Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

The Secret Story of FTX’s Rise and Ruin Part 1

Sam Bankman-Fried was once called the “crypto king.” But in November 2022, his company, FTX, imploded within a matter of days. All around the world, customers of the cryptocurrency exchange were suddenly cut off from their money.

“I tried to withdraw an amount, you know, and it would spin and say, your, your withdrawal is pending,” says Tareq Morad, an investor from Canada. “I remember myself doing that around 7, 8 o’clock at night, checking back, going to look: Okay, did it go through? Did it go through? No. No. No.”

Meanwhile, inside the company, employees were panicking. “All that we were told was there’s been a run on the bank and, somehow, money is missing and we don’t know who to trust,” remembers Caroline Papadopoulos, part of FTX’s accounting leadership at the time.

This week on Reveal, through prison interviews with Bankman-Fried, his parents, FTX insiders, and customers, we take you through the frantic week of FTX’s collapse and the controversial and less well-known bankruptcy that followed. At a cost of nearly $1 billion, it has become one of the most expensive in history.

Read the FTX bankruptcy estate’s on-the-record statement to Reveal.

This is an update of a show that originally aired in September 2025.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Lawsuit Accuses ICE and Private Prison Contractors of Abusing a Disabled Detainee

On Monday, Ulises Peña López, represented by Disability Law United and Pangea Legal Services, sued the US government and private prison contractors GeoGroup and CoreCivic over his arrest by ICE officers and his following treatment in ICE detention facilities. Peña López was deported to Mexico in October 2025 after spending over six months in ICE detention.

Before his arrest, Peña López, a carpenter, already lived with disabilities due to a mini-stroke, which was diagnosed in August 2024 and was managed before his detention. The lawsuit contends that after ICE officers detained Peña López in February 2025 in Sunnyvale, California, they took him to an alleyway and beat him until he lost consciousness and required CPR.

His wife, Aby, and their young daughter witnessed part of the beating by ICE, according to the lawsuit.

Peña López’s ongoing symptoms, the lawsuit says, include new and worsening “headaches, weakness and numbness on his right side, eye pain, hearing loss, insomnia and nightmares, blurry vision, back pain, and difficulty walking.” Peña Lopez is unable to work to support himself, according to an interview with the NPR affiliate KQED.

“What I want more than anything, I can’t get back: to recover my health, to be with my wife and daughter, and to be able to work again,” Peña López told KQED.

The lawsuit filed for Peña López’s complaints cites Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which mandates that places receiving federal funding, like ICE detention centers, accommodate disabled people, among other laws. Peña Lopez’s wife and children are also part of the lawsuit due to the distress his arrest and subsequent treatment caused them.

During Peña López’s eight months in ICE detention in facilities operated by GeoGroup and CoreCivic, the lawsuit says, López received inadequate medical care and was also mocked by employees for his disability.

The lawsuit alleges that staff’s verbal abuse was particularly cruel at Golden State Annex, operated by GeoGroup. Detention staff reportedly told Peña López that “motherfucker, you don’t get to be asleep” and “you’re never gonna walk again.”

During Peña López’s transfer to California City Detention Center last August, the lawsuit says, “detention staff denied Ulises timely administration of his daily medication, violated his disability rights, and subjected him to unnecessarily harsh conditions,” such as not getting adequate medical care. At the facility operated by CoreCivic, Peña López also struggled to get his medications. As a result, Peña López’s health worsened before he was deported.

A spokesperson for CoreCivic told Mother Jones that while the company does not generally comment on active litigation, “we can share that the safety, health , and well-being of the people in our facilities is our top priority.”

ICE and GeoGroup did not respond to a request for comment before publication.

For Peña López’s lawyers, this lawsuit represents not only a pursuit of López but also of others mistreated by ICE.

“This lawsuit seeks accountability for the physical and emotional harms our clients suffered, but it also joins a growing wave of lawsuits challenging abusive ICE enforcement and detention practices,” said Elena Hodges, co-director at Pangea Legal Services, which is representing Peña López and his family, in a press release.

“We hope this case will send a powerful message to immigrant communities that they are not alone,” Hodges said, “and that ICE officials and private prison contractors are not above the law.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Nature’s Ingenious Survival Strategies Are No Match for Human Destruction

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

Life has colonized every corner of the planet by evolving ingenious survival strategies, but these are increasingly being overwhelmed by destructive human activities, this year’s red list of endangered species has revealed.

Many snails, limpets and clams have adapted to life at crushing depths in the oceans on hydrothermal vents where water temperatures can reach 450 degrees C (842 F). But an assessment for the red list found that two-thirds of the hundreds of mollusk species found only on deep sea vents were at risk of extinction because of deep-sea mining.

“There is a clear path out of the biodiversity crisis: Nature conservation works.”

Mining for diamonds has put another extraordinary creature at risk of disappearing—the desert rain frog. Most frogs rely on water for survival but the bulbous desert rain frog has evolved to need almost none. It hides from the southern African sun by burying itself deep in the sand, coming out only at night to hunt insects.

However, dwindling species can be saved, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which produces the red list, said. The new list shows the numbat, a stripy, termite-eating marsupial from Australia, has come back from the brink thanks to protection from feral cats and foxes.

“Life on Earth has adapted to survive in the most hostile and unusual habitats [but] as pressures on biodiversity mount across the planet, even the creatures with the most ingenious survival strategies are under threat,” said Dr Grethel Aguilar, the IUCN director general. “But there is a clear path out of the biodiversity crisis: Nature conservation works. By protecting the astounding range of biodiversity on this planet, we can preserve a welcoming environment for humans and wildlife alike.”

An IUCN update in April declared emperor penguins officially in danger of extinction owing to the mass drowning of chicks as sea ice is melted by the climate crisis.

More than 200 species of mollusk are known to live only on hydrothermal vents, where water heated by volcanic rocks jets out from the seabed. Many have been discovered only in the last decade but already face extinction.

“This global assessment reveals that [vent] mollusks are one of the most highly threatened of all animal groups.”

The exploration and extraction of deep-sea minerals throws up sediments that smother the animals. One snail, Lirapex felix, is classed as critically endangered because of mining activity in the Indian Ocean.

However, more than 30 vent species are not in danger, as they live in marine protected areas where mining is not allowed. These include an ornately shelled snail, Provanna exquisita, that lives only in the Mariana Arc of Fire national wildlife refuge in the Pacific Ocean.

“This global assessment reveals that [vent] mollusks are one of the most highly threatened of all animal groups,” said Prof Julia Sigwart at Senckenberg Nature Research, the IUCN red list partner that coordinated the assessment. “It provides important information as the International Seabed Authority meets in Jamaica this month.” The IUCN voted for a moratorium on deep-sea mining in 2021.

The desert rain frog is classed as vulnerable owing to diamond mining and energy infrastructure expansion into its range along the west coast of South Africa and Namibia. There is further pressure on the frog because of rising demand from the exotic pet trade following a viral video of the species squeaking its distress call.

The good news on the numbat comes after decades of conservation work, which has helped numbers rebound from a low of just 300 in the late 1970s to between 2,000 and 3,000 today. The numbat has moved from endangered to near threatened on the red list.

The impact of feral cats and red foxes has been reduced by baiting and predator-proof fencing, as well as captive breeding at Perth zoo and translocations from healthy groups. As a result, at least five more self-sustaining populations have been established. However, the species occupies only 0.04 percent of its original range across southern Australia, meaning continuing conservation work is essential, experts said.

Another five Australian marsupials have been confirmed as extinct on the red list, with no sightings for at least 60 years. The crest-tailed, southern, northern, and little mulgaras were rat-sized carnivores, while the little bettong was a rabbit-sized jumping marsupial. They are likely to have fallen prey to feral cats and foxes. More than 40 modern mammal extinctions have been recorded in Australia.

“The [numbat] assessment shows that long-term conservation effort works; without it, invasive cats and foxes will continue to drive Australia’s small marsupials and native rodents to extinction,” said Prof John Woinarski, co-chair of the IUCN species survival commission group on Australasian marsupials and monotremes.

“Continued management is vital not only to maintain the numbat’s unique evolutionary line as the last surviving member of the Myrmecobiidae family, but also to support its role in maintaining a healthy ecosystem, as digging for the termites it eats increases rain penetration into the soil, helping protect woodlands,” he said.

The IUCN red list includes 175,909 species of which 49,505 are threatened with extinction, although many species have yet to be formally assessed.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

ICE Keeps Using The Same Justification For Killing Drivers

On Tuesday morning, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a Mexican immigrant and a three-decade Houston resident. It was the second ICE-involved shooting this week alone—and since the start of Donald Trump’s second term, federal immigration agents have shot and killed at least ten people.

Now, as hundreds march in Houston and Salgado’s family demands an impartial investigation, DHS is using a familiar playbook: they are blaming Salgado for his own death by asserting he “weaponized his vehicle.”

Lorenzo Salgado Araujo’s son, Ronaldo Salgado, held a press conference Wednesday calling for an independent investigation into his father’s death. “I want to tell you about my dad,” Ronaldo Salgado said. “He was a hardworking family man. He was also a man of routine.” Every day, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo got up before dawn and drove to work on a construction site, just as he had done for 35 years.

“At 6:45 a.m., he should have been picking up the last of his guys before heading to North Houston to finish up construction on some houses,” Ronaldo Salgado continued at the press conference. By 6:55 his father had been shot by ICE agents who followed him in an unmarked car.

In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said had Lorenzo Salgado Araujo had attempted to evade arrest and “weaponized his vehicle,”echoing the language used in the hours after an ICE agent shot and killed Renée Good in her car in Minneapolis in January.

DHS, at the time, alleged that Good, too, had “weaponized her vehicle.” Independent investigators disputed that characterization, but the officer who killed Good was never indicted. Before Renée Good, there were Carlito Ricardo Parias and Marimar Martinez. Both were shot at by federal agents in 2025, and were then accused of trying to ram those agents with their vehicles. Both survived. Ruben Ray Martinez, who was shot by an ICE agent in March of 2025, was killed. The agent who shot him in the heart said Martinez was using his car as a weapon.

It’s a narrative that law enforcement agencies frequently employ to justify fatally shooting of unarmed motorists. A New York Times investigation found that US police officers killed over 400 unarmed drivers between 2015 and 2021. In many of those cases, the officers involved said they fired because the vehicle itself was a weapon.

The data shows that ICE is no exception. In 2024, journalist Lila Hassan identified 18 ICE shootings that involved a moving vehicle between 2015 and 2021. Over that same time period, public records show ICE agents shooting at least 59 people total and killing at least 23. Not a single indictment resulted from any of those incidents. Since that study, ICE’s budget has ballooned by tens of billions of dollars—and its internal oversight offices have been gutted. The killings haven’t stopped.

Lorenzo Salgado Araujo “did not deserve to die,” Ronaldo Salgado said on Wednesday. “He did not deserve to be reduced to a headline of Mexican man shot and killed by ICE.” Salgado learned of his father’s passing, he said, from a video on social media. He recognized him immediately. “Not from his appearance, but from his voice, crying for help as he lay on the street bleeding out.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Graham Platner Says He’s Out. Now What?

Graham Platner, the scandal-ridden populist Senate candidate from Maine, suspended his campaign Wednesday night. His announcement came two days after a rape allegation against him was made public in a Politico report, and prominent Democrats—many of whom had looked the other way at Platner’s Nazi tattoo and prior abuse allegations—one by one dropped their endorsements.

In an eleven-minute video posted to social media, Platner categorically denied the allegation and lashed out at “the corporate media system and the political establishment,” which he said acted as “judge, jury and executioner.” He insisted that his video was not an admission of guilt—but after nine minutes, he nonetheless said: “I intend to file my paperwork to withdraw.”

If Platner does file that paperwork before 5:00 PM Eastern Time on Monday, he will be leaving the Maine Democratic Party with just nineteen days to nominate a replacement. The Maine Democratic Party has released a statement sayingit will hold a nominating convention before the July 27 deadline.

Devon Murphy-Anderson, the Maine Democratic Party’s executive director, posted a video to social media on Tuesday promising an “open, inclusive, transparent and fair” convention—and accused Platner’s team of trying to “manipulate this process” and select his successor themselves.

The Maine Democratic Party has approved plans for a nominating convention that will involve roughly 600 delegates, most of whom will be local party officials from around the state. They will pick a candidate to replace Platner—who got over 150,000 votes, the most of any Democratic Senate candidate in Maine primary history. Then, that candidate will face off against incumbent Senator Susan Collins in November.

At least eight candidates’ names have been floated to replace Platner: brewery owner Dan Kleban, social worker Paige Loud, former Maine CDC director Nirav Shah, former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, and former political staffer Jordan Wood among them. But in Platner’s Wednesday night announcement, he said he believes his volunteers—not the Maine Democratic Party—should be the ones to choose his replacement. “These decisions need to be made in the open by the people of this state, the people who got us here,” Platner said. “My name might be on the ballot right now, but that ballot line belongs to the people of Maine.”

“There is an unprecedented amount of energy and enthusiasm among Maine Democrats, driven in part by many of the dedicated volunteers and supporters who were inspired by Graham Platner’s campaign,” Maine Democratic Party leaders said in a statement. “We look forward to coming together and harnessing that energy around our new nominee as we work to defeat Susan Collins in November.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Cuba May Be in Shambles, but Miami’s New Museum Keeps the Bay of Pigs Alive

Eduardo Zayas-Bazán was a 24-year-old lawyer when he left Cuba for the United States and joined about 1,400 other Cuban exiles, who were known as Brigade 2506, to participate in the Bay of Pigs invasion, the botched 1961 mission to overthrow Fidel Castro’s communist regime.

Always a gifted swimmer, he was a frogman, and when he stepped on the shores of Playa Girón on the southern coast of the island, he was shot in the right knee by friendly fire. When the US government-backed incursion failed—largely due to President John F. Kennedy’s decision to withdraw plans to strike Castro’s airfields—the human cost was significant: about 100 exiles died during the attacks, and Zayas-Bazán was arrested along with hundreds of others. He had served for about a year when the Kennedy administration negotiated for the return of exiles from the island to the US.

Fast forward more than half a century, and Zayas-Bazán is now a 90-year-old retired professor who taught at East Tennessee State University. His experience has become memorialized in the new Bay of Pigs Museum and Library in Miami’s historic Little Havana, which opened with a ribbon-cutting ceremony on April 17, the 65th anniversary of the disastrous invasion. After five years of planning, the 11,000 square foot building was erected on the site of the original Brigade 2506 meetinghouse, a one-story building with a Spanish-tile roof where veterans gathered regularly. At a cost of more than $8 million, the new two-story facility contains numerous glass displays, multiple screens playing interviews of veterans, and a towering mural of the Cuban flag that greets visitors near the entrance.

Eduardo Zayas-Bazán, a Brigade 2506 veteran and retired professor, stands in the Bay of Pigs Museum and Library, which opened in Miami this year. Laura C. Morel/Mother Jones

The museum has been a rare point of unity for Florida Democrats and Republicans. President Donald Trump stopped at the original house during his 2016 campaign, and the site has also been visited by politicians like Marco Rubio and Florida Sen. Rick Scott. Eileen Higgins, who was elected last year to be Miami’s first Democrat mayor in nearly 30 years, secured funding for the museum. “We’ve got to put party lines aside,” Carlos Luis, the museum president, told me. “This is so important for the Cuban community, and overall, this is the identity of the county and the city.”

“We’ve got to put party lines aside. This is so important for the Cuban community, and overall, this is the identity of the county and the city.”

Most of the men involved in the mission were young with no military experience, many of whom received only a few months of training before the invasion. One of them was Luis’s father, René Luis, who ran an accounting firm in Cuba with his family. When the elder Luis was released from prison after 22 months following the Bay of Pigs, he settled in Miami with his wife. They had seven children. Before dinner, Carlos recalled,the family sang Cuba’s national anthem. His father didn’t open up much about his experience, apart from blaming Kennedy for the failed mission, and he died in 2024 without ever setting foot on the island again. “My involvement here,” Luis said, “is the least I can do for my father.”

For Zayas-Bazán, president of the Brigade’s association and a member of the museum’s board, the new building provides a vivid excursion through his memories. Wearing a crisply ironed guayabera, a traditional linen shirt popular in Cuba, he strode through the exhibits, stopping at the front entrance to point out a video playing black-and-white footage of Havana’s waterfront lined with hotels and bustling city streets; his glasses reflectedimages of a now-vanished Cuba.“This shows what Cuba was like,” he told me. “So that the people can see what Havana was like before 1959”—the year Fidel Castro took control of the island.

He stopped at a glass display lined with photos from 1962, whenhundreds of Brigade 2506 members who had been imprisoned in Cuba returned to Miami. The photos show young men stepping off airplanes and into the arms of loved ones waiting for them on the tarmac. One such photo is of Zayas-Bazán and his then-wife, her smiling face pressed against his chest. In another corner of the museum, he pointed to a collection of items that Brigade 2506 members kept from that era: metal bowls and plates, spoons, rosaries, and tattered books. Zayas-Bazán read Don Quixote while in prison.

After the invasion, several men were captured and forced into a crowded truck with no ventilation in the blistering heat. The episode was known as La Rastra de la Muerte, the “trailer truck of death,” because nine men of the dozens who were trapped died of asphyxiation. One exhibit focuses on what happened. “As oxygen dwindled,” the display reads, “some prisoners scraped open tiny holes in the walls and moved dying prisoners to them, an act which saved many.” The names of the men who died were listed, and Zayas-Bazán brushed his hand over those of three of his friends who had perished.

Eduardo Zayas-Bazán points out a photograph taken of him and his wife after his release from a Cuban prison in 1962. Laura C. Morel/Mother Jones

As I reported in March, Cuba is in the midst of the worst economic crisis ever to grip the island. Food is scarce, blackouts are constant, the medical infrastructure is collapsing, and inflation is astronomical. In the spring, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel confirmed he was in talks with the Trump administration regarding the island’s future, a few months after the US government imposed an oil blockade, further harming the struggling nation. In recent weeks, the situation in Cuba has worsened as the population grapples with water shortages in the midst of the summer’s heat.

The new museum is a reminder for the Cuban exile community of “what could have been” if the Bay of Pigs mission had succeeded, Andy Gomez, one of the leading scholars on Cuba, told me. Without any major changes in the country, he worries that the next generation of Cuban Americans will not travel there and eventually lose ties with the island. “As the Eduardo Zayas-Bazáns of the older generations pass away, that will be another experience that will be lost,” he told me. “It’s important to somehow continue to tell that story.”

And that is what the museum strives to do. Its executive director, Yuleisy Mena, teaches a course about the invasion at the local Florida International University. The museum has also invited teachers from the Miami-Dade County school district to visit. “We have to start getting the next generation ready to take on the baton,” Luis told me.

The Bay of Pigs veterans were among the first generation of Cubans to leave the island after Castro took power, and today about 200 of them are still alive. After Zayas-Bazán left his homeland more than six decades ago, he became chair of the Foreign Language Department at East Tennessee State University and co-authored Spanish language textbooks. In 1985, he became the first Cuban to lead the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese.

After retiring in 1999, he moved back to Miami to be within the Cuban exile community in case democracy returned to the island nation. “I came thinking that there had to be a change in Cuba,” he told me. “I don’t want to return until I can speak my mind without having to worry, until I can go everywhere I want to and see whomever I want to. I refuse to go and be spied on.”

Despite a life filled with professional and personal successes in the US, “I think about Cuba every day,” Zayas-Bazán said.

For Brigade 2506 veterans like Zayas-Bazán and their families, the end of Cuba’s current government is more than half a century in the making. “I have never felt more optimistic about changes in Cuba than right now,” he told me, acknowledging that any changes may not happen in the near future with the ongoing disputes with Iran and the earthquake aftermath in Venezuela. “We, the Cuban people, have suffered so much in 67 years.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Administration’s Fuzzy Math Will Undermine Energy Efficiency Savings

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

Energy efficiency standards can make it more expensive to construct new buildings, but they save money for residents in the long run. In a new analysis, the Trump administration ignored the second half of that equation—a move that energy experts fear could undermine efficiency efforts nationwide.

Late last month, the US Department of Energy announced it found that if every state adopted the model 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) instead of following a 20-year-old building code, the move would drive up housing construction costs by $9.2 billion annually. It’s a break with decades of DOE analysis, spanning Republican and Democratic administrations, which has reported significant energy and financial savings under each iteration of the code.

“The Energy Department is completely contradicting its own findings,” said Donna Stanley, vice president of communications at the nonprofit International Code Council, which develops the model code. ​“The DOE’s new methodology is a deep mystery.”

The moves to crush efficiency measures could exacerbate the country’s affordability problems.

The DOE did not respond by Monday to Canary Media’s question of why it chose to exclude energy bill savings in its analysis.

The IECC, which is updated every three years, has cut energy use in new homes in half since it was first enacted in the late 1970s. While the code is fuel-neutral, meaning that builders can install fossil-fueled equipment, it still has a positive impact for the climate because it reduces energy demand that would be met at least in part by burning fossil fuels.

Most states adopt the IECC or an amended version rather than create their own rules from scratch. Some states, like Alabama, don’t impose statewide standards. In those cases, local governments may choose to use the IECC themselves; as the city of Montgomery does, for example.

Depending on the code-adoption cycle, there can be a lag of several years before a state or local jurisdiction takes up the latest iteration of the IECC. To date, 10 states have adopted the 2024 code, per the International Code Council.

The DOE’s analysis could have a chilling effect on other states still in the process of locking in the 2024 code, including Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Ohio. Lawmakers who have sought to restrict more-efficient building codes—such as those in the Missouri House of Representatives—could use the analysis as fodder for their arguments, according to Ben Rabe, associate director of codes and policy at New Buildings Institute.

The analysis comes as the Trump administration has sought to squelch energy-efficiency efforts across the country. In 2025, it sued two California cities over their superefficient all-electric codes, and this year it has barred households from using federal home-electrification rebates to swap fossil-fueled appliances for heat-pump options. In May, the Trump DOE also rescinded a Biden-era requirement that new homes meet the 2021 IECC standard to qualify for federal mortgage loans.

The moves to crush efficiency measures could exacerbate the country’s energy-affordability problems, making people spend more at a time when electricity and fuel costs have risen fast.

Adoption of the latest codes would save US homes and businesses $182 billion from 2010 to 2040.

The DOE has done a cost-benefit analysis of every version of the IECC, but this latest one is the first time the agency has tallied only the upfront costs from home construction and ignored the long-term bill savings, said Ted Tiffany, senior technical lead at the Building Decarbonization Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group.

That’s like comparing cars based solely on their sticker prices while ignoring fuel costs and maintenance expenses, he added. ​“A cheaper car may cost less on Day 1, but a more efficient vehicle can save money and provide better performance, safety, and last longer over its lifetime.”

In a report for the DOE last year, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory calculated the utility bill savings for people who move into homes built to the new standard. The 2024 model code generates an average life-cycle cost savings of nearly $3,000 per residence over the 2021 code, it estimated, though in specific regions that could rise to almost $9,500. The average payback time for a buyer paying for a home in cash, it found, is 2.5 years. Those who get a mortgage would typically see net savings on their combined home and utility payments in just one year.

The adoption of the IECC’s latest residential and commercial energy codes would save US homes and businesses $182 billion between 2010 and 2040, according to a DOE webpage that was removed shortly before the announcement.

“This is the definition of cost-effectiveness,” Tiffany said.

The DOE’s new analysis also rests on a questionable time-period comparison: It benchmarked the 2024 IECC against the 2006 version. Forty-nine states have already adopted more advanced energy codes for new residential units, according to Tiffany; they’re not building to 2006 standards. The DOE’s comparison really works only ​“for perhaps Arkansas,” he said, which lags the rest of the US in building energy codes.

The agency has estimated the added construction costs for compliance with the 2024 IECC over the 2006 IECC at $14,000 per home.

“But we’ll save way more than that over the life of these buildings,” Rabe said.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Can’t Stop Talking About Communists

When Donald Trump gets into a loop,it’s hard to get him out. He’ll just talk in a circle until he’s bored and moves on to the next thing.He has fixated on Greenland and ruminated on his reflecting pool. Right now, though, his focus isThe Communists. And as a new Reuters analysis reveals, he’s really into it: Over the past two weeks, Trump has brought up communism a full 81 times.

Communism is an old rhetorical obsession for Trump—who was in first grade when Joseph Stalin died—and his allies. In 2025, he introduced a “National Anti-Communism Week.” He blamed communists for his 2023 criminal indictments. During his 2020 campaign, he accused his opponents of (you guessed it) communism.

It may be a product of his deep relationship with Roy Cohn,a lackey of Red Scare architect Sen. Joseph McCarthy and Trump’s longtime mentor and personal lawyer.

But over the past week, the president appears to have hit overdrive, sermonizing against communism at fever pitch. And like his Red Scare predecessors, Trump is also using the label to go after immigrants, decrying a “resurgent communist menace” from “newcomers to our country” in a July 3 speech at Mount Rushmore—designed by an anti-immigrant crusader and Ku Klux Klan associate—that also characterized communism as “a mortal threat to American liberty” and “the greatest threat” to the United States, surpassing Pearl Harbor, both World Wars, the September 11 attacks, et cetera.

Then Trump really got going: “You can be loyal to Karl Marx, or you can be loyal to America,” he continued. “You can be a communist, or you can be a patriot. You cannot be both. The godless communist morality states that anything is justified to bring about inhuman visions…They don’t want good. They don’t love God, and they don’t want God. They don’t love religion, and they don’t want religion, and they won’t have it, but we will not let them win.”

The actual communists of the Communist Party USA have spent the past week sending strident press releases to clarify that they are not, in fact, the Democratic Socialists of America.

Maybe Trump’s handwringing over so-called communists isn’t entirely misguided. After all, capitalism hasn’t been looking too good lately. A recent Gallup poll showed that less than half of young Americans feel positively toward our economic system. The libertarian Cato Institute found last week that a majority of Americans under 30 feel positively about socialism, and more than a third report a favorable view of communism. So if communism is a “cancer” that Trump must “cut out fast,” as he threatened to do at an America250 event, he certainly has his work cut out for him.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Strikes Iran and Threatens War Crimes—Again

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the US would continue strikes on Iran for a second night, and—if it had to—seize much of the country’s oil and target electric and desalination plants.

The desalination plants are part of Iran’s vital civilian infrastructure, and, as I wrote in April, international law experts consider hitting these facilities to be war crimes because of thedisproportionate harm targeting them would causeto civilians.

On Wednesday, Trump also said that the US-Iran ceasefire agreement was over and that he would allow US officials to continue current negotiations to end the war, but they would be “wasting their time.”

Trump’s threats come amid multiple Americanstrikes against Iran since it signed an interim deal with Iran on June 17. The US strikes came in response to Iranian attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a passageway that carried about 20 percent of the world’s crude oil and natural gas before the 2026 war began.

In late June, during the first major US strikes on Iran since the interim deal, Trump posted on Truth Social that if Iran continued its strikes, “we will be forced to military complete the job…if that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”

As part of the US and Iran’s June agreement, Iran would allow ships to pass through without paying tolls for 60 days. But the country’s leadership has stated that oil tankers passing through the strait must use approved routes. According to a Wednesday report by the Associated Press, the ships Iran struck on Tuesday appeared to deviate from the designated route.

These recent maneuvers put more lives at risk. As of June 10, multiple Iranian government ministries reported that about 3,500 people have been killed in Iran since the war began in February.

Nate Swanson, President Joe Biden’s director for Iran at the National Security Council, told me two weeks ago what he considered the strategy at play here. The US doesn’t seem to be interested in making complex concessions to Iran, Swanson said, and Iran may be unwilling to agree to a deal with Trump specifically, given his support of the Gaza war and his strikes on the country in June 2025.

On Wednesday, Trump told reporters that Iran’s leaders were “scum” and “sick people.” “Based on their actions over the last week or two, they’re not doing a service to the people,” he said. “I’m not sure I want to make a deal with them.”

The Trump administration’s efforts to end the war appear to be going backward. Republican lawmakers criticized the June ceasefire deal with Iran as “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.” While many publicly blamed JD Vance, whom Trump said was responsible for Iran negotiations, the war is extremely unpopular with his base, which could hurt the GOP’s chances in the upcoming midterms.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Belgium’s Trump Dance Exposed the Collapse of the President’s Soft Power

Moments after scoring Belgium’s fourth goal against the hapless US Men’s National Soccer Team, Romelu Lukaku ran to the corner flag and joined his teammates in a mocking Trump Dance. The scene was repeated soon after in the Belgium locker room, this time as they sang the Village People’s “YMCA”—a staple of the US president’s political rallies. It was a final humiliation on one of the worst days in US soccer history.

It was also a sign of how quickly things have changed—of how toxic Donald Trump’s attempts to rig everything from the economy to soccer tournaments have become. Back in 2024, right after Trump was elected for the second time, his signature dance move was everywhere. NFL stars, third-tier British professional soccer players, and even Team USA’s own Christian Pulisic and his teammates were seen celebrating with the stunted boogie. The dance’s cultural emergence was an indicator of Trump’s personal soft power as he reclaimed the White House in the wake of the January 6 insurrection and multiple criminal prosecutions. But now—18 months into a second term marked by chaos, corruption, and war—Trump’s brand has been reduced to a symbol of American failure.

🚨🇧🇪 WATCH: Belgium players do President Trump’s ‘YMCA’ dance after eliminating the US from the World Cup pic.twitter.com/dA2rAbDwRR

— Politics Global (@PolitlcsGlobal) July 7, 2026

But as this fiasco makes clear, Trump’s no longer able to convince the world to dance along.

The USMNT is not new to humiliation or drama. The team crashed out of World Cup group stages in 1998 and 2006 and failed to even qualify for the tournament in 2018. Its 2022 campaign ended in the bizarre “ReynaGate” controversy. But none of that compares to what happened in the week between the USMNT’s triumph against Bosnia & Herzegovina and its lopsided loss to Belgium Monday night.

In the Bosnia game, US striker Folarin Balogun received a controversial red card just past halftime, leaving the US down a man as it clung to a narrow lead. Throughout the rest of the match, the team showed a fight and grittiness that propelled it to a historic win. But the red card meant that Balogun—the team’s leading scorer—would miss the Round of 16 match against Belgium.

The next day, Trump called Gianni Infantino—the FIFA President who infamously awarded Trump a knock-off “peace prize”—to discuss Balogun’s red card, according to Politico. This was followed by days of lobbying and legal maneuvering as US government and US Soccer Federation officials explored arguments to convince FIFA to overturn the decision. This reportedly included White House FIFA World Cup Task Force executive director Andrew Giuliani and Scott Goodwin—a hedge-fund founder who personally contributed the salary of US coach Mauricio Pochettino—researching other controversial calls from the referee who dished out the red card. Trump would soon describe the refereeas “very suspect.”

Then came Sunday, a day before the Belgium game. Suddenly, FIFA announced that an independent committee had decided to “suspend” Balogun’s red card suspension and that he would be allowed to play after all. As news spread about the lifted suspension, fingers started to point to Trump and his close relationship with FIFA—a relationship that Tim Murphy lays out in a recent Reveal episode about the World Cup.

FIFA’s announcement sparked an uproar. The Belgian Football Association appealed the decision, and Belgium’s coach, Rudi Garcia, portrayed the fight as an existential one for the sport itself. Belgium was “defending football,” Garcia said. Europe’s governing soccer body, UEFA, said FIFA’s move “crossed a red line.”

“Where does this start and where does this end now?” England coach Thomas Tuchel asked reporters, as he discussed the implications for other refereeing decisions in the tournament. One reporter asked, presumably jokingly, whether Harry Kane could persuade Trump to reverse a red card issue to an England fullback. “Maybe, yeah,” Tuchel said with a smile.

At the White House Monday morning, Trump spoke triumphantly about the outcome, acknowledging that he’d reached out to Infantino but insisting the organization made its decision independently. “All I did: I asked for a review because I didn’t think it was a foul,” the president said. “I didn’t tell him what to do.” Trump said it would be a “big stain” on the World Cup if the best players didn’t get to play. The president was apparently oblivious to the inevitability that it was his own actions that would leave the biggest stain on US soccer and the World Cup itself.

Trump: "I didn't know what the hell a red card was. When I found out, I said, 'You gotta be kidding!'" pic.twitter.com/SsTrMwLVDg

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) July 6, 2026

After the US lost in a 4-1 blowout, Belgian players said the scandal gave them additional motivation, with midfielder Nicolas Raskin stating that “there’s always a justice somewhere in life.” Announcers from around the world mocked Trump’s intervention. The Belgian Football Association tweeted, “Overturn this.”

It would probably be unreasonable to blame Trump for the US loss on the field. But the president’s attempt to insert himself into the game—and the international blowback it caused—was a far bigger blunder for the sport and the country than the shambolic defending by Matt Freese and Tim Ream.

Another look at Belgium's third goal pic.twitter.com/71ldzuhbAk

— FOX Sports (@FOXSports) July 7, 2026

Trump still has the ability to corruptly wield power. But as this fiasco makes clear, he’s no longer able to convince the world to dance along. After the game, Balogun approached Belgium’s coach and attempted to clean up at least some of the political stain. “It is not his fault,” Garcia told reporters, praising the US forward’s gesture. “He is not the one to blame.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Says He’ll Fast-Track Private Gas Plants to Power AI Data Centers

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

In brief remarks to reporters Monday at the White House, President Donald Trump noted that he was shocked to learn how much energy developing artificial intelligence requires and said his administration is now approving plans for energy facilities to power data centers in “a matter of weeks.”

After first describing his investment accounts for children, Trump responded to a question on cryptocurrency and said Big Tech leaders racing to develop artificial intelligence have told him they need access to double the country’s existing energy capacity in order to advance technologies and outpace foreign competitors.

Trump also said that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin had told him tech companies weren’t taking advantage of the administration’s promise to get fast approvals for private power plants supporting AI development.

“An industry of the future should not be chained to dirty fuels of the past.”

Trump said he then called Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, and SpaceX’s Elon Musk to ask why they hadn’t submitted plans for power plants alongside their data center developments.

“They thought we were kidding,” Trump said Monday. “They can’t believe it, that they’re approved in a period of a matter of weeks.”

The White House did not immediately respond to questions about how the administration is approving power plant plans in a matter of weeks.

While the administration has sought to waive environmental protections, expedite permits, and loosen construction rules for gas plants and data centers, there are a slew of state and local requirements both power plants and data centers must satisfy that even in the fastest permitting environments take months.

Although Trump said it was his idea to allow tech companies to build their own “behind-the-meter” generating units on site to power data, it’s a mainstream practice to ensure they always have access to power. Dedicated power plants for data centers have only grown in popularity as companies race to get the facilities online.

The president said tech companies can use whichever type of energy they want to use—he specifically mentioned only nuclear, oil and gas—except wind. “We don’t allow wind,” Trump said. “Wind is terrible, it just doesn’t work.”

Trump has sought to end wind energy, the resource that generates a tenth of the electricity generated in the US, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

The race to develop AI, which requires data centers to handle the energy-intensive computing, has resulted in plans for 74 new or expanded methane gas plants across the US, according to a new report from the Environmental Integrity Project, a national nonprofit founded more than 20 years ago by a former director of the EPA’s civil enforcement office.

These proposed gas-fired plants, which would be dedicated to serving data centers, are expected to generate 143 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power the state of California nearly three times over, according to the report.

Of those 74 gas plants, 32 are in Texas, 10 are in Ohio, and seven are in Pennsylvania.

The power plants would also release nearly 662 million tons per year of greenhouse gas pollution, according to the report, which equals the emissions of Australia. This wave of power plants for data centers could also release air pollutants that contribute to smog and lung damage.

Data centers have become very unpopular, prompting some politicians to try and distance themselves from the industry.

Jen Duggan, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said in a statement that “an industry of the future should not be chained to dirty fuels of the past.”

“While data centers may be needed to accommodate shifts in technology, the public has a right to transparency and accountability, clean air, and common sense controls to protect water supplies, especially in areas already struggling with water shortages,” Duggan said. Data centers can use copious amounts of water to keep servers cool.

As the data center industry seeks rural parts of the US to roll out the supercomputer warehouses, and the fossil fuel power plants and generators accompanying them, the facilities have quickly become highly unpopular in communities across America.

Some lawmakers have long been vocal with their concerns about data center construction. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation in March proposing a moratorium on all new data center construction until AI safeguards, including worker and environmental protections, are in place.

Other politicians, who have responded to protests from their constituents with the midterm elections approaching, are seeking to distance themselves from the industry.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, called for blocking new data center developments in rural parts of the state during a campaign stop in East Texas last week. It’s a step further than his recent calls for data centers to pay for their own infrastructure costs, reuse their water, add new power generation to the state’s independent electric grid and other measures aimed at limiting the impact on residential communities.

The New York State Legislature passed a one-year moratorium in June on data center permits. If Gov. Kathy Hochul signs the bill, New York would become the first state to restrict data centers in such a way. But Hochul, a Democrat who is up for re-election this year, has said that she believes it should be left up to municipalities.

Monterey Park, California, and Ashville, Ohio, are among the US communities that have passed temporary bans or pauses on new data centers.

The Trump administration announced last month that it would not set nationwide environmental requirements or recommendations for the data center industry.

While there are technologies and practices that reduce air pollution and water usage, states and communities know what works best for them, EPA chief Zeldin said at a Politico energy summit in June.

By not enforcing federal regulations, said Clara Vondrich, senior policy counsel with Public Citizen’s Climate Program, the EPA gave Big Tech the green light to build polluting power plants and water-intensive facilities without any environmental protection enforcement.

“Big Tech executives have lobbied hard to ingratiate themselves into the Trump administration’s orbit,” Vondrich stated. “Zeldin made clear that their investment was money well spent.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Secret Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

Last month, the Supreme Court issued a number of landmark opinions involving transgender rights, campaign finance, executive power, and immigration. Those decisions were issued in the traditional way many of us recognize: pages and pages of arguments and citations, with each justice on the record voting yea or nay. But over the last decade, the court—led by Chief Justice John Roberts—has increasingly relied on a fast-track way of making decisions that was once rarely used. It’s known as the shadow docket.

Few reporters have done more to shine light on the shadow docket than New York Times investigative journalist Jodi Kantor. Along with her colleague Adam Liptak, Kantor recently published a number of previously undisclosed memos detailing the shadow docket’s unprecedented expansion under the Roberts court.

“So many major decisions about presidential power are being made on the shadow docket,” Kantor says. “And the question for the Supreme Court is why they’re doing business in this way and why in a lot of these decisions they are not writing opinions.”

On this week’s More To The Story, Kantor talks to host Al Letson about what’s driving the Roberts court to bypass the traditional ways of issuing decisions and how that’s affecting public trust in the court. Plus, Kantor looks back at her Pulitzer Prize–winning reporting on sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein that helped set off the #metoo movement and argues that obituaries for the movement almost 10 years later are dead wrong.

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

DHS Is Spending $1.5 Billion to Block ICE Oversight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Democratic Party Failed Us With Graham Platner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View this post on Instagram

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The White House directed comment to the Department of Interior.

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

What Author and Poet Victoria Chang Learned From Trees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

The other side was, unsurprisingly, outraged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

In Defense of Taylor Swift’s Bad Taste

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

“Morally reprehensible”: Prediction Markets Offer Bets on Wildfires

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Celebrating America Doesn’t Have to Mean Erasing Our History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Why America at 250 Still Cannot Face Slavery

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

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

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

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Hancock [et al]

Happy Birthday, America!

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

I took the train to find out.

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Watch: Trump’s Dystopia Takes Over the National Mall

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

This Supreme Court Term Was About Weakening Democracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…