Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

Report: ICE Caused Humanitarian Crisis in Minnesota

The global NGO Human Rights Watch released a report Thursday alleging widespread human rights violations by the federal government during “Operation Metro Surge,” the massive ICE deployment in Minnesota this past winter in which ICE arbitrarily detained approximately 4,000 immigrants, the vast majority of whom had no domestic convictions, killing two US citizens and injuring, harassing, and surveilling others.

Researchers interviewed more than 130 people, including immigrants who spent weeks or months hiding, lawyers whose clients were affected, health care workers and educators.

Now, months after Operation Metro Surge, the report details the scale at which people are still putting their lives back together.

Calls to local suicide hotlines increased precipitously during Metro Surge, researchers learned.

“There is no amount of press coverage that could ever fully document the scale of the ripple effect of trauma that this has on the city of Minneapolis,” one resident told HRW. “And when these cameras go away, we’re still going to be here grieving and traumatized.” Calls to local suicide hotlines, the researchers learned, increased precipitously; in some cases, previously mentally healthy people became suicidal “because of the threat of being detained.” One medical provider told the researchers that ICE was “writing a recipe book” for PTSD.

Marcus Schmit, the executive director of the youth mental health organization NAMI Minnesota, called the ongoing mental health effects particularly acute for children living in neighborhoods “where friends are interrogated, assaulted, or taken away.”

“I’m terrified of being here because I don’t want that to happen to my dad again,” said a 7-year-old girl whose father was taken by ICE during a raid on their home in December. Her father, who was later released, said that his daughter sometimes begs him not to leave the house. Her mother, who was pregnant, did not leave the house for months after the raid, even for prenatal appointments.

Since Operation Metro Surge, ICE has continued raiding American cities. This month, Trump’s border czar Tom Homan threatened to raid New York City, saying he would send “more agents than you’ve ever seen before.” Some who protested during Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis, meanwhile, are still facing legal threats, as in the case of 15 Minneapolis protesters charged with felonies this week.

“The federal government sent hordes of masked, armed agents to grab people off the street, whisk them away in shackles, and abuse those who sought to bear witness,” said Reagan Williams, crisis and conflict researcher at Human Rights Watch. “National-level action is needed to ensure accountability, end ongoing abuses, remedy the harm, and prevent another crisis of this scale.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

HHS Pushes Fetal Personhood in New Grant Guidelines

A recent funding notice from the Department of Health and Human Services seems to contain a message for the anti-abortion movement: the administration hasn’t entirely forgotten them. The announcement offers applicants nearly $2 million in grant support to promote embryo adoption—and while the program isn’t new, it’s now couched in the fundamentalist language of fetal personhood.

“This revised grant language to call embryos ‘children’ may seem small, but it could have enormous consequences for abortion, IVF treatment, and birth control access for people nationwide,” Gretchen Borchelt, vice president for reproductive rights and health equity at the National Women’s Law Center, said in a statement.

Embryo adoption was the Christian right’s response to the rise in popularity of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) in the early aughts. The fertility treatment involves generating far more embryos than any prospective parent is likely to use, since (as with natural conception) most fertilized eggs don’t survive, often leaving IVF patients with numerous frozen embryos.

Those embryos were sought after for stem cell research, which put some politicians on the right in a bind. While supporting legislation that moved stem cell research forward, President George W. Bush first established the federal embryo adoption grant program in 2002. Ever since, it’s been a bone that conservative officials have dangled in front of anti-abortion groups in hopes of taking the political edge off of their support for IVF.

The Trump administration’s new funding announcement sweetens the pot for proponents of fetal personhood. The total funds have nearly doubled, and the notice not only uses the words “child” or “children” a total of 37 times, but specifically refers to the unused embryos as “children who already exist and are in need of a family.” It’s far more strident than the program’s previous framing, which is still available on the website of the HHS office that administers the funds.

This opportunity is also only available to those organizations that seek to distribute frozen embryos in the name of fetal personhood. It excludes the few secular groups in this field that refer to the practice as “embryo donation,” a more medical phrasing (you might donate a kidney versus putting your kidney up for adoption).

“There has always been this interest in setting as many precedents as you can for recognizing fetal personhood” among anti-abortion groups, “even in contexts that don’t directly bear on what abortion opponents are most interested in,” says Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at the University of California, Davis who studies reproductive rights and its opposition.

But that might be all that the Christian right is getting out of this funding announcement. “Everyone is still looking to read tea leaves about what the Trump administration is going to do after the midterm,” Ziegler says. “I think the question with all of this is whether there’s actually ever any muscle behind it, or if it’s just feel-good talk for social conservatives so the administration can keep their support without actually doing anything.”

While Trump has rolled back key protections for reproductive care, according to many anti-abortion activists, the president hasn’t done nearly enough. Some have threatened to pull their support ahead of the midterms unless they see further action from the federal government on their agenda—which would then alienate a much wider swath of the country.

“The Trump administration sees the same polling everybody else does, which is to suggest that doing a lot of what the Christian right would want would be really unpopular,” Ziegler says. Public approval hasn’t necessarily stopped Trump before, but “I don’t think these are issues about which he’s really personally passionate.”

One sign that this isn’t more than messaging is that the anti-abortion movement isn’t really interested in embryo adoption anymore. Even among proponents, very few people were ultimately interested in giving away or adopting embryos, and when the process was relabeled as an adoption rather than a medical donation, it became even pricier and more arduous, involving home visits and legal fees. That’s unlikely to change. So while the addition of personhood language might be something anti-abortion activists can chew on, that’s about it.

“It’s like running a playbook that worked in 2002 when the movement has moved much further to the right on this issue,” Ziegler says.

But perhaps the administration realizes it doesn’t need to do more. Where else will its firmest anti-abortion supporters go?

“The alternative here to what is still objectively a pro-life and pro-family administration—and pro-life and pro-family president—is a party that ran on abortions with no restrictions whatsoever,” a White House official told Politico. “The choice here is very clear, I think, if you’re someone on the pro-life side of things.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump and Iran: Stupid Is As Stupid Does

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

Donald Trump’s war in Iran is one of the stupidest foreign policy ventures in US history.

I know that’s not a new or hot take. When he attacked Iran on February 28, it immediately became clear that he had no idea what he was doing. Karoline Leavitt, his press secretary, said he had initiated the attack based on a “feeling”—while negotiations to limit Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs were ongoing.

Trump then had a tough time explaining to the nation what the hell this war was for. To eliminate a nuclear program he had claimed was obliterated by a previous bombing raid? To address an “imminent threat” because Iran was, he falsely claimed, within two weeks of developing a nuclear bomb? To achieve regime change? To wipe out Iran’s arsenal of ballistic missiles? To protect Iranian anti-government protesters? To diminish Iran’s ability to strike at US allies and bases, if Israel attacked Iran? To end Tehran’s support of terrorism? To “get rid of evil”?

If you don’t know why you’re warring, it’s tough to figure out when to stop. After all, what counts as victory?

Then the war became mostly a matter of addressing unintended—but utterly predictable—consequences. Iran shut the Strait of Hormuz, which was an easy-to-foresee possibility, and sparked a global economic crisis. Trump had no plan for that—just as he had no plan to achieve any of the assorted aims he had expressed at different times. Now the mission was to undo what his war had caused.

So dumb. Trump spent gazillions of taxpayer dollars on this endeavor, only to end up fighting for a return to the status quo. He had to put out the fire he started. And thousands of Iranian civilians—including an estimated 168 schoolgirls—have been killed, as well as 13 American servicemembers. It’s a pointless loss of treasure and lives. With the higher gas prices, the war so far has cost Americans $132 billion. This folly has also raised food prices—which has an especially dramatic impact on poorer, food-stressed nations. It further strained US ties with its closest allies.

The signing this week of a memo of understanding between Washington and Tehran to end the war highlighted the imbecility of this action. The terms met none of the revolving goals Trump had tossed out. It kicked down the road any discussion of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic programs. But the deal handed the repressive government of Iran much-desired deliverables, such as an end to sanctions, an unfreezing of assets, and a $300 billion reconstruction fund. Iran could immediately start to sell oil. Ka-ching! It only had to keep the strait open, as it had always done prior to the war. It looked as if Trump was rewarding the mullahs with tremendous riches for doing what they used to do for free. Art of the deal, right? Trump had previously called for a “unilateral surrender” from Iran. This was not that.

Critics of all ideological stripes blasted the deal. Hawks and Republicans saw it as a total sellout, as well as an abandonment of Israel. (The agreement called for an end to Israeli attacks in Lebanon—a provision that did not please the Netanyahu crowd.) The New York Post lambasted Trump. Neocons exclaimed on podcasts, “What’s going on?”

Democrats and liberals noted this was the equivalent of an American surrender to a government still presumably committed to running a repressive regime and supporting terrorism, and it fell far short of the agreement that the Obama administration had forged with Iran in 2015. It was good that the fighting was over—at least for the moment—but nothing had been settled. Only the most cultish of Trump cultists (Jesse Watters, I’m looking at you) could hail the deal as a masterpiece of statesmanship and a win for the United States.

Trump signed the MOU during a trip to Versailles, which in a previous era hosted the signing of a notoriously lousy accord that led to a conflagration we call World War II.

"So … so I said … why not sign your treaty here, at Versailles?"

Kevin M. Kruse (@kevinmkruse.bsky.social) 2026-06-18T00:17:58.484Z

What was especially ludicrous was how Trump and his crew talked about the deal. On March 1, the White House declared that Trump had attacked Iran to “destroy its ballistic missile arsenal.” On Wednesday, he said it was no biggie for Iran to retain ballistic missiles: “If other countries have them, it’s a little unfair for them not to have some.” He added, “Am I going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but [Iran] can’t have them? It doesn’t work that way.”

As for Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium—which is now not suitable for use in a nuclear bomb but could be refined to weapon-grade level—Vice President JD Vance on MSNOW said, “One of the core parts of the agreement is that the [International Atomic Energy Agency] and the United States are going to help Iran destroy the highly enriched stockpile, and that’s something that’s spelled out very clearly in the MOU.”

But the MOU said nothing about this. And Trump sent conflicting signals about what he hoped to do about this half ton of material that ostensibly was one of the key reasons for the war. At one point on Wednesday he said, “We’re going to get it.” At another, he remarked, “I don’t think anybody could get at it.” (This material is apparently beneath a mountain that was bombed last year by US and Israeli warplanes.)

Trump zigged and zagged on another issue. At the start of the war, he said, “We’re now totally independent of the Middle East. We don’t need their oil.” A few weeks in, he reaffirmed this: “It doesn’t really affect us. We have so much oil. We have tremendous oil and gas, much more than we need.” On Wednesday, he asserted that if he didn’t agree to the MOU, we “would run out of reserves at about four weeks…We would really run out, and there’ll be a time when you wouldn’t be able to get it.”

Once this war was about ballistic missiles and highly enriched uranium and oil was no concern. Now, who cares about the missiles or the uranium? And Trump had to give Iran so much to get the oil flowing. Meanwhile, instead of regime change, it’s likely there’s been regime worsening. As for helping the Iranian people rise up against the tyrannical mullahs? Fuggedaboudit.

No sane person expects consistency from Trump. But during a war, erraticism is particularly dangerous and idiotic. His impulsive attack on Iran has accomplished none of his stated objectives. It’s been a foolish waste.

During a press conference on Wednesday at the G7 meeting in France, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick standing behind him, Trump mused, “In war, terrible things happen. Like you mentioned…the [girls’] school gets hit. Other things get hit. Bad things happen in war. War is a nasty place. I see it. I see it better than maybe anybody has ever seen it.” Yes, even at this point, Trump was claiming he understands this war better than anyone else. But he had no vision of what this war was for, of how to wage it, or of how to win it. This was a vanity project for him. He thought he could unleash violence and chaos—threaten to commit war crimes and destroy an entire civilization—and end up the star triumphantly bathed in military glory and, oddly, deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.

In the end, this disaster does not demand deep analysis. It was a foolhardy move from a narcissistic numbskull who now cares more about a ballroom, an arch, and a reflecting pool than the carnage and damage he wreaked. A stupid war is yielding stupid results—and with Trump its author that’s no surprise.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Kimberlé Crenshaw Says Juneteenth Reminds Us “Freedom Is Not a One and Done Situation”

I first heard the word “intersectionality” during an identity workshop I took in undergrad. Inside our student center, my classmates and I stood under colorful signs naming different aspects of identity—like race, gender, sexuality—as we were asked a series of questions that required us to stand underneath one and talk about how that part of our identity impacted our lives.

Finally, I had a word that could help broach conversations with classmates, colleagues and friends about the parts of my experience as a queer Black person from a low income household that were usually too hard to articulate to those who lived outside of it. From then on, intersectionality became a tool that helped me open up about myself and understand the work I wanted to do as a writer.

Before distinguished law professor Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw coined the term in 1989, she also was searching for the language to name the intricacies of her experience; “the racial burden of Black girlness and Black womanhood.” For her, this search began at 6 years old in Canton, Ohio when her elementary school teacher refused to pick her to play Thorn Rosa, a fictional fairytale princess, for her class.The emotions of that day clung to her like a “familiar shadow,” emerging again in moments like her first year of Harvard Law School**,** when she was told she’d have to enter through the back door of a Harvard club because she was a woman.

In her new memoir, BackTalker, which came out earlier this year, Crenshaw explores the idea of raising, becoming, and being a “backtalker,” which she defines as a person who doesn’t digest or accept “anything close to second-class status at the price of belonging.” The memoir draws from diary entries she’s kept through the years to weave together her personal experiences as a Black woman in America with historical events she’s lived through, from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to President Barack Obama launching My Brother’s Keeper, a movement focused on boys of color only.

While on a break from her book tour in Paris, Crenshaw and I spoke about her book, her parents’ lessons on race, the importance of intersectionality in the semiquincentennial, and her hopes for the future of other backtalkers. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

You mentioned that you wrote some of the book in Paris, when did you know you wanted to write this memoir and what was the process like?

When I set off to do the memoir, it was at the height of the moment of racial reckoning in 2020. The tide had turned significantly in that short period of time, as the world started thinking much more critically about anti-Blackness, in particular, about the continuing shadow of our past, how it shapes institutions, how it shapes our actual experiences. So, the tools that I’ve been working with were in more demand at that moment. People were talking critically about race, they were talking about intersectionality, especially in light of the killings of both George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

And then there was this huge backlash against all of these ideas, and part of the backlash was to frame these ideas as dangerous, as divisive, as counterproductive, and as alien—foreign; this isn’t part of the American tradition. Which was shocking to me, because my understanding of my own life and the way that these life experiences led to the kinds of questions that I and many others were asking is 100% grounded in US soil, grounded in stories that many of us who’ve been racialized would recognize and remember and understand.

So, the memoir then took on a more targeted objective. There was a time that I thought, “Why am I fiddling while Rome burns? Shouldn’t I be writing a treatise, or shouldn’t I be writing corrections to the many distortions that were intentionally and unintentionally put out there about intersectionality?” And sometimes it was difficult to put down the newspaper and go back to, “Okay, well, when I was five years old…” It just seemed like maybe not the place to be spending time, but I kept at it, and it’s taken a while for it to finally conclude.

I really didn’t know where the conclusion was, because the problem that I was writing about and into just kept unfolding. But at the end of the day, it’s not a treatise, it’s not a defense of my life’s work, it’s not a brief. It is the stories that shaped my experience as a Black girl and a Black young woman, and out of those stories is the thinking that I take into the academic work that I do.

It was interesting how your book weaved history together. I think sometimes when we have conversations about history, we think about the past and don’t consider the present and how important both are to our future.

I have to credit my mother for that. She was a griot [a storyteller] and an archeologist at the same time. Showing me the sights and [telling]me the stories about how it was, and what happened to get it to be what it is now. It’s hard to think this stuff is ancient history when you’re looking at the same root beer stand, sometimes owned by the same people, and know what it took to get them to drop their discriminatory policies. So, history, as Faulkner says, it’s never fully behind us, and my mom was basically channeling that to make it clear that everything was still contention. You don’t take your foot off the pedal just because you’ve had some success. You’ve then got to protect that success, and you do that by telling the next generation this is what’s just underneath the surface of this, and this is why you have to keep tending to these victories, because nothing is guaranteed.

That’s what we learned after reconstruction, having eight years of moving in a particular direction, then being reversed and losing six, seven decades. That is the thing that should tell us how important learning our history and understanding the history is not just the past, it’s the way the past reflects itself in the present.

As we continue to have conversations about history, especially with the semiquincentennial on the horizon, I wondered how you felt about this current moment we’re in.

To go to one of the chapters in the book where I talk about visiting George Washington’s plantation and Thomas Jefferson’s plantation and being there and asking all the questions that those enslaved people could have had answers to if their experiences had been valued as important to record.

“Those who want to erase our history understand the value of it. That’s why they’re directing so many resources and so much coercive power to erase it.”

You have the pillars of labor who made this republic possible, and they are silenced and erased. So the question it raises for me is, how do we commemorate the part of our history that made America possible without contributing to that very extraction, without signing on to that erasure.

When we’re asked to step away from that history, tonot remember that history, tonot do any work to excavate that history, because to do so is to present the American Republic as deeply flawed and damaged, and not something to be celebrated, I see in that demand the same kind of demand that was operative [back then]: “don’t speak, don’t resist, don’t write yourself into the story, stay in the margins.”

So I look at this moment as an opportunity to reclaim the importance of history, all of it. I look at it as a moment for people to connect the dots between the tyranny under which African people and Indigenous people were made to live under, and how the extension of that tyranny undermines the well-being of America. And I look at it as an opportunity to make it apparent that those who want to erase our history understand the value of it. That’s why they’re directing so many resources and so much coercive power to erase it.

If they understand how important it is, then those of us who are the stakeholders also need to understand how important it is, especially in a moment like this.

And how do you think holidays like Juneteenth factor into that?

Juneteenth was a gift that came, frankly, from some of the tragedies in 2020. It was not something that I knew much about, and I don’t think a lot of folks outside of the region in which Juneteenth was commemorated really knew much about it. Which does show again the degree to which aspects of our history, particularly the history of enslavement and the complicated process of freedom, is understood.

So it is a commemoration that does important work in making it clear that freedom is not a one and done situation. Having won the Civil War wasn’t an immediate moment in which the experience of Black people suddenly turned into what it would have been had there never been enslavement. It becomes obvious that freedom-making is an ongoing process. It’s never fully done in a history like ours. For some people, just the fact that formally we are free doesn’t [mean freedom] arrives at the moment that it’s declared.

I go into Juneteenth with an appreciation of the fact that it shows us that equality making is like an onion, you peel off different layers of the preexisting condition, and that in and of itself can be an interrupted process.

In Backtalker, you emphasize the importance of the youth as the next generation of backtalkers. It was interesting to hear about your experience of learning to use your voice and to read about what you remembered about Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination; specifically, the speech you gave in Jerusalem Baptist Church during the memorial service organized by young Black activists the day after the news broke.

I am 100 percent sure that the speaking that I did and the ways that I tried to run with that baton were shaped by my parents at the dinner table, what I heard from elders. Having that influence, and this is important, because I do know that some parents struggle with how much they want to expose their children to the histories into which they were born, and I know they often make choices about not wanting to burden. I appreciate my parents, and my parents’ parents.

I was born before the major Civil Rights acts were passed, so it was important for them to not whitewash the situation, but also make it clear that we are not expected to accept the contours of our lives as is. We are not expected to give up. What we are expected to do is both move against these artificial constraints and prepare ourselves for the doors that we are trying to blow open.

I appreciate them for that, because I did have a sense of when it was important to speak up and speak back. I did have a sense that it wasn’t just me, and it wasn’t just my family, but it was a broader sense of “we” that was striving at that moment. So, when I stand up in the church, you know how they say it takes a village? It took a, “we,” it took a whole cultural moment for us to speak into it.

You once said that “If there is a mother of this country, it’s Black women, because it’s through our bodies that the wealth of the nation was able to launch the United States as the global power it actually became.” How do you keep moving forward carrying that weight and what keeps you steadfast in that?

I think the thing that keeps me moving is I’ve seen firsthand the consequences of the erasure of Black women’s specific experience and specific history. The chapter about Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas really speaks to the consequences of what I call the intersectional failure. The fact that the histories we remember and the visions of resistance that we celebrate don’t often include the specific kinds of conditions that Black women were fighting against.

I wanted never to see that deeply damaging disconnect in our story happen again because it was so consequential. We got a Supreme Court justice who went on to undermine the very claims of anti-racism that he wrapped his appeal around by calling it a high-tech lynching, so under his watch and through his fifth vote, we lost some central features of the Civil Rights infrastructure that people shed blood to create. That is a tragedy, and so the thing that keeps me moving forward is recognizing how important intersectionality is in understanding the connection between our movements that Black women sit on and represent, if there is an ability to fully incorporate our experiences into our histories and our analysis.

And I think the thing that keeps me moving is the fact that I wouldn’t have been here if my elders hadn’t said, “The time to rest is when we’re done,” or if they had said, “This is a very difficult climb for us, and we really don’t have a clear guarantee that the work that we do is going to create a better life for our children.” But they were committed to creating a better life for the future generations. They were dedicated to trying and pushing all of the buttons to find a way forward.

So, as a recipient of that, I feel it would be irresponsible not to play it forward. It would be taking their sacrifices for granted, not to speak in this moment, in which much of what they sacrificed to create for us stands, on the precipice of collapse. So I don’t want to be that generation that let it go. I don’t want to be the ones that didn’t try to put our shoulder to the wheel in every way possible to push back into this effort to make America look like America did before we had the rights, and the ability to fight that we have now.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Long After the Climate Apocalypse, Maybe Some Being Will Find “Earth’s Black Box”

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

It was designed to survive the apocalypse, as humanity’s last testament to its failure. But for a while it seemed the “Earth’s Black Box” hadn’t even survived its own planning process.

Now, five years after it was announced to much fanfare, followed by years of ominous silence, the box is back. Its creators say parts assembly is under way and, in December, the full monolith will be installed near Queenstown on the edge of a remote western Tasmanian airfield.

When it was first announced that an indestructible doomsday device would be built in a remote part of Tasmania to bear witness to the climate crisis, the news went viral around the world.

“Earth is getting a black box to record events that lead to downfall of civilization,” CNET declared, a headline that would later be quoted on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. “We’re doomed,” he whispered to the camera.

According to the project’s website, the 16-meter long, four-meter high steel structure—to be topped with solar panels encased behind glass—will record “every step” humanity takes towards climate catastrophe.

“Hundreds of datasets, measurements, and interactions relating to the health of our planet will be continuously collected and safely stored for future generations,” it says. “How the story ends is completely up to us. Only one thing is certain, your actions, inactions, and interactions are now being recorded.”

The project’s inspiration is an airplane’s flight recorder, also known as a “black box” (despite usually being orange), which stores data within crash-proof casing to help investigators piece together the causes of accidents. That was also an Australian invention: The prototype was put together at a government research lab in Melbourne in 1954.

The Earth’s Black Box was announced to coincide with the UN’s 2021 Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow. Digital hard drives were turned on to begin recording data from the talks, to be transferred later to the physical box.

A graphic showing the location of Earth's Black Box near the west coast of Tasmania

Guardian graphic

But then all mysteriously fell quiet. The last—and only—posts on its Instagram page are black tiles which form a 3×3 box from October 2021.

Some wondered if it was all just performance art or a PR stunt, owing to the fact the project was dreamed up by Rouser Lab, an Australian not-for-profit “experimental environmental communications agency,” rather than scientists.

Its artistic director, Jonathan Kneebone, says the project is now being coordinated by the Earth’s Black Box Foundation, a registered charity dedicated to the idea.

“It will be approximately five years to the day that we are finally able to install the work,” he told Guardian Australia.

“In those five years, we have been evolving the design, data storage systems, source materials, web platform—as well as developing funding models to sustain the project into the future.”

Rouser Lab claims its climate interventions have had 4 billion media impressions worldwide, including for another “techno-obelisk,” also yet to be built, that will constantly transmit a Climate SOS into space.

Collaborators on the black box include art and directing collective The Glue Society and production company Revolver, but the University of Tasmania, which was initially affiliated, has dropped out in the intervening years and will request to be removed from Rouser Lab’s website.

The mayor of West Coast council in Tasmania, Shane Pitt, says the project has been a “long time coming.”

“It certainly is something we can see as a tourist attraction,” he said, adding the rugged, remote outcrops of Tasmania’s west coast were picked for their geological, and political, stability—much of the landscape was carved by glaciers. “The west coast is certainly not a place that has got high value for anyone to cause major catastrophes.”

This year, the Doomsday Clock was set at 85 seconds to midnight, the closest it has been to apocalypse, and narrowed from 100 seconds in 2021.

If the Earth’s Black Box is ever complete, will future beings trawl through its records to determine where it all went so wrong? Or will we land the plane safely, rendering the strange object built into Tasmania’s granite landscape as a reminder of an apocalypse that never came?

Perhaps that’s the thing about a black box: it is the canonical object whose inner workings are a mystery.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Grok Is More Important Than Clean Air, DOJ Says

The federal government intervened Monday in a Clean Air Act lawsuit in which people in Memphis, Tennessee, and Southaven, Mississippi, are suing Elon Musk’s xAI over the health risks posed by the company’s unpermitted gas turbines.

The Department of Justice didn’t intervene on behalf of the people breathing dirty air, though: instead, it submitted an unprecedented motion backing xAI.

The suit, filed by NAACP lawyers, contends that xAI should owe over $100,000 a day in civil penalties for violating the Clean Air Act. DOJ is pushing for the suit to be thrown out—not on the facts of the case, but because, the agency claims, Americans need Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot for our continued safety.

“I can’t live like this. I don’t really know what my options are other than to get out of there.”

xAI’s massive Colossus 2 data center, in the Memphis area, was built primarily to train Grok models—new iterations of the AI that might be best known for calling itself “MechaHitler.” And it has onsite dozens of unpermitted gas turbines to serve its massive energy needs. Colossus 2’s power plant constitutes one of the largest industrial sources of smog-forming nitrogen oxides in the nation, able to emit well over 5,000 tons per year. People living near the site say they’re plagued with poor air quality and constant noise.

“I can’t live like this. I don’t really know what my options are other than to get out of there,” said Jason Haley, who lives near one of xAI’s Memphis-area sites, to the local Fox News affiliate. He described constant whirring noises from the data center. “But, with that being said, I don’t know who would be willing to purchase that house if they come and look at it and that’s what they’re hearing.”

“Grok’s continued operation and availability is a matter of paramount national security,” the filing said, especially “in the event of armed conflict”—adding that the Department of War used Grok to “deploy over 2,000 munitions to 2,000 distinct targets within 96 hours during Operation Epic Fury.”

Cameron Stanley, the Pentagon’s AI chief, added in a declaration that “If xAI is hindered from continuing to improve and upgrade Grok…DoW’s ability to meet its national security mission and keep pace with adversaries will be impaired.” The Pentagon has paid Musk’s company at least $200 million for use of the chatbot.

But according to Laura Thoms, who worked at the Department of Justice for 19 years before moving to the advocacy group Earthjustice, the DOJ’s action—directly inserting itself into a case on behalf of a corporation—is likely unprecedented. (Earthjustice is part of the suit against xAI, alongside the Southern Environmental Law Center and the NAACP.)

“In my experience, I have never known the government to intervene on behalf of the defendant to argue that enforcement shouldn’t happen at all,” Thoms said.

“They’re saying that when we, the federal government, decide that a company should be able to continue violating for whatever reason, there’s nothing anyone can do about it—not the communities that are impacted by the pollution, not the courts, not even Congress,” Thoms added, calling the move a “power grab…to decide who has to comply with the law and who can be given a free pass,” undercutting one of the main tools communities have against corporate pollution.

Throughout the 20th century, under the legal doctrine of “sovereign immunity,” the federal government has historically exempted military bases from much pollution regulation by citing the primacy of national security. Bases like Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, Florida have leaked volatile organic compounds, jet fuel, and heavy metals into nearby groundwater, rendering them what Abre’ Connor, of the NAACP, calls “sacrifice zones.”

‘National security’ has also been a frequent refrain of the Trump administration’s attempts to ramp up fossil fuel extraction, said Kym Meyer of the Southern Environmental Law Center. “We’ve seen, in this administration, national security used as a way to speed up permitting reviews for pipelines, to fast-track oil drilling, and to essentially eliminate all the environmental checks that are usually in place.”

And it means that opposition to potential environmentally-destructive projects can be cast as anti-American. That’s increasingly the case with data center developments across the United States, not just those pushed by Musk or xAI. Developer and celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary, in Utah, dismissed his critics as Chinese plants; Mississippi Republican Gov. Tate Reeves claims Grok is “preventing our adversaries—particularly China—from closing the technology gap.”

If the White House succeeds, Meyer said, the implications go far beyond just data centers. The administration would have every incentive to intervene in any citizen case against a Trump-aligned polluter and dismiss it.

“This is a blatant attempt to let well-connected corporations like xAI unlawfully pollute without any consequences,” she said.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump DOJ Outlines Dubious Path to Force People Into Psychiatric Institutions

On Thursday, the Department of Justice quietly released a memo pertaining to the landmark 1999 disability civil rights case Olmstead v. L.C., which curtailed states’ power to institutionalize people diagnosed with mental illnesses, and related federal civil rights laws. That precedent, the Trump administration memo argues—in conjunction with federal civil rights and disability rights statutes—increases homelessness, a claim that likely signals a push to expand institutionalization in restrictive psychiatric facilities.

The administration’s claims, according to University of Michigan law professor Sam Bagenstos, are not rooted in fact.

“It’s just absurd,” says Bagenstos, general counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Management and Budget during the Biden administration, calling the Olmstead decision “one of the most effective tools in combating homelessness” by encouraging states to augment mental health and housing services outside institutions.

More concerning is the fact that the White House instructed the Justice Department to produce the document, which Bagenstos says “suggests we might potentially be seeing an executive order” directing DOJ and the Department of Health and Human Services to roll back rules meant to avoid institutionalization.

“This administration is trying to take away one of the most fundamental rights that people with disabilities have fought for,” said George Washington University law professor Alison Barkoff.

In December, for instance, the Department of Justice reached an agreement with South Carolina to expand supportive services for people with psychiatric disabilities to reduce rates of institutionalization.

Bagenstos describes the White House move as “part of the incredibly punitive approach toward homelessness and mental illness that Trump has taken from the beginning of his administration,” including a July executive order that called for unhoused people with mental health conditions to be forced into long-term care settings in contravention of Olmstead and disability civil rights laws.

“Their interpretation is completely inconsistent with virtually all courts,” says Barkoff, a DOJ special counsel on Olmstead enforcement during the Obama administration.

Barkoff and Bagenstos are both concerned that the memo presages a White House effort to ramp up institutionalization—one that could, ironically, also increase homelessness—by chipping at the Olmstead legal framework. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on its plans for Olmstead enforcement, or lack thereof.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Republicans Question the US-Iran Deal. But Many Are Only Blaming JD Vance.

Many Republicans across the right are bashing interim deal between the US-Iran as an unnecessary surrender.

“This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana wrote in a Wednesday post on X. “Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works.”

“Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal,” he continued.

Other Republicans, like Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, have balked at the amount of resources the US is giving to Iran—including sourcingat least $300 billion to fund reconstruction in Iran. The Trump administration has repeatedly said this week that the money would come from other Gulf countries.

The Trump administration read the agreement to journalists on Wednesday and both countries are expected to sign it in a formal ceremony on Friday. While extremely vague in how it will be achieved, the “memorandum of understanding” provides financial and political concessions to Iran for the country to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and reaffirm that it will not develop nuclear weapons: immediately allowing Iran to sell its oil and terminating all sanctions against Iran, among others.

But as I wrote on Wednesday, Trump seems to be aware of the dissatisfaction from his own party, stating that the deal isn’t “final,” he may resume bombing if Iran doesn’t “behave,” and that Vice President JD Vance—and definitely not the president—is responsible for the negotiated deal.

While Sen. Cassidy lost last month’s primary election to two Republicans, including Trump’s choice, Julia Letlow, even the president’s allies voiced opposition (although in a less direct way).

“The president is getting, I think, very poor advice when it comes to this deal,” Sen. Ted Cruz told the Daily Wire on Wednesday. “History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is a bad idea.”

Likewise, on Wednesday, far right political commentator Ben Shapiro said on Fox News that the agreement looks like a disaster and “does not achieve any of the signal goals that were set by the administration at the beginning,” including ending all nuclear enrichment, ballistic missiles, and support of terrorism.

“In my opinion, the Vice President of the United States, the chief negotiator on this particular project, has not well served the president,” Shapiro concluded.

On Thursday afternoon, the US military announced that it had officially lifted its blockade on ships entering and exiting Iranian ports. The Trump administration stated that the blockade, which started in April, was designed to stop Iran from profiting off its closure of the Strait of Hormuz and put further pressure on the country to reopen the passageway.

Just after the deal was announced on Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the president’s most devoted loyalists, wrote on X that he was “somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming.” The senator didn’t elaborate on what specific worries he had but said on Wednesday that it was worth seeing whether Iran would follow through on its word, as the agreement would significantly help his and Trump’s “ultimate goal” of normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab countries.

But JD Vance, who has seemingly become the fall guy if the deal with Iran fails, has, at least publicly, chosen to stand by the negotiations, saying in a White House press conference on Thursday that critics should, “number one, have a little bit of faith in the president.”

JD Vance: "What I would say to any of the critics is number one, have a little bit of faith in the president"

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-06-18T16:11:02.442Z

And Trump, who notably didn’t name anyone specific, wrote on Truth Social on Thursday that any opponents to how his administration has handled Iran are “fools” given that “the Stock Market Just Hit A RECORD HIGH, and Oil prices are “tumbling” down.”

For the record, the rising stock market is largely down to the most wealthy investors who avoid the struggles of everyday costs and the average oil price in the US is still 34 percent more expensive than when the US and Israel started bombing Iran again in February.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Administration Tells Federal Employees to Wear “Freedom” Pins—Or Else

The Trump administration is ordering National Park Service employees to wear pins promoting Freedom 250, a semi-private group that the president has used to turn celebrations of the country’s 250th anniversary into what critics call a partisan party for himself. Several NPS employees told me that they were even threatened with professional reprimands if they refused to don the lapel pins at events celebrating the Declaration of Independence.

These orders were issued verbally by local supervisors at various Park Service offices in the last few weeks, according to emails reviewed by Mother Jones and accounts from NPS employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“When I asked if I would receive any disciplinary action if I chose not to wear the pin, I was told, ‘Yes,'” one person said. “I chose not to continue the conversation after that.”

These mandates for Freedom 250 flair may seem reminiscent of the 1999 satire Office Space. But in the case of the Park Service, they are very real orders that come as part of Trump’s push for an anniversary celebration that appears to have a vanishing connection to the actual ideas behind the American Revolution.

Trump’s semiquincentennial events have included a massive military parade on his 79th birthday, followed by a crypto-sponsored UFC fight on the White House lawn for his 80th. The next day, Trump announced that the July 4 celebration on the National Mall, the marquee event of the 250th anniversary, would feature a “TRUMP RALLY.”

The July 4 bash is being organized by Freedom 250. Trump advisers created that group late last year to seize control of anniversary planning, after becoming frustrated with America250, a separate organization created by Congress a decade ago to plan anniversary commemorations. America250 is legally required to hold bipartisan events and report to a congressionally appointed commission, which includes Democrats. While America250 was pliant enough to organize Trump’s military parade, the organization raised objections when Trump insisted on increasingly partisan and garish events. Those disputes led the administration to launch Freedom 250—an alternative entity that Trump could effectively control—a person familiar with the decision told me.

The establishment of Freedom 250 has allowed Trump to more easily plan events that double as campaign rallies, to privately raise funds from corporations seeking influence with the administration, and to avoid disclosing exactly how much all this is costing US taxpayers. Consequently, NPS employees say that wearing Freedom 250 pins amounts to a partisan declaration, akin to donning a MAGA hat, or worse.

“Knowing the difference between the congressionally-mandated group and Trump/Project 2025’s personal, political grift-machine, the little lapel pin takes on the historical weight of a collaborator’s badge,” said one NPS employee. “Some within my division have taken to calling it the ‘Vichy Pin.'”

Critics also contend that mandating that pins be worn by feds, who are barred fromengaging in partisan political activity while on the job, is illegal.

“Requiring NPS personnel, uniformed or not, to wear a pin displaying the trademarked logo of Freedom 250, LLC is unlawful, full stop.”

“Requiring NPS personnel, uniformed or not, to wear a pin displaying the trademarked logo of Freedom 250, LLC is unlawful, full stop,” said Tim Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a watchdog group. “In addition to violating the rights of the employees, any such requirement also likely lines the pockets of Trump-affiliated vendors who supply the Freedom 250 pins, with federal funds.”

Freedom 250 has a complex setup that has led Democrats to describe it as a dark money group. It’s a limited liability corporation operating under the National Park Foundation, a nonprofit partner of the National Park Service. Freedom 250 is spending taxpayer dollars, but it has not submitted to congressional oversight.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum**,** who oversees the Park Service, has eagerly supported Trump’s anniversary agenda. And despite recently claiming ignorance of how Freedom 250 came to operate under his department, Burgum has tasked the Park Service with supporting the group’s plans.

In January, administration officials began sidelining America250, including by redirecting funds appropriated to the group to Freedom 250 instead. At the same time, NPS instructed workers to start promoting the new group, exclusively.

The agency told its employees to replace “America250” references and logos displayed online with Freedom 250 insignia. “Freedom 250 was launched by President Donald J. Trump and is the Administration’s primary branding for the celebration of America’s 250th anniversary,” an Interior Department guidance document explained.

In an April 13 memo to National Park superintendents and senior agency officials, Charles Cuvelier, an NPS associate director, wrote that “all non-uniformed and administrative employees” in the agency “are highly encouraged” to wear Freedom 250 pins. The memo also “authorized” uniformed NPS employees to wear the pins—and instructed them on where to place them. “To maintain a professional and uniform appearance, the pin shall be worn centered and one-quarter inch above the name plate on the uniform shirt,” it explained.

“Wearing the pin serves as a mark of Esprit de Corps, demonstrating our collective pride and unity as we celebrate this semi-quincentennial anniversary,” Cuvelier wrote.

Although that memo stopped just short of demanding that NPS employees wear the pins, people who work at the agency saidthat many park superintendents and division chiefs have verbally ordered subordinates to put on the pins at anniversary-related events occurring at sites where they work. These officials said they were passing on orders from Washington, according to NPS sources.

This requirement does not seem to be wholly consistent across the agency. Some NPS staffers said they have not been ordered to wear the pins.

But elsewhere in the agency, supervisors told employees that refusal to wear the pins would result in an official reprimand, according to three NPS employees. For federal workers, written rebukes are part of an escalating scale of disciplinary actions that can lead to firing.

The Interior Department press office, which covers NPS, did not directly answer when asked if employees are required to wear Freedom 250 pins.

“Department of the Interior employees are excited to participate in our nation’s 250th,” a spokesperson said, adding: “It is bizarre that such a historic event celebrating our amazing country is being villainized by the liberal legacy media, but their TDS [Trump Derangement Syndrome] apparently forces them to try to divide the people of the greatest country in the world led by the greatest president in the history of our country.”

Oddly, the spokesperson also insisted that department employees were not being forced to purchase the pins with their own funds—something I had not asked about. “Any insinuation that employees were tasked with buying Freedom 250 pins is categorically false,” the spokesperson said. “These pins have been given to all Park employees free of charge to commemorate this landmark chapter in American history.”

The spokesperson did not say what the department had spent to provide the pins—versions of which sell online for $8 to $10 each—to its roughly 20,000 staffers.

But according to the NPS memo, those pins were provided by Ace Specialties. That’s a Louisiana-based company that touts its background selling Trump-campaign merchandise, “including the iconic MAGA hat.” The company bills itself as a premier provider of apparel “for Republicans.”

Ace’s CEO did not respond to questions about its business with the Park Service.

Another NPS missive notes that agency officials can contact Ace to purchase additional Freedom 250 pins for volunteers or employees. But they have to buy in bulk: “Orders must be placed in quantities of 100 or more.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Resurrected the Statue of a Slave Owner. Its Pedestal Cost Taxpayers $527K.

In April, the National Park Service placed a statue of Caesar Rodney, one of America’s Founding Fathers,in Freedom Plaza, a small park near the White House.

That installation drew notice, and criticism, because Rodney, a plantation owner from Delaware who played a key role in crafting the Declaration of Independence, enslaved people—a complication that in 2020 led to the statue being taken down from its previous perch in Wilmington.

But the administration didn’t just resurrect the statue of a slave owner and place it in a prime location in the Nation’s Capitol; they spent a striking amount of money to do it. Documents obtained by Mother Jones show the National Park Service, which is part of the Department of the Interior, paid $527,226 just to build a base on which to place the sculpture, which had been sitting in storage. Contracting documents obtained by Mother Jones indicate the cost for the pedestal was nearly double the government’s original estimate.

The documents also show that the agency initially awarded the contract for refurbishing all of Freedom Plaza last December, then added the Rodney statue in January in a no-bid process. The agency modified the existing contract, conducting nocompetitive bidding, and agreed to the sharply higher price because—as with much of the administration’s “beautification” effort connected to the anniversary—it was in a rush.

“The work was expedited to ensure it is done before our nation’s 250th,” an Interior Department official told_Mother Jones._ “All of the projects throughout DC are set to be done before the Fourth, so they have to be done on a rolling basis.”

“By definition, urgency should be used when a delay would result in a serious injury to the government. It’s inconceivable to think that a statue for a holiday celebration meets that standard.”

Scott Amey, general counsel of the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, said that the Trump Administration’s justification for paying a surcharge to have the job finished quickly is both atypical and unethical. “By definition, urgency should be used when a delay would result in a serious injury to the government,” Amey says. “It’s inconceivable to think that a statue for a holiday celebration meets that standard.”

Rodney is one of thelesser-known Founding Fathers, but it’s unlikely that July 4, 1776 would be America’s Independence Day without him. In June of that year, Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution calling for the Second Continental Congress to make a formal declaration of independence certifying the 13 original colonies “are and of right ought to be free and independent states.”

A statue of a man on a horse.

The statue of Caesar Rodney, placed in Freedom Plaza, was formerly located in Wilmington, Delaware.Joe Milmoe/Department of the Interior

After a three-week recess, the Congress reconvened to vote on the resolution on July 1. The delegates who attendedfrom each colony had to vote as a bloc, but Rodney was back in Delaware, sick with cancer. Meanwhile, Delaware’s other two delegates were split. Upon hearing of the stalemate between his colleagues, Rodney rode the 80 miles to Philadelphia overnight in a thunderstorm to support the resolution.

Though the statue depicts Rodney riding to Philadelphia on horseback, University of Delaware history professor Jonathan Russ says Rodney most likely rode in a carriage for part of the trip. “It has probably become romanticized that he rode the entire journey on horseback,” Russ says.

But mounted or not, Rodney’s ride meant that Delaware would be able to join 11 other colonies in supporting the resolution—New York had initially abstained from the vote. The delegates then adopted the Declaration of Independence two days later, on July 4. As with all the delegates who supported the secession, Rodney would have likely been found guilty of treason by Great Britain if the United States didn’t win the Revolutionary War.

“Whatever punishment [Britain] would have meted out to the [Revolutionary] leaders—be that prison time or ultimately being condemned to death—Rodney would have been on their list,” Russ says.

The monument commemorating Rodney’s famous midnight ride was unveiled in downtown Wilmington’s Rodney Square on July 4, 1923.But in the summer of 2020, amid nationwide Black Lives Matter protests over the murder of George Floyd, when statues of Confederate leaders were taken down all over the country, this statue was also removed and placed in a private storage facility.

As with many historical figures, Rodney’s record on human rights is complicated. In 1776, for example, Rodney introduced a bill in the Delaware assembly to prohibit the importation of slaves into the state. But he also enslaved up to 200 people, according to some historical accounts. That’s why Wilmington’s mayor unilaterally called for the statue’s removal in June 2020.

A few months later, Trump described the movement as the “result of an extreme anti-American historical revisionism propagated by organizations like the New York Times and its _1619 Project,_critical race theorists on college campuses, cancel culture adherents in corporate boardrooms, and flag-burning mobs on city streets who seek to reframe our Nation’s history around the idea that the United States is not an exceptional country but an evil one.”

This anti-woke zealotry has continued in the years since, now animating Trump’s second term—particularly, his efforts to celebrate the country’s 250th birthday.

“The Trump administration has been committed to celebrating and acknowledging the full breadth of our nation’s history, including the story of Caesar Rodney and his pivotal ride in July 1776.”

In addition to the Rodney installation, Trump’s current fixation with statues includes one of Christopher Columbus, which was placed on White House grounds in the Spring. It’s a replica of the one that had originally been in Baltimore before it was knocked down and thrown into the city’s inner harbor by protesters in 2020.

In May, Trump also announced plans to build a “Garden of American Heroes” featuring statues of 250 “AMERICAN HEROES” in West Potomac Park, near the Washington Monument. According to Trump, the garden will feature “Founding Fathers, Military Warriors, Religious Leaders, Civil Rights Champions, World Class Athletes, Artists, Entertainers, and MORE.”

The White House has cited the 250th anniversary as a reason for the increased costs associated with short timelines. The White House in Aprilasked Congress for $10 billion for a general fund the administration says will pay for beautification of the National Park Service (NPS) land around Washington. Meanwhile, the Department requested just $3 billion for repair and maintenance needs in National Parks across the rest of the country in 2027, and the department lost more than 2,000 employees to buyouts, forced retirements, and other reductions in staffing over the last year.

Trump has touted his efforts to restore fountains throughout Washington, DC, ahead of July 4. Those efforts include repairing long-broken fountains in Lafayette Square, near the White House, and the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, on the National Mall. But as the New York Times has reported, the administration has awarded contracts for that work to handpicked vendors, sidestepping acompetitive bidding process by invoking an exemption, which notes that this process can be avoided if urgency is required to prevent “serious injury, financial or other, to the government.” For the administration, the July 4 deadline for completing the work was sufficiently urgent to bypass competitive bidding.

The installation of the Rodney statue followed a similar pattern.

The effort began in 2022, when Republican state senator Eric Buckson lobbied for the Rodney statue to find a new home accessible to the public. “He was a very famous, influential, important Delawarean,” Buckson tells Mother Jones. He acknowledged that Rodney had enslaved people, but noted, “just tell the truth and decide how it is that you want that to be presented. I think we can do both. I know we can.”

After being told the statue was unlikely to be re-erected in Wilmington, Buckson identified a federally maintained park in Kent County, where Rodney lived. “That led to me writing a letter to the federal Park Service, inquiring about the process,” he says.

Rather than greenlight the statue’s move to the state capitol in Dover, America 250, an organization Congress charged with organizing events for the semiquincentennial celebration, had a different idea: temporarily moving the statue to Freedom Plaza in DC. Buckson says the conversation with the Commission began roughly a year ago, last summer.

The DC beautification plan launched by NPS, with $50 million to rehab to parks and fountains around the city, also included a contract of $7 million to Terra Constructs, a Front Royal, Virginia,based firm, to refurbish Freedom Plaza, on Pennsylvania Avenue, and the site of the January 5, 2021 rally by Trump supporters that preceded the President’s better-known rally and ensuing attack on the Capitol the next day.

According to sources and documents obtained by Mother Jones, the plans for Freedom Plaza originally included just 12 statues. But shortly after it was awarded, NPS modified the contract to include a stone base on which to mount the Rodney statue. “The Trump administration has been committed to celebrating and acknowledging the full breadth of our nation’s history, including the story of Caesar Rodney and his pivotal ride in July 1776,” an Interior Department spokesperson said.

The spokesperson did not respond to questions about why theRodney statue’s installation was not included in the original contract, which was finalized in December. But a department official acknowledged that once the initial contract was awarded, it made more sense for it to be modified “to include the work on the statue than bringing in a separate company to work in the same space.”

In an April 6 document laying out the “record of negotiations” between the construction firm and the National Parks Service, the project manager stated that the initial independent government estimate for the statue base was $286,549.

The document revealed that the government estimate had failed to include necessary services, such as the “geotechnical investigations” the firm needed to complete to ensure the statue’s stability. But the project manager also indicated that the agency did not have sufficient time to negotiate a lower price. “Given the immediate time constraint,” she wrote, “it is not in the interest to delay work with further negotiations.”

The materials indicate that the installation took less than one day of work. For that work, to erect a base for a temporary statue, the Park Service spent more than half a million dollars. But they got it done on Trump’s schedule. “Given the expedited nature of the design,” the project manager wrote, “higher pricing can be justified.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s Justice Department Backs Elon Musk in Data Center Lawsuit

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

The Trump administration is coming to the defense of Elon Musk in a lawsuit over claims that his artificial intelligence company, xAI, is polluting residential neighborhoods in north Mississippi. The Department of Justice (DOJ) told a federal court late on Monday to throw out the case.

The lawsuit was filed by the NAACP in April over allegations that xAI and its subsidiary MZX Tech set up dozens of methane-gas turbines to power its data center in Southaven, Mississippi, without air permits. The suit claims these turbines emit toxic pollutants in violation of the Clean Air Act, and is asking a judge to block xAI from operating the machines.

“There is no moral or legal precedent for this…It’s a desperate attempt to protect wealthy tech companies from obeying the laws.”

The DOJ says this data center is being used to train and develop AI models that are “critical to the economy and the Department of War” and the turbines are necessary to power the facility. In a 33-page memo filed in Mississippi federal court, the government also claims that under the Clean Air Act, it can terminate such “citizen lawsuits.”

“The Department of Justice will not sit idly by while private organizations use environmental laws to undermine our national security,” said Adam Gustafson, a deputy assistant attorney general for the justice department’s environment and natural resources division.

xAI’s central focus is a chatbot called Grok, which is similar to ChatGPT but has been known for controversy including nonconsensual deepfakes, sexualized images of woman and minors, and referring to itself as “MechaHitler.” The Justice Department wrote in its filing that Grok’s continued availability was “paramount” to national security and the military version of the chatbot had assisted US forces “to deploy over 2,000 munitions to 2,000 distinct targets within 96 hours” in the war against Iran.

xAI’s parent company, SpaceX, had the largest initial public offering in history last week valuing it at more than $2 trillion. The IPO also minted Musk as the world’s first trillionaire. In recent weeks, xAI entered partnerships with Google and Anthropic to rent space in its data centers for billions of dollars annually.

Lawyers representing the NAACP said affected communities had long had the right to file suits against polluters and that the justice department cannot simply quash those cases. They added that all companies, even those contracting with the federal government, must follow environmental laws.

“There is no moral or legal precedent for this,” said Laura Thoms, the director of enforcement for Earthjustice, which is representing the NAACP along with the Southern Environmental Law Center. “This isn’t about national security; it’s a desperate attempt to protect wealthy tech companies from obeying the laws meant to protect people from pollution.”

xAI has two data centers in the region, nicknamed “Colossus 1” and “Colossus 2.” They are massive facilities, with the latter occupying 1 million square feet in Southaven. Colossus 1 is located in Memphis and a few miles from historically Black neighborhoods that have long dealt with harmful pollution. Both data centers have been subject to community backlash and protests.

The NAACP alleges that xAI has illegally installed and is operating 57 gas turbines at its Southaven facility—each one the size of a large bus. The group claims the data center has the capacity to emit more than 5,000 tons of harmful nitrogen oxides per year, along with fine particulate matter and toxic chemicals like formaldehyde, making it one of the top polluters in the region. These pollutants are tied to an increase in asthma, heart disease, respiratory illnesses, and cancer.

“Laws like the Clean Air Act are a bedrock insurance policy for communities to hold polluters accountable for decisions that cause them harm,” said Abre’ Conner, the director of environmental and climate justice for the NAACP. “This should not be up for debate.”

xAI did not return a request for comment.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

DOJ’s New ICE Protest Indictment Is Its Most Absurd Yet

In the latest installment of Trump’s campaign against anti-ICE protesters, the Department of Justice has charged 15 Minneapolis-area residents for allegedly interfering with agents during the agency’s occupation of Minneapolis in January and February, Trump-appointed US Attorney Daniel Rosen announced Tuesday.

The indictment for felony “conspiracy to impede or injure federal officers” represents DOJ’s latest attempt to enforce NSPM-7, Trump’s September memo on prosecuting anti-fascist, anti-capitalist, and “anti-American” protesters as domestic terrorists; it devotes much of its 94 pages to a list of actions including possessing a bullhorn, affiliating with the Democratic Socialists of America, and wearing clothing that says “antifa.”

According to the indictment, the protesters blockaded ICE facilities, followed ICE vehicles, and coordinated their activities in various group chats.(The phrase “group chat” is used 31 times throughout the indictment.)But reporters repeatedly pressed federal officials on whether the Minneapolis anti-ICE protesters indicted had ever actually injured an officer—and Rosen could only insist that that wasn’t the point.

“Whether or not they actually at the end of the day caused bodily harm is not the measure of whether or not they committed a serious federal crime,” Rosen said.

It’s not the first conspiracy indictment the Trump administration has brought against protesters—nor, given the Justice Department’s successful prosecution of Spokane-area ICE protesters last month, is it even sure to fail—but its details may make it the most bizarre.

Here are some of the more than 200 actions which, according to Trump’s federal prosecutors, were “committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.”

Posting “we need to become ungovernable” on Facebook

“On or about January 13,” one of the indicted Minnesotans posted on Facebook that “we need to become ungovernable. We need to actively resist anyway [sic] we can to materially stop the Nazi occupation forces.”

Wearing a hat commemorating activist Ray Rainbolt

In mid-February, one indicted person wore a hat commemorating Ray Rainbolt, a member of the Sioux Nation who played an active role in the 1934 Minneapolis strikes.

Tracking ICE li cense plates

Protesters allegedly used a database to track ICE vehicles, which has become common practice across several cities. They also allegedly used group chats to do this.

Attending a meeting at a DSA office

In late January, the indictment says, several people attended an “after action” meeting at the Democratic Socialists of America Office a few days after a protest.

Wearing a sweatshirt that says “I’m Antifa!”

One person named in the indictment wore “a sweatshirt that had ‘I’m antifa!’ on the front.” Additionally, he “possessed multiple antifa patches at his residence.”

Saying, “We will be broadly anti-authoritarian. We’re going to be broadly anti-capitalist.”

On the evening of February 13, one person allegedly said this at a meeting.

Discussing a potential meeting at a library

“Library meeting rooms are not the worst spot for this kind of thing unless people have security concerns,” one defendant allegedly said.

Including a devil emoji in a Signal message

On May 15, someone allegedly “included a smiley face and a devil emoji” in a Signal message about a Homeland Security vehicle’s flat tire.

Posting a flyer on Signal

About half-a-dozen times throughout the indictment, people sent each other flyers advertising various meetings and protests. At one point, they argued over whether to post the flyers on Signal or on public social media platforms.

Giving someone a radio

One person allegedly gave “a radio to an individual wearing a blue jacket on a bike.”

Possessing a radio

That same person also allegedly had a radio.

Possessing a bullhorn

At approximately 9:41 AM on March 1, one individual allegedly had a bullhorn.

Going on an “anarchist speaking tour”

During a speaking tour to talk about their experiences resisting ICE, one person allegedly expressed happiness over the 2020 burning of a Minneapolis police precinct.

Sharing a link to the White House Counterterrorism Strategy

One chat member responded, quoting the document, “My new bio: anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

College Grads Are Rejecting AI En Masse

‘Tis the season of college commencement—and this year, it’s also the time for booing commencement speakers, who have made AI their go-to topic in the face of vocal student opposition. At the University of Central Florida in May, real estate exec Gloria Caulfield was virally booed for boosting AI as a happy “next industrial revolution” for grads. At Marquette University, Adobe’s Chris Duffey was similarly disdained for an AI-happy pep talk. At Middle Tennessee State University, music executive Scott Borchetta was the one mocked for cheering on the rise of AI in the music business.

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt was jeered at for telling the graduating class at the University of Arizona that “the question is whether you will help shape artificial intelligence.” And when current Google CEO Sundar Pichai spoke Friday at Stanford University’s graduation, he mostly avoided the topic: People had been giving him “a lot of advice,” Pichai admitted, about what not to say.

And that makes sense. After all, the class of 2026 is part of a generation facing high levels of underemployment and joblessness thanks to AI: about half of Gen Z workers believe the technology’s dangers are greater than its value, and some six in ten say they’re anxious about it.

Silicon Valley bigshots have been fixtures on the graduation circuit for decades, but they’ve traditionally been well received; for most of that time, they represented an exceptionally lucrative, growing sector that drew a massive share of young grads. Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford commencement speech—“Stay hungry. Stay foolish.”—remains an icon of the genre; the guy giving it was part of an elite that the young listener could conceivably join.

The intense contempt for AI at college graduations is a glaring sign of how many of the young are AI refuseniks—and that tech representatives now look hungry, foolish, and unable to read the room.

Zeynep Maya Dogancioglu, a University of Tampa student who leads the local chapter of a group called Pause AI US, tells me that she thinks students are “completely right” to heckle the “hypocrisy” of the pro-AI crowd.

“In every single class, they start by telling us we cannot use AI for academic integrity,” Dogancioglu said—but “the teachers who are grading us are using these same tools by choice, and the administration is pushing AI as this next big thing.”

“They are putting the wants and needs of billionaires over us,” a displeased University of Arizona student remarked of Schmidt’s pro-AI speech in the Guardian. A Duke University student pled in the campus newspaper for Zohran Mamdani to speak instead. At the University of California, Santa Barbara, Nickolas Spiliotopoulos told NBC News that students like him “don’t want AI to trump our academic, maybe our political, maybe our cognitive processes.”

To these young people, the commencement speakers are representatives of a dumbed-down, even greedier elite—a class that embodies what you could call the banality of venal.

Seventy years ago, the renowned sociologist C. Wright Mills first published The Power Elite, now a fundamental text of 20th-century political sociology, mapping the interlocking circles of the American ruling class: corporate barons, the “war lords” at the Pentagon, and political leaders. The theory was structured on Franz Neumann’s Behemoth, published in 1942, about the “structure and practice” of German’s Nazi Party—and yet it’s hard to reread Mills today without concluding that things are now worse.

Among Mills’ key observations was the rise to power, as historian and Mills specialist John Summers puts it to me, of “managers of the bureaucracy” who were “charged with solving technical problems.” For the most part, Mills found, the elite of the mid-20th century didn’t reach their positions due to great talent, intelligence or skill, but through networks of family wealth and a drive for status.

Yet they still held a modicum of public trust, particularly the administrators and scholars among them. It was a time of general prosperity, which new technology facilitated; the elite who managed those new tools were getting more for themselves, sure, but they wanted stability and predictability so they might thrive. (Indeed, they often made power seem relatively boring and procedural.)

Their successors are marked by being “disinhibited”, says sociologist Heather Gautney, whose The New Power Elite follows on Mills’ original: far less able to recognize the needs of the people whose futures they are supposed to help steward, and less likely to even gesture at sympathy for them, engaging in constant self-dealing with far less fear of exposure.

They are often more antigovernment than in the past, leaning “deeper and deeper into corporate authoritarianism,” as Gautney puts it, and preoccupied with dismantling the administrative state their predecessors ran. While Mills wrote that “great corporations are the great units of wealth, to which individuals of property are variously attached,” now, the companies are often secondary to people like Musk, who control massive firms in different sectors. The new power elite better resembles a cult structure, in Gautney’s words—as recent revelations in Wired about Dialog, Peter Thiel’s secretive elite gathering, drive home.

The new power elite despise security and continuity: they’re hell-bent on removing the bureaucracy of Mills’ era—which no one exemplifies better than Elon Musk, with the recent Texas outbreak of flesh-eating screwworm potentially linked to DOGE’s elimination of USAID. Their bright ideas include the end of liberal arts university education, as promoted by Thiel or his Palantir minion Alex Karp; it can be replaced by rented time in AI datacenters, where people will “buy” intelligence “from us on a meter,” as OpenAI boss Sam Altman has suggested.

This inability to absorb the life experience of everyday people—many of us simply want to go to college! Many of us enjoy meaningful work!—stands in sharp contrast to the behavior of the old power elite, who oversaw an epochal expansion of higher education. And as exploitative as corporations were back then, they didn’t advertise quite as cheerfully that they’d be hollowing out your industry sometime in the next quarter.

What do they have to fear? David Ellison and his father, Larry, control Paramount and CBS; Elon Musk has turned Twitter into a right-wing slop factory; conservative Sinclair Media owns legacy papers and close to 200 television stations. The worst of the new power elite can now get away with whatever they like.

But the students’ vocal rejection of AI exemplifies what Mills called “the sociological imagination” at work. Mills’ meaning was that the public should use our interpretative gifts to connect daily life to broader social structures—and critique those who fail to do so.

Their public opposition is driving powerful figures like Google’s Pichai away from AI boosterism—and inspiring unexpected older supporters like the fashion designer Jeremy Scott, known for his high-priced ironic menswear and camp appearances on fashion-reality shows. Young people, Scott recently told the Kansas City Art Institute’s graduating class, should reject LLMs and instead embrace what they already have: “actual intelligence.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Iran War Isn’t Ending Any Time Soon

Despite yet another round of Trumpian pomp and circumstance around the president’s supposed deal to end the war in Iran, the agreement between the US and Iran’s government looks short on details and long on impracticality.

The two countries are set to officially sign a memorandum of understanding on Friday, which will start the timer running on a 60-day period of discussion to conclusively end the war. On Tuesday, Bloomberg released the text of the 14-point draft agreement, and on Wednesday morning, CNN published a similar copy.

The first point in both versions of the draft agreement: the US, Iran, and all of their allies will cease fighting on all fronts “from now on.” The text specifically cites Lebanon, a country that Israel has continuously bombed throughout the war—and for decades prior.

On Tuesday, President Trump criticized Israel’s bombing campaign at the G7 summit, saying it was “unnecessary” to destroy large numbers of residential buildings in pursuit of Hezbollah members, that the fighting was “too long and too many people are being killed,” and that Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needed to “be more responsible.” (As my colleague Sophie Hurwitz pointed out Sunday, Trump wouldn’t be the first president to condemn Netanyahu while materially supporting his wars.)

Indeed, Trump has repeatedly shifted the goalposts on Iran. Is he now cooling on his own deal in the face of d0mestic opposition? His renewed insistence that the deal isn’t “final”—and his threats to resume bombing—signal that, like Netanyahu, he may not consider his own deal binding. On Wednesday, he even suggested that the memorandum of understanding “might not be the kind of a document I should be signing” and expressed approval at the suggestion that he could blame Vice President JD Vance if the deal “doesn’t work out.”

Q: Is the text of the agreement final?TRUMP: No, it's not final. It's a memorandum of understand, and if I don't like it, we'll go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-06-17T11:36:43.648Z

Israel, meanwhile, has reportedly been denied access to the text of the US-Iran agreement, and on Monday, Netanyahu vowed to ignore the agreement and continue to occupy Lebanon “for as long as necessary.”

If Israel—or any of the other countries involved—do not comply with the agreement, then its next thirteen points will not hold. It doesn’t matter whether the US is actually genuine in its commitment to respect Iran’s sovereignty, lift all of its sanctions, and source at least $300 billion in investment to fund rehabilitation and economic development in Iran. That’s assuming Trump doesn’t simply walk back his commitments, particularly if the US doesn’t get an answer it likes on its demands around the country’s nuclear capabilities.

And perhaps more blatantly from Trump on Wednesday: “If [Iran doesn’t] behave, we’ll go back to dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head.”

According to data from multiple ministries in Iran’s government, as of June 10, about 3,500 people in Iran and 3,700 people in Lebanon have been killed.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Judge Says EPA Illegally Cancelled a $2.8 Billion Environmental Justice Program

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

A federal judge in South Carolina ruled this week that the Trump administration’s termination of environmental justice grants was “illegal.” The decision dealt a setback to efforts to dismantle a Biden-era program that funded projects addressing environmental and public health challenges in underserved communities across the country.

In the ruling, US District Judge Richard Gergel found that the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to eliminate the $2.8 billion Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant Program was unlawful and voided the action.

“These are projects that would have addressed long-standing sources of local pollution or climate risk.”

However, Gergel stopped short of issuing a permanent injunction requiring the agency to resume administering the program. He said such an order would likely require the federal government to rehire staff responsible for overseeing the grants, which appeared “impractical” since the Trump administration already fired those employees. The judge also denied a request to extend the program’s September deadline for awarding grant funds.

The Southern Environmental Law Center filed the lawsuit in partnership with the Public Rights Project. Kym Meyer, the center’s litigation director, said the organization is still “working through” the ruling.

“We’re anxious to talk to EPA and to see how they’re planning to move forward, and then we will figure out what our own next steps need to be,” Meyer said, adding that the grant program should resume as soon as possible.

The grant program was established under the Inflation Reduction Act as part of the Biden administration’s broader efforts to address longstanding inequities across the nation. The grants were intended to support community priorities, such as reducing pollution and bolstering public health and climate readiness, according to budget documents.

“These communities are all in areas that experience higher pollution exposures than the more affluent neighborhoods surrounding them.”

The grants were often awarded to community groups, in partnership with local governments, to address issues such as rising utility costs, air pollution, decaying infrastructure, and extreme heat.

“These are projects that hundreds of communities across the country had been working on for years,” said Zealan Hoover, a former senior advisor to the EPA Administrator and director of implementation. “These are projects that would have addressed long-standing sources of local pollution or climate risk, and it is really tragic that these grants were terminated.”

One of the grant recipients, the nonprofit CleanAIRE NC, which works to improve the health of North Carolina residents, received $500,000 to install air sensors across four communities in Mecklenburg County, which includes Charlotte.

“These communities are all in areas that experience higher pollution exposures than the more affluent neighborhoods surrounding them, resulting in vastly different experiences and health outcomes,” said Andrew Whelan, the director for communications strategy. “They’re closer to major highways, greater industrial activity and polluting factories and coal plants.”

The data would be used to help educate communities on how to advocate for cleaner air, he said.

At the beginning of his term, President Donald Trump issued executive orders, one of which paused “the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act” and another that directed agencies to “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law…‘environmental justice’ offices and positions.”

“The court has validated that our community was wrongfully deprived of these critical air monitoring resources.”

According to court documents, an EPA official told the court that, after a review, he decided to terminate the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant Program last February for “policy reasons.” Gergel found that the decision was unlawful.

In a similar lawsuit over the same grants, Gergel also ruled in favor of CleanAIRE NC and other plaintiffs, but the the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision. This time, the case concerned the legality behind the cancellation of the entire program, rather than individual grants.

A spokesperson for the EPA said in a written statement that the agency is “reviewing the decision.”

“For decades, the families of north Mecklenburg County have been forced to wait for basic transparency about the air they breathe,” Whelan of CleanAIRE NC said in an email. “While it’s too soon to know how this ruling will impact individual grant recipients, the court has validated that our community was wrongfully deprived of these critical air monitoring resources.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Elon Musk: The World’s Worst Trillionaire

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

Hooray, Elon Musk is a trillionaire. You catch that last week? It was all over the news, with splashy headlines proclaiming that X-boy is the first human to enter the four-comma club. Of course, much of his wealth is on paper and tied to the inflated value of SpaceX, which went public on Friday. Most notably, the main media stories about Musk reaching this milestone sidestepped an important fact: The guy is a racist conspiracy monger.

The accounts of Musk’s newfound trillionaireness in the New York Times, the WashingtonPost, and the Wall Street Journal neglected to mention that the world’s richest man is a dangerous purveyor of paranoia and hate.

As many are hailing Musk’s entry into this league of one, it’s a good time to review his record as an alt-right extremist who’s amplified and promoted noxious, dangerous, and false ideas. So let’s go for a non-comprehensive jog down memory lane—sticking only to recent years.

In October 2022, after Paul Pelosi, the husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was brutally assaulted at their San Francisco home, Musk spread an article from an obscure website that claimed the assailant was a male prostitute and the attack stemmed from a drunken dispute between Pelosi and this man. “There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye,” Musk posted on Twitter, which he had recently purchased. The site Musk referenced had reported during the 2016 election that Hillary Clinton was dead and had been replaced by a body double, and his post illustrated his penchant for recklessly echoing bullshit conspiracy theories.

In August 2023, after rebranding Twitter as X, Musk began harping on a bogus theme: White South Africans were the victims of genocide.

A few months later, Musk put up a post comparing Jewish billionaire philanthropist George Soros to the Marvel supervillain Magneto, and he contended that Soros hates humanity and “wants to erode the very fabric of civilization.” His anti-Soros messages, broadcast to his 125 million or so followers, were widely excoriated as advancing antisemitic tropes.

In August 2023, after rebranding Twitter as X, Musk began harping on a bogus theme: White South Africans were the victims of genocide. He would push this idea in subsequent years. Last year, the Grok AI chatbot on X, unprompted, was telling users that South African “whites are targeted due to racial motives.” Trump, too, would champion this BS claim intended to suggest that white people are the real victims of racism. No surprise, numerous fact-checks noted this claim was false.

He has embraced Trump’s lies about the 2020 election, endorsed conspiratorial suspicions about voting machines, and repeatedly boosted the false charge that US elections are largely fraudulent due to widespread voting by undocumented immigrants.

Musk engaged in antisemitism again in November 2023 in response to an X user who had declared that Jews encourage hatred of white people and that by supporting immigration Jews show they don’t like the United States “too much.” This tweet appeared to be aligned with the far-right great replacement theory, which holds that liberals, Democrats, and elites are bringing immigrants into the United States to replace white people. (The night before the infamous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, white nationalists and neo-Nazis marched through the University of Virginia campus and chanted, “Jews will not replace us.”)

Musk replied to this post, “You have said the actual truth.” His response drew more than 6 million views—and widespread censure for its apparent endorsement of antisemitism. Days later, Musk posted a message that appeared to legitimize the long-debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory that maintained Democratic officials and others had run a child sex-trade ring out of the basement of a Washington, DC, pizzeria that did not have a basement. He has embraced Trump’s lies about the 2020 election, endorsed conspiratorial suspicions about voting machines, and repeatedly boosted the false charge that US elections are largely fraudulent due to widespread voting by undocumented immigrants—a move that undermines American democracy.

Musk has been a loud voice in the anti-DEI crusade that denigrates Black people. In January 2024, he maintained that diversity programs at United Airlines and Boeing made air travel less safe, pushing a favorite theme of alt-right bigots. Responding to an X user who suggested the IQs of United Airlines pilots who attended historically Black colleges and universities were lower than those of Air Force pilots, he wrote, “It will take an airplane crashing and killing hundreds of people for them to change this crazy policy of DIE”—a misspelling of the DEI acronym. In another post, he commented, “Do you want to fly in an airplane where they prioritized DEI hiring over your safety? That is actually happening.” Within hours, that post received 14 million views.

During the 2024 campaign, when Trump cooked up the ridiculous and false accusation that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were stealing and eating people’s pet cats and dogs, Musk promoted this racist crap and amplified several memes that spread this calumny. As you no doubt recall, during an inauguration rally for Trump, he made a stiff-arm gesture that was compared to a Nazi salute—and then joked about it. Days later, he endorsed the far-right, anti-immigration AfD party in Germany, which some scholars have labeled as fascist. Addressing an AfD rally remotely, he proclaimed that there is “frankly too much of a focus on past guilt and we need to move beyond that”—a remark interpreted to suggest too much attention was paid to the Holocaust, a favorite talking point of right-wing, antisemitic extremists.

The list goes on. Earlier this month, Musk used his X platform and his own posts to stoke the anger that has led to horrific anti-immigrant violence in Northern Ireland. That was no surprise, given that Musk has been a supporter of Tommy Robinson, the British anti-immigration extremist who’s a proponent of the white replacement theory and who’s been credibly accused of racism, and last year bankrolled Robinson’s legal defense against terrorism charges. (Last week, British police detained Robinson in Heathrow airport under counterterrorism laws, as he returned from a trip to Russia, where he met with Musk’s father, Errol, and praised Russia as a “civilized society.”)

His successful effort to destroy USAID has resulted so far in the estimated deaths of 263,000 adults and 518,000 children overseas.

Musk has engaged in so much objectionable conduct. His willy-nilly destruction of US government agencies at the start of Trump’s second term led to much hardship and severe consequences for the nation. Perhaps worst among all the sins of his DOGE outfit was the decimation of USAID. Musk, a maniacal detractor of this agency, which spent tens of billions of dollars annually to combat starvation and disease in poor nations (as well as to fund programs to detect and contain deadly infectious diseases that could spread to the United States), absurdly blasted USAID as “evil” and a “criminal organization.” That was bonkers. But his successful effort to destroy USAID has resulted so far in the estimated deaths of 263,000 adults and 518,000 children overseas. The annual budget for USAID was about $28 billion. One trillion dollars could have funded it for 35 years—and saved tens of millions of lives.

Musk has lots of blood on his grubby hands—100 million ounces or so (if the above estimate is correct). He has poisoned the national discourse. Several studies have found a rise in racist and antisemitic speech on X after he took over the platform (and drastically cut back on content moderation). His attainment of Big-T status should not distract from his many transgressions. He deserves not celebration but condemnation. Yet when you’re that frickin’ rich, such minor matters as ending life-saving care for hundreds of thousands of people don’t get in the way. Nor does spreading loathing, bigotry, and violence.

Musk is the only trillionaire we have and by far the worst. Perhaps we should ponder how our capitalist system produced such a dangerous lout and hatemonger as its first trillion-dollar-man.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Bryan Stevenson on Confronting America’s Legacy of 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 Equal Justice Initiative has transformed parts of Montgomery through markers acknowledging the legacy of slavery while also building the Legacy Sites, a series of museums and memorials that commemorate America’s dark history of lynching, slaveholding, and racial terror across the South.

“I’m really proud that we have made Montgomery, Alabama, arguably the most truthful space in America when it comes to confronting the legacy of slavery and the legacy of lynching,” Stevenson says. “If we can lift up truth in the heart of Dixie, then there’s not a place in America that can say, ‘Well, they can do that there, but we can’t do it here.’”

On this week’s More To The Story, Stevenson talks about the importance of memorializing America’s full history as the Trump administration attempts to erase slavery and lynching from the nation’s museums and why he sees today’s narrative struggle for racial justice as a generational battle.

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

RFK Jr. Will Oversee Disability Education Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The White House Cage Fight Was Spectacular—And Spectacularly Corrupt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The UFC’s Despicable Night at the White House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) June 14, 2026

Trump made similar comments to Fox News’ Trey Yingst.

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

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

— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) June 14, 2026

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Oligarchy Attends a Cage Fight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bee pollinating lavender.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Machine spraying fungicide on potato field.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A moth pollinates a thistle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Blocks Foreigners From Using Anthropic’s Latest AI Tech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Plague in the Shadows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

That’s 12,050 years.

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

I would have only made it to 8.3 billion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading…