Intact channels of scent communication are likely also important for the preservation of biodiversity. For example, many rare orchid species use scent to attract the co-evolved pollinators they need in order to reproduce, and scent helps guide monarch butterflies to the single type of plant on which they lay their eggs.

But just as we are discovering how important these chemical communication channels are to the fabric of the natural world—and the many benefits we reap from it—we are also learning how drastically they can be disrupted by our activities, including climate change and air pollution.

Now, scientists are working to document human-induced changes in smellscapes across the planet—to understand how these changes affect communication between different organisms, and to try to figure out which systems are capable of adaptation and which may be at risk of failure.

Historically, researchers in the field of sensory pollution have been largely focused on noise and light, says Jeff Riffell, a sensory biologist at the University of Washington. Odor pollution, on the other hand, “is really hard to get a handle on because you need these big chemical analysis devices that [cost] hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to characterize it.” Plus, he says, “we’re just not very olfactory.”

Despite these challenges, a growing number of scientists are documenting how humans are changing the chemical signals of plants and animals. For example, researchers have discovered that air pollution degrades many of the volatile organic compounds that make up lavender’s characteristic scent, and increasing temperatures dramatically decrease the floral perfumes released by strawberry plants and wild white petunias. Agricultural chemicals, like fertilizers and fungicides, add additional VOCs to the air in fields and orchards around the world.

Bee pollinating lavender.

A bee pollinates lavender at Castle Farm in Eynsford, England.Dan Kitwood via Getty

But figuring out how these changes affect communication between organisms— and whether this impairs their ability to pollinate, procreate, or otherwise survive—can be a tricky task, as objective differences in the chemical makeup of a scent don’t always predict differences in how they are perceived.

To get inside the mind of a pollinator and parse how much a smell has to change before it becomes unrecognizable, researchers often use a simple test called the proboscis extension response—a sort of Pavlov’s dog for bees. While Pavlov taught dogs to associate food with the sound of a bell, triggering them to drool, researchers teach bees to associate particular scents with the taste of sugar. Once they learn the association, the bees stick out their proboscis—the insect equivalent of a tongue.

In heavily polluted regions, the distance from which a moth can sense a flower is a quarter of what it was in preindustrial times.

Using this paradigm, Stony Brook University pollination biologist Jordanna Sprayberry and her colleagues taught bumblebees to recognize a particular floral odor, then tested how three different fungicides affected the bees’ ability to recognize this odor. “We found negative effects of every fungicide we tested,” she says. One fungicide was disruptive at every concentration tested. This could be especially problematic for fruit and vegetable production, since these crops generally require insect pollination and are often heavily treated with fungicides.

A team of researchers in the United Kingdom has also used this type of test to investigate the impact of oxidizing air pollutants—like ozone and nitrate radicals (NO3)—on honeybees’ ability to recognize scents. These pollutants are naturally present in the air at low levels but are dramatically increased by emissions from cars, power plants, and oil and gas production. Instead of just adding new odor molecules on top of an existing scent, oxidizing pollutants react with different components of floral perfumes, degrading their scents.

After researchers taught honeybees to recognize a floral odor blend, they released that scent into a wind tunnel of ozone-polluted air. At six meters from the source, only about 30 percent of bees could still recognize the scent. This kind of pollution could seriously impair honeybees’ ability to find flowers, which is concerning because honeybees are estimated to be responsible for about half of crop pollination worldwide.

While daytime pollinators get the most attention, nocturnal pollinators are also important for crops and wild plant species. To find out if night-time pollination was similarly affected by pollutants, Riffell turned his attention to a fragrant, night-blooming wildflower called the pale evening primrose and its hawkmoth pollinators.

Machine spraying fungicide on potato field.

A farmer sprays fungicide on potato field in Germany, June 2019.Thomas Warnack/picture alliance via Getty

He and his team measured how compounds in the primrose scent changed when exposed to NO3, which increases at night. While some types of odor compounds were relatively resistant to these pollutants, others, like β-Pinene, a woodsy-green scent, and β-Ocimene, which is more floral and herbaceous, began to degrade within seconds.

Next, researchers set up scent traps at their field site in eastern Washington. Over the course of the night, they recorded how often pollinators visited a real flower, a paper cone releasing a simulated floral scent, and a cone releasing floral scent degraded by NO3 exposure. Pollinators stopped by the real flower and the floral-scented cone at similar rates, but the degraded scent received about 70 percent fewer visits. That’s bad news for both players: As natural scents degrade, pollinators may have less access to food while plants may have a lower chance of reproducing.

Using a model of atmospheric conditions that included pollution levels and weather conditions and combining it with data on how quickly oxidizing pollutants can degrade key floral odors, Riffell and his colleagues mapped distances at which a moth would be able to detect a primrose in different locations on Earth. In more heavily polluted regions of the world, the team found, the distance from which a moth can sense a flower has fallen to just a quarter of what it was during preindustrial times. Similar modeling strategies could be used to identify croplands and valuable ecosystems at greatest risk for communication breakdown and the loss of crucial pollination services.

Studies reveal that ozone pollution breaks down pheromones, with serious consequences for insects looking to mate.

Much of the work on the ecology of shifting smells has focused on pollination—and with good reason. “When you go to the grocery store in, say, Canada or the United States, almost 70 percent of the food is actually a result of pollination,” says Riffell. The vast majority of wild flowering plants also depend on pollination by insects and other animals.

But plant-pollinator interaction is just a tiny part of how scents structure our world. How human activities affect other types of chemical messages is largely unexplored, but the few existing studies suggest concerning disruptions. Markus Knaden, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, is exploring how ozone alters chemical communication between insects. “The problem is that [scent] molecules are very sensitive to oxidants,” he says. “Which was not a problem for the last millions of years but is becoming an increasing problem due to us.”

Knaden’s studies revealed that ozone pollution breaks down pheromones, with serious consequences for insects looking to mate. For example, ozone-altered pheromones made male flies less appealing to females of their species and increased male-male courtship behaviors. The mating process leaves insects vulnerable to predation, Knaden says, so if a male wastes time courting other males, he might get eaten before he can reproduce.

Pheromone breakdown can mess with mating in other ways, too: When Knaden’s team exposed flies to ozone-enriched air, females were much more likely to mate with males of a different species, producing hybrid offspring that were often infertile.

A moth pollinates a thistle.

A moth pollinates a thistle in in Ladywell Park in London.Dan Kitwood via Getty

Insect populations are already in decline globally, a phenomenon known to be driven by habitat loss and the widespread use of pesticides, but Knaden says it’s possible that oxidizing pollutants could accelerate this decline. “If you take down the population by 30 percent or 50 percent, it is already harder for [insects] to locate each other,” he says. “But if you then take down their communications channel by oxidizing their pheromones, that might be an additional effect.”

What does a future of altered smellscapes look like for organisms that rely on scent to communicate?

“Depending on the relationship, some of the plants and animals can handle these changes,” says Shannon Olsson, who runs the Naturalist-Inspired Chemical Ecology lab at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, in India. “We have seen robustness in the system, but we’ve also seen failures in the system.”

Some insects are quick learners: Bumblebees and honeybees can learn attraction to new scents after just a handful of training runs. And while pollinating hoverflies seem to be innately attracted to certain floral scents and colors, Olsson’s research shows that they can also learn to avoid them, demonstrating that some insects are highly adaptable to changes in the environment.

Pollution can change the scent of a Mediterranean fig enough that it is no longer attractive to its only pollinator, the fig wasp.

But some insects may not live long enough for meaningful learning to occur. Researchers found that ozone pollution can change the scent of a Mediterranean fig enough that it is no longer attractive to its only pollinator, the fig wasp. In the wild, the wasp lives only about two days—likely not enough time to learn an odor that’s different from the tree that it evolved with over millions of years.

Learning may not help buffer insects against pollution-altered sexual signals, either. “People that work on insect mating and on insect pheromones,” Knudsen says, “usually think that this is a really hard-wired system.”

The good news, says Riffell, is that air quality regulations implemented in recent decades have had a substantial impact on reducing oxidizing air pollutants. In the US, levels of ozone and nitrogen oxides—which are also harmful to human health—have been falling slowly but steadily since 1980. Even so, many places in the US and Europe still regularly experience unhealthy levels of these pollutants, and ozone exposure is estimated to be increasing globally.

“I am hopeful that things are getting better,” says Riffell. “But I am very mindful that things can change really dramatically and very quickly. We’ve all experienced this—especially in the US, in the last year or two.” To prevent these anthropogenic pollutants from further affecting animal communication systems, he adds, “we need enhanced regulations.”

For agricultural chemicals, like fungicides, Sprayberry says more research is needed to determine when and how much to use them to minimize the loss of crops to disease while also producing the smallest amount of bee-disturbing olfactory pollution. Ultimately, says Olsson, “We have to learn how to coexist in a way that’s minimally destructive to our plants and animals.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Blocks Foreigners From Using Anthropic’s Latest AI Tech

On Friday night, the AI giant Anthropic said that the US government had ordered it to suspend foreign nationals, including employees, from all use of its most advanced products.

To comply with the Friday directive, the company announced that it disabled access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5, the latest models of Claude, for all customers.

Anthropic stated that the government cited national security concerns but did not provide further details. The company says its newest technology has enhanced software engineering and visual understanding compared to previous iterations. But Anthropic has also acknowledged potential concerns, releasing a preview model in April to just a few industry partners to test for capabilities to use it to create hacking tools. Claude Fable 5 is the first publicly available version of the Mythos model, and the company said it has established “guardrails” such as blocking answers to questions on cybersecurity, biology, and chemistry.

The Trump administration barred all federal agencies from using Anthropic products in February. That same day, Trump called Anthropic “a radical left, woke company” amid his feud over it being unwilling to permit the military to use its technology. At the time, CEO Dario Amodei said that the US government’s demands—namely, mass surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons—would allow it to violate the company’s safeguard policies.

As my colleagues Anna Merlan and Abby Vesoulis pointed out in March, the US military previouslyused Anthropic’s Claude for “intelligence assessments, target identification and simulating battle scenarios” to prepare for its initial strikes on Iran.

Anthropic has positioneditself as the ethical AI company, a significant contributor to its rapid ascent to the top of the industry especially as the public has increasingly disapproved of AIdevelopment. The company filed for an initial public offering earlier this month, and SpaceX’s success so far since it entered the stock market on Friday—which made founder Elon Musk a trillionaire—could be an encouraging sign for it and its major competitor OpenAI.

Meanwhile, other countries, like China and the United Arab Emirates, are pushing for “sovereign AI,” or in other words, expanding their own AI infrastructure to overcome reliance on nations who have their own data privacy and safeguard rules.

So despite the Trump administration’s attacks on Anthropic, developers are still raising funds and building at a frantic pace.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

With Kennedy Center Setback, Trump Is Losing His War on “Woke” National Placards

On Saturday morning, Kennedy Center officials confirmed that they had removed all signs with President Trump’s name from the building after a federal judge declared the previous day that the signs were unlawful. The officials also stated that they updated their website “to remove all reference to the institution as the ‘Trump Kennedy Center.’”

To justify his takeover of the Kennedy Center, Trump has repeatedly stated that the cultural center was no longer “going to be woke.”

On Friday, another federal judge ordered that the Trump administration must restore exhibits and placards on subjects like climate change, slavery, and civil rights that it had taken down following a March 2025 executive order that deemed them “ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history.”

In a preliminary injunction, US District Judge Angel Kelley ruled in favor of scientists, historians, and park conservationists and rangers, stating that the removal established a “dangerous precedent of censorship and sanitization.” Kelley gave the Trump administration a reinstallation deadline of 21 days, by the 250th anniversary of the US.

The US Department of the Interior said in a statement that “the ruling is from a liberal activist judge” and would evaluate options to appeal the decision while they “celebrate UFC Freedom 250.”

Both orders act as a massive blow to President Trump’s censorship campaign to take control over federal historical sites and cultural institutions. As my colleague Dan Friedman reported in February, the Trump administration’s efforts were shrouded in secrecy—the Interior Department has so far refused to disclose the number of signs and exhibits they are targeting as “non-conformant” with the president and signs were taken down without notice.

And as my colleague Jeffrey Kelly also wrote in February, local residents and government officials of targeted areas have beenfighting back against this censorship through protests and even makeshift signs to replace the ones that’d been removed, because despite the administration’s best efforts, “nothing can change what happened at these places, and who it happened to.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Plague in the Shadows

Decades before Covid-19, the AIDS epidemic tore through communities in the US and around the world. It has killed some 40 million people and continues to take lives today.

But early on, research and public policy focused on AIDS as a gay men’s disease, overlooking other vulnerable groups—including communities of color and women.

This month marks 45 years since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published its first report about a mysterious illness that would eventually be called AIDS. So we’re bringing back Blindspot: The Plague in the Shadows, from reporters Kai Wright and Lizzy Ratner, which chronicles the first years of the HIV epidemic in New York City.

One of the most influential activists for women with AIDS was Katrina Haslip, a prisoner at a maximum-security prison in upstate New York. In the 1980s, Haslip and other incarcerated women started a support group to educate each other about HIV and AIDS.

Haslip took her activism beyond prison walls after her release in 1990, even meeting with CDC leaders. One of the main goals was to change the definition of AIDS, which at the time excluded many symptoms that appeared in HIV-positive women. This meant that women with AIDS often did not qualify for government benefits such as Medicaid and disability insurance.

The podcast series Blindspot: The Plague in the Shadows is a co-production of The History Channel and WNYC Studios.

This is an update of an episode that originally aired in February 2024.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Why No Human Being Should Ever Be Allowed to Have a Trillion Dollars

Could you count to a trillion? Oh, hell no.

I just timed myself counting to 100 as fast as I could. It took 38 seconds.

The higher you count, the longer the numbers get, and so the slower the count becomes, but let’s be ridiculously conservative and assume I could maintain that rapid counting pace. Counting to a trillion would then take 380 billion seconds.

That’s 12,050 years.

How high could a person count? Well, for the sake of argument, suppose I commenced counting immediately upon emerging from my mama’s vagina and kept at it for 100 years—before dying abruptly, because I hadn’t eaten, drank, nor slept during those 100 years.

I would have only made it to 8.3 billion.

A trillion is 1,000 billion. It’s an unfathomable number. As the Wall Street Journal noted yesterday, if you stack a trillion pennies one atop the other, they’ll stretch to the moon and back—twice.

Back in 2021, I published a book, Jackpot, about runaway wealth in America and its effects on those who come into it, and on society at large. One question that came up a lot was, well, should billionaires exist? Even some of my very wealthy sources felt there should perhaps be some upper limits placed on wealth accumulation.

Should billionaires exist? How quaint. What I can now say with authority is that nobody should have a trillion bucks—ever. It’s entirely absurd. Among the nearly 200 nations on earth, only about 20 have a GDP that big. Simply put, it’s way, way, way too much money for any individual to possess—not to mention that Musk didn’t earn it. We allowed him to accumulate it. That was a choice—a bad one, and also dangerous.

I will elaborate, but first let’s have a little fun.

I did some calculations a while back to demonstrate how egregiously rich the world’s richest guy was—and that was at a time when Musk’s net worth was only $200 billion. Here’s my update:

Suppose we wanted to have a game of Monopoly in which the amount of money each player starts with reflects their relative wealth in real life.

And suppose we want it to be Elon Musk vs. some guy with the average middle-class wealth of $453,300. (Economists define middle class as the 50th through 90th wealth percentiles—the “middle 40″—and this number comes from RealTimeInequality.org.)

So, normally, each player starts a Monopoly game with $1,500. In our rigged version, we want our middle-class player to have at least enough to buy a property or two, so we’ll let him start with $500. How much would Musk then get?

He gets $1.1 billion. (Actually more, since he’s now up to $1.1 trillion, per Forbes, but I’ll stick with $1 trillion for simplicity.)

You couldn’t realistically count that high, either, in your lifetime.

So now we’ve got a problem, because each Monopoly set only comes with $20,580. To play this game requires 53,597 sets, which at today’s low Amazon price of $11.99 will run you $643,162. Our middle-class player couldn’t cover that even if he sold his home and liquidated his other assets.

And also, where would you put the boxes? Each set comes in a box 0.19 cubic feet in volume. All told, they would consume 10,183 cubic feet. Assuming you have standard 9-foot ceilings, they would completely fill a 1,131-square-foot room from floor to ceiling.

Our middle-class player doesn’t have any rooms that big in his house—which he had to sell anyway to cover his half of the cost of the sets.

Suppose you took all Musk’s Monopoly money and spread it out on the ground? Turns out, it would paper over roughly 11 football fields, including the end zones. But as those bills are small and multiple denominations, let’s try this with real-life currency.

If you were to convert Musk’s trillion dollars into $100 bills, we’re talking about 10 billion Franklins. Those bills would paper over 1,112,875,000 square feet—just under 40 square miles—enough to cover Manhattan and then some. Put in World Cup terms, Musk’s wealth would cover 14,480 FIFA-approved soccer pitches with $100 bills. Fields of green, indeed.

Far more important than the physical magnitude of $1 trillion, of course, is the power it musters. With his ridiculous trove, Musk, already unaccountable, becomes even more so. Tax expert Bob Lord—who wrote for Mother Jones in 2024 on the coming of the world’s first trillionaire—had a more recent piece on the rise of American oligarchy and how it has infected our democracy. He wrote:

No person anywhere, in any era, has spent as much to sway election outcomes as Musk, the richest person in history who, according to Open Secrets, shelled out almost $292 million in 2024 helping get Trump and other Republican candidates elected. And that doesn’t count the value of harnessing his X platform to support a twice-impeached, felonious former president who openly promised to make the rich richer—and delivered.

Musk expended 0.1 percent of his wealth in the process and got far more in return. The Trump administration promptly shelved dozens of investigations into Musk’s companies, awarded him billions of dollars in new contracts, and sent his firms’ share prices soaring by placing him in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency, an unsanctioned body that succeeded wildly—not in eliminating government fraud and waste as promised, but in gutting and disabling federal agencies, including the ones creating headaches for Musk’s companies.

Lord details policy choices that have enabled wealth to concentrate in an increasingly small number of hands, culminating in the rise of a hyper-privileged few with the undeserved power to sway public affairs in their interests. This oligarchic class, as Northwestern University scholar Jeffrey Winters demonstrates in a powerful recent book excerpt, is untaxable and untouchable. And none so much as the trillionaire Musk.

The oligarchs, as it were, paid off the government’s keeper, and now Musk has scored the winning goal.

It is, alas, an own-goal for America and her democratic experiment.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Is Targeting Immigrants From Places Hardest Hit by Climate Shocks

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

Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown is largely targeting people from the countries most vulnerable to displacement from climate-driven disasters, a Guardian analysis shows.

As the Trump administration pushes policies to boost planet-heating fossil fuels, millions of people are being forced to flee their homelands due to storms, floods, and droughts worsened by the climate crisis.

Of the 39 countries from which the Trump administration has fully or partly restricted entry to the US, 22 are ranked within the most vulnerable quarter of nations in the world to climate impacts, according to a Guardian analysis of data from the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative, which assesses how prone jurisdictions are to the climate crisis.

_“_Nearly all of the most vulnerable countries are on a ban or visa pause,” said Danielle Wood, an associate professor at Notre Dame. Immigrants from Chad and Niger, the two most climate-vulnerable countries in the world according to the index, are now fully barred from the US, as are people from Sudan, Somalia, and Sierra Leone—also among the 10 countries most exposed to climate impacts.

Among the most vulnerable half of countries is Honduras, which has seen stronger rainstorms, droughts, floods, and coastal erosion in recent years. When Hurricane Mitch crashed into the country, killing 7,000 people, one affected family surveyed the unsalvageable ruins of their home and realized they had a lifeline—to move to the United States.

Evelyn, who did not want to share her full name, was a teenager when Mitch hit in 1998 and recalls how her relatives in New York City pleaded with her mother to bring her and her sister to the US.

_“_People are being displaced by climate change, the number is growing every year and, increasingly, the displacements are permanent.”

“There were bodies and dead animals floating in the water, the house was messed up, the furniture was all gone—doors, windows gone. It was so, so sad,” said Evelyn. “I got sick because of the mosquitoes too. My uncle and aunt were just like: ‘OK, just bring the kids over here, don’t stay. It’s dangerous.’”

Storms of the deadly ferocity of Mitch are even more likely today because our atmosphere and oceans have rapidly heated up due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Yet Trump’s curbing of immigration and asylum has made it far harder for people like Evelyn to flee to the US.“Every day it’s more barriers,” said Evelyn, who still lives in New York and has two daughters, both studying at university. “It’s sad to know that people will not be able to apply for a status or something to help their situation and also help the people back home.”

The administration has also sought to terminate the temporary protected status (TPS) of people from Honduras and 12 othercountries who already reside in the US, with nearly half of these countries ranked by Notre Dame as among the most climate-vulnerable places in the world.

The US Supreme Court is now considering an appeal to the TPS revocation for people hailing from two of the affected countries: Syria and Haiti, which have suffered recent droughts and hurricanes, respectively, as well as violent unrest. Environmental perils in these and other countries have been cited by the federal government when granting TPS status to allow people to remain in the US.

But the current administration’s sweeping bans on entry to the US will “keep the radical Islamic terrorists out of our country” and resolve deficiencies in vetting people, Trump has said. (The State Department was contacted for comment about climate-related immigration.)

Most of the banned countries are at the epicenter of an escalating climate displacement crisis, with the United Nations estimating severe heatwaves, droughts, storms, and floods have uprooted 250 million people globally over the past decade, the equivalent of 70,000 displacementsevery day.

Resident walks through debris in the street after a tropical storm.

Resident walks through what remains after flood waters hit Comayaguela, Honduras, during a tropical storm on October 31, 1998. Yuri Cortez/AFP via Getty

It’s unknown how many of these people flee over borders, with most migration taking place internally—in 2025, nearly 30 million people were forced by disasters to move within their countries, recent figures show. Wildfires, such as those that incinerated parts of Los Angeles last year, were the largest cause of such displacement.

But experts agree that there is a growing cohort of so-called “climate refugees” fleeing their home countries as the planet continues to dangerously overheat. There are currently no official pathways to do so, however, with neither US law nor the UN’s 1951 refugee convention recognizing environmental disasters as a reason to gain protection in another country.

_“_People are being displaced by climate change, the number is growing every year and, increasingly, the displacements are permanent,” said Jocelyn Perry, program manager of the climate displacement program at Refugees International. Residents of developing countries now blacklisted by the US struggle to deal with the loss of crops, sea level rise, and other upheavals worsened by global heating, she added.

_“_A house in Florida may be able to withstand a category four hurricane, but there are people around the world unable to deal with that in any way and they are bearing the brunt of this,” said Perry.

Advocates say that people will typically be displaced by a climate-fueled disaster, which leads to a separate but related misfortune, such as violence, that spurs them to leave their country. War or persecution can, unlike climate change, be used as a reason to claim asylum.

_“_Climate change is not necessarily the first issue that displaced people raise,” said Perry. “But if, say, a family’s crops fail for three years and they have to move to an urban area and they can’t find work or it’s dangerous there, climate change has played a key role in their movement—even if their asylum claim is because of the violence that follows.”

Man with cholera symptoms being carried.

A man with cholera symptoms is being carried to a small clinic, in Randelle, Haiti, on October 19, 2016.Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty

The US is the world’s largest emitter of planet-heating pollution in history. However, Trump has dismissed any need to act on the climate crisis, which he calls a “hoax” and “bullshit,” and has demanded the world remain wedded to fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has effectively shut down the US refugee program, other than to white South Africans, and dismantled overseas aid that ameliorates the symptoms of a warming world, such as the spread of disease. Cuts to USAID engineered by Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, are forecast to result in the deaths of about 4.5 million young children, in places such as sub-Saharan Africa, over the next five years.

_“_All of these actions will increase displacement, and the Trump administration will try to dissuade people from coming to the US border through cruel and inhumane policies, third-country deportation, and child detention,” said Perry.

_“_I don’t know if that will deter people if the other option is risking death or injury at home, though, so people will still make that journey,” she added. “We are seeing political decisions in the US and in Europe, too, that will leave more people stuck in vulnerable places and unable to respond. With worsening climate change, this is going to be horrific for the rest of the world.”

Farmer shows dried out crops.

A farmer shows his dried out crops while Syria’s Idlib region faces severe drought for the first time in its history on October 28, 2025.Kasim Yusuf/Anadolu via Getty

The one part of the US immigration apparatus that does factor in the climate crisis is TPS, by which foreign nationals already in the US are grantedrenewable one- or two-year stays if war or natural disaster hits their homeland.

Syrians were granted TPS in 2024 on the basis, among other things, of falling wheat production and “drought-like conditions” that have plagued the country in recent years. Ethiopia has been hit by severe drought and flooding, displacing more than 4 million people, the country’s TPS status from the same year concluded, while about 350,000 Haitians in the US would risk returning to one of the countries “most affected by extreme weather events,” according to a 2023 determination granting a TPS extension.

The Trump administration has terminated TPS status for a swathe of countries, however, with the courts set to decide on the status of several of these, including the Supreme Court case involving Syria and Haiti. “There are tens of thousands of people who have fled because of natural disasters,” said Geoffrey Pipoly, a lawyer representing six plaintiffs from Haiti, which has been hit by two huge hurricanes since 2016. “Haiti has been smack dab in the middle of this for decades.”

Even those still protected by TPS face uncertainty.A doctor originally from Sudan, who did not want to be named, said he left for the US after drought accelerated conflict in his country, which has been locked in a civil war for the past three years.

_“_If the tide was to turn, it might be more for adaptation funding to help people stay where they are, rather than a new visa.”

_“_It’s too dry, there’s not enough water, the lands were just left without anyone to cultivate them and millions have fled,” he said. “The conflicts are affected by climate change and the difficulty of people sharing resources in that part of the world. I did not see any hope in things improving.”

Sudan is still on the TPS list but only until October. “It would be very, very tough, very difficult to go back,” said the doctor, who has still not heard whether an application made for a work permit has been successful. “One of the reasons people come to the US is because they think there is a law, everybody is treated equally. But I think this is no longer the case.”

The Supreme Court ruling is expected by late June or early July.

Efforts to update the US immigration system to include consideration of the climate crisis have so far floundered. The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines a “refugee” as anyone who is unable to return to their home nation due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political viewpoint.

It does not include protections for those displaced by environmental degradation—something researchers and advocates have long said is necessary. In 2021 and 2023, Democratic lawmakers aimed to codify such a change with the Climate Displaced Persons Act, which would amend the INA to provide durable legal status and resettlement support to people forced to relocate to the US due to climate disasters.

“As disasters supercharged by climate change cause disruption and devastation around the world, the Trump administration wants to both destroy programs meant to build more resilient countries and make it impossible for those without recourse to seek refuge in the United States,” said the Massachusetts senator Ed Markey, who introduced the proposal both times.

Such legislation is needed now more than ever, Markey said. “Trump’s attacks on foreign aid programs, his disregard of climate science, and his attacks on immigrants all come from the same playbook,” he said.

Emaciated cattle being fed.

Emaciated cattle being fed in Kenya during Horn of Africa drought on September 1, 2022.Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP via Getty

The bill would also ensure that agencies collect data on climate-related displacement. That could remove a major roadblock to establishing and maintaining protections for those affected, said Hannah Flamm, deputy director of policy at the International Refugee Assistance Program (IRAP).

“There’s vast data globally on internal displacement on account of climate, but there’s virtually no data on international displacement on account of climate,” she said, adding that Markey’s proposal is a “valiant effort.”

“Whether or not it passes, it is critical to mobilize advocacy and to reinforce the need to meet this need,” she said.

Given the current political environment, however, the prospect of a new climate migration framework appears dim. “I wouldn’t say there’s a lot of optimism right now that any change could occur anytime in the near future,” Perry said.

Amid a broader push for mass deportations by the administration, “climate has been put on the back burner to safeguard the very concept of regular migration as a whole,” she added.

A future administration could try to implement a sort of climate visa to the US, but it’s more likely that it would focus on limiting damage around the world that displaces people in the first place, according to Yael Schacher, director for the Americas and Europe at Refugees International.

_“_If the tide was to turn, it might be more for adaptation funding to help people stay where they are, rather than a new visa,” Schacher said.

_“_We have our own displacement in the US, too—we aren’t immune from this. Right now the sympathy for immigrants, even people displaced by the worst persecution, is nil. It’s hard to see any sort of expansive opening—up, even if that’s what people need.”

Dharna Noor contributed additional reporting.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Karmelo Anthony and the Futility of Claiming Self-Defense While Black

Last spring, during a track meet at a Texas high school, 17-year-old Karmelo Anthony stabbed and killed Austin Metcalf, a white student and fellow athlete from a rival school, during an argument. Whether or not Anthony killed Metcalf wasn’t up for discussion: Anthony had admitted his guilt, and there were several witnesses present during the altercation.

The question at the center of Anthony’s trial was whether or not the Black teen was acting in self-defense. Texas is one of 31 states with “Stand Your Ground” laws that allow people to use reasonable force, including deadly force, against an assailant under certain circumstances.

Similar laws have been invoked in several high-profile cases across the country, including the 2012 killing of Trayvon Martin, where George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, was acquitted after claiming he shot the 17-year-old in self-defense. Zimmerman outweighed Martin and initiated the encounter; Metcalf was also larger than Anthony and the first to engage.But more than a decade later, Anthony would not be given that same judicial grace.

On Tuesday, a jury convicted Anthony, now 19 years old, of murder. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison. There wasn’t a single Black person on the jury—every Black potential juror was struck before trial. The case has reignited a decades-long conversation, both on and off social media: In the US criminal justice system, who do “Stand Your Ground” laws protect?

View this post on Instagram

Civil rights activists, celebrities, and politicians have expressed outrage at the case, with some saying that Anthony’s conviction highlights a clear double standard in self-defense claims in the United States: If a white person kills a Black person, courts (and white juries) are more likely to rule the killing justified than if the situation were reversed.

Daniel Penny snuck up behind an innocent Black man who never touched anyone, and choked him to death while claiming self defense. This happened in New York that has some of the strictest self-defense laws and a duty to retreat. Penny was still acquitted & paraded around like a… pic.twitter.com/JA6eGwL6Nb

— Tariq Nasheed 🇺🇸 (@tariqnasheed) June 10, 2026

And the data backs that up.

According to a 2021 study from Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit that advocates against gun violence, homicides are deemed justified more often, in nearly every state, when the shooter is white and the victim is Black. A study from the Urban Institute found that homicides with a Black shooter and a white victim were ruled justified self-defense in a little more than 1 percent of cases. For a white shooter and Black victim, the figure jumps to 11.4 percent.

The response to Anthony’s conviction certainly hasn’t been helped by the far-right mouthpieces and conservative media figures who have invoked the case to justify blatantly racist rhetoric. Jake Lang, a far-right influencer who rose to prominence for participating in the January 6 insurrection, stood outside the Frisco courtroom in the days leading up to the verdict, spewing hateful rhetoric and posting it for his 169,000 Instagram followers to see.

I cannot say whether or not Anthony was acting in self-defense, but I can say that, while living in a country that has made the likes of Kyle Rittenhouse famous, I understand the Black community’s frustration.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s Deportation Machine Is Still Targeting Pro-Palestinian Protesters

An immigration judge hasordered the deportation of Columbia University graduate student Mohsen Mahdawi, who is Palestinian, to Jordan in a legal filing published Wednesday. Mahdawi has been targeted by the Trump administration for his pro-Palestinian activism for more than a year, in a high-profile case that saw him abruptly detained by immigration authorities during an April 2025 naturalization appointment.

Mahdawi is one of hundreds of students nationwide who experienced visa revocations, arrests, or threats after participating in protests denouncing Israel. The Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech, which began in the first days of President Trump’s second term, continues: many protesters are still fighting deportation cases, and in some cases criminal charges. Mahmoud Khalil, abducted as a recent Columbia graduate, was given a temporary reprieve in mid-May after he spent months in custody in 2025, missing the birth of his son—but must now petition the Supreme Court to halt deportation proceedings to Algeria.

Other targeted noncitizen students, like Tufts’ Rümeysa Öztürk and Cornell’s Momodou Taal, chose to leave after facing the American security state. Öztürk, who was detained for weeks over an op-ed in Tufts’ student newspaper, returned to Turkey after graduating.

“The time stolen from me by the U.S. government belongs not just to me, but to the children and youth I have dedicated my life to advocating for,” Öztürk wrote in April. “With them in mind, I am choosing to return home as planned.”

Leqaa Kordia, an undocumented Palestinian woman detained at a Columbia University protest, was held in a notorious Texas ICE jail for a year, until her release last April. She, too, is still fighting deportation. “I mean, to be imprisoned for a whole year simply for practicing my freedom of speech and to be accused of horrific things that I have nothing to do with, it’s outrageous,” Kordia told PBS in May.

Mahdawi will be appealing his case, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a press release Wednesday. “The First Amendment protects all of us from government censorship, citizen or not,” said Nate Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “The government’s continued persecution of our client for his beliefs should send a chill down the spine of everyone in this country, because once we start allowing exceptions to the First Amendment for speech the current government doesn’t like, there’s no telling where the censorship will stop.” While a separate habeas corpus petition by Mahdawi makes its way through federal court, he cannot be re-detained or deported.

Documents from the AAUP v. Rubio trial, in which the American Association of University Professors sued to stop the US from detaining students on ideological grounds, proved the federal government frequently used spurious sources to target students based on their political opinions. As my colleague Najib Aminy reported in January, those sources included anonymous blacklisting sites like Canary Mission.

DHS and the State Department “acted in concert to misuse the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target non-citizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment-protected political speech,” the judge in that case wrote in his court order. “Moreover, the effect of these targeted deportation proceedings continues unconstitutionally to chill freedom of speech to this day.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

FIFA Peace Prize Recipient Vows to Hit Iran ‘VERY HARD’ on First Night of World Cup

On Thursday, President Donald Trump said that the US would strike Iran “VERY HARD TONIGHT,” in a bid to “assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets.”

Trump made the statement in a Truth Social post, comparing the effort to the US military kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January and taking over the country’s multi-billion-dollar oil industry.

The possible strikes come on the same day as the first two World Cup matches, the global soccer tournament organized by FIFA, a corrupt governing body, whose president awarded Trump the FIFA Peace Prize for his “unwavering commitment to advancing peace and unity.” Among the achievements FIFA cited: playing “a pivotal role” in establishing a ceasefire and promoting peace between Israel and Palestine.”

View this post on Instagram

As I wrote in May, Trump has used his supposed success in Venezuela as fuel for subsequent takeovers attempts of Iran and Cuba. If he sees his legacy on the line—with both his and Israel’s war in Iran and the World Cup—the possible consequences look dire.

According to data from Iran’s government ministries, nearly 3,500 people have been killed since February 28, and, per a Wednesday report from the New York Times, the US military may have already hit two water facilities serving thousands of people in Iran (which many international law experts label as a war crime).

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

In the United States, Solar Energy is Outpacing Coal for the First Time Ever

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

Solar energy just provided more electricity in the United States than coal for the first time on record—marking a milestone for the rise of renewables in America.

While gas and nuclear plants still lead the country’s energy mix, solar contributed 12.8 percent of the nation’s electrons in May, according to an analysis of government data by Ember, an energy think tank. Coal, meanwhile, provided just 12.2 percent. Just five years ago, solar was less than half of its current levels and coal was at 20 percent.

“Overtaking coal for the first month on record shows just how far solar has come, from a niche contributor to the third-largest and fastest-growing source of power in the US electricity system,” said Nicolas Fulghum, senior data analyst at Ember, in a press release. “From Texas to California, markets across the US are betting on solar to meet rising power needs.”

The turnaround comes even as political headwinds have shifted against renewable energy.

“Spending $700 million to bail out the coal industry is like throwing a lifeline to a ship that has already sunk.”

Last summer, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which rolled back enormous swaths of former President Joe Biden’s landmark climate change legislation, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. And President Donald Trump has actively sought to hinder renewable energy development, even offering to pay at least one oil company $1 billion to stop building its offshore wind projects.

The latest electricity data comes the same month that the Trump administration announced $700 million in funding for investments in the coal industry. It included money for what would be the country’s first new coal-fired power plants in 13 years—sourced from funds previously dedicated to reducing the country’s dependence on fossil fuels, not deepening it.

“Today we’re taking historic action to bring down the price of energy and the cost of living for all Americans with the power of clean, beautiful coal,” said Trump, who campaigned on the coal-friendly slogan ‘dig, baby, dig.”

Ember’s analysis found that coal generation in May was actually up slightly from April, when it hit an all-time low. Its share of the grid will also likely tick up in the summer, as cooling needs peak. But the steady downward trend over the last several years suggests that even all the president’s men might not be able to put the coal industry back together again.

“Spending $700 million to bail out the coal industry is like throwing a lifeline to a ship that has already sunk,” Lena Moffitt, executive director of the environmental group Evergreen Action, told the Associated Press. Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association disagreed, telling the AP that coal generation helps shield consumers from the impacts of volatile energy prices and supply challenges exacerbated by AI.

Regardless of what coal does, experts believe the solar market will continue its upward march. While installations dropped in 2025 compared to 2024, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association, it still accounted for more than half of all newly installed electricity capacity. Even MAGA influencers are promoting it.

“We’re going to just keep seeing more and more renewables brought onto the grid,” said Patrick Drupp, director of climate policy at the Sierra Club. “That’s good for people’s wallets, it’s good for their health, it’s good for the planet.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The World Cup’s First Score: Union 1, Owners 0

In a 99-1 vote Wednesday night, food and beverage workers staffing Los Angeles’ SoFi Stadium for theFIFA Men’s World Cup ratified an agreement that includes better wages and protections around immigration enforcement—a high-profile labor victory after months of dispute over poor pay and work without a contract amidhuge employer revenues.

The workers include cooks, dishwashers, concession workers, bartenders, and servers at SoFi, whichwill host eight soccer matches in the coming weeks, and whoseoperator had previously ceased negotiations after multiple bargaining sessions failed to reach an agreement. After threatening a strike, the union workers won, among other things, contractual guarantees that allow themto walk off the job if federal immigration enforcement threatens worker safety during a match.

In an interview with The Athletic last week, Kurt Petersen, the president of the union representing the food and beverage workers, UNITE HERE Local 11, said the stadium operator was “not taking the concerns and demands seriously enough.”

Buton Wednesday, workers ratified an agreement that the union said “won every major issue” it had brought to the table, including raises of at least 30 percent, a housing fund, job protections, AI and automation restrictions, privacy rights around personal data, and walkout rights in the event of ICE raids or similar federal action.

2,000 food and beverage workers at SoFi Stadium reached tentative agreement with Legends Hospitality last night, just days before FIFA World Cup begins. Workers will ratify this week, after which we’ll release more details.

— UNITE HERE Local 11 (@unitehere11) June 9, 2026

“This contract proves what workers can accomplish when we stand together,” Susana Lahargue, a union member, said in a statement. “We are proud to welcome fans knowing that workers have secured a contract that respects our work and our dignity.”

The union announced last week that theworkers it represents had voted 96 percent in favor of authorizing a strikewith just days to go until the first World Cup match—giving their employer every incentive to come back to the table.

As I wrote last week, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said that “every single” federal law enforcement agency would be on site at the soccer tournament: “If we have people coming in that’s on the terrorist watchlist, we’re going to collapse on them. That’s not going to [just] be ICE, that could be state police that collapse on them. We’re all working together.”

Additionally, FIFA, the international governing body of soccer, is enforcing an accreditation process that involves collecting stadium workers’ personal data and sharing it with the Department of Homeland Security prior to the World Cup.

“We are seriously concerned that FIFA will hand over our most sensitive personal information and waive our rights under California law, or lose our job working the World Cup,” Yolanda Fierro, a stadium worker and union member, said in a May statement. “We cannot celebrate the World Cup while workers, tourists, immigrant families, and local communities are made to feel unsafe.”

Union members also raised concerns about the enormous revenues their employer, Legends Global, a worldwide venue management company, would earn from the World Cup, including from individual luxury suite packages worth more than $100,000. According to the union, workers—despite the high-pressure environment of the tournament and the immigration risks—aren’t seeing anything like a fair share: “Legends Global’s most recent proposal includes wage freezes for some suite attendants and bartenders and 25 cents-an-hour annual increases for cooks and dishwashers,” the local wrote.

Despite a tournament already marked by abuses of power— including the Trump administration’s denial of visasto national team players, staff, and match officials—roughly 2,000 food and beverage workers have scored the first goal.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

“I Love Inflation,” Trump Says, As Rates Rise Thanks to Iran War

At a press conference this afternoon, a reporter asked President Donald Trump if he is concerned about inflation rates after new data showed the consumer price index at a three-year high of 4.2 percent.

“I love the inflation,” Trump said. In Februrary, before the US began bombing Iran, inflation was at 2.4 percent. Trump predicted that inflation will “come down like a rock” once the war is over.

Q: Are you concerned about the latest inflation numbers that came out this morning?TRUMP: No, I love it. I love the inflation. You know why? Because as soon as this war is over — do you know we've been taking out millions of barrels of oil? You know who doesn't know? Iran until right now.

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-06-10T16:08:03.927Z

Meanwhile, Trump suggested that the US has been ferrying oil out of the Strait of Hormuz. “We’ve been taking out millions of barrels of oil,” Trump said. “Every night…now I’m going to tell you because they just figured it out. It was very hard for me, I wanted to say it so badly, but I didn’t want to ruin it. But millions of barrels of oil has come out, and that’s why it’s at 85, $90 a barrel instead of 250.”

About an hour later, he reiterated this point via social media post: “Last month, I directed our Great U.S. Military to execute a secret mission to support Oil Tankers and other Commercial Ships through the Strait of Hormuz.”

When the war is over, “You will see oil drop to where it was before,” Trump said at today’s press conference.

It’s not clear when that will happen, though: today, Trump also vowed to continue attacking Iran. “We’re going to be attacking them…very hard,” he said. Almost 3,500 Iranians have been killed in the US and Israel’s war on the country since February 28.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Elon Musk’s Reward for Calling for a Race War? Becoming a Trillionaire.

British Labour Party leadership accused Elon Musk of inciting violence on social media ahead of massive ongoing white supremacist, anti-immigration riots centered in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

“It’s appalling. Anyone that is seeking to drive and exploit a situation like this to drive their own political agenda is grievously wrong and doing damage,” Labour Party Chair Anna Turley told LBC News on Wednesday, in reference to Musk’s remarks. “We’ve seen children, families having to flee their homes on the streets of Belfast last night.”

On Tuesday night, rioters reportedly lit buildings and vehicles on fire and broke into and damaged homes, with at least some targeting people of color, in response to news thata Sudanese refugee with legal status was charged with attempted murder for stabbing and attempting to behead another man on Monday night.

As far-right activists called for “mass protest” across the UK early Tuesday, Musk quoted one of the viral posts, writing, “Only by protesting REPEATEDLY and LOUDLY will there be any change!!”

Only by protesting REPEATEDLY and LOUDLY will there be any change!! https://t.co/73GDcLLFwv

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 9, 2026

What’s the “change” Musk is demanding? A short list of some his activity on X on Tuesday morning:

  • Tuesday 11:03am ET: Musk posts: “The truth is that there are VASTLY more hate crimes, especially aggravated rape and murder, per person by Blacks against Whites than the other way around.”
  • Tuesday 11:27am ET: Musk promotes a clip of remarks he made to a crowd last September via video during a separate anti-immigration protest in the UK where he said, “Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back, or you die.”
  • Tuesday 11:32am ET: Musk posts “This is the way” in response to Rupert Lowe, a right-wing member of Parliament vowing that his political party, Restore Britain, will “aim to prosecute officials and politicians who knowingly placed dangerous third world savages in our communities”—a campaign that will “apply retrospectively.”

The truth is that there are VASTLY more hate crimes, especially aggravated rape and murder, per person by Blacks against Whites than the other way around.

The is not remotely debatable, as the numbers are so extremely lopsided! https://t.co/li1ipYrHWu

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 9, 2026

He continued into Wednesday:

  • Wednesday 8:48am ET: Musk boosts a post claiming that “the left” conducted the “greatest rhetorical heist of the century” by using the word “racist” to counter criticisms of their policies.
  • And about an hour later: Musk reposts a graphic depicting a judge beating a person holding a “White Lives Matter” sign with their gavel.

pic.twitter.com/oIneMaNCFe

— Alice Smith (@TheAliceSmith) June 9, 2026

Elon Musk is pressing for a race war, where the violence from the left requires one to “fight back, or die.”

It’s a strange and perhaps fitting irony that Musk’s rhetoric comes the same week he could turn into the world’s first trillionaire with a SpaceX initial public offering that could tank your retirement fund.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Why the Scandal-Ridden Democrat With a Nazi Tattoo Won Maine’s Senate Primary

Graham Platner, the rugged oyster farmer positioning himself as a progressive populist, won Maine’s Democratic Senate Primary on Tuesday, earning more than 70 percent of the vote so far. He is now slated to face incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins in the November general election.

By some measures, the outcome was long-expected, since Governor Janet Mills announced she was suspending her Senate bid back in April. But at that point, only some of the salacious revelations about Platner’s past had come to light: namely, his tattoo resembling a Nazi Totenkopf symbol (he has since covered it up), and the racist and sexist posts he penned on Reddit more than a decade ago, including ones questioning why Black people “don’t tip” and criticizing sexual assault victims for not taking responsibility for what happened to them.

Since then, additional allegations against Platner have emerged. One June article by the New York Times quoted some of Platner’s past romantic partners, including one who was a Republican operative, who characterized their relationships with Platner as “unsettling.” And a May story by the Wall Street Journal indicated Platner had sexted other women while married. During his speech accepting the primary nomination on Tuesday, Platner leaned into a redemption-arc narrative. “If you believe, as I do, that we can change our politics, and change our country, then you must also believe that people can change,” Platner said, speaking at a YMCA. “And the reason I believe that is because I have lived it—and the reason I have lived it is because of my wife.”

“If you believe, as I do, that we can change our politics, and change our country, then you must also believe that people can change.”

A couple of decades ago, these revelations would have been disqualifying. But as the Democrats confront how to win back voters who have—now twice—elected a president with a penchant for his own sexist, racist, and even criminal behaviors, Platner’s proliferating controversies are perhaps less disqualifying, and possibly even endearing to some discontented Americans.

As New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie said in a recent podcast episode about the rise of the “dirtbag” Democrat, Platner is not just a candidate but a manifestation of the crossroads at which the Democratic Party now finds itself.

“It stands with how you view the kinds of people that Democrats tend to recruit to run for office. Should they be polished, with the right credentials?” asked Bouie. “Or should there be a bit of a looser and more open approach to candidate recruitment?”

And yet, character does matter. At least it seemed to be relevant in 2020, when Collins focused on her opponent, Maine Speaker of the House Sarah Gideon, the then-Democratic nominee, and accused her of not investigating a fellow state representative who had been accused of preying upon teenage girls. Six years later, I wanted to know how a candidate like Platner pulled off a victory in Maine’s Democratic primary in spite of—or maybe even because of—his questionable past. So I asked Musa al-Gharbi, an associate sociology professor at Stony Brook University who wrote the best-selling book “We Have Never Been Woke,” which examines how political correctness isn’t the remedy to inequality that elites have assumed.

The following conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Why do you think Graham Platner emerged as the winner in the Maine Senate Primary?

One thing that influenced how the primary shook out is that there are a lot of people within the Democratic coalition whorecognize there’s a large cultural distance between them and the rest of society. Maine is a pretty rural state; it’s a pretty purple state, and so they were maybe thinking, hoping, that someone like Platner would send a different set of social signals than the typical Democrat. The problem, though, is that on the one hand, he’s someone who positions himself as working-class, but the reality is he is from a pretty affluent family. He positions himself as an oyster farmer, but the farm provides stuff mostly to his mother’s restaurant. The house that he lives in was bought with a $200,000 loan from his father. An open question in the general election would be: To what extent are swing voters going to buy into this portrayal of himself that he’s tried to cultivate?

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.) is another example of a wealthy person from elite schools who positions himself as this average-Joe kind of a person. Even to the point of wearing hoodies to Congress. Here’s a pro tip: Someone who’s genuinely poor and from a working-class background who made it into Congress wouldn’t be showing up in a hoodie.

So, how much do Platner’s alleged controversies factor into the choices of voters who are on the fence in the General Election?

A lot of working-class voters, irregular voters, and so on, are often willing to overlook various types of indiscretions of politicians who represent them, as long as they have the sense that this person is on their side and not looking down on them—even if the candidate isn’t a saint, even if they have serious character flaws.

In a world where a lot of voters have come to feel like neither party and almost no candidate is actually going to help them or improve their lives, then the main thing that they have left to vote on is basically, “Okay, well, if my life is not going to be meaningfully improved by these folks in Washington either way, then I can at least vote for the person who doesn’t hate me.”

Book cover for "We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite" by Musa al-Gharbi. The design features a large black circle centered on an off-white background. Overlapping the circle, the main title text "WE HAVE NEVER BEEN WOKE" is written in massive, bold capital letters arranged in four stacked lines. The parts of the letters that fall inside the black circle are colored grey, while the parts extending outside the circle are colored pink at the top ("WE HAVE") and green at the bottom ("WOKE"). At the top of the cover, praise quotes from The New York Times and The Atlantic are printed in small orange text, with the author's name "MUSA AL-GHARBI" beneath them in bold red letters. Below the main title and black circle, the subtitle reads "THE CULTURAL CONTRADICTIONS OF A NEW ELITE" in teal and blue text, followed by the line "WITH A NEW PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR" at the very bottom in small blue lettering.

In his best-selling 2024 book, “We Have Never Been Woke,” Sociologist Musa Al-Gharbi explains how elite progressives use social justice rhetoric to gain more power, without helping the marginalized people they claim to care about.

Is there a world in which Platner’s controversies and mainstream media’s reactions to them make him even more appealing to some voters in Maine?

To the extent that people feel like a politician is being held to an irrelevant standard (i.e. Who cares about his sex life? I’m not hiring him to be my son-in-law), or to a needlessly high standard, then that can redound to the benefit of the person who is being targeted. It can generate more sympathy.

For instance, when people were calling Trump racist. For a lot of voters who themselves feel unfairly maligned as racists, it just evokes something in them that actually makes this person more sympathetic to them than they otherwise might be—even if they don’t like the way the [politician] is talking about racial issues.

And you could see a lot ofthis in the polls and surveys, even from most Republican primary voters in 2016. Most Republican voters reported being deeply disturbed by Trump’s rhetoric and behaviors with respect to race and gender. They [largely] didn’t approve of them, which runs contrary to a lot of our assumptions that they voted for him because he’s a racist. No, they voted for him because the other choice was this person that they viewed as corrupt, who called them deplorables, who said that they wanted to put coal out of business.

You also saw this with President Bill Clinton. A lot of polls showed that the way that the media responded to Bill Clinton made the public sympathize with him more, even though they didn’t approve of his behavior. They didn’t approve of him cheating on his wife or exploiting an intern, but they thought the attacks were out of proportion and were devoid, importantly, from the main responsibilities of the job.

Don’t President Donald Trump and Platner have a few things in common? They both ran as populist outsiders facing various controversies regarding racism, sexism, and infidelity. They certainly aren’t perfect on paper, but maybe that makes some voters feel less judged for their own improprieties?

They’re both deeply flawed candidates in many respects. But one disadvantage that Platner has is that a lot of the people who have felt frustrated or alienated have voted Republican in recent cycles. The Republican Party has been the party of people who feel that sense of alienation, and in this case, Platner is running against a Republican—a Republican, sure, who bucks Trump sometimes, but Platner is also positioning himself as someone who’s bucking Trump. For the swing voters who still think the Republican Party is a better vessel for their frustrations and more proximate to them in various respects, Platner has an uphill struggle there.

That said, one thing you can clearly seein the polling is that a whole bunch of folks who drifted away from the Democratic party in recent cycles are now very frustrated with Trump. They still don’t hold the Democrats in high esteem, either. But it’s a two-party system, and Trump is the one in power, so if people are dissatisfied with the way things are going, that will probably benefit Democrats in these midterms.

Why do you think swing voters are becoming dissatisfied with Trump?

One of the things anti-woke people often take for granted when they get elected is that they were elected in the first place because the public is tired of culture-war stuff taking precedence at the expense of the things that they care about. Rather than concluding, “Oh, people are tired of the culture wars,” the message that anti-woke people often internalize is, “Oh, people are done with left-leaning culture wars.”

Some anti-woke people, like Trump, think voters want the culture wars to simply go in the other direction. If you look at the Trump administration and its focus on wanting to change the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and put Trump’s face on everything from passports to coins—there’s this really intense focus on symbols, even though a lot of Americans are struggling with more concrete things. People whovoted against Biden voted because he seemed like this addled old man: The world seemed to be burning, and he seemed to be incapable of doing anything about it. Well, that’s basically the same situation that voters facenow with Trump in office, so that probably won’t work out well for him in the midterms.

If a conservative candidate were facing identical allegations to Platner’s, do you think the media and other perceived elites would be responding in the same way?

Certainly, if a Republican candidate said, “Hey, look, I got this Nazi tattoo. I didn’t know what it meant at the time”—they wouldn’t be given the same grace.

In terms of the extramarital stuff, that’s hard to determine, because Trump has really lowered the bar with that for Republicans. In the past, a Republican who had serial infidelity would have been lambasted by the media as a hypocrite, especially if he positioned himself as some kind of Christian or family-values kind of guy. In Platner’s case, he doesn’t really position himself that way. He says he loves his wife and all, but he’s not the family-values candidate, and the Democratic Party isn’t the family-values party. So he’s maybe less susceptible to that kind of angle.

What should establishment or elite Democrats and the mainstream media learn from Platner’s race so far?

Someone like Platner is kind of directionally correct for the party. He’s plain-spoken and tends to emphasize issues voters care about in a very economically populist way. He’s also unapologetically manly. He’s a war vet, he has a strong physique, he does a job that is, at least superficially, physically demanding. He has this kind of unapologetic masculinity about him that isn’t necessarily toxic, or that doesn’t have to be. You’d want a guy whose understanding of what manliness means is—among other things—taking care of your family, being a good leader, putting the needs of your community ahead of yourself and your own ambitions and desires. Unfortunately, the extent to which Platner could be this kind of positive male alternative is undercut by the allegations against him.

That doesn’t mean women can’t be strong Democratic candidates. The real problem for both Hillary [Clinton] and Kamala [Harris], wasn’t that they were women, it’s that they were both kind of urban, highly credentialed people whose whole public persona and manner was like, “Look, I have all these wonky technical plans, and I’ve workshopped everything I said with seven different committees before it comes out of my mouth.” If [Democrats] nominate a man who’s like that, that man is not going to succeed in Maine, either.


If you buy a book using our Bookshop link, a small share of the proceeds supports our journalism.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Told Prosecutors to Target ICE Protesters. A Chicago Jury Wasn’t Buying It.

The grand jury transcripts from the “Broadview Six” case, in which the federal government tried to charge six Chicagoans with felony conspiracy for their participation in an anti-ICE protest, were released this week, offering a rare look inside an aggressive federal prosecution.

The Broadview case collapsed in late May amid prosecutorial-misconduct allegations, a month after the harshest charges against the protesters were dropped. The transcripts show unnamed jurors repeatedly pressing prosecutor Sherri Mecklenburg on why defendants faced assault and conspiracy charges when the ICE agent whose vehicle they blocked was unharmed.

“This person wasn’t harmed, but by extension impeding and assaulting his vehicle, that constitutes simple assault?” one juror asked. “The law doesn’t require that you actually touch him,” Mecklenburg said.

The juror then asked whether the ICE agent had the right to drive into the protesters. “So if the person comes and stands in front of my car, do I have the right to drive against him?” the juror asked. Mecklenburg brushed it off. “That didn’t happen.”

“It happened,” the juror responded. “He moved.” In video from the protest, the ICE agent’s car can, indeed, be seen driving towards the crowd of protesters.

In another interaction, Mecklenburg explained the requirements of a charge of “conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer,” which the Trump administration has repeatedly brought against ICE protesters.

“Are you actually presenting any new actual facts or just a different viewpoint on your side?” an unnamed grand juror asked.

“Okay. I’m feeling the skepticism already. Are you going to be able to listen with an open mind? Tell me the truth,” Mecklenburg said.

“I heard this case like last week, and I thought it was a crock of shit then and I still think it is,” the juror said. Prosecutors required multiple attempts across three separate days to secure an indictment—and a visit from Chicago’s U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros, who gave a speech to the grand jury on the importance of impartiality, according to a special report released by his office.

The Broadview case is part of a larger federal effort to silence dissent. Last September, Donald Trump explicitly directed federal prosecutors to target ICE protesters, telling US attorneys’ offices to “charge all such persons with the highest provable offense available under the law.” Some prosecutors resigned rather than comply. Others followed orders: in Chicago, in Los Angeles, and in Washington State, prosecutors came for ICE protesters.

“The right does have a bloodlust to imprison dissenters,” Kat Abughazaleh, a former congressional candidate and Mother Jones contributor, said in an interview May 27. “I and a bunch of other people got hit by a car while exercising our First Amendment rights, and then the federal government tried to charge us with conspiracy.”

The conspiracy charges could have put the six defendants, who are all involved in local Democratic politics, in jail for the better part of a decade, all for standing in the way of one ICE vehicle. “The conspiracy charge got dropped about a month ago when we asked to see the unredacted grand jury transcripts,” Abughazaleh said.

“The government was embarrassed, just as they were embarrassed that ICE shot Joselyn Walsh, my co-defendant’s, guitar. And they should be embarrassed. This is absolutely pathetic behavior from supposedly the strongest government in the world.”

In Spokane, Washington, three people were found guilty last month of the same charge the Broadview protesters were charged with: “conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer.” Cases against ICE protesters in Texas and Minnesota are ongoing.

“I think the goal is to make an example out of us,” Abughazaleh said.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Most New US Data Centers Are Slated for Drought-Plagued Areas

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

A record-shattering drought has racked much of the United States. But the artificial intelligence industry is pushing ahead regardless, with the majority of planned data centers set to be built in drought-ridden locations, a Guardian analysis has found.

About two-thirds of upcoming data centers, which typically require a large amount of water to operate, are set to be built in places that have been among the driest in the country over the past year.

Of 809 planned data centers, 517 are in locations that have been in drought conditions throughout the past year, according to data from Cleanview and the federal government, which grades drought across four levels of severity. A similar proportion of existing data centers are already situated in drought-affected areas.

More than 60 percent of the contiguous US is currently at varying stages of drought, the largest expanse for spring in modern records, with a particularly severe lack of rain and snow in the Southeast and West desiccating croplands and raising fears of a disastrous wildfire season.

“There isn’t enough water to go around. Now with this explosion of data centers, I think a crunch point is inevitable.”

Scientists have determined that the climate crisis, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is worsening the duration and intensity of droughts in the US.

But a stampede of new data centers are adding extra demands via their hefty energy and water requirements. Large data centers, some the size of small towns, can require up to 5 million gallons of water a day, equivalent to the water use of up to 50,000 people, in order to provide cooling to arrays of humming networked computers.

Overall, the multiplying data centers are set to demand as much as 73 billion gallons of water a year by 2028, up from about 17 billion gallons in 2023. Each 100-word AI prompt uses up roughly a half-liter of water due to the cooling needs of data centers, researchers have estimated.

“The AI industry is sprinting as fast as it can to gain market dominance, and the rest of us have to deal with a great increase in water demand in places already in drought,” said Christopher Dalbom, an expert in water resources law at Tulane University. “Even if there wasn’t climate change, we’d be feeling the effects of droughts more acutely, because water demand is going up and up, to feed more people and water more lawns and crops. There isn’t enough water to go around. Now with this explosion of data centers, I think a crunch point is inevitable.”

“I mean, ChatGPT is a pretty nice tool, but most people would prefer to have a beef steak.”

Companies such as Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon are pouring billions of dollars into new data centers, with developers often drawn to dry, sparsely populated areas, due to the lower cost of land and generous tax breaks. Arid climates are also thought to cause the least amount of corrosion to equipment over time.

One of the world’s largest data centers, a complex twice the size of Manhattan, was controversially approved last month in a Utah county that has been deep in drought since summer last year. Meanwhile, Walla Walla county in Washington, site of a planned Amazon data center, has also been overwhelmingly in drought since July of last year.

In Texas, two of the largest new data centers are arriving in counties—Pecos and Carson—recently parched by drought. Data centers could account for 9 percent of Texas’s total water use by 2040, researchers recently calculated, with the state’s water development board forecasting Texas will have to deal with rising overall demand and falling supply of water in the decades ahead.

While an immediate water shortage is unlikely, hard choices will have to be made to avoid future clashes over water access, according to Dalbom. “When we get into a situation where there’s a limited amount of water available, are we going to limit water to residents and businesses before data centers?” he said.

“In the eastern US, we have always assumed an abundance of water, so the legal systems aren’t set up for shortages. We can’t just assume that people aren’t going to be asked to reduce their water use, while data centers and energy won’t be.”

Concerns over water use, as well as rising energy bills, have stirred local opposition to a rash of data center projects, causing some developments to be curtailed or canceled. These concerns have become a political headache for Republicans—Donald Trump has been a vocal supporter of the AI industry—with much of the opposition coming from rural, more conservative areas.

“Ranchers are being told to be conservative with water, to not waste water, and now there’s a new competing interest able to get near unlimited access to water,” said Andrew Coppin, chief executive of Ranchbot, a company that helps ranchers track their water use. “The concerns from farmers are real and justified. Data centers are flavor of the month now, but we wouldn’t make the choice to only be able to have a shower on Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays. I mean, ChatGPT is a pretty nice tool, but most people would prefer to have a beef steak if they had to choose.”

Data center developers say the industry’s current water use is still just a fraction of what much larger consumers, primarily agriculture, already take, causing growing strain on key sources such as the Colorado River. Even the irrigation of golf courses and lawns sucks up more water than data centers.

Guardian graphic based on data from Cleanview and NOAAGuardian graphic. Sources: Cleanview, Noaa

“Data center operators work closely with local authorities to ensure compliance with all applicable rules and regulations and to ensure operations do not stress local water supplies,” said Dan Diorio, vice-president of state policy at the Data Center Coalition. “The industry is actively prioritizing responsible water use through operational best practices and innovative development strategies, often collaborating with local authorities and conservation organizations on water restoration and reclamation projects. Data center operators are among the few private sector industries actively investing in local water infrastructure.”

The sector claims it is making progress to replace standard evaporative cooling with more efficient technologies such as closed-loop cooling, whereby the same coolant, such as water or glycol, is continually piped among the servers to absorb their heat.

However, while such cooling systems save water, they need more energy to run. This power typically comes from fossil fuels, which unlike cleaner forms of energy require copious amounts of water to generate electricity.

Such a trade-off is evident at Meta’s huge proposed data center, called Hyperion after the father of the sun in Greek mythology, in Louisiana. While the facility will use closed-loop cooling, it will also need the energy input of 10 gas-fired power plants that will use large amounts of water as well as emit planet-heating emissions.

“It will be an issue for farmers near the data center and if more data centers are approved to draw down the same aquifer you get a death by a thousand cuts,” said Dalbom. “You may see the water table going down so wells will have to be deeper to access the groundwater. There will still be water there but cost more to access.”

Meta said that it will prioritize on-site water efficiency to the extent that its water use will be less than if the land was used for agriculture purposes.

“I think there is an emerging consensus among the major hyper-scalers about the importance of water stewardship.”

“Meta estimates the data center will use as much as 1 billion gallons of water per year, drawing it from an aquifer currently used for agriculture, not from the community’s drinking water,” a company spokeswoman said.

The overall water impact of AI is far larger than data centers themselves, however. A January study found that data centers will be responsible for just 4 percent of the 30 trillion gallons of extra water that will be needed, globally, for AI expansion by the midpoint of this century. Power generation and semiconductor fabrication for AI will suck up much more water than the data centers themselves, the report states.

“Data centers are the most visible element to people but they are only part of the picture,” said Albert Cho, chief strategy officer at Xylem, the company behind the study. Cho said that data centers’ water use will remain smaller than other large sectors, such as agriculture, and use of renewable energy and reduced water waste will help reduce demand.

“Water tends not to be the top-line consideration,” when data center sites are chosen, Cho said, but he added:“I think there is an emerging consensus among the major hyper-scalers about the importance of water stewardship.”

Yet the public backlash has been so strong—polling shows 70 percent of Americans don’t want to live next to a data center—that some states are considering new restrictions. California, Michigan and Iowa, for example, are mulling bills to require operators to submit regular reports on water use while others, such as South Carolina and Kansas, may force developers to use closed-loop cooling systems. Lawmakers in New York have gone further, with plans for an outright moratorium on data centers.

In Utah, the state’s governor, who last year asked residents to pray for rain amid a deep drought, has attempted to reassure voters that the enormous new Stratos data center will not endanger the Great Salt Lake, which was already shrinking due to water overuse and rising global temperatures. A group opposing the county approval of Stratos is aiming to overturn this decision via a public referendum.

The data center is backed by Kevin O’Leary, a Canadian businessman who has featured on TV shows such as Shark Tank and is a keen supporter of Trump. O’Leary has, without evidence, accused opponents of Stratos of being paid protesters or in league with the Chinese Communist party.

“There could not be a worse advocate for this project than Kevin O’Leary, who has been absolutely dismissive of people in Utah again and again,” said Ben Abbott, an ecologist at Brigham Young University and the executive director of Grow the Flow, a Utah environmental group.

Woman holding a sign at an anti-data center protest

Alexa Chandler holds a sign at a protest against the construction of a data center on May 4, 2026 in Tremonton, Utah.Natalie Behring via Getty

“I haven’t found a single person in favor of this,” he added. “It has brought together urban and rural communities, farmers and environmentalists, linking arms against this. I think this project is mortally wounded as a result.”

The Great Salt Lake is “headed for an all-time low” and the massive 9 gigawatts of power needed for Stratos, as well as its cooling systems, will probably push the ecosystem into further water deficit, Abbott said.

“There couldn’t be a worse time to do this,” Abbott said of the Stratos project. “Climate change is causing important hydrological shifts and here in the west we have a less stable water supply due to the mega-drought. But, more importantly, we are also harvesting the fruits of a century of water overuse.”

O’Leary’s case for the project is that it would be a big economic win, bringing jobs and tax revenue to rural parts of the state while helping the US win on AI in its rivalry with China. Last week he agreed to make cuts to the scale of the project after pressure from state lawmakers and said in a post on X that he was “working around the clock to address every issue raised, from water usage and environmental impact to power generation and community benefits.”

A lawsuit has also been filed against the project brought by five local residents and a progressive group.

Worldwide, three-quarters of people could face drought impacts by 2050 all while data centers use 2.5 trillion gallons of water in the coming decade, enough to meet the drinking water needs of the planet’s human population for over a year, the UN has estimated.

Even when some withdrawn water is recycled by data centers, “large-scale withdrawals can strain aquifers and river systems, particularly in arid or groundwater-depleted regions,” a recent UN report warned.

“We need to rethink our relationship with water because at the moment there is just this unrestricted demand everywhere,” said Abbott. “We are in systemic water deficit almost everywhere on the planet.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Here’s What Pete Hegseth’s Religion Believes About Mormons

Last week, the Pentagon released a new list of 31 religions officially recognized by the US Department of Defense, edited down from more than 200 that had previously been accepted. The purpose of streamlining, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement, was not to delegitimize any one religion, but rather “to allow chaplains to quickly look at the religious composition of their units and determine how they structure resources to best provide for warfighters of all faith groups.”

But to some religious groups, the new list looked biased. Of the 31 groups listed, 22 were Christian. Atheists, pagans, and humanists, which had all been on the original list, were excluded. But the loudest complaints were about its structure. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints noted that while their faith was included, it had been sequestered from other Christian faiths—which they saw as part of a pattern of some denominations refusing to recognize LDS members as fellow Christians.

Indeed, Samuel Perry, a professor of rhetoric at Baylor University who studies Christian nationalism, noted that it wasn’t until evangelicals rallied around LDS politician Mitt Romney during his run for president in 2008 that mainline Christians accepted LDS as a Christian faith. That was, said Perry, “completely a political change in order to be able to move centrally around one candidate.”

Last week, after the Pentagon released its list, Utah’s two Mormon senators made their objections known on social media. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) tweeted, “Can anyone tell me why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was left out of the list of Christian churches?” Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) was more pointed in his tweet:

Latter-day Saints are among the most patriotic, service-oriented individuals in our country. They are also unequivocally Christian—just look at who is in the name of the Church.

It is unacceptable for a government entity to characterize a faith in a manner that contradicts the… https://t.co/ywqk59ZtRz

— Senator John Curtis (@SenJohnCurtis) June 6, 2026

On Monday, the Department of Defense released a new list—and that version did list LDS as a “Christian” faith. But the Pentagon’s perceived slight is still roiling Christian social media, with some accounts rushing to defend the LDS church, and others, like firebrand pastor Joel Webbon, declaring to his 111,000 followers**,** “Mormons will go to hell.”

So was the original listing of Mormons apart from other Christian faiths simply an oversight, or a snub? In a tweet about the newest version of the list, the DOD claimed the former. “The Pentagon list included redundant and unnecessary labeling,” the agency said in a tweet on Monday, “and the mistake has been fixed.”

But in the past few days, some accounts on social media have pointed out that US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth belongs to a Christian nationalist denomination—called Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC)—that holds that Mormons aren’t Christians.

Which wouldn’t be terribly significant in the grand sweep of religious beliefs—except that CREC explicitly advocates for Christians to exert their faith’s influence over the government. Doug Wilson, the Moscow, Idaho, pastor who founded CREC, has described his vision of “a network of nations bound together by a formal, public, civic acknowledgement of the lordship of Jesus Christ and the fundamental truth of the Apostles’ Creed.” He has long argued in favor of Christian nationalism, and he has likened his fiefdom in Idaho—which includes a church, school, college, and publishing house—to a “working prototype” of what Christian nationalism could look like.

One theological point of distinction between LDS and other Christian denominations is that LDS members don’t accept the Apostles’ Creed because it states that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all one entity. In contrast, Perry, the Christian nationalism scholar, noted the LDS church teaches that they are three distinct beings. From Wilson’s description of his ideal version of America, it appears that everyone would have to live by the Apostles’ Creed—whether they believed in it or not. In Wilson’s Christian America, said Perry, “Anything that falls outside of the doctrinal vision that Wilson or CREC have would fall outside of what they consider to be kind of a true belief in Christianity, so there’s kind of an exclusivity that’s being cultivated.”

Over the last few years, Wilson has begun to move in influential political circles, speaking at the National Conservatism conference with Vice President JD Vance and appearing at an event about Christian political strategy with Project 2025 architect Russell Vought. Last year, he planted a new CREC church in Washington, DC, where Hegseth often attends services. Most significantly, in February, Wilson delivered a sermon at the Pentagon, at the behest of Hegseth.

In an email, Wilson confirmed that CREC’s version of Christianity doesn’t include Mormons. “We would consider the Mormons to be a non-Christian faith with Christian terminology,” he wrote, and added that his church would consider LDS people to be “polytheists.”

The LDS Church did not respond to a request for comment for this story, and the US Department of Defense directed me to its tweet about the most recent revision of the list.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

RFK’s Answer to the Maternal Health Crisis: Hide the Data

In April, during a congressional hearing that coincided with Black Maternal Health Week, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) pressed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about the US’ abysmal and largely preventable rates of maternal death compared to its peers.

Black women, Lee pointed out, fare three times worse than their white counterparts, even as the Trump administration continues to cut both health funding and research into racial health disparities.

She posed a question: “How are we going to solve the Black maternal mortality crisis if we cannot say ‘Black’?”

The GOP’s attacks on Medicaid—which finances health care for more than two in five births across the country—and the White House’s termination of thousands of federal health and science workers, including those tasked with compiling the country’s most comprehensive data on maternal and infant health, give even more weight to independent research like Listening to Mothers, a nationwide survey published by the nonprofit National Partnership for Women and Families on Monday.

The report—the group’s first nationwide survey since 2013—surveys thousands of mothers who gave birth in a hospital in 2023 and 2024 about their experiences with the maternal care system, revealing pervasive barriers to quality care and widespread failures by health systems.

The report ends by warning that “modest gains” like expanded postpartum Medicaid coverage “are now at risk of being rolled back.”

Around 40 percent of respondents said they’d been disrespected, dismissed, or ignored by providers during labor and delivery. More than a third reported unmet social needs during pregnancy—mainly a lack of income, difficulty paying utility bills, or finding childcare—particularly Black and indigenous respondents and those on Medicaid. After having their children, more than a fifth said at least one of those needs still hadn’t been met.

Before, during, and after their pregnancies, up to a fourth of respondents reported experiencing depressive symptoms. Symptoms of anxiety were even higher. Yet most people with either symptom received no treatment, even as late as 12 weeks after giving birth. And while research suggests that support from doulas and midwives improves outcomes, only a small fraction of respondents reported having access to or using either.

The report ends by warning that the “modest gains of recent years,” such as the expansion of Medicaid coverage to one year postpartum in all 50 states but Arkansas, “are now at risk of being rolled back.”

“We’re not where we should be,” said Nan Strauss, National Partnership’s senior director of maternal care. “We need to be adding to and improving people’s lives, making it easier for them to focus on their families at this really critical moment, and instead their own efforts to be the best new mom that they can are being undercut every step of the way.”

In July, congressional Republicans enacted major cuts to SNAP and Medicaid; my colleague Daniel Friedman noted at the time that the bill would cost millions of people their health insurance and reduce access to birth control and other reproductive care—imperiling maternity services at more than 140 rural hospitals, as my fellow colleague Nina Martin also reported.

As the administration slashes the social safety net, it’s also suppressing vast amounts ofdata on maternal health. For decades, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Reproductive Health Division partnered with a majority of state health departments to survey tens of thousands of women about their experiences before, during, and after pregnancy as part of the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. But last April, the CDC team that oversaw PRAMS was put on leave, indefinitely cutting off federal support to the states collecting this data. (The termination of thousands of federal workers, including those at the CDC, is currently being challenged in court.)

In the aftermath, said Rita Hamad, a social epidemiologist at Harvard University who has used PRAMS data to research safety net policies like paid parental leave, “some states were not able to continue their data collection, in part because they were losing out on that technical assistance from the CDC.”

“One really heartbreaking example is Mississippi, which stopped data collection for most of 2025,” Hamad said, noting that the state declared infant mortality a public health emergency the same year. “I was just thinking, gosh, how are they going to be able to address this crisis?”

Cassondra Marshall, an associate professor in UC Berkeley’s Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health Program, has used both PRAMS and Listening to Mothers data in her research. The data is “needed to develop interventions” by policymakers, Marshall emphasized. Yet policies like the Momnibus bills, which were reintroduced in March and seek among other things to expand the perinatal workforce and improve data collection, face an uphill battle in the Republican-dominated Congress.

As my colleague Madison Pauly put it last June, “With the White House and state governments denying the very idea of systemic racism and targeting anything that smacks of [DEI], structural change seems further away than ever.”

To make matters worse, the information the government is releasing isn’t exactly reliable. Last month, on Mother’s Day, HHS launched moms.gov, a website it described as offering “guidance and information to support the health and wellbeing of mothers and their families.” Yet the homepage contains no mention of parental leave or contraception, includes minimal mental health resources, and directs people to crisis pregnancy centers through another website operated by the Christian, anti-abortion Heartbeat International.

For decades, mothers and maternal health experts have been talking about the need for evidence-based, community-focused interventions. Under RFK Jr., public health seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s “Weaponization” Claim Is Total BS

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

Donald Trump’s pathetic and sleazy effort to create a slush fund of $1.776 billion that his lieutenants could dole out to his political allies, including, possibly, his violent January 6 brownshirts, appears to be dead. After even Republicans howled about this brazen corruption, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former (and, in a way, still) personal lawyer, proclaimed the so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund” kaput—though Trump continues to support this idea and there remains a possibility it could be revived in some form. But in all the brouhaha over this attempt by Trump to swipe nearly 2 billion smackers from American taxpayers, one damn big point has gotten lost: The claim that past administrations weaponized government against Trump and his right-wing confederates is complete bullshit.

There was no need for such a fund, because there were no such victims. This chief grievance of Trump and his MAGA cult is a myth that’s been created to cover up the many transgressions of Trump himself. And any acceptance of this notion of weaponization is a win for Trump.

Official reviews of the Russia investigation repeatedly declared it was a legitimate enterprise that was justifiably initiated and not a political hit job.

Trump has been braying for years that he has been the target of politically motivated investigations and prosecutions—what’s called lawfare. But that’s not true. The granddaddy of all this, as far as he is concerned, was the Russia investigation. He’s been moaning about the “Russia, Russia, Russia” probe for a decade, and through that stretch, he, his GOP lickspittles, and his right-wing media enablers have contended the investigation was a fraud cooked up by the Deep State, the Democrats, and the media.

But…no. Official reviews of the Russia investigation repeatedly declared it was a legitimate enterprise that was justifiably initiated and not a political hit job. This included a Justice Department inspector general report issued in 2019, a bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee released in 2020 (when then-Sen. Marco Rubio chaired the committee), and the 2023 final report produced by special counsel John Durham, who had been appointed in 2019 by then–Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate the investigation.

Each of these reviews concluded that inquiry was neither a hoax nor a witch hunt, as Trump and his lackey have never stopped proclaiming. (The IG report and Durham did criticize elements of the Russia investigation, most notably the FBI’s improper surveillance of Carter Page, a former adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign.) And the Senate Intelligence Committee report reaffirmed (as did special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report) the intelligence community’s assessment that Moscow covertly attacked the 2016 election in part to help Trump win the White House.

There was no weaponization on this front. The Russia investigation led to solid indictments of several Trump aides, including Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, George Papdopoulos, and Roger Stone. Each of them either pleaded guilty or were convicted by a jury. It was Trump who then politicized the process by pardoning all four at the end of his first term. (Trump’s Justice Department in April handed Flynn $1.25 million to settle an iffy lawsuit he filed that alleged he had been maliciously prosecuted, and the department can be expected to be sympathetic to similar claims from other Trump devotees.)

Trump’s other two big gripes about supposed weaponization concern the federal investigations mounted by special counsel Jack Smith of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his alleged swiping of top-secret documents when he left the White House. Both these inquiries were fully justified. During the House January 6 committee’s investigation, multiple Republican witnesses testified that Trump took actions that were possibly criminal to try to retain power. And a bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to convict him of impeachment charges following his incitement of the January 6 riot. (It was not the supermajority needed for a conviction.)

In each of these cases, a jury or judge found Trump guilty—a sign the cases had merit.

As for the stolen-papers case, throughout 2021 and the first half of 2022, the National Archives and the Justice Department repeatedly tried to retrieve from Trump the sensitive records he held on to when he departed 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Had Trump returned the records, there would have been no prosecution. He did give back some of the material, and one of his attorneys certified that all documents had been sent back. But that was false, and an FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago found 25 boxes that contained documents of the highest classification. The subsequent criminal case was no witch hunt.

Neither the stolen papers nor the 2020 election case went to trial because Smith closed them after Trump won the 2024 election, citing a Justice Department policy that states that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted on federal charges. (That’s the reason Mueller did not file obstruction of justice charges against Trump during the Russia investigation.)

Trump also argues that he was unfairly investigated in New York for tax fraud and for falsifying business records to cover up the hush money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels, who claimed to have had an extramarital tryst with Trump. In each of these cases, a jury or judge found Trump guilty—a sign the cases had merit.

Beyond Trump’s own personal beefs, the MAGA crowd claims that the federal government in the Biden years was weaponized against right-wingers. They assert that the FBI targeted conservative Christians and school-board activists. An internal memo from the FBI’s Richmond, Virginia, field office, which was leaked in 2023, cited “radical-traditionalist Catholic” ideology as a possible pathway for domestic extremist violence. GOP officials and conservatives were outraged by this. But the memo was rescinded, and there was no evidence that it had resulted in any investigations or prosecutions. It was essentially the work of one junior analyst in a field office.

Right-wing groups also howled when the Biden Justice Department—following complaints that some parents protesting at school board meetings were threatening board members—issued a memo directing US attorney and FBI agents to discus this matter with local officials. They objected to comparing concerned parents—who often were religious conservatives—to terrorists. But this, too, did not lead to sweeping investigations of conservatives.

Then there’s January 6. MAGA luminaries—and Trump himself—have long championed the convicted rioters as victims of unfair and overreaching criminal investigations. A White House website—paid for with your tax dollars—makes this ludicrous case. And there was much worry that the Trump slush fund would dole out millions to these violent insurrectionists, thus endorsing and encouraging political violence.

Trump and his cult will continue insisting that he and his loyalists have been victimized by law enforcement. That’s what many crooks do.

To dub the prosecution of the J6 marauders “weaponization” of government is one of the biggest acts of gaslighting a White House has ever tried to pull off. It illustrates the fundamental absurdity of this propaganda campaign. We all saw what happened on that horrific day. Assailing the subsequent quest for justice as repressive federal overreach is bonkers and Orwellian in the extreme.

The investigations and prosecutions Trump bitches about were not acts of weaponization. They were appropriate government activity. But for years, Trump and his handmaids have been mounting this disinformation crusade without much opposition to its big lie. On top of that, Trump has shown us what the weaponization of government truly looks like with the criminal investigations he has ordered up of former FBI Director James Comey, New York state Attorney General Letitia James, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), former CIA Director John Brennan, and others, as well as the assaults he has launched on major law firms and universities.

The idea that he should be given $1.8 billion to hand out to his supporters who ran afoul of the law was preposterous but so too is the assertion that Trump and his comrades have been the targets of pervasive government weaponization. Yet that’s a major component of Trump’s self-glorifying mythology: He’s the target of a Deep State cabal and a martyr for MAGA. The pot of money for his malfeasants may be gone for now—though Trump still says, “I love it. I think it’s so important.” Whatever ultimately happens, Trump and his cult will continue insisting that he and his loyalists have been victimized by law enforcement. That’s what many crooks do. In this case, it’s a MAGA fairy tale and a cover story for a criminal president that deserves as much resistance as the corrupt slush fund has drawn.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Heather Cox Richardson on the Real Genius of America

Heather Cox Richardson is one of today’s unlikeliest social media stars. The Boston College historian has been teaching and writing about 19th-century America, Reconstruction, and the Civil War for decades. But it was only in 2019 that her work took off when she began writing her daily newsletter, Letters from an American, a no-nonsense analysis of the news through the lens of US history.

The newsletter became one of the most popular on Substack. And today, Richardson has millions of loyal fans who rely on her to make sense of American politics and provide a little sanity and democratic reassurance even as she herself is concerned about the direction of the country today.

“I’m worried about where we’re going. Just don’t even start me,” Richardson tells host Al Letson. “But I am heartened in this moment by the number of people who are rediscovering that they do have agency to change the future. And of course, that’s always been the story of our democracy.”

On this week’s More To The Story, Richardson talks about the decades-long failure to hold corrupt American leaders accountable, the still-resonant death of Reconstruction, and what she sees as the tragic hypocrisy of Thomas Jefferson.

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

Note: If you buy a book using our Bookshop link, a small share of the proceeds supports our journalism.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Becerra and Hilton Advance in California Governor’s Race

A week after polls closed in California’s closely watched open gubernatorial primary last Tuesday—following a slow trickle of votes that fueled unsubstantiated claims of fraud from the president—Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton will advance to the November general election, winnowing down a crowded race to succeed two-term Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has held the position since 2019.

Since 2011, California has had a “jungle primary” system that allows voters to choose any one candidate for statewide offices, like the governor’s seat, regardless of their party—a method that sometimes yields runoffs of two Democrats or two Republicans. Out of the 62 names on the ballot, Becerra, the former state Attorney General and Health and Human Services Secretary under Biden, and Trump-endorsed Republican and former Fox News host Steve Hilton were the top two vote-getters, receiving 27.9 and 25 percent of the vote, respectively, as of Tuesday night. Tom Steyer, a billionaire businessman, climate activist, and 2020 Democratic presidential contender, placed third, with 22.5 percent.

The lead-up to the primary election was marked by the dropping out of then-frontrunner Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell in April, who subsequently resigned from Congress following sexual assault allegations first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. With no clear runner-up on the Democratic side, some worried that votes would be split among the handful of leading Democrats on the ballot, potentially resulting in Republicans taking the top two spots. (A Republican hasn’t won a race for California governor since moderate former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was reelected in 2006.)

With the field wide open, wealthy donors, special interest groups, and large corporations spent a record-breaking amount of money trying to influence the outcome of the primary. After Swalwell dropped out of the race, most of his supporters seemingly consolidated behind Beccerra, the favorite of the state Democratic establishment. Becerra also received significant backing from oil and gas companies, which spent millions of dollars in support of him and against his Democratic rival. Steyer, the former hedge fund manager, who has promised to divest from fossil fuels and vowed not to accept funding from the industry, contributed more than $200 million of his own money to his campaign.

The candidate with the second-most contributions was San Jose’s first-term mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate Democrat representing a key tech stronghold who entered the race late with support from Silicon Valley. Although venture capitalists and executives from Big Tech companies like Google, Amazon, and Palantir donated tens of millions to his campaign, Mahan received less than 4 percent of the vote—behind the roughly 10 percent won by Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who seized more than half a million ballots in last year’s special election in an alleged investigation into ballot count discrepancies, and former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter, who received slightly more than 4 percent. While Porter, the only woman among the top six candidates, was well-known for flipping a Republican-held House seat in 2018 and grilling CEOs during congressional hearings, her campaign suffered after a series of viral setbacks.

Now, Becerra and Hilton will face off to become the next governor of the Golden State**—**although any path to the governorship will likely be a struggle for Hilton, given Trump’s unpopularity in the state.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Lawmakers Demand Answers After We Revealed Forest Service Spraying Roundup All Over Public Lands

Two members of Congress have sent a letter to US Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz calling on the agency to justify its actions following an investigation by Mother Jones that found glyphosate—the controversial key ingredient in the herbicide Roundup—was being sprayed in record amounts on public lands.

“Given the recent scientific disputes, retracted studies, and litigation surrounding glyphosate due to serious ecological and health harms, we are deeply concerned by the alleged use of the herbicide and lack of information available regarding current and planned use,” wrote Reps. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Jared Huffman (D-Calif.).

Rep. Chellie Pingree: “It’s bullshit. I’m really mad.”

While glyphosate is more well-known for its use in agriculture, its fastest-growing use in California—where our investigation analyzed more than 5 million state pesticide records—is on forestlands. Private timber companies and the Forest Service have been dousing hundreds of thousands of acres of the state’s forests in the herbicide, especially areas affected by wildfires.

Local communities have struggled to understand where the agency is spraying. In one case, the Forest Service published maps showing where it had sprayed glyphosate in the Lake Tahoe area, including at the ski resort Sierra-at-Tahoe, a full year after the work was done.

View this post on Instagram

“It’s bullshit. I’m really mad,” Congresswoman Pingree told me when asked about the Forest Service spraying in environmentally sensitive areas.

The lawmakers’ letter calls on the Forest Service to publish a database showing its herbicide use across the country, and to report what safety measures it has put in place—such as monitoring waterways and soils for contamination—following its use of Roundup and other glyphosate-based products.

They also wondered about potential harms to humans: “Have there been any reported worker illness incidents, accidental exposures, or contamination complaints associated with glyphosate applications?” the letter asks.

Workers contracted to spray Roundup on US Forest Service Land in 2021 not wearing required protective gear and exposed to an herbicide that the World Health Organization determined is a probable carcinogen. Photo credit: El Dorado County

Our investigation found that workers hired to spray Roundup on the El Dorado National Forest in 2021were covered in Roundup, including directly on exposed skin, and that they were not wearing the required protective equipment nor did they have the state-required training, according to a report by a county inspector.

Bayer, the German company that manufactures Roundup, provided a statement that “regulators, including the EPA, EU, and others around the world, have repeatedly concluded that glyphosate-based products—which are the most widely used and extensively studied products of their kind—can be used safely according to the product label directions.”

Glyphosate is at the center of several legal, scientific, and political controversies. Bayer is on the hook for more than $12 billion in legal payouts to people who say exposure to the chemical made them sick. The World Health Organization classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen in 2015, and the Environmental Protection Agency says the herbicide likely harms 93 percent of endangered species. The EPA last approved the chemical’s safety in 1993. A more recent review in 2020 that found it was safe was overturned two years later by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined the agency had not fully assessed the risks to human health or the environment.

The Forest Service says it is using the chemical at record levels in California because it is the least expensive way to help conifer trees—the ones with pine needles—grow back after wildfires. The often stated goal of these Forest Service herbicide projects is to regrow trees more expeditiously. This helps the agency meet its desired forest density for future timber sales, according to hundreds of pages of Forest Service documents reviewed in our investigation. (The agency is part of the US Department of Agriculture and manages many of the nation’s public forests, similar to how a farmer oversees rows of corn: optimizing the land for higher yields, lower costs, and greater revenue.)

In 2025, President Trump issued an executive order for the Forest Service to increase timber sales by 25 percent, while the administration has cut the agency’s staffing. In 2026, Trump called for an increase in the domestic production of glyphosate.

Spraying glyphosate and other herbicides both before and after replanting conifer trees results in the death of all other plants that reemerge after fires.

In their letter to the Forest Service, Reps. Pingree and Huffman urged the agency to consider “safer or more sustainable approaches to forest management.” With such indiscriminate spraying of glyphosate,“you’re talking about just wiping out all biology, you know, just like all life forms. It’s bonkers,” Pingree told Mother Jones. “If there’s one thing we learned from Rachel Carson [author of Silent Spring] in the sixties it’s that we have to look at the cumulative impact, both on humans, but also the species and the food chain, and the loss of diversity.”

Continue Reading…