Trump May Loathe Wind Energy, But This Red State Loves It

This story was originally published by Vox.com a_nd is reproduced here as part of the_ Climate Desk collaboration.

If you drive across Iowa, you’ll probably notice two things aside from the many farms: Trump signs and wind turbines.

Iowa is Trump country. While the state was once considered politically purple, it decisively supported President Donald Trump in 2016, in 2020, and in 2024, when Trump won in 94 of Iowa’s 99 counties. Iowa’s governor and two senators are also Republicans, and, after some early friction, have fallen in line with Trump.

Iowa is also a wind energy powerhouse. A remarkable 59 percent of the state’s energy in 2023 came from wind turbines, a larger share than any other state in the country. Texas is the only state that produces more wind energy than Iowa, though wind power makes up a much smaller portion of the Lone Star State’s energy mix. Wind turbines are now so common in Iowa that they appear on the state’s regular license plates.

At face value, wind energy and Trump don’t mix. Many of his supporters downplay or disregard climate science showing that fossil fuels are warming the planet far faster than it would naturally—a key fact underlying the value of wind energy and other power sources that don’t have significant carbon emissions. In some cases, Trump supporters, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., also help elevate unproven claims that offshore wind turbines are killing whales.

Trump himself, meanwhile, is the most anti-wind-energy president in history. He’s been bad-mouthing wind power for over a decade, often relying on similarly spurious claims. “We’re not going to do the wind thing,” Trump said in a speech on Inauguration Day. “Big, ugly wind mills. They ruin your neighborhood.” And Trump has already made policy moves intended to slow growth in the sector—causing some developers to halt or totally abandon projects.

On one hand, Iowa is a test case for the staying power of renewable energy. Wind farms have expanded in the state not because of climate concerns but because of economics. Wind energy is cheap in Iowa.

But Iowa also highlights an important disconnect that exists across the country—between the anti-climate, “drill, baby, drill” rhetoric that helped get Trump elected and the reality facing much of his base living in states that benefit from renewable energy. The economics of wind energy are incredibly strong, experts told me, so the industry won’t just disappear. But Trump’s energy policies, if successful, could have harmful consequences for Republican strongholds like Iowa. A question now is if conservatives who rely on wind energy push back, will Trump soften his anti-wind stance?

If you want to learn about wind energy in Iowa, the person to talk to is Tom Wind. (Yes, his name is actually Wind, and yes, people point it out a lot to him.) He’s a crop farmer and electrical engineer in Iowa who’s been working in the sector—first at a utility, then as a consultant, and now as a wind-farm manager—for decades.

There are several reasons for Iowa’s ascendency to wind dominance, Wind told me. The simplest reason is that Iowa is windy. And while some Great Plains states like Nebraska and Kansas are technically windier, Iowa is closer to big population centers, like Chicago, that need lots of power.

Iowa was also quick to adopt policies that benefited wind and other renewables. In fact, Iowa was the first state in the country to establish what’s called a renewable portfolio standard in 1983. It required the state’s investor-owned utilities to contract out or own at least 105 megawatts of renewable energy, which is enough to power tens of thousands of homes. Iowa reached that goal by 1999, Wind said. When the RPS was enacted, the state legislature was run by Democrats, though it still wasn’t that controversial: Iowa lawmakers, including Republican Gov. Terry Branstad, saw an opportunity to make Iowa more energy independent in the wake of the 1970s energy crisis (an actual crisis, by the way, not the manufactured energy emergency Trump has conjured). The state has also never had a large fossil-fuel industry to lobby against pro-renewable legislation, Wind said.

“Maybe it’s the commonsense approach of Iowans: We need energy, and if we can do it renewably—and it’s not costing us a fortune—why wouldn’t we do it?”

Later, state and especially federal tax incentives for renewable energy further propelled wind to dominance in Iowa. In the ’90s, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican, helped establish a federal tax credit for building wind farms. That ultimately helped earn Grassley the title of “father” of Iowa wind energy.

MidAmerican Energy Company, the largest electric utility in Iowa and a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy, was especially hungry for tax credits, Wind said, and has since built out an enormous amount of wind energy. (In reporting this story, Vox reached out to several Republican politicians and energy authorities in the state. Branstad, Grassley’s office, MidAmerican, and Berkshire Hathaway Energy all declined interview requests. Sen. Joni Ernst and Gov. Kim Reynolds did not respond to interview requests.)

The state’s many farmers—a core section of Iowa’s economy that maintains a lot of political power—have also helped the wind industry take off. Farmers across Iowa have put turbines on their land as a way to earn more income. While crop prices and yields are volatile and at the whims of natural disasters, wind turbines offer a relatively stable source of revenue, on the scale of thousands of dollars per year, per turbine.

“It’s a real blessing for us,” said Dave Johnson, a livestock farmer in northern Iowa who leases his land to a utility that installed four turbines on his property. He earns about $30,000 a year from the four turbines combined, he told Vox. Johnson’s son also has turbines on his farm.

Johnson, a Republican who says he voted for Trump, had the turbines installed primarily because he wanted his farm—where he raises cattle and hogs—to generate more value. “I never had a 401(k),” he said. “I farmed and stuck everything back into the farm. This is the 401(k) that I never had.”

Fred Koschmeder, a corn and soybean farmer near Johnson’s farm, also has turbines on his land. “I don’t even look at it as a political thing,” Koschmeder, who also says he voted for Trump, said of wind energy. “It is economic development. If you’ve got a chance to participate in something that brings value, I think you’re kind of foolish not to do it…It adds a lot of value to your farm and extra income, too.”

Farming in Iowa has become more economically challenging in recent years, as the price of some crops like soybeans have dipped, and farm costs, such as tractor repairs, have spiked due to inflation. Climate change is also raising the risk of drought and flooding, according to government and academic researchers. Wind energy “is allowing farmers to stay on the farm,” Johnson said. “That helps rural America.”

But even if you’re not a farmer, you likely benefit from wind turbines if you live in Iowa, said Steve Guyer, senior energy policy counsel at Iowa Environmental Council, a nonprofit green group. The state has stable energy bills that tend to be well below the national average in cost. Onshore wind is the cheapest source of energy with or without tax credits, as of 2024, according to the financial firm Lazard.

“All customers benefit from it,” said Guyer, who formerly worked for utilities in Iowa. “Although other costs may rise over time, the cost of the wind actually remains stable or lowers. When we factor that into the overall utility bill, it at least stabilizes the bill.”

The wind industry also employs roughly 4,000 people across the state and draws billions of dollars in capital investments. Plus, it’s the No. 1 taxpayer in a third of Iowa counties, according to Mak Heddens, who runs a group called Power Up Iowa, a coalition of clean energy companies in Iowa.

While wind energy projects have faced fierce opposition in several counties—anti-wind advocates often rely on misinformation to argue that turbines harm wildlife and threaten human health—the industry is popular on the whole. This likely has little to do with politics or concerns about climate change. People across the political spectrum like wind energy because it’s cheap, local, and generates money for the state’s economy. These are things Republicans really care about, said James McCalley, an electrical engineer and wind energy expert at Iowa State University. (McCalley identifies as Republican.)

“We’re a red state, and we’ve embraced it, and I’m proud of that,” said Brent Siegrist, a Republican state representative in the western Iowa’s Pottawattamie County, where a large wind farm produces enough electricity to power up to 122,000 homes. “Maybe it’s the commonsense approach of Iowans: We need energy, and if we can do it renewably—and it’s not costing us a fortune—why wouldn’t we do it?”

There’s no doubt that wind energy is a massive part of Iowa’s economy—powering the bulk of homes and businesses in the state—and a boon to residents. Yet people who support Trump often don’t see his anti-wind position as much of a threat or expect it to shift.

Johnson, the livestock farmer, says he doesn’t pay close attention to Trump’s comments on wind energy. “I know he just shoots his mouth off,” Johnson said. When asked about real policies Trump has put in place, including an executive order that pauses new approvals for wind projects, Johnson said he’s not worried because wind energy has a lot of support, even among Republicans.

Siegrist, meanwhile, downplayed how much Iowa depends on wind energy, mentioning that the state still uses coal. And while Siegrist doesn’t think the federal government should be controlling what happens to wind development within states, he’s not worried about Trump’s anti-wind statements. “I’ve got enough things to do in Iowa to worry about Washington, DC,” he told me.

Paul Roeder, a Republican who owns a handful of wind turbines in Iowa, is similarly untroubled by the administration’s position. “I’m not so much worried about politics as I am about some of the other external factors that drive the price of energy,” Roeder told me. “The president doesn’t drive the price of energy.”

Roeder says he voted for Trump but not because of the president’s stance on renewable energy. This raises a key point: Many Republicans support renewable energy, and they may even worry about carbon emissions, but energy simply isn’t as salient for them as other issues, such as immigration. That helps explain how someone like Grassley — the father of Iowa wind energy, remember — is a Trump ally, even though he’s previously called Trump’s comments about wind energy “idiotic.”

It’s also worth pointing out that, more generally, people don’t often think about where their energy comes, as long as their lights turn on and their bills aren’t surging. I grew up in Iowa and have visited at least once a year since. But it wasn’t until recently — through my environmental reporting — that I realized how important wind energy is to the state. So it’s not shocking that Iowan’s don’t connect their energy to Trump. “They don’t necessarily make the connection to what the president is saying,” said Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, an association of business leaders, many of whom work in the clean energy industry.

But there is real cause for concern.

The strong economics of wind energy — what allowed turbines to proliferate in a conservative state — persist today, and so it’s reasonable to expect that the sector will still grow. Yet policies from the Trump administration could seriously dent the industry across the country, including in Iowa. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order that aimed to curtail growth of the wind-energy industry. Among other things, it directed agencies to pause new and renewed federal approvals and leases for both onshore and offshore wind projects.

Since Trump’s executive order from January 20, the administration has put in place or threatened additional tariffs on countries, such as China, that would substantially raise the cost of onshore turbines, some of which are manufactured in Iowa. Even turbines that are manufactured locally are typically built with at least some foreign parts.

“There is a certain level of nervousness in the market,” Manav Sharma, North America division CEO for Nordex Group, a wind turbine manufacturer that has a production facility in Iowa, told KCRG.

In a statement, Alliant Energy, the third-largest utility owner and operator of regulated wind energy in the US, according to the company, said it will “continue to monitor the Trump Administration executive orders on national energy policy.” TPI Composites, a global company that manufactures wind turbine blades in Iowa, declined an interview request.

Some wind advocates and lawmakers — including some conservatives — are also worried that the Republican-controlled Congress may stamp out tax incentives for clean energy that are part of former President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Those incentives have largely benefitted Republican districts but are at risk of getting cut as Trump has vowed to repeal the IRA. “I think the subsidies are the biggest issue,” Ernie Goss, an economist at Creighton University who specializes in the Midwest, told Vox. “If they are reduced, will wind energy survive?”

Even if tax credits remain, the Trump administration may still weaken incentives, such as through efforts to shrink the IRS. “What could also happen is they cut the IRS workforce,” Wind said, adding that applications to get tax credits have to go through the agency. “If you start losing employees, things start slowing down. It just gets harder to do business with the IRS.”

These concerns are especially pressing today as Iowa becomes a hot spot for energy-intensive data centers in step with the AI boom. It will need more energy quickly. Google, Meta, and Microsoft are all building out or operating data centers in the state, in part, because the state has affordable energy.

Policies from the administration that harm renewable energy stand to harm Iowa, said Keefe of E2. This is true whether or not you care about climate change. “You don’t do this kind of damage to an industry, you don’t spin off this kind of market uncertainty, and things will be okay,” Keefe said. “The only way they’re going to be okay is if businesses and consumers stand up and demand that their lawmakers not take an energy source away from them that happens to be the cheapest energy we can develop right now.”

“If I was one of those thousands of Iowans that work in the wind industry, or if I had family that worked in the industry, I would be calling my lawmaker today and saying, ‘Hey, recognize the risks that you are putting my community at — my family, these jobs, our economy,’” he said.

Continue Reading…

Trump Crypto Coin Buyers Offered VIP Tour of White House

The cryptocurrency Donald Trump launched days before returning to the Oval Office got a big boost on Wednesday afternoon, as the Trump-owned company behind the meme coin announced that its top holders would be invited to an exclusive dinner with the president—and the 25 leading buyers will get a special VIP tour of the White House.

Launched one business day before Trump’s inauguration in January, the cryptocurrency—which has no inherent value or particular use—immediately saw its value shoot from just $6.29 to $74, before crashing to around $10 by early March. The price has slumped as low as $7.57 and was hovering around $9 on Monday. But a little before noon Eastern Time on Tuesday, the price steadily began rising, hitting a peak of $14.28 a few moments after the coin’s official X account announced a special event for top investors of $TRUMP.

“This is about as unethical as you can get—essentially selling off access to the president.”

According to the coin’s official website, its top 220 holders will be invited to a special May 22 dinner at Trump’s country club outside Washington, DC.

An even more special perk is in store for the 25 biggest holders, who “will be invited for an ultra-exclusive private VIP Reception with the President. And separately by us to a Special White House Tour.” Although littered with grammatical errors, the coin’s website emphasizes at every opportunity that it’s promoting an event with the sitting president of the United States.

“This is one of the most exclusive events in the world,” the website notes in its FAQ. “This is a high-security, high-status event with President Trump. If you earned a seat at the table, it’s because you earned it.”

“You are having Dinner with the President of the USA!” the website enthuses under a section about event security, warning that anyone attending will have to pass a background check and can’t hail from a country that doesn’t participate in Know Your Customer banking regulations.

Meme coins have no intrinsic value or particular usefulness as currency, but serve more as a cultural signifier. They usually are based on an internet joke, such as the internet’s fascination with the “doge” dog (Dogecoin), or make use of a celebrity’s image. While real money can be made riding the speculative highs and lows of meme coin trading, it’s also one of the sectors of the crypto world most prone to bubbles and subsequent collapses.

After Trump announced the coin, many crypto enthusiasts—who have largely been supportive of the president—cringed at his association with one of the blockchain’s more frivolous incarnations. But Trump coin holders did appear to heed the call to enter to win a seat at the event—or on the tour—with a number of users registering multi-million dollar caches of $TRUMP in the hours following.

Jordan Libowitz, a spokesperson for the nonpartisan group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, characterized the move as a naked quid pro quo. “The closest situation I can think of was Bill Clinton hosting major donors in the Lincoln Bedroom,” Libowitz said, “but that pales in comparison to this. This is about as unethical as you can get—essentially selling off access to the president and the White House.”

What it probably wasn’t, he said, was illegal: “There are, unfortunately, no laws that apply to the president that could be violated here, unless one of the top 25 holders was something like a foreign state’s wealth fund.” In that case, Libowitz said, the Constitution’s emoluments clause could come into play—and, separately, “any staffer involved in selling access to the White House may have some issues.”

The coin’s official website notes in its fine print that the tours were set up by FightFightFight LLC—a company whose ownership is unclear, but which controls 80 percent of the coin’s theoretical supply in partnership with CIC Digital, a company owned by the Trump Organization.

The White House did not return a request for comment on the tours and what they might include—or how they might differ from standard White House tours, which are typically arranged through members of Congress.

Continue Reading…

The Supreme Court Is Trying to Normalize Its Own Anti-LGBTQ Animus

On Tuesday, a group of religious parents had their day at the Supreme Court, hoping the justices would grant them something extraordinary: the ability to pull their kids out of a classroom whenever instruction verges into territory that contradicts their religious beliefs. Based on the justices’ responses inoral arguments, those parents are very likely to win the day—and public education may never be the same.

The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, came out of Montgomery County, Maryland, where a group of Christian and Muslim parents, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Christian legal advocacy firm, are suing the the county board of education for the ability to pull their kids from the classroom when certain books with LGBTQ content are read. While the attorney representing the parents was careful to say that they could never dictate what was taught—they simply want the option to opt out—that’s not where such a demand leads.

A classroom where kids will be escorted out every time information about an LGBTQ person or subject comes up is one in which, ultimately, those subjects will be suppressed. The few parents who want to shield their children from knowledge about LGBTQ people may go a long way toward eradicating the idea of their existence from American classrooms. We know this opt-out route doesn’t work because the school district alreadytried itthree years ago —and, as my colleague Sarah Szilagy explains, it failed.

During oral arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch raised the possibility that the Montgomery County Board of Education didn’t actually end the policy because of infeasibility, but because of animus.

“We have some statements from Board members suggesting,” Gorsuch said, quoting the parents’ brief, “that some parents might be promoting hate and suggesting that it was unfortunate that they were taking a view endorsed by white supremacists and xenophobes.” Based on these comments (which the board’s lawyer said were intemperate, but taken out of context), Gorsuch pressed, why shouldn’t the court treat this as a religious discrimination case? And, he implied, why shouldn’t the court side with the parents on those grounds?

Gorsuch’s question is worth turning on the court itself. When a majority rules in June, as it almost certainly will, that religious parents can pull their kids out of a classroom whenever a book or lesson contradicts their religious beliefs, it will be fair to ask whether those justices applied the law neutrally, or whether they acted out of religious animus against LGBTQ people: whether their own disinclination to view LGBTQ people and their lives in a positive light led them to attempt to banish such views from public school classrooms.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, for example, was dismayed that a teacher might explain “transgenderism” according to instructional material that read, as she quoted: “When we’re born, people make a guess about our gender and label us boy or girl based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right; sometimes they’re wrong. When someone’s transgender, they guess wrong. When someone’s cisgender, they guessed right.” Barrett called that more about “influence” than “communicating respect”; if so, how does Barrett think teachers should define being transgender?

Consider this wild hypothetical from Justice Samuel Alito, in which he describes a completely unrealistic scenario about how tolerance of LGBTQ people could be weaponized to attack Catholics like himself:

Suppose a school says we’re going to talk about same-sex marriage and same-sex marriage is legal in Maryland and it’s a good thing, it’s moral, it makes people happy, same-sex couples form good families, they raise children. Now, there are those who disagree with that. Catholics, for example, they disagree with that. They think that it’s not moral, but they’re wrong and they’re bad and anybody who doesn’t accept that same-sex marriage is normal and just as good as opposite-sex marriage is not a good person.

Alan Schoenfeld, the attorney who represented the county board of education, said that would be coercion. But the example demonstrated Alito’s long-held belief that LGBTQ rights are actually a vehicle for attacks on religious people like himself.

Then there’s this (lightly edited) exchangebetween Alito and Schoenfeld, in which Alito grows increasingly upset at the idea that children should hear a positive portrayal of two men getting married, as happens in one of the books raised in the case, Uncle Bobby’s Wedding. Like Barrett, Alito argued that a positive portrayal of an LGBTQ issue is intrinsically coercive. The back-and-forth gets at the key question in the case: Is exposure to a fact or idea a burden or form of coercion on religious expression?

Alito: Exposure is telling the students that there are a lot of people who marry a person of the opposite sex, there are also people who marry a person of the same sex. Period. Leave it at that. That’s exposure. If you go beyond that, is it still exposure?

Schoenfeld: It depends on the context. I mean, I think Uncle Bobby’s Wedding is teaching third graders or second graders precisely that. It’s telling it through a story.

Alito: I think it clearly goes beyond that. It doesn’t just say that Uncle Bobby and Jamie are getting married. It expresses the idea subtly, but it expresses the idea this is a good thing. “Mommy, said Chloe, I don’t understand, why is Uncle Bobby getting married. Bobby and Jamie love each other, said Mommy. When grownup people love each other that much, sometimes they get married.” I mean, that’s not sending—subtly sending the message this is a good thing?

Schoenfeld: I think that’s a way of a mother consoling her daughter who’s annoyed that they are favorite uncle is distracted and doesn’t have time for her. But even if the message were some people are gay, some people
get married, I don’t think there’s anything impermissibly normative about that. It is a story that is being used to teach students that, just as in the 99 of the 100 books that we read about couples, it’s a man and a woman, there also may be a man and a man.

Alito: Why is the Montgomery County Board of Education in this argument running away from what they clearly want to say? They have a view that they want to express on these subjects. And maybe it’s a very good view, but they have a definite view. And that’s the whole point of this curriculum; is it not?

Schoenfeld: I think what’s in the record is that the Board wants to teach civility and respect for difference in the classroom. There is obviously an incidental message in some of these books that these life choices and these life styles are worthy of respect. I don’t know how you can teach students to respect each other without teaching that… So the incidental message that these things ought to be normalized and treated with respect, I think, is simply part of the work that the school is doing in cultivating respect in a pluralistic school.

Alito: Well, the plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum. They’re just saying, look, we want out. Why isn’t that feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?

Schoenfeld: I think on the facts of this case, we have the natural experiment of the school’s permitting these opt-outs and then finding that it was not administrable.

Alito: Well, why is it not administrable?

The debate went on, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh jumping in to claim that if schools can set up an alternative health class—a single discrete class where an alternative is mandated by the state, and therefore prepped in advance—then surely they could do it for parents who don’t want their kids exposed to Uncle Bobby’s Wedding. Schoenfeld took one last stab at trying to explain the problem:

If you think about the way a third-grade classroom operates and you think about the fact that there are some students sitting in the corner, and they say: This is a great book, I’m going to take it off the shelf, and three and then five and then nine students gather around to read it, and they say: Teacher, I want you to come over and watch us doing that. All of those things, I think, fall within the definition of “curriculum” at that lower grade.

It’s mayhem. And the ability of teachers to manage the line between what is
curriculum content coming directly from the teacher and coming indirectly from the sort of socialization in the classroom, I think, is very hard to draw.

Kavanaugh and Barrett, whose kids are still young, must know this. Alito and the other Republican-appointed justices surely do as well. But the infeasibility is really the point. If you can’t actually accommodate some parent’s opt-out requests, then the religious beliefs of those parents begin to dictate what is discussed in the classroom. If you can’t feasibly remove students every time a book is opened, or every time a student raises their hand to ask what transgender means, then that content is ultimately silenced, and with it the idea that LGBTQ people exist, much less are normal and deserving of respect. It’s why some commenters have taken to calling this the “Don’t Say Gay” case—because that’s where it leads.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson even got the Justice Department’s Sarah Harris, who argued for the Trump administration in support of the parents, to admit that the ramifications could travel beyond the classroom. “There are obviously going to be contexts besides the school context in which we would agree that there is a burden,” she said.

The question isn’t who will win the case, but how big a win it will be. If Gorsuch’s logic about animus on the Board of Education prevails, then the ruling could apply just to Montgomery County schools. But if the view is adopted that exposure to the idea that it’s okay for men to marry men is now a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, then public education across the country could change dramatically.

If so, it will be only logical to wonder whether exposure to the idea of a socially accepted gay couple is deemedunconstitutional because parents’ religious rights have been violated—or because the justices’ own inability to accept LGBTQ people has prevailed.

Continue Reading…

The Pentagon Is Getting a New Glam Room

The Pentagon is finally undergoing a shake-up as concerns grow over Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: The Defense Department confirmed to CBS News on Wednesday that a new makeup studio is coming to the Pentagon.

No, of course, Hegseth is not resigning. He made clear in several appearances this week that he remains defiant, committed to the unsubstantiated claim that fired workers are to blame for spreading fake, anti-Trump news. The studio, which will feature a mirror outfitted with professional make-up lights and a director’s chair, will be constructed adjacent to the Pentagon’s briefing room, where Hegseth has yet to talk to reporters. The former Fox News host is instead likely to use the room to prepare for television appearances, like this animated one:

Hegseth had booze on his mind at 8:30 this morning

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-04-22T14:04:49.721Z

The project does not address the many scandals Hegseth has endured, including his reported penchat for sharing war plans on Signal. But it does make sense.

As I wrote in a feature last month, the physical appearance of those in President Donald Trump’s orbit, a man notorious for his obsession with the literal pageantry of beauty, is paramount; the tactics employed to achieve prominent positions of power in this administration seem to rely on how camera-ready you appear.

Hegseth, under enormous pressure to resign, might feel the need to level up his make-up game, especially after this week’s botched sideburn look. For the next scandal, he will look, one hopes, beautiful.

Continue Reading…

US Citizen Wrongly Detained by the Border Patrol Says Government’s Account Is False

This story was originally published by Popular Information, a substack publication to which you can subscribe here.

On April 8, Jose Hermosillo, a 19-year-old U.S. citizen, was wrongfully incarcerated by immigration authorities in Arizona, who claimed he was an undocumented immigrant. He was held for 10 days at Florence Correctional Center, a privately run immigration detention facility, before being released on April 17.

These facts are not disputed.

On X, the Department of Homeland Security said, “Hermosillo’s arrest and detention were a direct result of his own actions and statements.” According to DHS, “Jose Hermosillo approached Border Patrol in Tucson Arizona stating he had ILLEGALLY entered the U.S. and identified himself as a Mexican citizen.”

DHS also released what purports to be a transcript of Hermosillo’s conversation with a Border Patrol agent signed “JOSE.” In the transcript, Hermosillo allegedly said he was born in Mexico, was a citizen of Mexico, and entered the United States illegally.

Hermosillo says he tried to tell staff at Florence Correctional Center he was a US citizen, but “they say, tell your lawyer.”

In an interview with Popular Information, Hermosillo said DHS’s account was false.

According to Hermosillo, he was visiting his girlfriend’s family in Tucson from his home in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Several hours before his arrest, Hermosillo was transported to a hospital in Tucson by ambulance after suffering from a seizure. He has a New Mexico state ID, but did not take it with him during the medical emergency.

After being released from the hospital following treatment, Hermosillo did not know how to return to where he was staying. He approached the Border Patrol officer because he was looking for someone to help him. “I saw a car, and I ask[ed] him for help,” Hermosillo said. He told the officer that he was staying in Tucson.

“You’re not from here. Do you have your papers?” the officer said, according to Hermosillo. When the officer asked where he was from, Hermosillo said he told the officer, “New Mexico.” The officer then accused Hermosillo of lying. “Don’t make me [out] like [I’m] stupid,” the officer said. “I know you’re from Mexico.” After that, Hermosillo said, he was arrested.

Hermosillo said that he never told the officer that he was born in Mexico, was a citizen of Mexico, or entered the country illegally—and he would not have said those things because they are not true. He signed the transcript released by DHS because the officer ordered him to “sign everything.” But Hermosillo did not read it, because he cannot read.

According to Hermosillo’s girlfriend, Grace Hernandez, Hermosillo has learning disabilities and can only write his name. Hermosillo said he did not graduate from high school and dropped out after the 10th grade.

The officer also signed the document, which said Hermosillo “read” the document or had it read to him. But Hermosillo said no one read him the document.

Other documents created by the officer have inaccuracies. For example, the criminal complaint says that Hermosillo was detained “at or near Nogales, Arizona.” But Hermosillo was detained in Tuscon, which is more than 70 miles from Nogales. John Mennell, a spokesperson for the U.S. Border Patrol, said that it was an “unintentional” error.

Hermosillo said he was detained with about 15 other men in a cell at the Florence Correctional Center. He was served only cold food. He said he contracted the flu because “they have it cold in there and everybody’s getting sick.” Hermosillo said he requested medicine but was not provided with any.

Hermosillo said he tried to tell people at Florence Correctional Center that he was a US citizen, but was dismissed. “They say, tell your lawyer,” he recalled. Hermosillo, a father to a six-month-old, said he spent time while he was detained crying because he was afraid “they’re not going to let me out.”

Two days after his detention, Hermosillo told a judge that he was a US citizen. Prosecutors then requested that the hearing be delayed and that Hermosillo be detained until it was rescheduled. Hermosillo was held for an additional seven days until, at the next hearing, his family provided the court with his birth certificate.

Since his release, Hermosillo has struggled. “When I dream, I dream I’m still in there,” he said.

Continue Reading…

Tesla’s Deadbeat CEO Is Coming Back

Amid plunging stock prices and a staggering 71 percent profit drop, Tesla CEO Elon Musk is pivoting back to his day job. “My time obligation to DOGE will drop significantly,” Musk told investors Tuesday after the company’s Q1 earnings report attributed a “changing political sentiment,” among other factors, for a precipitous drop in business.

The report did not go into specifics. It declined to highlight Musk’s singular role in decimating the federal government, flirting with Nazi salutes, trying—and failing—to buy a state Supreme Court seat. Nor did the report directly refer to the hundreds of protests that have popped up outside Tesla dealerships around the country. The embrace of the middle finger to bully Cybertruck drivers? That certainly wasn’t mentioned either.

Investors who called in on Tuesday, perhaps encouraged to hear that Musk would be scaling back his near lock-step partnership with President Donald Trump, were all but certain to be disappointed. In the same earnings call, Musk, unasked about the protests, reportedly volunteered to talk about the demonstrations himself, claiming, without evidence, that they were being “paid for.” Musk also took to X to exhibit the same noxious behavior that has become synonymous with Tesla, re-posting content in support of the AfD, Germany’s far-right political party, and space travel to Mars. Elsewhere, a former Tesla engineer accused Musk of threatening to deport an entire team at the company after the engineer, Cristina Balan, had broached Musk with her concerns over Tesla’s brake safety.

So, will Musk’s pledge to cut back on DOGE make Tesla great again? Judging by the billionaire’s compulsive inability to stop posting, coupled with China’s immense investment in the electric car market at a time when the global economic order is being rapidly upended, I wouldn’t bet that this is the company’s white knight moment.

Continue Reading…

The Parental Rights Movement Has a Big Day at the Supreme Court

Montgomery County, Maryland, is the most religiously diverse county in the United States. When its Board of Education approved a slate of storybooks with queer characters for K-5 English classes beginning in the 2022-23 school year, its main goal was to give kids tools to “work effectively in cross-cultural environments” and “confront and eliminate stereotypes.”

For the first year, the district let parents opt their children out of instruction related to the readings, including on religious grounds. But then it reversed course, announcing that for the next school year, exemptions wouldn’t be allowed. So many families were opting out that the situation became unworkable, the district said. Dozens of students missed class. Teachers and librarians couldn’t keep track of which kids needed alternate assignments.

On Tuesday, the US Supreme Courtheard arguments in a case about the constitutionality of that change in policy, with a group of mostly Christian and Muslim parents arguing that exposing their children to LGBTQ-inclusive books amounts to government indoctrination.

The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not just about religious freedom. It puts an expansive framing of parental rights before the nation’s highest court at a time when conservatives are invoking such rights to justify a host of right-wing policies, including forced outing of queer students; campaigns against DEI policies and teachings; and parental consent requirements for contraception, STI testing, and other healthcare.

At Tuesday’s hearing, the themes of religious rights and parents’ rights were often intertwined. “Forcing [parents] to submit their children to such instruction violates their religious beliefs and directly interferes with their ability to direct the religious upbringing of their children,” declared Eric Baxter, senior counsel with the Becket Fund, a religious liberty firm that claims credit for “almost half of all Supreme Court victories for religious freedom over the last decade.”

The disputed books share many similarities with classic fairy tales. “The only difference is that the storybooks include LGBTQ characters and their points of view.”

The books at the center of the case include Prince & Knight, featuring a young prince who falls in love with a knight who helps him protect his kingdom from a dragon, and Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, about a little girl whose favorite uncle is marrying another man. A third book, IntersectionAllies, follows characters from different marginalized groups, including people who are queer, Muslim, and disabled. In court briefs, the parents argue that the books’ themes—including same-sex romance and discussions of trans identity—are intended to “disrupt students’ religious beliefs.”

Baxter pointed out that the school district allows parents to opt their children out of sex education classes, and choir students can opt out of singing religious songs. “In a system where thousands of students are daily opted in and out of class for multiple reasons,” he told the court, “there’s no basis for denying opt-outs [to picture books] for religious reasons.”

But the attorney for the school district, Alan Schoenfeld, disputed the idea that exposing kids to books about LGBTQ characters infringes on their parents’ rights. “Every day in public elementary school classrooms across the country, children are taught ideas that conflict with their family’s religious beliefs,” Schoenfeld told the court, including exposure to books about working mothers or war. The goal of the Montgomery County policy isn’t to indoctrinate kids, he said, but rather “to foster mutual respect in a pluralistic school community….The lesson is that students should treat their peers with respect.”

According to the district, a committee of literacy specialists vetted every LGBTQ-friendly book for appropriateness and educational value and posted the books publicly for parents to review before the school board approved them. The disputed books share many similarities to classic fairy tales such as Cinderella, Rapunzel, and Sleeping Beauty that focus on heterosexual romance, the district argues in court briefs. “The only difference is that the storybooks include LGBTQ characters and their points of view.”

One of the key issues at the hearing was the lack of evidence about how the books were actually used in classrooms and how teachers responded to children’s questions about them. According to the district, teachers were explicitly instructed not to use the books to teach about gender or sexuality, or to encourage students to reject their faith. The school board also left it up to individual teachers to decide when and how to incorporate the books into lessons.

For these reasons, there’s no evidence one way or the other in the court record that children wereinstructed to reject the religious teachings of their parents. Rather, the parents sued to block the no-opt-out policy before it took effect; the Maryland district court rejected their request, but according to court filings, most of the named plaintiffs have since pulled their children from the district. “The record is seriously underdeveloped,” Schoenfeld told the court.

That lack of evidence troubled Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who at one point wondered whether the case was “really the right vehicle to evaluate any of these issues.” But several of her conservative colleagues seemed willing to accept the premise that children’s exposure to the storybooks could violate their parents’ religious expression—and they seemed less willing to entertain the district’s reasoning for no longer permitting opt-outs.

The same reasoning could apply to “the parents of a student who wish to prevent their ninth grader from being exposed to evolution, or their sixth-grader being exposed to any pictures of girls who are not wearing a hijab.”

“The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum, they’re just saying, ‘Look, I want out,’” Justice Samuel Alito said. “Why isn’t that feasible? What’s the big deal about allowing them to opt out?”

The “big deal,” as school boards and administrators warn in an amicus brief, is that a ruling for the parents would likely have repercussions far beyond discussions of gender and sexuality. The same reasoning could apply to parents “who wish to prevent their ninth grader from being exposed to evolution, or their sixth-grader being exposed to any pictures of girls who are not wearing a hijab,” the administrators argued.

Justice Elena Kagan seemed to agree. “Once we say … what you’re asking us to say, it will be opt-outs for everyone,” she told Baxter. “I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who [also] weren’t all that thrilled” about having their young children exposed to books about gender and sexuality, she added.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has pushed the boundaries of religious freedom while ripping the teeth out of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause—the provision prohibiting the government from endorsing particular religious views. Since 2018, the court has upheld the right of Christian business owners to refuse to bake wedding cakes and create wedding websites for same-sex couples; allowed the use of state-funded private school vouchers at religious schools; and sided with a public high school football coach who was fired for hosting on-field team prayers after games.

Under President Donald Trump, the federal government has used parental rights to justify eliminating DEI programs in K-12 schools and launching investigations into policies that protect queer students from being outed to their parents. Arguing briefly in support of the parents, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the justices Tuesday that denying parents the right to opt their children out of the LGBTQ storybooks amounted to a denial of a “public benefit”—education—because of the parents’ religious beliefs. “Here, Montgomery County offers a free public education to parents only if their children use books featuring same sex relationships and transgender issues,” Harris said.

Continue Reading…

How Trump Exploits Working Class Pain

Arlie Hochschild, an award-winning author and sociologist, has spent years talking with people living in rural parts of the country who have been hit hard by the loss of manufacturing jobs and shuttered coal mines. They’re the very people President Donald Trump argues will benefit most from his sweeping wave of tariffs and recent executive orders aimed at reviving coal mining in the US. But Hochschild argues that Trump’s policies will only fill an emotional need for those in rural America. She should know.

In 2016, Hochschild’s Strangers in Their Own Land was a must-read for anyone who wanted to better understand the appeal of Trump and his ascent to the White House. She spent time in Louisiana talking with Tea Party supporters about how they believed women, minorities, and immigrants were cutting in line to achieve the American Dream. But in her latest book, Stolen Pride, Hochschild shifted her focus to Pikeville, Kentucky, a small city in Appalachia where coal jobs were leaving, opioids were arriving, and a white supremacist march was being planned. The more she talked to people, the more she saw how Trump played on their shame and pride about their downward mobility and ultimately used that to his political advantage.

“A lot of people in this group have felt that neither political party was offering an answer,” Hochschild says. “And they have turned instead to a kind of charismatic leader.” She argues that the secret to Trump’s charisma among his supporters has to do with “alleviating the shame of that downward mobility.”

On this week’s episode of More To The Story, host Al Letson talks with Hochschild about the long slide of downward mobility in rural America and why she thinks Trump’s policies ultimately won’t benefit his most core supporters.

Find More To The Story on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Pandora, or your favorite podcast app.

Continue Reading…

“Americans Will Be Less Safe”: An Author of the Country’s Biggest Climate Report Reflects on Its Gutting

The Trump administration is coming for the National Climate Assessment. Officials reportedly cut funding for the federal program behindthe congressionally mandated report, which describes how climate change impacts everything from agriculture and transportation to human health and economics in the United States.

Under the Global Change Research Act of 1990, researchers issue a new assessment, updated with the latest science, every four years. Writing it typically requires extensive peer review from federal agencies and the public. It’s aimed at helping all sorts of people—elected officials, business owners, farmers, and home-buyers alike—make climate-informed decisions.

“Effectively, it is a massive literature review,” an author working on the current assessment told Mother Jones, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “This is the core of the US government’s effort to make climate change understandable and knowable to the American people.” Hundreds of authors, customarily all volunteers, had already begun work on the next assessment, scheduled to be published in late 2027 or early 2028.

But now, that’s all been thrown into chaos. As Politico first reported earlier this month (and has since been confirmed by multiple outlets), the Trump administration cut funding for the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the multi-agency body that produces the National Climate Assessment. NASA, which helps oversee the Assessment, reportedly ended its contract with a consulting firm that supplied staff to coordinate work on the report. “The operations and structure of the USGCRP are currently under review,” a NASA spokesperson said via email. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which also helps oversee the assessment, didn’t respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones.)

The action, although widely expected, is unprecedented. The first Trump administration published the assessment in 2018, albeit quietly—on the Friday after Thanksgiving. But completely hindering work on the project, some experts say, is illegal. “The National Climate Assessment is a report required by law,” David Doniger, a senior strategist and attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote on Bluesky. “Another example of Trump administration lawlessness.” (The administration also ended the National Nature Assessment, a similar report on the state of nature in the US; some of its authors are currently working to independently publish it anyway.)

To get a better sense of what disrupting the National Climate Assessment means for all of us, I spoke with one of its current authors, who asked that I not use their name, given the sensitivity of the situation.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Several outlets have reported that the Trump administration is gutting program funding and staff supporting the National Climate Assessment. Have you heard anything directly from the administration?

We have an internal communication system that allows all of the authors to hear from [the administration]. And we heard through that chain that work has been paused.

There was an all-hands call last week, in which we were given the opportunity to say goodbye to our departing federal colleagues, which was a very emotional call, a very frustrating one.

Were you surprised that this happened? What were you thinking over the past few weeks as all of this was unfolding?

All of this happened to coincide with a quiet stage in the process. The chapter team had produced outlines, and those outlines had been sent out to federal agencies for their comments.

That federal agency review period took longer than I think would normally, because of all the firings and disruptions that were taking place across federal agencies.

So you’d already realized something was wrong, because the process had been slowed down to begin with?

I think anyone who worked in any way with the federal government has experienced that something is wrong in the last couple of months.

It sounds like you weren’t overly shocked about the pause to your work, maybe because of how the first Trump administration delayed the assessment? And all the news of federal firings and cuts had been going around. Is that fair to say?

I think the first Trump administration fundamentally followed the law [in producing the assessment] and acknowledged that even though they didn’t believe in the purpose of the law, they were still required to do this life-saving and constructive and fundamentally patriotic work. And while I was not surprised at the decision to be lawless here, I’ll always be shocked by it.

“While I was not surprised at the decision to be lawless here, I’ll always be shocked by it.”

At the very least, the administration’s actions raise legal questions about whether or not it can put a stop to the National Climate Assessment. Do you have any thoughts on the legality of all of this?

It’s illegal. Congress was unambiguous in mandating that assessments be produced. This is not expensive. We’re not talking about vast legions of federal employees. We’re talking about a small—too small—team of incredibly hard-working, dedicated professionals who have chosen to serve the public and to make this knowledge more widely available to everyone. Obstructing their work is a very, very clear violation of the intent of Congress.

The climate assessment is not optional. It is required by law, and it appears that the Trump administration is trying to break that law.

Note: President Donald Trump did not respond to a request for comment via a White House spokesperson.

Without this report, what would that mean for people trying to get information about how climate change will affect them? What do you want people to take away from all of this?

Without a new National Climate Assessment, Americans will be less safe, and climate change will get worse. This is one of the many tools that we use to make sure that everything we know is available for anyone who needs to know it. And if we don’t produce this report, the available information will be worse. People will be working with outdated findings. It will be more fragmented and more scattered.

One of the other big benefits of this process is that it’s a way for researchers who tackle the really hard questions raised by climate change to meet each other and collaborate in understanding the state of the knowledge.

We’re going to know less, and knowing less means more people die. More people are injured. More people are impoverished. More irreplaceable cultural heritage and history are lost. More ecosystems are degraded. And climate change gets worse.

What’s next? Do you have any thoughts on what the future might hold?

That’s a really good question. I don’t right now. I think everyone is still a bit stunned.

Continue Reading…

Florida Is Leading Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

Earlier this year,Republican lawmakers in Florida passed a slew of immigration bills that Gov. Ron DeSantis signed less than an hour after they were sent to him. “Today, the Florida Legislature has passed the strongest legislation to combat illegal immigration of any state in the entire country,” DeSantis said. “We are ahead of the curve on ending the illegal immigration crisis.”

Since Trump returned to the White House, the number of agreements for local law enforcement to work with ICE has tripled. Half of those agreements are from Florida.

Florida—amid some legal challenges—is showing how Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda can be brought to, and enhanced, by states eager to aid the current administration.

It’s a move the White House wants. The Florida laws came into effect just a few weeks after President Donald Trump issued an executive order entitled, “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” The order, among other actions, called on local law enforcement “to perform the functions of immigration officers in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States.” Immigration enforcement is in the purview of the federal government. Such a request asks sheriffs and officers to help join in.

Since the call from Trump, hundreds of local law enforcement agencies nationwide have stepped up to help US Immigration and Customs Enforcement with its detention and deportation agenda. The agencies are participating in what is known as the 287(g) program, which deputizes local police and jails with immigration enforcement powers.

Agencies can participate in different ways. Officers on patrol, for example, can notify ICE if they’ve encountered someone with an immigration warrant. County jails can also hold immigrants for ICE, or detention deputies can be granted the power to conduct their investigations on people they suspect could be living in the US without status.

For years, immigrant advocacy groups have accused the program of leading to racial profiling and decreasing trust in law enforcement. Under the Biden administration, fewer than 150 such agreements were in place in communities across the country, many of them remnants from Trump’s first term.

But, in the last four months since Trump returned to the White House, the number of agreements has tripled, with 321 local agencies enrolling in 287(g) just this year. Notably, roughly half of those are from Florida, according to data on ICE’s website. Pending 287(g) agreements—for those waiting to join the program after review—are starker: 71 of the 107 law enforcement agencies hoping to work with ICE are from Florida.

This was part of DeSantis’ plan. One of the laws signed requires all county jails and the sheriff’s offices running those facilities to participate in the 287(g) program. Beyond this, dozens of other Florida law enforcement agencies—like police departments—have recently enrolled in 287(g), even though they are not required to do so by law. One likely reason for this, says Alana Greer, director of the Community Justice Project in Miami, could be that many of those agreements stem from local officials who fear retaliation from the DeSantis administration. “It’s this big fear campaign,” she says.

“Living your life and existing in this community is now an extreme risk to being able to come home and see your kids, being able to come home and see your family.”

There is also confusion about what the law requires of police agencies, Greer said. Another bill this year to require all Florida law enforcement to engage with ICE, not just sheriffs, failed to pass. Greer pointed to a city in Miami-Dade County that has asked a judge to clarify whether their police department was now required to enroll in 287(g).

Growing cooperation between ICE and police in Florida will affect the day-to-day lives of immigrant families. “It’s not just about [an immigrant asking]: ‘What happens if I have to have an interaction with a police officer in some sort of criminal context?’” Greer says. “Living your life and existing in this community is now an extreme risk to being able to come home and see your kids, being able to come home and see your family. It is incredibly frightening.”

State cooperation with federal immigration authorities can lead to “rippling harm” on the communities that police are meant to serve and protect, says Shayna Kessler, director of the Advancing Universal Representation Initiative at the Vera Institute of Justice. “It increases distrust in law enforcement. It increases fear in immigrant communities, it decreases the ability of immigrants to take care of their families, to support the economy, and to be strong and stable members of their communities.”

Among the other bills signed by DeSantis is SB 4-C, which would allow law enforcement to arrest and prosecute undocumented immigrants for being in the state without legal status. In April, immigrant advocacy groups challenged the law in federal court, citing that the law oversteps “the federal government’s well established exclusive immigration powers” and also violates the Commerce Clause, a federal provision that gives Congress power over commerce between states. A federal judge temporarily blocked the law from taking effect, and last week, extended her order after learning that Florida law enforcement were still making arrests under SB 4-C.

The state has also created its own board of immigration enforcement led by DeSantis and his cabinet, which is charged with coordinating and cooperating state efforts with federal immigration authorities. The board oversees a new state council led by eight police chiefs and sheriffs that will advise the board on how to distribute $250 million in grants to local law enforcement to be used toward their partnerships with ICE.

The council meets regularly and at a recent virtual gathering on April 9, members continued to iron out the details of the grant program. They discussed how much money will be allocated to various agencies on the basis of their size, and what those funds can be used for. Some options that were discussed included additional beds in county jails, bonuses for officers participating in the 287(g) program, and further law enforcement training.

At the council’s first meeting last month, members reviewed a PowerPoint presentation detailing the 287(g) program. It included examples of some immigrants recently detained in Florida, including a man from Mexico charged with 20 counts of child pornography and a man from Cuba charged with DUI manslaughter. “Under no circumstance should they be allowed back in our communities, and without maximizing cooperation between the county jail and ICE, that’s exactly what happens,” the PowerPoint reads.

When I described some of these criminal cases to Kessler, she pointed to research that found immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than their US-born counterparts. “Perpetuation of these scare tactics,” she says, “are pitting communities against each other.”

Continue Reading…

Climate Groups Get a Reprieve From Trump’s Rumored Earth Day Massacre

As Americans celebrated Earth Day on Tuesday, the nonprofit world was left anxiously wondering, “Will they or won’t they?” For the past week, rumors have abounded that the Trump administration would issue an Earth Day order seeking to revoke the IRS tax-exempt status of climate focused groups and foundations.

It could still happen, and if it does, such a radical and likely illegal move would be challenged in court, but the mere suggestion has created a lot of upheaval. The loss of tax-exempt status, after all, could wipe out smaller organizations, greatly reduce the capabilities of larger ones, and create major headaches even for those whose work is only tangentially related to climate.

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has issued a slew of orders targeting “wokeness” in government, triggering funding freezes and contract cancellations for work the administration says is inconsistent with Trump’s priorities. On the climate front, those priorities include reviving the US coal industry, thwarting clean energy projects, and expanding oil and gas drilling, whose executives Trump promised to reward for their financial support.

“We’re having this conversation instead of me doing work,” laments one nonprofit leader_._

Trump already threatened to weaponize the IRS by asking it to look into revoking the nonprofit status of Harvard, one of only a few elite colleges to publicly resist his bullying—initially at least. (Harvard announced on Monday that it is suing the administration over the threats to its funding.) On Tuesday, the American Association of Colleges and Universities released a statement, since signed by more than 200 college and university presidents, opposing “undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses.”

Trump also has suggested his administration might reconsider the nonprofit status of the Center for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW), which sued Trump over illegal emoluments during his first term, and recently sued him again over the mass firings of federal workers.

Any order seeking to remove a nonprofit’s tax exemption would be legally problematic. Federal law defines a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) corporation as one operating “exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes.” The education part of the definition casts a wide ideological net, and officials cannot pull a group’s status simply because the president doesn’t support their goals or like what they have to say.

Indeed, such a demotion is a big undertaking. “The administration can’t just revoke an entity’s tax exemption with the stroke of a pen,” says Michael Gerrard, founder of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. “The IRS has to do an audit, and then there is a lengthy administrative process. At the end of that, the entity can go to court. All of this can take years, and meanwhile the tax exemption remains in place and people can still make deductible contributions, and their deductions cannot be retroactively revoked.”

“Environmental organizations big and small are going to support each other and resist any assault upon our non-profit status.”

Gerrard also points out that Congress, after President Richard Nixon sought to unleash the IRS on his political foes, passed a law expressly barring the president or vice president, or anyone on their staffs, from instructing the tax agency to audit someone, directly or indirectly.

Mother Jones, a nonprofit newsroom that regularly butts heads with powerful people, is all too familiar with the tax exemption fight. In the early 1980s, the Reagan administration tried to revoke our nonprofit status—the only news outlet we know of that the IRS has ever tried to defund—even though magazines like Audubon, Ms., National Geographic, and Smithsonian fell into the same category. “The outcome of the Mother Jones case,” the Washington Post noted at the time, “could have a significant bearing on the finances of all these publications.”

“Naturally, we’ll win,” MoJo editor Deirdre English wrote in January 1983. “If the IRS persists in trying to stamp us out, censorship will be the issue and the First Amendment will be our defense.”

And win we did, but now others are in the crosshairs.

Just the rumors that the administration might issue such an order have spawned a scramble of work meetings on how best to prepare. “We’re having this conversation instead of me doing work,” says the leader of a nonprofit that focuses on environmental and human rights as well as climate issue_s._ “People are preparing legal defenses instead of doing their work. People are absolutely already self-censoring themselves and being extra cautious and maybe not sticking their necks out.”

The nonprofit leader, who asked not to be identified, says his organization is shoring up defenses by making sure it is compliant with the 501(c)(3) fine print. But there’s only so much one can do in advance. “We can’t really prepare for [a rumored executive order] because we don’t know what’s in it,” he says. “The strategy of the administration is very much, what can we get away with?”

A local Sunrise Movement chapter leader who asked that we use only his first name, Frank, says losing tax-exempt status would have a drastic effect on the youth climate movement. Sunrise would probably survive, but as a shell of its former self, he says.

Frank, a college student, says the rumors have prompted his chapter to behave more cautiously: “There is a sense of fear. You can do your work but you have to be very, very careful.” Members are hesitant about staging protests, and have instituted a network of Signal chats and a vetting process for young people hoping to get involved. “The movement is going underground in anticipation of this,” he says.

Frank sees the administration’s threat as entwined with its other attacks on universities, like the cuts to scientfic research funding. Many of the youth organizers he works with study environmental science, so their futures are being attacked from all sides: “You have this domino effect. It’s compounding on itself.”

As the administration seeks to eliminate federally funded climate research—slashing programs at the EPA, National Science Foundation, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, nonprofits and foundations may be the best fallback to fill the resulting gaps in information and understanding.

Consider Trump’s recent halting of the National Climate Assessment, one of the most comprehensive examinations of how climate change affects American communities. Under normal circumstances, a nonprofit like the Environmental Protection Network (EPN), which taps into the expertise of more than 650 former EPA staff, would be expected to step in.

The loss of tax-exempt status could endanger that backstop. “When the federal government threatens to silence any charitable organization based on politics, we all pay the price,” Michelle Roos, EPN’s executive director, said in a statement, ”Silencing science and civic discourse doesn’t just weaken a few institutions; it threatens the rights, health, and future of every community.”

Stephen Eisenman, co-founder of the nonprofit Anthropocene Alliance, which calls itself the “nation’s largest coalition of frontline communities fighting for environmental protection,” provided an emphatic written statement: “Environmental organizations big and small are going to support each other and resist any assault upon our non-profit status, or upon our essential work protecting the earth, its people and animals from pollution and the global greenhouse gases that cause climate change!”

Continue Reading…

Trump-Linked Lobbyists Are Having a Hopping Good Time

Donald Trump doesn’t talk about “draining the swamp” nearly as much as he did in his first term, but his ultra-populist 2024 campaign was built, at least in part, on an anti-Washington message. Yet despite his attack on so many of Washington’s structures, early signs are in that K Street, home to the city’s lobbyists, is doing just fine. In fact, the chaos seems to have potential clients running towards Trump-linked lobbyists.

Ballard Partners, the lobbying firm run by Brian Ballard—a Florida lobbyist who once was a Jeb Bush ally but for the last eight years has reliably stuck by Trump—reported earning more in the first quarter of 2025 than most K Street firms earn all year. According to its quarterly filings, released on Monday night, Ballard Partners earned $14 million, pushing it into the top tier of lobbying firms. In all of 2024, the firm earned just $19.3 million from lobbying—still enough to make it the 15th-biggest firm on K Street—but another three quarters like its most recent one would make Ballard Washington’s second- or third-biggest lobbying firm.

It’s not yet clear how many newclients Ballad will report in the second Trump administration, but according to Politico, that figure has already hit at least 130 since Election Day, including several high-profile targets of the Trump administration, like Harvard University and the Public Broadcasting Service.

The impulse to hire Ballard might not be a bad one for clients facing trouble with the Trump administration. Despite Trump’s history of anti-“swamp” rhetoric, some Ballardalumni have found very high, comfortable perches in the Trump White House—both White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Attorney General Pam Bondi have worked as lobbyists for Ballard (Bondi notably repped Qatar, and Wiles repped General Motors).

Ballard wasn’t the only lobbying firm to see a Trump bump. Mercury Public Affairs, where Wiles briefly worked repping a tobacco company, reported earning $5.1 million from lobbying in the first quarter of 2025—nearly half the $11.4 million it earned in all of 2024. Miller Strategies, run by super-lobbyist Jeff Miller (the firm’s website includes a link to a Wall Street Journal article proclaiming Miller “Trump’s K Street rainmaker” for his prominent role in campaign fundraising) reported earning $8.6 million in the first three months of this year. In all of 2024, it only reported $12.6 million.

To be fair, Trump isn’t hurting the rest of K Street. The totals aren’t in, but the more traditional top lobbying firms—where the number of Republican or Democratic lobbyists may ebb and flow depending on the party in power, but revenue reliably increases—have mostly seen their numbers inch up or hold relatively steady since Trump was elected. Brownstein, Hyatt, which has been the top K Street firm for years, saw a slight decline in lobbying revenue in the first quarter, but others, like Akin Gump and Holland Knight, saw increases—just not ones as large as the swamp’s MAGA contingent.

Continue Reading…

The Economic Case for Preserving America’s Wetlands

Nearly 30 years ago, in September 1996, Hurricane Fran swept through North Carolina. It was the most expensive natural disaster in state history—causing an estimated $10 billion in damage in today’s dollars and killing 37 people across the region. Raleigh took a direct hit, with the storm toppling thousands of trees and dumping nearly 9 inches of rain. In Rochester Heights, a historically Black neighborhood southeast of downtown, most homes were flooded.

This, as it turns out, wasn’t a freak accident. The neighborhood, built beginning in 1957, was among the first suburban enclaves marketed to Black families, who were excluded from other areas of then-segregated Raleigh. It was full of attractive, one-story brick homes with wide, grassy lawns. But because the low-lying neighborhood flanked a swamp that received untreated sewage discharge and stormwater runoff from downtown Raleigh, it was prone to flooding during storms. (Construction of Interstate 40 through the neighborhood more than a decade later made the problem worse.) Eventually, the 1972 Clean Water Act banned unpermitted disposal of raw sewage in wetlands, but by then the marshy land had become an illegal dumping ground for other waste, including tires, glass, and old appliances. One resident, 69-year-old Steve Blalock, who’s lived in the neighborhood for much of his life, recalls surfing the sewage discharge in a metal tub as a child.

After Fran, residents decided to take matters into their own hands. Led by local environmental advocate Norman Camp, a coalition of church and community members started cleaning up the wetland, pulling some 60 tons of garbage out of the swamp over the decades, the weight of around 10 African elephants. Eventually, with $1.2 million in funding, the city further restored the swamp and built an education center. Today, the wetland is home to beavers, mink, box turtles, and great blue herons. During my visit in November, the park’s assistant manager, Celia Lechtman, pointed out native plants such as arrow arum and jewelweed, and trees, including green ash, box elder, and red maple. For a time, according to community members, some of the worst flooding subsided.

The neighborhood’s revival is a blip of good news on a relatively bleak landscape. America’s wetlands were historically viewed as useless areas that stood in the way of development. More than half of the 221 million acres of wetlands that existed when Europeans settled have been destroyed, and six states—California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio—have lost at least 85 percent of their wetlands, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Wetlands act as “natural sponges,” absorbing up to an estimated 1.5 million gallons of water per acre, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and they provide more than half of America’s $5.9 billion seafood harvest, including trout, bass, crab, shrimp, and oysters. They also filter pollutants from the water and sequester carbon dioxide. About half of our endangered and threatened species on wetlands.

As sea levels rise and climate change drives more intense storms, flooding is becoming increasingly damaging—and expensive. In 2024 alone, there were 27 weather and climate disasters that will cost at least $1 billion each to recover from, according to NOAA. “You cannot beat wetlands in their natural state for holding back floodwaters,” says Kelly Moser, a senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. Indeed, according to a 2020 analysis of dozens of tropical storms along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, counties with more coastal wetlands coverage saw less damage, saving an average of more than $4.5 million per square mile (and a median of more than $235,000).

“You cannot beat wetlands in their natural state for holding back floodwaters.”

And yet, the destruction continues. Between 2009 and 2019, the United States lost about 1,047 square miles of wetlands, a 2024 FWS report notes—an area roughly the size of Rhode Island. Making matters worse, in its 2023 Sackett v. EPA decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative ­majority dramatically narrowed the definition of wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act to only those with a “continuous surface connection” to streams, oceans, rivers, or lakes—leading the EPA to exclude up to 63 percent of once-protected wetlands. Project 2025 would strip protections from even more of them.

Further exacerbating the problem, the US Army Corps of Engineers appears poised to expedite hundreds of industry permits that could affect wetlands under President Donald Trump’s “national energy emergency.” And hundreds of federal employees at the primary agencies tasked with protecting wetlands—the EPA, FWS, and NOAA—were fired during Trump’s first weeks back in office.

Building energy infrastructure near wetlands is risky enough, but putting homes on wetlands is often a “double whammy,” explains Todd BenDor, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who studies the environment and urban planning. Doing so can put people in potential flood zones while reducing the wetlands acreage that acts as a safeguard. North Carolina offers buyouts for homeowners in flood-prone areas. But for every buyout from 1996 to 2017, BenDor and his colleagues found that developers constructed 10 more homes in floodplains—just down the street from the bought-out homes, in some cases.

Flooding remains a problem in Rochester Heights. Restoring the wetland has likely helped, but it hasn’t been enough to make up for all the upstream development in Raleigh, which was crowned the nation’s third-fastest-growing large city last year. Rapid growth means more structures—homes, office buildings, hotels—and therefore more “impervious surfaces” for water to collect and run off into the creeks that feed the park. Wetlands, in other words, are among our best options for fighting flooding, but they can’t be the only solution.

Still, change is afoot. In Raleigh, as of 2023, city project managers are now required to consider the use of “green stormwater infrastructure,” such as rain gardens, green roofs, artificial wetlands, and permeable pavement, in construction. Under the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law, NOAA has doled out $985 million for coastal habitat protections, including wetlands. The Department of the Interior, which includes the National Park Service and FWS, separately announced hundreds of millions of dollars in ecosystem restoration funding, though it’s unclear whether these programs will continue under the Trump administration.

In the coming years, assistant park manager Lechtman hopes to see “significant changes” in Raleigh’s policies around unchecked development, including planting more native plant species throughout the city and creating opportunities for more kids—like Blalock’s grandchildren—to play and explore the wetland. “We, over generations, have done so much damage to this land,” she told me. “When we take a little bit of time to care for it, it really returns those gifts to us.”

Continue Reading…

How We Reported “You’re Here Because of Your Tattoos”

This month, Noah Lanard and Isabela Dias won the Sidney Award for “You’re Here Because of Your Tattoos,” a Mother Jones feature revealing that young Latino men are being deported without due process because of innocuous tattoos. The Trump administration falsely claims the tattoos indicate affiliation with Tren de Aragua, a notorious Venezuelan gang.

This is an interview conducted by the Sidney Hillman Foundation describing how Noah and Isabela reported the story.

How did you find out that men were being deported to Venezuela because of their tattoos?

Isabela: On Saturday, March 15, a day after President Donald Trump quietly signed a proclamation invoking the wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged gang members without due process, the administration flew three deportation planes to El Salvador. Shortly after, we came across Spanish-language reports and social media posts from families in Venezuela who were growing suspicious that their relatives—many of whom had called to say they were being deported to their home country—had instead been taken to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, known as CECOT.

We then started to message the families and log the names of the men we could find on a spreadsheet, even before the list identifying the 238 Venezuelans sent to the mega-prison became public. One of the first cases we looked into was that of aspiring musician Arturo Suárez Trejo. His wife had recognized him in a photo the Salvadoran government published of the detained men, who had their heads shaved and were put in white prison uniforms, because of his tattoos. We kept hearing different versions of that from several of the relatives we contacted and spoke with. The men had tattoos, but their families were adamant that they had no ties to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua or, in most cases, any criminal history.

Describe these tattoos?

Isabela: The tattoos of the men whose families and friends we spoke with can be described as anodyne. One young man, Neri Alvarado Borges, for example, has a colorful tattoo of an autism awareness ribbon. His 15-year-old brother has autism. And, back in Venezuela, Neri taught swimming classes to children with developmental disabilities. Through our reporting, we learned that, according to Neri’s boss, an ICE agent specifically told Neri that he was being targeted because of his tattoos.

We also wrote about another case of a father who was living in North Carolina and was detained by ICE during a routine appointment in January just days before his now two-month-old daughter was born. His wife said the officers kept him to investigate his tattoos: a rose and a crown with his name on it that he got when he was 15 years old. As an immigration lawyer told us in our partnership radio episode with Reveal, these are commonplace tattoos you would see “at any coffeeshop” in America, and by no means indicative of membership in TdA.

Describe the facility that these men have been deported to. What kind of conditions are they being housed in and how long can they expect to stay there?

Noah: CECOT, or the Terrorism Confinement Center, is rightfully infamous. Men are stacked in bunks four high without mattresses, sheets, or pillows. According to CNN, they are generally kept in overcrowded cell blocks for all but 30 minutes a day. Letters and phone calls to family members—much less in-person visits—are prohibited. Human Rights Watch explained in a recent court declaration that the Salvadoran government has boasted that people at the prison “will never leave.” The group added that it is not aware of any cases of people being released from the facility, which opened in 2023. The Salvadoran government often celebrates the cruelty at CECOT in highly-produced propaganda videos like the one released last month when Venezuelans arrived from the United States.

As to how long people sent from the United States can expect to remain there, the unfortunate answer is: We don’t know. Lee Gelernt, the ACLU’s lead attorney in the Alien Enemies Act cases, has said it is possible that these men might never be released. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said last week that the people sent there “should stay there for the rest of their lives.” On the other hand, Salvadoran President Bukele and the Trump administration could theoretically change their mind any day and allow the Venezuelans at CECOT to return to their home country. This uncertainty is part of the torture for families with loved ones there—as it surely is for the men themselves.

Is there any evidence that Tren de Aragua has initiation tattoos in the first place?

Isabela: Several experts have explained that tattoos are not a reliable marker of membership in Tren de Aragua, which is a loosely organized group without a clear hierarchy and, it’s worth repeating, not perpetrating an “invasion” of the United States as the Trump administration has claimed. Instead, tattoos are more associated with El Salvador’s MS-13 gang. In court filings and public statements, US officials have disputed the idea that they have relied primarily on tattoos—or clothing and hand gestures—to identify suspected gang members to be sent to El Salvador—but we now know that officers appear to have used a score-based system called “Alien Enemy Validation Guide” whereby having a tattoo accounted for four points out of the eight needed to be deemed deportable. And internal documents from different federal agencies also cast a doubt on tattoos—such as those referencing the Chicago Bulls or Michael Jordan—as a credible signifier of gang affiliation.

Can you give us any updates on the men featured in the story?

Noah: All of the men sent to CECOT by the Trump administration—including the men featured in our story—are still believed to be there. To the best of our knowledge, none of the families have heard anything from their loved ones. As more time passes, the reality that the Trump administration is not planning to rectify its obvious mistakes seems to be setting in. I, understandably, now sense more hopelessness in my interactions with the relatives of people at CECOT. They’ve done most of what they can: They’ve gathered documents showing that their relatives did not have criminal histories in Venezuela; they’ve found photos of their relatives’ tattoos to show they are not gang-related; and they’ve shared their stories with multiple American and Venezuelan reporters. But their loved ones are still there.

What impact might the Supreme Court ruling on the fate of Kilmar Abrego Garcia have on the guys in your story?

Noah: The Supreme Court ruled last week in a unanimous decision that the Trump administration must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from Salvadoran custody and “ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” That means bringing him back to the United States.

But the administration is acting in bad faith by effectively arguing that the decision gives them the authority to do nothing to get Abrego Garcia back on US soil. In doing so, they are openly defying rulings from District Court Judge Paula Xinis, whose initial order to return Abrego Garcia the Supreme Court largely upheld last week.

The standoff reached a new low on Monday when Bukele visited the White House and claimed that he didn’t have the power to “smuggle” a “terrorist” into the United States. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has made it clear that it is not planning to do anything to get Bukele to release Abrego Garcia. Both sides absurdly act as if they are powerless to free a man sent to one of the world’s worst prisons in error.

Noah: The Supreme Court ruled last week in a unanimous decision that the Trump administration must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from Salvadoran custody and “ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” That means bringing him back to the United States.

But the administration is acting in bad faith by effectively arguing that the decision gives them the authority to do nothing to get Abrego Garcia back on US soil. In doing so, they are openly defying rulings from District Court Judge Paula Xinis, whose initial order to return Abrego Garcia the Supreme Court largely upheld last week.

The standoff reached a new low on Monday when Bukele visited the White House and claimed that he didn’t have the power to “smuggle” a “terrorist” into the United States. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has made it clear that it is not planning to do anything to get Bukele to release Abrego Garcia. Both sides absurdly act as if they are powerless to free a man sent to one of the world’s worst prisons in error.

Continue Reading…

Another Round of Anti-Trump Protests Slated for Earth Day

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

Hundreds of marches, pickets, and cleanup events are taking place across the US in the run-up to Earth Day on Tuesday, as environmental and climate groups step up resistance to the Trump administration’s authoritarianism and its “war on the planet.”

A fortnight after the “Hands Off” mobilization brought millions to the streets, national and grassroots organizers are teaming up with pro-democracy groups for “All Out on Earth Day”—a wave of actions to demand the right to live free, healthy lives.

In New York, thousands of people gathered in lower Manhattan on Saturday for the “Hands Off Migrants march” endorsed by dozens of climate and migrant justice groups, calling for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to get out of New York—and New York to get out of fossil fuels. The two movements converged amid Trump’s crackdown on migrants and embrace of fossil fuels, which will drive further climate collapse and forced migration.

Meanwhile in Milwaukee, a Stop the Cuts march organized by Indivisible and 50501 called out Republican lawmakers backing the unprecedented cuts to healthcare, education, environmental protections and climate funding.

“Trump is attacking migrants and the planet by aligning himself with big oil and eroding hard won protections. Climate change is the leading cause of global displacement, these are connected issues,” said Renata Pumarol, the deputy director of the Climate Organizing Hub, which coordinated the New York march. “As we fight the authoritarianism of Trump, climate groups need to be part of the resistance because we are all under threat.”

Trump and his billionaire megadonor Elon Musk have directed the dismantling of federal offices that oversee clean air, drinking water, national parks and forests, conservation, climate smart farming, and environmental justice at dizzying speed, as well as pushing through mass layoffs at core climate and environmental agencies including the National Weather Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Forest Service.

Meanwhile, regulatory standards for fossil fuels, petrochemical plants, mining and other polluting industries have been slashed—along with an unprecedented crackdown on free speech, migrants, and universities.

Trump is also rumored to be mulling an executive order that removes tax-exempt status for some climate groups, which could prove devastating for smaller grassroots organizations. The White House is also pushing the Republican-controlled Congress to pass a budget reconciliation bill that cancels billions of dollars of Biden-era grants for clean energy and environmental protection investments.

The response from the environmental and climate movement to the Trump agenda has, until now, been mostly confined to the courts, with an array of lawsuits challenging everything from mass layoffs, suspended environmental justice funds and the erasure of climate change from federal government websites.

According to some advocates, the resistance on the streets had been somewhat underwhelming—in part down to shock at the scale and pace of Trump’s attacks, as well as efforts by some green groups to stay apolitical to appease funders and the administration. Protest fatigue, they say, may also have played a role, given that the social uprisings in response to the murder of George Floyd and Israel’s war on Gaza, which has killed more than 50,000 Palestinians, has led to little sustained political change.

Now, three months into a Trump presidency and the capitulation of Congress to his assault on the planet, many in the environmental and climate justice movement will begin rallying behind three major demands: to defend workers and democracy, lower costs for communities and end handouts for corporations and billionaires, and make polluters pay.

“The mobilizations…are the start of something: a wave from below with winnable demands to meet and inspire people where they are,” said Kaniela Ing, the national director of the Green New Deal Network, a coalition of frontline communities, labor organizers, and climate activists. “Rallies, protests, clean-ups…rising up takes many forms, and it all helps, as we need consistent mass non-cooperation to fight against authoritarianism and ensure a livable world.”

On Tuesday, the Planet over Profit and #teslatakedown coalition will picket the New York home of billionaire James Murdoch, a Tesla board member. Musk’s electric vehicle company has faced allegations of air and water pollution around its factories in the US, “and because there’s no greater threat to our ability to live rich, dignified lives on a safe, stable planet than the Trump/Musk regime,” according to organizers.

In Michigan, Jewish organizers are running a phone bank to turn out climate and environmental voters ahead of the May 6 municipal elections. In Duluth, Minnesota, traditional Ojibwe blessings for Mother Earth will open an event featuring students spearheading efforts to install solar energy in local schools and environmental scientists on the need to protect the local EPA water lab.

This year’s Earth Day, which includes climate education in schools and universities, beach-clean ups, and tree planting in the US and globally, is the 55th, but thanks to Trump, it is like no other.

The first Earth Day took place on April 22, 1970, when 20 million Americans participated in nationwide events, protests and teach-ins about pollution, the loss of wildlife, and pillaging of natural resources—bringing together disparate issues under the broad banner of what then became the US environmental movement.

This was followed with a campaign to oust 12 members of Congress with terrible environmental voting records in the midterms, with seven of the so-called dirty dozen incumbents losing their seats.

The success sent shockwaves across Washington, and a month later, Congress passed the clean air act by an overwhelming majority, followed by slew of laws that formed the bedrock of environmental protections including the Clean Water, Endangered Species, and National Marine Sanctuaries acts—and Richard Nixon created the EPA.

“For about six years the environmental movement was unstoppable, as we pushed to make the world a healthy place for humans and all diversity of life. There’s always been a pendulum in American politics but nothing like the assault on the environment—and social security, education, health and economy—we see today,” said Denis Hayes, the organizer of the first Earth Day.

“In 2026 we will need to organize aggressively for the election, but this Earth Day is about people with shared values coming together looking for local solutions, some introspection on what we did wrong that allowed Trump to get elected, and finding strategies on how to overcome him.”

A new review of 50 recent studies found that protests tend to sway media coverage and public opinion toward the climate cause—even when disruptive tactics are used. The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication researchers found that collective action can also shift people’s voting behavior. In one study in Germany, the Green Party received proportionally more votes in areas where climate protests took place, Grist reported.

The GNDN and the Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate justice group, were among those that campaigned to secure the Inflation Reduction and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in 2021 and 2022—now under threat by Trump’s pro-fossil fuel, anti-climate action agenda.

“Just three months into the Trump presidency, the damage has already been catastrophic,” said Aru Shiney-Ajay, the executive director of the Sunrise Movement. “This Earth Day, we stand united in defiance of their greed and fight for a future that prioritizes people and the planet over profits.”

Continue Reading…

Government Cancels Disinformation Grants in Disinformation-Filled Statement

Lisa Fazio expected her National Science Foundation grant to be cancelled. The associate professor of psychology and human development at Vanderbilt University had watched, with apprehension, the GOP targeting disinformation in a series of legislative attacks.

She only grew more certain when, on April 18, the National Science Foundation (NSF) put out a statement on how grants would henceforth be evaluated for funding. In addition to limiting the inclusion of underrepresented groups, the statement cited Trump’s Inauguration Day executive order, “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” to cut funding for disinformation research:

“NSF will not support research with the goal of combating “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation” that could be used to infringe on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advances a preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.”

Fazio knew her research—”How false beliefs form and how to correct them“—was toast. Building on the established understanding that the more times a given piece of information is repeated, the more likely people are to believe it—whether or not it’s true—Fazio’s research tested that idea outside the lab in studies based on social media and texting. The question, Fazio said, was, “How can we best design misinformation debunks and misinformation corrections so that they’re as effective as possible?”

She didn’t have to wait long for the news. Hours after the NSF statement was released, Fazio received an email about the termination of the roughly $500,000 grant funding her study. Despite expecting the news, Fazio described it as a “gut punch.”

Mary Feeney, a professor at Arizona State University’s School of Public Affairs, worked as a program officer at NSF under the Biden administration, overseeing its “Science of Science” program, which approved grants in fields like science communication and information quality. Feeney expressed confusion: none of the research she approved, she remarked, could reasonably be said to infringe on the constitutional right to free speech or debate. “No research project I ever recommended for funding, or that I’ve ever heard of, goes out and denies someone from speaking or doing a media report,” Feeney said.

“We know false information is out there, we know it spreads widely, and it’s important for people’s health and for democracy to understand what we can do about it.”

“The work that we’re doing is not censorship,” said Fazio. “We’re telling what the scientific community thinks about topics where there’s consensus on what we think is true or false, based on what we know. That’s not censorship. That’s adding additional speech to the conversation.”

Moreover, said Feeney, NSF doesn’t regulate anyone’s speech; it funds research that leads to “an advancement of knowledge, the delivery of courses, training for junior scientists.”

“I think it’s a big leap between ‘we fund research on X topic’ and ‘the results of that research prevent someone from doing something,'” she said.

But the cuts didn’t surprise her, either. In Feeney’s final year with NSF, she says, leadership asked her to remove the word “misinformation” from grant titles, replacing it with other terms. She believes that the Biden White House “sensed that misinformation was becoming a target word for the incoming administration, and they were trying to kind of move it out of the system.”

Regardless, more than 50 other NSF grants studying how information is disseminated and trusted—worth some $9 million—have been cancelled since Friday, when the body released its new guidelines. Most of those grants funded studies on disinformation.

Fazio is one of the lucky ones. Most of her grant had already been used, with several papers already published. She hopes to continue follow-up research on a smaller scale with private funding, although it’s harder to come by. “Since the federal government started attacking misinformation researchers, nonprofits and foundations have been less interested in funding this research than they were before,” she said.

But she worries about the impacts of the funding loss. Fazio’s next project was going to study the formation of false beliefs broadly—she offered the example of “how repeating false information about immigrants might affect your belief about immigration as a whole.” The loss of NSF funding may make that project impossible.

“We know false information is out there,” Fazio says, “We know it spreads widely, and it’s important for people’s health and for democracy to understand what we can do about it.”

NSF’s “Science of Science” program, Feeney explained, wasn’t just about spotting false narratives but making science more understandable. “Some of it was misinformation, but a lot of it is also trust,” she says. “Misinformation is one component of this broader understanding of science communication.”

The new NSF statement is “creating a false narrative about science in America,” said Fazio. “It’s misinformation [to say] that research on misinformation is actually censoring the general public.”

“The administration is complaining about the censorship while censoring academics and what we research,” she lamented.

Continue Reading…

The Latest Supreme Court Case Targeting the ACA Comes from a Longtime Anti-Gay Activist

For over a decade, Americans with private health insurance have enjoyed free access to dozens of types of preventive health care: cholesterol medication, prenatal care, and many types of cancer screenings, as well as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the “miracle drug” that prevents HIV infection. But on Monday, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could gut the part of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurers to cover these services at zero cost to patients.

Kennedy v. Braidwood Managementis at least the eighth time the Supreme Court has weighed in on a major element of the ACA since the health law was passed during the Obama administration in 2010. The lawsuit—filed by a group of Christian businesses and individuals who object to PrEP on religious grounds and Obamacare on ideological ones—takes aim at the US Preventive Services Task Force, a panel of independent, volunteer experts who rate the effectiveness of different types of preventive care. The ACA requires insurers to fully cover services rated “A” or “B” by the task force.

Currently, members of the task force are appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. But the case being heard by the Supreme Court argues that the Constitution requires officials who wield that level of power to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The legal argument is highly technical, and oral arguments on Monday barely touched on the case’s potentially vast consequences for public health. If the justices agree with the plaintiffs, the task force and its recommendations for the last 15 years could be thrown out, and insurers could start denying coverage or imposing out-of-pocket costs on dozens of currently free preventive screenings and services—meaning many fewer patients would choose to get them.

“The people who are going to be hurt most are the people who can’t just pull out a credit card and pay full cost for a service, or pay a $50 co-pay or an $80 co-pay,” says Wayne Turner, senior attorney at the National Health Law Program. “It is a literal lifesaver for people to be able to have some early detection.”

“The people who are going to be hurt most are the people who can’t just pull out a credit card and pay full cost for a service, or pay a $50 co-pay or an $80 co-pay.”

Among the threatened services are free HIV screenings for all, and PrEP for those at increased risk of contracting the virus. While HIV has become much less deadly since the mid-1990s, when more than 40,000 people in the United States were dying of related causes annually, there are still nearly 32,000 new infections and 8,000 HIV-linked deaths in the US every year, according to the health policy think tank KFF. PrEP—first approved by the FDA as a daily pill in 2012—lowers the risk of acquiring HIV through sex by 99 percent, and through injection drug use by 74 percent.

But the drug can cost up to $1,800 per month, so when the Preventive Services Task Force gave it an “A” rating in 2019, making it 100% covered by insurance, use of the drug appears to have soared. In 2015, 3 percent of people recommended for a PrEP prescription got one; in 2022, 31 percent did, according to the HIV and Hepatitis Policy Institute. Kennedy v. Braidwood threatens to reverse this progress.

At the center of the lawsuit are a trio of Texans who have become conservative heroes in the culture wars against LGBTQ and reproductive rights: A powerful anti-LGBTQ activist, a lawyer known for masterminding Texas’ abortion vigilante law, and the judge they like to bring their cases to.

The lead plaintiff, Braidwood Management, is owned by 74-year-old doctor Steven Hotze, a Houston-area alternative medicine guru, conservative powerbroker, far-right activist, and Republican megadonor. As my Mother Jones colleague Tim Murphy has written, Hotze—a former anti-abortion lobbyist—has a history of being very publicly anti-gay going back to at least the 1980s, when he campaigned to make it legal to discriminate against queer people in housing and employment. In 1985, he endorsed a mayoral candidate who said that the best way to fight the AIDS epidemic was to “shoot the queers.” Years later, Hotze crusaded against same-sex marriage, backing Texas’ statewide ban in 2005 and filing a Supreme Court brief in 2015 arguing that gay marriage was “against the Bible.” (Hotze did not respond to a request for comment.)

In 2020, Hotze—who had reportedly become fond of Covid conspiracies and QAnon slogans—allegedly paid a former Houston police captain over $260,000 to conduct a private investigation into voter fraud in Harris County. The investigator pursued the outlandish theory that an air conditioner repairman was using his truck to transport more than 750,000 forged mail ballots signed by undocumented Hispanic children, per a lawsuit filed by the repairman. So the investigator ran the repairman’s truck off the road, then held him at gunpoint while an associate searched the truck, which contained only air conditioner parts. Hotze was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, among other crimes, for his alleged role in commissioning the private investigation and knowledge of the ex-cop’s plan to confront the repairman. He has pleaded not guilty and says the prosecution is part of a conspiracy against him.

Now, he’s at the center of a case that could dismantle a key part of the ACA.

Hotze has sued over Obamacare before, challenging the law in 2013 on the grounds that taxation bills must originate in the House, whereas parts of the ACA were first introduced in the Senate. (He also released two techno tracks around that time, with lyrics like: “What would Davey Crockett do? I know what I’m going to do. I’m going to fight Obamacare.”) But lower court judges threw out the case, and in 2016 the Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal.

In 2020, Braidwood Management and other plaintiffs sued over the ACA again, this time claiming their religious freedom was being violated by the law’s zero-cost preventive services requirement. Hotze specifically objected to mandatory insurance coverage for PrEP medications, which the lawsuit claimed “facilitate behaviors such as homosexual sodomy, prostitution, and intravenous drug use, which are contrary to Dr. Hotze’s sincere religious beliefs.”

“Our first and most immediate goal is to save this Affordable Care Act provision, which is so important for so many people.”

Representing Hotze and the other plaintiffs was none otherthan Jonathan Mitchell, the legal strategist and former Texas solicitor general known for crafting Texas’s “bounty hunter” anti-abortion law, SB 8, which cut off most abortion access in his state even before the fall of Roe v. Wade. Last year, Mitchell served as President Donald Trump‘s lawyer in front of the Supreme Court, arguing (successfully) against Colorado’s attempt to exclude Trump from the 2024 ballot.

Mitchell has represented Braidwood Management before, in a case claiming that Title VII, the federal law banning discrimination in employment, violated Hotze’s religious beliefs. In both that case, and in the current ACA one, Mitchell filed the lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas, where it was duly assigned to yet another Texas conservative hero, federal Judge Reed O’Connor. In a 2018 ruling involving the constitutionality of the ACA’s individual mandate, O’Connor had already proved willing to strike down the law altogether. The 2018 decision was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court, which said that O’Connor should have dismissed the case from the get-go.

In the Braidwood case, O’Connor handed Mitchell and Hotze a partial win—ruling that the PrEP insurance mandate violated Hotze’s religious freedom, and exempting Braidwood Management from that requirement. Crucially, he also sided with them on an additional, more technical claim that members of the US Preventive Services Task Forceare improperly appointed.

It’s that second argument that the Biden administration appealed, and the Supreme Court is now reviewing. Turner, the health policy attorney, says the case comes down to a line in the law that created the task force, declaring it “independent and, to the extent practicable, not subject to political pressure.” Braidwood Management argues that that line makes the task force too unaccountable. (Vaccines and birth control aren’t threatened by this case, since those recommendations are made by other entities—though powerful conservative activists are currently targeting the leading medical group that makes contraception coverage recommendations, as Susan Rinkunas recently reported at Jezebel.)

To the surprise of patient advocacy groups, the Trump administration decided earlier this year to fight back against Braidwood’s challenge. Trump, in the past, has tried to repeal the health care law. But now, his administration argues that the task force is indeed accountable to Trump’s Senate-confirmed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. During oral arguments on Monday, the administration’s lawyer claimed the secretary has the power to both appoint and remove members at will, and could use those powers to influence task force recommendations.

Turner says it’s a “real concern” that the Trump administration will eventually attempt to exert greater political control over the task force and its recommendations. “We’ve seen the administration do this in other parts of the federal government and other parts of HHS—purge the current leadership, purge the current members, and fill it with cronies who are going to be rubber stamping,” he says. But says it’s a risk worth taking: “In my view, our first and most immediate goal is to save this Affordable Care Act provision, which is so important for so many people.”

After oral arguments on Monday, court observers predicted that the justices would ultimately reject Hotze and Mitchell’s challenge to Obamacare. The ruling is expected by this summer.

Continue Reading…

HHS Plans to Cut Funds Used to Investigate Abuse at Group Homes

On Wednesday, a leaked draft Health and Human Services budget document revealed, among other sweeping cuts to health- and disability-related services, that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s department plans to defund protection and advocacy services for people with developmental disabilities—including autistic people, about whom Kennedy also spreads harmful disinformation. The budget document is a proposal, pending official release and eventually congressional approval; it’s also unclear whether suggested cuts originate with Kennedy’s HHS or Project 2025 architect Russell Vought’s Office of Management and Budget.

Federal funding for nongovernmental organizations to provide legal and advocacy services to people with developmental disabilities started in 1978 with the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act. There are now 57 protection and advocacy agencies—one in every state, every territory, and in Washington, DC—that work to enforce the rights of people with developmental disabilities, those with mental health conditions, and other disabilities. The agencies, known as P&As, are overseen by HHS’s Administration for Community Living—which is being dismantled.

“What they’ve outlined here is eliminating almost all of the disability infrastructure in this country providing for services, supports, [and] research across the board to disabled people,” said Kate Caldwell, director of research and policy at Northwestern University’s Center for Racial and Disability Justice. Protection and advocacy agencies, Caldwell explains, are granted what’s called “access authority,” powers that allow them to independently investigate reports of abuse in facilities and community settings.

Caldwell is also very concerned, she says, about the draft budget’s proposed elimination of funding for the University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Services, and for state developmental disability councils.

“There’s been five decades of bipartisan consensus that it’s good to have a network that…can go in and expose abuses.”

Those cuts, as Caldwell noted, can’t just come from the executive branch—and would unquestionably spark legal action. “If HHS withheld funding or dismantled the program without an actual statutory repeal,” Caldwell said, “it would face multiple lawsuits from disability rights organizations, as well as state attorneys general, for violating the law.”

The nonprofit Disability Rights California is one such protection and advocacy agency. It receives a mix of federal funding—including through sources not on the chopping block, such as funding for assistive technology and traumatic brain injury assistance—alongside state and private funds. Its executive director, Andy Imparato, said that his organization stands to lose around $6 million annually from an approximately $50 million budget, if the cuts go through as written—which would also end funding for protection and advocacy agencies’ voting access work.

But his group is an outlier. “California is a little bit of a unicorn in the sense that we have a lot of state funding,” Imparato said. “Most protection and advocacy agencies, over 90 percent of their funding is federal. In our case, it’s only 40 percent.”

HHS’s funding threat was surprising news for Imparato. “There’s been five decades of bipartisan consensus that it’s good to have a network that has access authority,” he said, “and can go in and expose abuses that are happening for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and other disabilities.”

That access allows Imparato’s team to “go to places where people are experiencing abuse and neglect and expose that and address it, even if they are not seeking us out as their lawyers,” he said. “That is kind of a unique thing about the protection and advocacy agencies.”

Amidst the chaos, Imparato does see a silver lining: “I see it as an opportunity for our networks that are affected by these cuts to educate this group of members of Congress,” he said. “Hopefully it puts us in a stronger position to not just survive whatever proposal is coming from this administration, but for members of Congress to feel…that this network matters.”

Continue Reading…

Trump May Soon Offer a Motherhood Medal, an Idea Popularized in Nazi Germany

On Monday, the New York Times reported that the Trump Administration is mulling a suite of initiatives aimed at encouraging Americans to have more babies. Some of the suggestions for these programs came from pronatalists, a loose network of activists who believe that the humanity is basically doomed unless people have more kids. A few weeks back, I hung out with some of them in Austin near their conference, which is called, naturally, NatalCon. To say that most of the conference goers leaned right would be an understatement; some of the topics under discussion were the ethics of gene-editing embryos to endow them with desired traits, how having more babies could save “the West,” and why most women should forego careers to be mothers.

Some of the pronatalist proposals that the White House is said to be considering include are practical in nature: issuing a baby bonus of $5,000, reserving 30 percent of Fullbright Scholarships for applicants who are parents or are at least married, and offering classes to women to help them identify the most fertile times in their menstrual cycle.

Other proposals, meanwhile, seem aimed at changing cultural attitudes toward childbearing. A prime example of this is the idea of bestowing a special medal on mothers of six or more children. This suggestion came from Malcolm and Simone Collins, a Pennsylvania couple who seem to have appointed themselves heads of the pronatalist movement and were the belles of the ball at NatalCon. The medal was part of a collection of draft executive orders on pronatalism that the Collinses recently sent to the Trump administration.

But the Collinses can’t take full credit for the idea of a motherhood medal. France has issued a similar medal since 1920, but the idea really picked up steam when Adolf Hitler first conferred a similar honor on German mothers of eight or more children in 1939, calling it the Cross of Honour of the German Mother. (Naturally, Jews were not among the 3 million women who received the medal between 1939 and 1944.) The fascist Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin followed suit, offering a similar medal in 1944. The highest honor went to mothers of nine or more children, though mothers of seven and eight children were also recognized. Since then, the motherhood medal has been especially popular in authoritarian regimes the world over, including in Hungary, Kazakhstan, and Russia.

As I noted in my piece, the Trump administration has shown signs of enthusiasm for a pronatalist agenda. DOGE head Elon Musk, a father of 14, posts regularly on social media about the need for Americans to have more babies; he has also promoted NatalCon on X. Vice President JD Vance has proposed the idea of a weighted voting system, in which the votes cast by parents would be valued more highly than those by the childless. US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy (a father of nine) signed a memo recommending that his department prioritize “communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average.” Last month, during a Women’s History Month event at the White House, Trump said, “We’re gonna have tremendous goodies in the bag for women too. The women, between the fertilization and all the other things we’re talking about, it’s gonna be great. Fertilization. I’m still very proud of it, I don’t care. I’ll be known as the fertilization president and that’s okay.”

Noticeably lacking from the pronatalist proposals discussed in the New York Times piece were policies that would help families manage the demands of parenting—things like childcare subsidies, expanded access to healthcare, and more support for caregivers of disabled children. Nevertheless, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told the New York Times that Trump “is proudly implementing policies to uplift American families.”

Continue Reading…

A Judge Told Florida Not to Arrest Undocumented Immigrants. The State Did Anyway.

On February 13, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill that would allow state law enforcement to arrest and prosecute undocumented immigrants for being in the state without legal status. It was quickly paused. On April 4, United States District Judge Kathleen M. Williams temporarily blocked the law from being enforced, saying that enforcing immigration is strictly the work of the federal government.

But law enforcement from at least one agency, the Florida Highway Patrol, continued to make arrests under the law, according to local reporting and a Mother Jones analysis. The arrests were in clear violation of Williams’ order.

At a court hearing on Friday, attorneys representing immigrant advocacy groups told Williams, the federal judge, that they know of at least 15 such arrests, theMiami Heraldreported. Williams said she was “astounded” that the arrests continued in spite of her order. “When I issued the temporary restraining order, it never occurred to me that police officers would not be bound by it,” Williams said at the hearing. “It never occurred to me that the state attorneys would not give direction to law enforcement so that we would not have these unfortunate arrests.”

Mother Jones has identified at least two of these arrests after reviewing booking logs for several Florida jails. On April 8, four days after the judge’s ruling, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper stopped a 41-year-old man for driving 95 miles per hour in a 70 miles per hour zone in Polk County in central Florida, according to an arrest affidavit. The driver showed the trooper a photo on his phone of his Brazilian driver’s license and passport. The trooper asked dispatch to share the driver’s information with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and found that the man was under removal proceedings. He was arrested on charges of driving without a Florida license and entry of an “unauthorized alien.” He was booked into the Polk County jail, where he is being held for ICE.

In an April 15 traffic stop, another Florida Highway Patrol trooper stopped a 34-year-old driver in Pinellas County on the Gulf Coast of Florida for a “window tint violation,” according to an arrest affidavit. The man was arrested for driving without a valid license, as well as a felony charge under the temporarily blocked law because he had been previously deported in 2013, the trooper wrote. The man was booked into the Pinellas County jail and subsequently released to ICE.

The first arrest to come to light was reported by the Florida Phoenixlast week, when a Florida Highway Patrol trooper arrested a 20-year-old U.S. citizen from Georgia during a traffic stop. According to his arrest affidavit, the Phoenix reported, he was the passenger in a car that was going over the speed limit. He was later released from jail.

At the hearing, an attorney from the state Attorney General’s office explained that the state believed Williams’s order only applied to top officials and not all law enforcement officers, the Herald reported. Williams extended her original order an additional 11 days, with a hearing scheduled for April 29. After the hearing, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier instructed all law enforcement officers to comply with the order.

Continue Reading…

New Report: Trump Administration Just Got Hit With Another Signal Chat Scandal

On Sunday evening, The New York Times published details of another potentially damning security scandal involving the chat app Signal and discussions of “detailed information about forthcoming strikes in Yemen on March 15″—this time centered on a group chat created by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Citing four people with knowledge of the group chat, the report describes strikingly similar details to those revealed last month by The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, who earlier disclosed that he had been inadvertently added to a different Signal group chat discussing the same Yemen war plans.

According to the Times, Hegseth shared information that “included the flight schedules for the F/A-18 Hornets targeting the Houthis” in a “chat that included his wife, brother and personal lawyer.” The Times noted that Hegseth’s brother, Phil, holds a job at the Pentagon, as does his lawyer, Tim Parlatore. His wife, Jennifer, has recently become notable for accompanying her husband to high-profile meetings abroad.

The Times reports:

Unlike the chat in which The Atlantic was mistakenly included, the newly revealed one was created by Mr. Hegseth. It included his wife and about a dozen other people from his personal and professional inner circle in January, before his confirmation as defense secretary ,and was named “Defense | Team Huddle,” the people familiar with the chat said. He used his private phone, rather than his government one, to access the Signal chat.

The continued inclusion following Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation of his wife, brother and personal lawyer, none of whom had any apparent reason to be briefed on operational details of a military operation as it was getting underway, is sure to raise further questions about his adherence to security protocols.

The report cites a US official claiming that there was no national security breach: “Nothing classified was ever discussed on that chat,” the official said. Nonetheless, news of the second Signal group comes amid a dramatic leak probe at the Pentagon that has resulted in the departure of top Hegseth advisors and aides. Read the full Times report here.

Continue Reading…

Corporate Chiefs Gave Trump’s Inaugural Committee $250 Billion. Benefits Abound.

Donald Trump’s inaugural committee raised almost $250 million, much of it from donors who are seeking—and in many cases have already received—valuable favors from the administration of the famously transactional president.

The Wall Street Journal, which reviewed the committee’s filing ahead of a Sunday deadline, reported that the funding haul far exceeded what the committee needed for the January 20 event, leaving millions of dollars (it’s not clear exactly how much) in a fund Trump can use for other purposes. His aides have said the surplus will help fund Trump’s planned library and charities aligned with the president.

Donations to the inauguration by tech giants like Amazon, Alphabet, and Meta—apparently eager to display fealty to Trump—have previously drawn criticism, but the new filing reveals that a far larger group of companies and rich Americans also kicked in.

The largest reported donor, at $5 million, was Pilgrim’s Pride, a poultry company that is owned by the massive Brazilian meat conglomerate, JBS. The firm has faced substantial criticism for its business practices. Mother Jones recently reported on the plight of Haitian refugees working at a JBS beef processing facility in Greeley, Colo., which a union has faulted for a dangerously fast factory line. Those workers now face deportation.

JBS has faced various legal problems in the US. A company arm agreed in 2020 to pay more than $250 million to resolve Justice Department allegations that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The White House announced in February that it was suspending enforcement of that law.

Meat-processors like JBS’ Pilgrim’s Pride, the Journal noted, also benefit from a rule announced by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins that extends a waiver allowing pork and poultry facilities to maintain higher production-line speeds.

Foreign companies like JBS are not allowed to donate directly to the inaugural committee. But their US subsidiaries can, giving foreign interests a means to potentially buy influence with Trump.

Mother Jones reported in February that Syngenta, a large agribusiness company owned by a Beijing firm that describes itself as a Chinese “state-owned enterprise,” donated $250,000 to Trump’s inaugural fund. In 2020, Trump barred investment in companies including Syngenta’s parent company, ChemChina, citing a Defense Department finding that they support China’s military and intelligence efforts. The Pentagon issued an updated version of that list on January 7, including ChemChina among firms it labels as “Chinese Military Companies Operating in the United States.”

The inaugural committee also received large donations from the cryptocurrency industry, including $5 million from Ripple; $2 million from Robinhood; and $1 million each from Coinbase and its founder, according to the Journal.

The Securities and Exchange Commission in February dropped a lawsuit against Coinbase, and earlier this month Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Justice Department would disband a unit dedicated to investigating fraud in the crypto industry.

The Journal also reported that the inaugural fund received millions of dollars in donations from wealthy Trump backers who Trump subsequently nominated for ambassador jobs and other top posts. Trump announced the nomination of Warren Stephens as ambassador to the United Kingdom on Dec. 2. And “the filings show Stephens’ $4 million donation was received on the same day,” the report notes. Jared Isaacman, a billionaire who Trump picked to run NASA, gave $2 million to the committee. Isaacman is also big investor in Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

There is no proof that any actions that the Trump administration has taken benefiting donors was a direct result of an inaugural gift. But government watchdogs say just the possibility is a problem.

“Even the appearance of such conflicts of interest can diminish public trust in government due to the perception that the corporations may receive special treatment regarding government contracts or regulations,” said Kedric Payne, senior director for ethics at the Campaign Legal Center.

Continue Reading…

Far-Right Activist Tied to Jailed Chinese Fraudster Joins Team Trump. He’s Not Alone.

Miles Guo, an exiled Chinese billionaire best known for his ties to Steve Bannon, is in a Brooklyn jail awaiting sentencing following his conviction for orchestrating a massive fraud scheme. But Guo’s years of using his wealth to forge ties with people close to President Donald Trump appear to be bearing fruit.

As my colleague Stephanie Mencimer reported yesterday, far-right activist Gavin Wax just announced he is taking a job as chief of staff to Federal Communications Commissioner Nathan Simington. Wax would be one of several Trump advisers and administration aides who have previously worked for or been paid by Guo or his allies.

Others include top Trump aide Peter Navarro, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, and senior Justice Department official Emil Bove.Bannon—whom Guo paid millions between 2017 and 2020 as an adviser—and former campaign aide Jason Miller, who ran Gettr, a social media company that Guo appears to have controlled, hold no official White House roles, but remain Trump advisers.

Guo was accused during his trial of using various forms of intimidation, including encouraging violence, to stop critics within his movement from speaking out. From jail, where he has remained since his March 2023 arrest, Guo has claimed he is poised to be released, through a Trump pardon or other means. There’s no evidence that will happen. But Guo’s thousands of victims, including some who testified against him at trial, have cause to worry he might seek retribution if freed. (Prosecutors recently cited victims’ fears in arguing for expediting Guo’s sentencing, which has been delayed until September, after Guo replaced his lawyers.)

Though he has styled himself as a leading opponent of the Chinese Communist Party, Guo has also been accused in multiple lawsuits of acting as Chinese intelligence agent—a claim he denies. Still, the allegation adds a troubling dimension to his ties to top Trump advisers.

Wax, the former head of the hard right New York Young Republican Club, previously worked as marketing director for Gettr, a platform that, according to former employees and federal prosecutors, Guo secretly controlled prior to his arrest. Other Gettr alumni include Kingsley Wilson, the Pentagon deputy press secretary who recently drew scrutiny for her history of bigoted and xenophobic posts, including some widely condemned as antisemitic.

Wax was also part of a stable of right-wing influencers who in 2023 churned out pro-Guo op-eds and other content that in many cases were partly written for them by his supporters.

That group also included Karoline Leavitt, who, as I’ve reported, was paid by Guo supporters to publish op-eds they’d help prepare under her name. (Wax, who has not said if he was compensated for his Guo articles, didn’t respond to an inquiry Sunday.)

Peter Navarro, the Trump adviser closely linked to the administration’s economically damaging tariff policy, also previously worked for Guo, as “international ambassador” for the so-called New Federal State of China. Founded in 2020 by Guo and Bannon, that outfit claimed to be a government-in-waiting prepared to take over China. During Guo’s trial last year, prosecutors said the group was part of a con in which Guo used his supposed anti-CCP activism to win support from the Chinese diaspora, thousands of whom Guo defrauded through bogus investment schemes. Navarro’s role—showing up at events held by Guo and doing interviews with a Chinese-language news outfit Guo launched—helped give the organization the air of legitimacy and a perceived link to Trump. Navarro has not said if he was paid for the job.

Guo also has a former ally in a senior Justice Department role. Emil Bove, now acting Deputy Attorney General, in 2023 worked as a lawyer for Yvette Wang—Guo’s longtime aide and co-defendant. More recently, Bove led the controversial effort to drop federal corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, a move both men insist was not part of a quid pro quo.

An attorney familiar with the Guo case told Mother Jones that it was likely that Guo, through companies he controlled, had paid for Bove to represent Wang. Bove, who was forced off that case after government lawyers said he had a conflict due to his past work as a federal prosecutor, has not commented.

Guo’s ties also extend to pro-Trump media. The far right influencers who previously penned fawning op-eds about the mogul include Natalie Winters, who is now covering the White House for Bannon’s War Room broadcast. Since 2017, War Room itself has received monthly payments totaling hundreds of thousands from a Guo-controlled company, according to court filings. That’s in addition to Guo’s direct payments to Bannon.

John Fredericks, a conservative pundit now covering the White House, received at least $175,000 to host Guo supporters on his broadcasts, according to bank records made public as the result of a legal dispute. Fredericks in February used a White House briefing to urge Leavitt to “do away with the entire White House Correspondents Association,” drawing a pledge from Leavitt to limit the access of “legacy media outlets.”

WH Press Team & Trump Admin to Decide What Press Orgs Have Access to Oval Office & Air Force One

In response to Judge McFadden’s remarks on Monday suggesting that the Trump administration could throw out the entire White House Correspondents Association, @PressSec… pic.twitter.com/B9VceraaaB

— John Fredericks (@jfradioshow) February 25, 2025

It is unlikely that many viewers realized that both Fredericks and Leavitt have been on Guo’s payroll, but the imprisoned fraudster may have appreciated the link.

Continue Reading…

Trump Nixing Conservation Rule in Favor of Drilling and Mining on Federal Lands

This story was originally published on the substack Public Domain to which you can subscribe here.

At an all-hands meeting of Interior Department employees on April 9, Secretary Doug Burgum stressed that managing and protecting federal public lands “must be held in balance.”

“It says in the mission statement the job of Interior is to ‘manage and protect,’” he said. “It doesn’t just say ‘protect,’ it says ‘manage and protect.’”

Better balance on public lands was precisely what the Biden administration was after with a rule it finalized last year. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the nation’s largest land management agency, has a long history of prioritizing drilling and other extraction. Biden’s so-called Public Lands Rule sought to put conservation and ecosystem restoration on equal footing with drilling and other extractive uses, including by offering new leases for improving and recovering federal lands and offsetting development impacts.

The change promised to improve the conservation track record of an agency that protects far less of its land from development than the Forest Service, the National Park Service, or the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Republicans denounced the rule, arguing it violated the BLM’s multiple-use mandate. And earlier this week, the Trump administration moved to rescind it altogether—part of a broader effort to boost drilling, mining, and other development across federally managed lands.

The rescission notice, which the White House Office of Management and Budget posted on Tuesday, follows a Trump executive order in February that directed federal agencies to identify and revoke “unlawful regulations and regulations that undermine the national interest.”

Rescinding the Biden-era rule flies in the face of public opinion. An analysis by the Center for Western Priorities found that 92 percent of public commenters supported the rule. And the 15th annual “Conservation in the West” poll, released in February, found that 72 percent of voters in eight Western states want the government to prioritize conservation over increased energy development on public lands—the highest level of support in the poll’s history.

In addition to the Public Lands Rule, the White House moved to eliminate a Biden-era rule that barred oil and gas development across more than 13 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve, on Alaska’s North Slope.

Alison Flint, senior legal director at The Wilderness Society, said in a statement that Trump is “putting himself above the law and planning to slash the safeguards that protect wildlife, clean air and water, and the communities that depend on them.”

“This is not policy—it’s a blatant giveaway to industry that threatens to dismantle decades of conservation progress, shut down public access, harm wildlife and accelerate the reckless sell-off of our natural resources,” she said.

Roque Planas contributed to this report.

Continue Reading…

We Asked You to Share Protest Photos. Wow, You Delivered.

This weekend, national protests broke out once again to demand an end to creeping authoritarianism and to defend the rule of law—sparked by the chaotic opening months of the Trump administration, defined by the flouting of judicial authority, executive overreach, and a subservient Congress. You can find a wrap-up of those protests, organized under the banner “50501”—meaning “50 protests, 50 states, 1 day”—here.

Over on Bluesky, we asked readers to share their own images from wherever they showed up, and we were flooded with responses, from tiny towns and a highway overpass, to sprawling cities—all forming a vivid, grassroots tapestry of resistance.

Readers sent photos and videos from Clarksburg, West Virginia; Columbus, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Flagstaff, Arizona; Hartford, Connecticut; Honolulu, Hawaii; Indianapolis, Indiana; Las Vegas, Nevada; Lisle and Macomb, Illinois; Livonia, Michigan; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Monterey, Paso Robles, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Thousand Oaks, California; New York City, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; Raleigh, North Carolina; Rochester, New York; Roswell, New Mexico; St. Paul, Minnesota; Suffolk, Virginia; and more.

Here are some of your highlights. Keep them coming. And make sure to follow us to join our thriving Bluesky community.

Monterey,CA

— (@estella09.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:43:55.396Z

Raleigh, NC #50501movement

— SoSayU (@sosayu.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:38:27.508Z

Thousand Oaks, CA. Great turnout and response from passerby. Only about 4 thumbs down or middle fingers. Lol

— (@katgw.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:36:22.800Z

#Indianapolis #FiftyFiftyOne

— Dunes Girl (@pattib-resilience.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:37:56.987Z

Roswell NM

— (@curmudgeongirl.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:36:21.859Z

From Portland Oregon

— TheMoonKnight (@themoonknight.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:35:47.121Z

Clarksburg, WV

— Elise (@bnat4.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:43:14.101Z

Columbus, Ohio

— Linnykins (@linnykins.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:42:23.686Z

We showed up in St Paul, Minnesota. Stand up! Fight back! #resist

— Kim J (@kaj0724.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:41:05.502Z

Sacramento

— Ron Loutzenhiser (@rloutz.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:39:35.960Z

Hartford, CT

— Chris Sands (@ctsands87.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:40:29.357Z

I25 Pedestrian Bridge in Denver

— (@thegreatwoodini.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:40:19.194Z

Young people, old people, veterans, dogs and everyone in between (about 500?) of us came out to #Resist in I’d say edging towards purple, rural Paso Robles, Ca on 4/19/25 NO KINGS protest day

— (@shellyrn24.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:56:07.692Z

San Jose, CA

— Keith Blom (@keiththerunner.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:51:58.960Z

Paso Robles, Ca! #NoKings #RESIST

— (@shellyrn24.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:57:41.448Z

Rochester, NY

— Amy Adrion (@amyadrion.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T16:01:36.979Z

Turnout was strong in Honolulu on April 19.

— (@sayitwithaloha.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T16:04:02.919Z

Macomb, IL. Population 15,000ish.

— Chris Sutton (@mapyoda.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T16:02:57.100Z

Belfast, Maine bsky.app/profile/sara…

— Sara in Maine (@sara207.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T16:11:47.294Z

PHILLY #NOKINGS

— Karen Getz (@getzie.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T16:11:17.207Z

Continue Reading…

Powerful Scenes From This Weekend’s Anti-Trump Protests Reveal Resistance in Action

Protesters across the country once again poured into the streets this weekend for a day of mass action denouncing the Trump administration. It was the second large-scale outpouring this month, following the coordinated “Hands Off” protests. Saturday’s events took place under the banner of “50501”—a grassroots effort aimed at mobilizing “50 protests, 50 states, 1 day,” with over 700 gatherings held in both big cities and small towns nationwide.

The protesters’ targets were wide-ranging—the deportation regime, Elon Musk and DOGE, the rise of authoritarianism, tariffs, trans rights, and more—but one figure naturally dominated the protest signs: Trump. And a historical echo was not lost on some organizers, who pointed to Saturday marking the 250th anniversary of the start of the American Revolutionary War—the historic struggle to free a nation from monarchy. Protesters around Boston chanted “no kings.”

Here are some photo highlights from across the day’s events.

Protesters formed an “Impeach and Remove” human banner on Ocean Beach in San Francisco during Saturday’s protest. The formation also included an upside-down U.S. flag—a common signal of distress.Stephen Lam/San Francisco Chronicle/AP

Many thousands of people demonstrated in Pioneer Courthouse Square and throughout downtown Portland, Oregon.John Rudoff/Sipa/AP

Anti-Trump protesters assembled on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Many were demanding the return of Kilmar Abrego García, who was wrongfully deported by the Trump administration to a megaprison in El Salvador last month.Aashish Kiphayet/Sipa/AP

People in Baltimore City, Maryland, rallied in support of unions, Medicare, Social Security, and the return of recent deportees.Robyn Stevens Brody/Sipa/AP

Crowds of people protested in front of the State Capitol building in Carson City, Nevada.William Hale Irwin/ SIPA/AP

Anti-Trump protesters displayed signs in front of a Tesla Store in Kissimmee, Florida.Ronaldo Silva/NurPhoto/AP

People gathered in Orlando, Fla.Phelan M. Ebenhack/AP

Continue Reading…

Far-Right Activist Who Vowed “Retribution” Lands Role at the FCC

For the past six years, Gavin Wax has held court as the president of the New York Young Republican Club, a group he helped turn from a small, stodgy establishment outfit into “a vanguard of the Trump movement,” as he said last year. Under his leadership, the club has moved far to the right. It’s hosted events attended by white nationalists, budding foreign authoritarians, and of course, George Santos, whose congressional campaign it endorsed before he became a convicted felon.

Wax announced this month that he was stepping down as the club’s president, and on Friday he revealed that he would be taking a post in the Trump administration as chief of staff and advisor to Federal Communications Commissioner Nathan Simington. The 31-year-old former day trader has long been a die-hard Trump loyalist.

“Once President Trump is back in office,” Wax said at the 2023 NYYRC annual dinner, according to Politico, “we won’t be playing nice anymore. It will be a time for retribution. All those responsible for destroying our once-great country will be held to account after baseless years of investigations and government lies and media lies against this man.”

Like Trump, Wax was once a staunch opponent of media censorship and “Big Tech,” and had called for an end to legal protections for social media companies. An online libertarian magazine Wax founded, Liberty Conservative, once devoted quite a bit of ink to trolling Trump’s new benefactor, Elon Musk. (“Elon Musk: The Corporate Arm Of The Deep-State,” was one such 2017 article.)

Much of that rhetoric seems to have vanished since Musk bought Twitter and most of the tech world has gotten on board in support of Trump. Now, Wax’s focus at the FCC, like Trump’s, appears to be mainstream media outlets. In an email, he told me, “The issues of censorship, content moderation, and platform accountability remain important—not just in the context of individual CEOs, but as broader questions of public policy and civil liberties. We’re also focused on ensuring that licensed broadcasters are truly serving the public interest, as required by law. That includes holding legacy media to account just as much as newer tech platforms, and ensuring that all players in the communications space operate on a level playing field.”

In 2023, Mother Jones identified Wax as one of a number of MAGA influencers who’d been defending the exiled Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui with op-eds suggested by Guo’s supporters. Guo was convicted of racketeering and fraud last year. Wax had once been the marketing director for Gettr, a social media site allegedly controlled by Guo. But Wax told me that an important part of the FCC’s work now is “defending against foreign influence in our information ecosystem.”

Wax’s ascension to the FCC was met with cheers in MAGA world from everyone from Steve Bannon to Kari Lake.

Thank you Kari! https://t.co/JXWES8zUR6

— Gavin Mario Wax (@GavinWax) April 19, 2025

He seems a natural fit for the FCC under its Trump-aligned chairman Brendan Carr. Carr has touted his own MAGA credentials and has taken up Trump’s call for the agency to investigate NPR and PBS over their sponsorship practices, and ABC and NBC over DEI efforts. The FCC also recently reinstated a complaint against CBS over an interview with Kamala Harris during the presidential campaign that Trump has alleged was deceptively edited to influence the election. Trump is suing the network for $20 billion over the interview. Trump’s FCC also revived complaints against NBC for allowing Harris to appear on Saturday Night Live during the campaign.

Last month, several congressional Democrats launched a probe of what they called the FCC’s “sham” investigations designed “to target and intimidate news organizations” that were unpopular with Trump and Musk.

Even at this FCC, however, Wax is likely to be a controversial hire. His ties to the more extreme fringes of the far-right are unusual credentials for a government job, though less so in this administration. For instance, in 2018, Wax penned a column in the American Thinker headlined, “We are all Proud Boys now,” in which he decried “Antifa” and “leftist terrorist” attacks on conservatives like himself.

“Out-of-context quotes from Gavin McInnes are being used to paint him as a right-wing militant leader when he in all actuality he just runs a patriotic fraternal group who like America and beer,” he wrote, defending the founder of the far-right militia group whose members later helped orchestrate the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

Continue Reading…

Supreme Court Blocks Deportation Flights–For Now

In an early morning decision, the US Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from attempting to fly another batch of migrants out of the country without due process. The high court’s decision was notable not just for the time it was released—1 a.m. Saturday morning—but because it leapfrogged a lower court that was still considering activity in the case.

“The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court,” the order said, noting that Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas had dissented, and that Alito was planning to write a response.

The emergency ruling was a clear indicator that the high court, or at least seven of the nine justices, have finally realized that the Trump administration will not act in good faith when it comes to its desire to send people off for indefinite detention in a foreign gulag. The Supreme Court has already told the administration that it can’t send migrants to other countries without giving them a chance to challenge their removal, but immigration officials have been trying to get around that order by moving detainees to jurisdictions they believe aren’t covered by the earlier decision.

On Friday night, lawyers in Texas filed an emergency motion on behalf of clients who’d been told by immigration officials that they had been identified as members of the Tren de Aragua gang and were going to be removed from the country within 24 hours under the Alien Enemies Act. In their filing, the lawyers said the Trump administration was already busing dozens of men to a Texas airport for flights scheduled, they suspected, to depart for El Salvador.

The Trump administration has been invoking a 200 year-old law to try to suggest it has the power to remove people from the US without due process. As Noah Lanard and Isabela Dias explained in Mother Jones last month:

On March 14, President Donald Trump quietly signed a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act—a 1798 law last used during World War II. The order declared that the United States is under invasion by Tren de Aragua. It is the first time in US history that the 18th-century statute, which gives the president extraordinary powers to detain and deport noncitizens, has been used absent a Congressional declaration of war. The administration then employed the wartime authority unlocked by the Alien Enemies Act to quickly load Venezuelans onto deportation flights from Texas to El Salvador…

The administration invoked the act last month when it sent In response to a class action lawsuit brought by the ACLU and Democracy Forward, federal judge James Boasberg almost immediately blocked the Trump White House from using the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport Venezuelans, and directed any planes already in the air to turn around. But in defiance of that order, the administration kept jets flying to El Salvador.

The high court’s new order does not address the merits of Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. But it does indicate that some of the justices realize that these are not ordinary times, and that once people have been put on planes to El Salvador, the ability of the US courts to help them is much diminished.

The administration has produced scant evidence that many of the people it has already sent to El Salvador are in fact members of gangs, or even criminals. Many of the deportees seem to have been targeted simply because they had the wrong tattoos.

“This doesn’t just happen overnight,” immigration lawyer Joseph Giardina, who represents one of the men now in El Salvador, told my colleagues recently. “They don’t get a staged reception in El Salvador and a whole wing for them in a maximum-security prison…It was a planned operation, that was carried out quickly and in violation of the judge’s order. They knew what they were doing.”

Continue Reading…

How Police Guns End Up in the Hands of Criminals

When the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department in California wanted to purchase new firearms, it sold its used ones to help cover the cost. The old guns went to a distributor, which then turned around and sold them to the public. One of those guns—a Glock pistol—found its way to Indianapolis.

That Glock was involved in the killing of Maria Leslie’s grandson, and the fact that it once belonged to law enforcement makes her loss sting even more.

https://play.prx.org/e?ge=prx%5F149%5F7fe27ff3-d333-473d-b22b-e6dc6cc561d8&uf=https%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.revealradio.org%2Frevealpodcast

“My grandson was in his own apartment complex. He lived there,” Leslie said. “He should not have been murdered there, especially with a gun that traces back all the way to the California police department’s coffers.”

This week on Reveal, in a collaboration with The Trace and CBS News, reporter Alain Stephens examines a common practice for police departments—trading in their old weapons rather than destroying them—and how it’s led to tens of thousands of old cop guns ending up in the hands of criminals.

This is an update of an episode first aired in July 2024. Since then, more than a dozen law enforcement agencies have stopped reselling their used firearms or are reviewing their policies.

Continue Reading…

In “Cancer Alley,” Black Communities Get All the pollution, But Few of the Jobs

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

Residents of the mostly Black communities sandwiched between chemical plants along the lower Mississippi River have long said they get most of the pollution but few of the jobs produced by the region’s vast petrochemical industry.

A new study led by Tulane University backs up that view, revealing stark racial disparities across the US’s petrochemical workforce. Inequity was especially pronounced in Louisiana, where people of color were underrepresented in both high- and low-paying jobs at chemical plants and refineries.

“It was really surprising how consistently people of color didn’t get their fair share of jobs in the petrochemical industry,” said Kimberly Terrell, a research scientist with the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic. “No matter how you slice or dice the data by states, metro areas or parishes, the data’s consistent.”

Toxic air pollution in Louisiana’s petrochemical corridor, an area often referred to as “Cancer Alley,” has risen in recent years. The burdens of pollution have been borne mostly by the state’s Black and poor communities, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.

The Tulane study’s findings match what Cancer Alley residents have suspected for decades, said Joy Banner, co-founder of the Descendants Project, a nonprofit that advocates for Black communities in the parishes between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. “You hear it a lot—that Black people are not getting the jobs,” she said. “But to have the numbers so well documented, and to see just how glaring they are—that was surprising.”

People of color were underrepresented in all of the highest-paying jobs among the 30 states with a large petrochemical industry presence, but Louisiana and Texas had “the most extreme disparities,” according to the study, which was published in the journal Ecological Economics.

While several states had poor representation on the upper pay scale, people of color were typically overrepresented in the lower earnings tiers.

In Texas, nearly 60 percent of the working-age population is nonwhite, but people of color hold 39 percent of higher-paying positions and 57 percent of lower-paying jobs in the chemical industry.

Louisiana was the only state in which people of color are underrepresented in both pay categories. People who aren’t white make up 41 percent of the working-age population but occupy just 21 percent of higher-paying jobs and about 33 percent of lower-paid jobs.

The study relied on data from the US Census Bureau, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Louisiana Economic Development.

The chemical industry disputed the study’s findings. “We recognize the importance of examining equity in employment, however, this study offers an incomplete and misleading portrayal of our industry and its contributions,” David Cresson, president and CEO of the Louisiana Chemical Association, said in a statement.

Cresson pointed to several industry-supported workforce development programs, scholarships and science camps aimed at “closing the training gap in Louisiana.”

But the study indicates education and training levels aren’t at the root of underrepresentation among states or metro areas. Louisiana’s education gap was modest, with college attainment at 30 percent for white residents and 20 percent for people of color. In places like Lake Charles and St. John the Baptist Parish, where petrochemical jobs are common, the gap was minimal—five percentage points or less.

The industry’s investments in education are “just public relations spin,” Banner said.

“The amount of money they’re investing in schools and various programs pales in comparison to how much they’re profiting in our communities,” she said. “We sacrifice so much and get so little in return.”

Louisiana is also getting little from generous tax breaks aimed at boosting employment, the study found.

The state’s Industrial Tax Exemption Program has granted 80 percent to 100 percent property tax exemptions to companies that promise to create new jobs. For each job created in Cameron Parish, where large natural gas ports have been built in recent years, companies were exempted from almost $590,000 in local taxes. In St. John, each job equated to about $1 million in uncollected tax revenue.

“This tradeoff of pollution in exchange for jobs was never an equal trade,” said Gianna St. Julien, one of the study’s authors. “But this deal is even worse when the overwhelming majority of these companies’ property taxes are not being poured back into these struggling communities.”

This coverage was made possible through a partnership between Grist and Verite News, a nonprofit news organization producing in-depth journalism in underserved communities in the New Orleans area.

Continue Reading…