Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

The Trump White House Is a Giant National Security Red Flag

Imagine working as a White House communications expert when, on a brisk February morning, you look up to see a crew of unannounced Elon Musk associates climbing the roof of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. You squint and quickly learn that this unit belongs to Starlink, the very company you had identified as posing serious security concerns. But there they are, scaling the roof to install internet service for the White House.

That’s essentially the scenario outlined in a stunning new report from the Washington Post today, alleging that DOGE and Trump administration officials outright dismissed concerns from the White House’s communications team that Musk’s Starlink internet service was rampant with security risks. That reportedly included an exceedingly flimsy WiFi network that could rival your own personal setup:

A “Starlink Guest” WiFi network appeared on White House phones in February, prompting users only for a password, not a username or a second form of authentication, according to the people. That WiFi network was still appearing on White House visitors’ phones this week.

The government’s reliance on Starlink is not new. On the contrary, the US depends on Musk’s business heavily, throughout vast corners of our military and national security apparatus. But the Post‘s reporting once again demonstrates the stunning authority with which DOGE and Musk, at least before his spectacular blowup with the president this week, have been able to wield within the Trump administration. This latest revelation is just the latest national security red flag to come from the Trump administration: the Qatar plane, Pete Hegseth’s entire personality, confirmed hackers, etc.

Starlink is now one of several government contracts that could be on the chopping block now that President Trump and Musk are on the outs. (This, regardless of what you think of Musk, would pull the feud into blatantly lawless territory.) But regardless of the fate of Musk and Starlink, the core stupidity of Trump’s White House remains intact. Don’t be too surprised to see unannounced workers have started climbing the rooftop once again.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Trump-Musk Wrestling Match Is Far From Over

After a public wrestling match that featured ugly insults and Jeffrey Epstein accusations, President Donald Trump and Elon Musk appear to have dialed down their fury in time for the weekend.

But tensions still simmer. Late Friday, Musk, one of the Republican Party’s biggest donors, once again backed the idea of a new political party to represent what he described as the “80 percent in the middle.” He also continued to post a string of attacks against the president’s sweeping tax and spending bill, signaling that the billionaire had no intention of dropping the very criticism that prompted the feud to break out in public this week. Meanwhile, Trump on Friday was still defending himself from Musk’s explosive allegation that the president is named in the Jeffrey Epstein files.

The social media activity on both sides signalled that the fighting was far from over. What happens next is anyone’s guess. But like any high-profile divorce that takes a vicious turn, I imagine that the parties involved are using this relative quiet to weigh more nuclear options, including the cancellation of Musk’s government contracts. Trump suggested so himself. “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” the president posted on Truth Social. “I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it.” If carried out, my colleague Jeremy Schulman argues, the move would likely be illegal and a direct threat to democracy.

Trump clearly has the upper hand in this nasty spectacle. But even with Musk as MAGA-pariah, DOGE is clocking in critical wins that many warn will have profound consequences for everyday Americans and their most sensitive personal information: The Supreme Court on Friday allowed Musk’s team to gain access to Social Security information. A separate order issued on Friday also protected DOGE from having to answer freedom of information requests.

So, the current score between Trump v. Musk? America loses, again.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

This Obscure but Powerful “Dark Roof” Lobby May Be Making Your City Hotter

This story was reported by Floodlight, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action.

It began with a lobbyist’s pitch.

Tennessee Rep. Rusty Grills says the lobbyist proposed a simple idea: repeal the state’s requirement for reflective roofs on many commercial buildings.

In late March, Grills and his fellow lawmakers voted to eliminate the rule, scrapping a measure meant to save energy, lower temperatures, and protect Tennesseans from extreme heat. Grills, a Republican, said he introduced the bill to give consumers more choice.

It was another win for a well-organized lobbying campaign led by manufacturers of dark roofing materials.

Industry representatives called the rollback in Tennessee a needed correction as more of the state moved into a hotter climate zone, expanding the reach of the state’s cool-roof rule. Critics called it dangerous and “deceptive.”

“The new law will lead to higher energy costs and greater heat-related illnesses and deaths,” state Rep. Harold Love and the Rev. Jon Robinson wrote in a statement.

It will, they warned, make Nashville, Memphis, and other cities hotter—particularly in underserved Black and Latino communities, where many struggle to pay their utility bills. Similar lobbying has played out in Denver, Baltimore, and at the national level.

Industry groups have questioned the decades-old science behind cool roofs, downplayed the benefits and warned of reduced choice and unintended consequences. “A one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t consider climate variation across different regions,” wrote Ellen Thorp, the executive director of the EPDM Roofing Association, which represents an industry built primarily on dark materials.

But the weight of the scientific evidence is clear: On hot days, light-colored roofs can stay more than 50 degrees cooler than dark ones, helping cut energy use, curb greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce heat-related illnesses and deaths. One recent study found that reflective roofs could have saved the lives of more than 240 people who died in London’s 2018 heatwave.

At least eight states—and more than a dozen cities in other states—have adopted cool-roof requirements, according to the Smart Surfaces Coalition, a national group of public health and environmental groups that promote reflective roofs, trees, and other solutions to make cities healthier.

Industry representatives lobbied successfully in recent months against expanding cool roof recommendations in national energy efficiency codes—the standards that many cities and states use to set building regulations.

The stakes are high. As global temperatures rise and heat waves grow more deadly, the roofs over our heads have become battlefields in a consequential climate war. It’s happening as the Trump administration and Congress move to derail measures designed to make appliances and buildings more energy efficient.

The principle is simple: Light-colored roofs reflect sunlight, so buildings stay cooler. Dark ones absorb heat, driving up temperatures inside buildings and in the surrounding air.

Roofs comprise up to one-fourth of the surface area of major US cities, researchers say, so the color of roofs can make a big difference.

Just how hot can dark roofs get?

“You can physically burn your hands on these roofs,” said Bill Updike, who used to install solar panels and now works for the Smart Surfaces Coalition.

Study after study has confirmed the benefits of light-colored roofs, which typically cost no more than dark roofs.

A study by the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that a cool roof on a home in central California saved 20 percent in annual energy costs.

In a three-story rowhouse in Baltimore, Owen Henry discovered what a difference a cool roof can make.

Living in a part of the city with few trees—and where summer temperatures often climb into the 90s—Henry wanted to trim his power bills and stay cooler while working in his third-floor office. So in 2023, he used $100 worth of white reflective roof paint to coat his roof.

Henry said he and his wife immediately saw the indoor temperature drop. They reduced their electricity use by 24 percent.

Owen Henry shows off his white roof in Baltimore.Courtesy Owen Henry

Known for its durability, a black synthetic rubber known as EPDM once dominated commercial roofing. But in recent years it has been surpassed by TPO, a plastic single-ply material which is typically white and is better suited to meet the growing demand for reflective roofs.

Leading EPDM manufacturers—including Johns Manville, Carlisle SynTec, and Elevate, a division of the Swiss multinational company Holcim—have fought against regulations that threaten to further diminish their market share.

Kurt Shickman, former executive director of the Global Cool Cities Alliance, said those companies have the money to hire top-notch lobbyists who know their way around hearing rooms—and who are on a first-name basis with decision makers.

The EPDM industry has paid for research that has asserted that the impact of cool-roof mandates is inconclusive, and that insulation plays a bigger role in saving energy than cool roofs.

In an emailed response to Floodlight’s questions, Thorp argued that many of the studies cited to support cool roof mandates leave out important factors, such as local climate variations, roof type, tree canopy, and insulation thickness.

And she pointed to a recent study by Harvard researchers who concluded that white roofs and pavements may reduce precipitation, causing temperatures to unexpectedly increase in surrounding regions.

But Haider Taha, a leading expert on urban heat, identified multiple flaws in the Harvard study, stating, “The study’s conclusions fail to provide actionable insights for urban cooling strategies or policymaking.”

When Baltimore debated a cool roof ordinance in 2022, Thorp’s group and the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA) lobbied hard against it, arguing that dark roofs are the most efficient choice in “northern climates like Baltimore.”

In cold climates, industry representatives note, cool roofs can lead to higher winter heating bills. “Current research does not support the adoption of cool roofs as a measure that will achieve improved energy efficiency or reduced urban heat island,” Thorp wrote in a letter to one council member.

Multiple studies show otherwise. They’ve concluded that reflective roofs do save energy and cool cities by easing the “urban heat island effect”—the extra heat that gets trapped in many city neighborhoods because buildings and pavement soak up the sun.

Researchers have also found that even in most cold North American climates, the energy savings from cool roofs during warmer months outweighs any added heating costs in the winter.

Despite the opposition, Baltimore passed a cool-roof ordinance in 2023.

Opponents of cool roof requirements like Baltimore’s say they oversimplify a complex issue. In an email to Floodlight, ARMA Executive Vice President Reed Hitchcock said such rules aren’t a “magic bullet.” He encouraged regulators to consider a “whole building approach”—one that weighs insulation, shading, and climate in addition to roof color to preserve design flexibility and consumer choice.

Henry, the Baltimore homeowner, said he thinks the city’s ordinance will help all residents. “Phooey to any manufacturer that’s going to try and stop us from maintaining our community and making it a pleasant place to live,” he said.

Elsewhere, the industry’s lobbyists have notched victories. They’ve lobbied successfully against a cool-roof ordinance in Denver and against stricter standards set by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)—a professional organization that creates model standards for city and state regulations.

The current ASHRAE standard recommends reflective roofs on commercial buildings in US climate zones 1, 2, and 3—the country’s hottest regions. Those include most of the South, Hawaii, almost all of Texas, areas along the Mexican border and most of California.

“We’ve been able to stop all of those…mandates from creeping into climate zone 4 and 5,” Thorp said in a recent interview.

Another group headed by Thorp—the Coalition for Sustainable Roofing—worked with the lobbyist to propose the bill that eliminated Tennessee’s cool-roof requirement.

That rule once applied to commercial buildings in just 14 of the state’s 95 counties, but an update to climate maps in 2021 expanded the requirements to 20 more counties, including its most populous urban area—Nashville.

Brian Spear, a homeowner in Tempe, Arizona, has lived in the Phoenix area since the 1980s, back when there were fewer than 30 days a year when the temperature reached 110 degrees. Last year, there were 70 of those days—the highest on record—followed only by 2023, when there were 55 days of 110 degrees plus.

These days, summer mornings start out scorching, he says, “and I feel like if you go outside between 10 and 4, it’s dangerous.”

Spear says he’ll soon replace the aging roof on an Airbnb home that he owns. After weighing the usual concerns—cost and aesthetics—he has chosen a surface that he believes will help rather than harm: a gray metal roof with a reflective coating.

“If someone told me you couldn’t put a dark roof on your house…I’d understand,” he said. “I’m all about it being for the common good.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

These Veterans Fought for the US. Now They’re Fighting Trump’s VA Cuts

On Friday afternoon, thousands of veterans who fought wars on behalf of the United States descended on the National Mall in Washington, DC, to fight something else: cuts proposed by the Trump administration.

Since his inauguration in January, President Donald Trump has moved to slash and burn the federal workforce—and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is no exception. Already, the sprawling agency serving America’s 16 million military veterans has fired 2,400 probationary workers and proposed eliminating an additional 15 percentof its workforce—about 80,000 people.

Veterans rely on the VA for help with critical needs like counseling for addiction and PTSD, prostheses, senior services, and treatments for cancer stemming from exposure to toxic chemicals. Medical research by VA doctors and scientists not only saves veterans’ lives, but benefits civilians; over the years, the breakthroughs have included pacemakers and CT scans.

“Veterans are the canary in the coal mine for how the rest of Americans are going to experience health care,” an Army veteran from Maryland who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan told Mother Jones.

In addition to protesting job cuts, many in the crowd were incensed by Trump’s executive order to ban trans people from the military. “It is a shame that we’re letting hard-working, able-bodied, willing people go in a time of great need in our military,” said a DC resident who says his trans friend is being forced out of the Navy.

Organizers opted to hold the protest on Friday in part because of its historical significance: June 6 is the anniversary of D-Day, when the US military and Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, France, in 1944 to help end World War II.

The rallyfeatured a performance by Dropkick Murphys and speeches from former congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), an Air National Guard veteran, and Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who lost both legs after her helicopter was shot down in Iraq.

“We are sick of politicians promising to look out for veterans when they are on the campaign trail and then abandoning them when they take office,” Duckworth told the crowd.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Newark Mayor Ras Baraka on Defying ICE and Charting a New Course for Democrats

In May, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka made headlines when he was arrested during a protest outside of an immigration detention facility in New Jersey and charged with trespassing. Baraka has staunchly opposed the reopening of the 1,000-bed detention center, called Delaney Hall, since Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced a deal with the private prison company that owns it. The trespassing charge against Baraka was later dismissed, but he told supporters that he had been “targeted” by the Trump administration for speaking out. On Tuesday, he filed a lawsuit against Alina Habba, the interim US attorney for New Jersey, claiming that he had been maliciously prosecuted.

The encounter drew national attention at an opportune moment for Baraka, whose gubernatorial campaign has gained unexpected traction. An idiosyncratic figure, he is known for his radical political upbringing and his surprising success addressing violent crime in Newark. He is the son of Amiri Baraka, the firebrand poet and activist who spearheaded the Black Arts Movement,and Amina Baraka, also a central figure in the city’s Black cultural and political scene. Baraka followed in his parents’ shoes in both regards. In 2003, he performed a spoken word poem on HBO’s Def Poetry Jam. He was a school teacher and public school principal before becoming mayor in 2014.

As mayor, Baraka has been unapologetically progressive on most counts and shown an unusual willingness to experiment with policy. During his tenure, Newark conducted a guaranteed income pilot program, allowed 16-year-olds to vote in school board races, and, in an effort to boost homeownership, held a lottery that allowed residents to purchase city-owned properties for $1. Newark has seen significant decreases in most categories of crime since Baraka took office and, in 2022, homicides hit a 60-year-low. Baraka notably broke from the left in 2020, when he rebuffed calls to defund the police and described it as a “bourgeois liberal” stance that did little to address systemic problems.

Baraka is perhaps the most interesting personality in a crowded Democratic primary to replace term-limited New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy. He is running to the left of a field that includes Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop; US Rep. Josh Gottheimer; US Rep. Mikie Sherrill; former state Sen. Stephen Sweeney; and Sean Spiller, president of the state’s largest teacher’s union. Sherrill, a former Navy pilot, pulled ahead of the pack with a 17-point lead in a recent poll. Baraka and a handful of other candidates were clustered around 11 percent.

It’s highly likely that the general election will also be competitive. President Donald Trump recently campaigned for former state assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, who is favored to win the Republican primary. And last November, Kamala Harris won New Jersey by only six points—a significant downturn from Biden’s 16-point victory in 2020.

So it is remarkable that Baraka has centered his campaign on a full-throated defense of immigrants. The positions that have cemented Baraka’s popularity in Newark may not play as well in a state-wide primary—or in the general election. New Jersey is mostly suburban and around 60 percent white. If he wins, Baraka would be the state’s first Black governor.

Earlier this week, I traveled to Newark to interview Baraka. It was a sweltering afternoon, and the downtown business district was sedate. Outside of a Kenyan restaurant, an aide pointed to the city’s changing skyline as evidence of the success of the mayor’s housing agenda: There were several high-rise apartment buildings going up, each representing hundreds of affordable units. Inside, I met Baraka, who was wearing a gray suit and a floral tie. Though he is a commanding presence on the debate stage, he was soft-spoken and unhurried during our interview. He seemed a bit world-weary—the primary is in its home stretch. Early voting is already underway, and election day is this Tuesday.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What was it like growing up in Newark with two very prominent artists and activists as parents?

I grew up in the heart of the South Ward, and the block was filled with its share of folks who were prominent in our community. We always had people come over—artists and musicians and poets and community activists from around the world.

It was pretty different growing up in that kind of environment. Early on, we were a part of what was called the African Free School [an alternative community school founded by Baraka’s parents]. My parents were also involved in electing the first African American mayor of Newark [Kenneth Gibson] and in the 1972 National Black Political Convention. There was both positive recognition from the community, and people who didn’t like my father. He was always center stage, whether you wanted it to be that way or not.

What your parents were doing was community activism, which is very different from running for public office.

Completely different.

How did you decide to get involved in electoral politics?

I was a community activist when I was a teacher. We would always be marching and protesting down to City Hall. And I wondered, why are we coming here to this building?

When I was 24, I ran for mayor. We raised $10,000 from fish fries and poetry readings. I remember debating [Newark Mayor] Sharpe James and William Payne [who later became a state assemblyman]. It’s like you’re in a fight and you get hit a couple of times, but you don’t get knocked out. You think, “Oh, I can handle this.”

That was my first foray into understanding what political power meant, as opposed to just having a defensive strategy. What does it mean to go on offense?

One of your platforms at the time was universal healthcare. Do you think that coming into office requires giving up on some of that progressive idealism and moderating?

No. I think that all of the things that we’re trying to do can get done. But they have to get done in this way. I just told somebody yesterday that I’m a Democrat because that’s the only weapon we have. The Democratic Party is the tool that we have to push the ideas we want to push, and organize the things we want to organize—right until something else is created.

All of the things that we’re trying to make happen—whether it’s universal healthcare or free education—that struggle is protracted, and it may take stages. But we have to do our part until other people can take it a little further than we can. There were no breakfast programs in schools until the Black Panthers started them, and public housing was an issue that came from the community. A lot of these things may start in a humble, small place and become more universal, more acceptable, through education and advocacy.

How do you strike a balance between meeting people where they are and persuading them on issues?

I learned that early on. I lost a lot of races because I thought I was right and other people were wrong. It was actually me being wrong, because I could not unite what I was saying to the things that they thought that were important.

My mother used to say you can’t bring people to the community meeting if they’re hungry. You got to feed them first, and then they’ll come to the meeting. The reality is, we have to meet people’s needs in order to make them care about the things that we think are important. To talk to them about why they don’t have food in the first place, right?

I think the Democrats have it a little backwards. They like to have these discussions without people eating. People have to eat first, then you can talk to them about billionaires who are taking their resources away.

This seems like a good time to turn to Delaney Hall and your sustained activism around the administration’s immigration agenda. Why has that been so central for you?

I think what these people are doing is dangerous, and if we allow it to continue to happen, many of us will be in jeopardy. Our lives, our rights, our democracy will be in jeopardy.

So it’s more than just what the polls say. You’re not pushing for things simply because they’re popular. I would imagine that people’s sentiment prior to Trump’s re-election is completely different than what it is now. Across this country, people are coming out of their houses, videotaping and trying to stop ICE from kidnapping people off the street.

Are you able to talk about your arrest and the lawsuit that was just filed?

The irony is that they keep saying that we tried to get arrested. Well, you don’t have to try to get arrested. They were itching to do that from the very sight of me.

They had no lawful reason to arrest me. Trespassing is a state charge that you get a summons for. You don’t get handcuffed, fingerprinted, have a mug shot taken, and be interrogated in a room. That doesn’t happen for a Class E misdemeanor, certainly not here in New Jersey.

These people violated my rights, and, more importantly, they violated the constitution of this country. They think they can do it arbitrarily, and nobody should say anything about it. So I don’t agree with that. I think somebody should say something about it.

What’s the significance of the Trump administration potentially targeting an elected official?

They just don’t care. And that’s really the danger of it. The cameras, the videos, should give you some pause, but it doesn’t. They lied on TV. When I got out of the holding cell, I had to listen to these people saying all this stuff that didn’t happen: that we broke the law. That the Congresswoman [LaMonica McIver] assaulted people. That we slammed ICE agents, and we barged our way into this place. All of this was not true. I thought I was in The Twilight Zone. And so we just started dropping the footage everywhere, so they could see what these people are manufacturing—lies.

I want to turn to the governor’s race. Affordability has been a common platform in the Democratic primary, but it was also one of the most persuasive issues that Trump ran on last November. Nationally, Democrats have had trouble convincing voters that they’re willing to prioritize affordability. How are you confronting that?

I think the Democratic message is right. People want the message; they just don’t like the messengers. We’re now yelling and screaming at Donald Trump’s spending plan that’s given some billion dollars of tax breaks to the wealthy, but the Democrats have talked about doing the same thing. The party of working families has not helped working families.

Health care in New Jersey is too high. Insurance companies and hospitals are killing us economically, and nobody is reining them in. LLCs are buying up all these properties and driving our mortgages up artificially, and nobody is reining them in. Childcare costs are higher than people’s rent. We can’t solve these problems. We don’t have the will to, and so people lose faith in our ability to govern.

Democrats are mistaking other Democrats staying home for approval for Donald Trump. It’s not approval for Trump. It’s disapproval for you.

You’ve campaigned on your record as the mayor of Newark, but this city is demographically and geographically different from the rest of New Jersey. How do those accomplishments translate to statewide issues?

The issues are the same: housing, crime, the environment, access to education and opportunity. We have reduced people’s healthcare costs in Newark. We have created homeownership. We have reduced crime.

It’s a mistake to think there are Black problems and white problems. Black people have a specific and unique history in this country that causes us to experience problems disproportionately. Doesn’t mean that other people don’t have them.

Maybe it’d be useful to talk specifically about affordable housing, which is an issue that can be very divisive in some of the suburban areas of the state. How are you talking to voters about your platform on that?

When people think of affordable housing, they think of a 30-story housing project full of poverty and violence. That idea is fueled by prejudice and racism. But affordability is a problem for everybody in New Jersey. In order to drive your taxes down, drive your rents down, drive your mortgages down, you have to build more housing. That’s just simple supply and demand that you learn in capitalism. Nobody disagrees that we need to build more housing. They just disagree on how and where.

When you’re out in the suburbs talking to those voters, who are predominantly white, are you trying to change the face of affordable housing?

The atmosphere has changed it for us. We just have to state it right. People know their children can’t afford to live here. They’re spending 30 or 50 percent of their income on rent. They’re living in their childhood bedrooms and attics and basements. When I say it, people laugh, because they know it’s true.

They know who these people are, right? I don’t have to change their face. It’s them. Your taxes are going up. You’re one month away from not being able to pay your mortgage, because it’s going up. It’s getting incredibly hard for you to sustain yourself. That resonates in everybody’s community, even in the suburbs.

To end on a lighter note, a video of you performing on HBO’s Def Poetry Jam has been featured in Beyoncé’s Cowboy Carter tour. Did you know that was happening?

I didn’t know that she was going to do that. I was shocked and humbled. I wrote that decades ago, fresh out of college. I would have never known—I didn’t even know Beyoncé when I wrote that. I don’t think there was a Beyoncé.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

America’s Gas Pipeline Buildout Is Mainly for Exports—Not Energy Independence

More than three-quarters of new gas pipeline capacity under development in the US would feed additional liquefied natural gas exports rather than supporting domestic energy needs, a new report concludes.

Greenhouse gas emissions tied to that new capacity would be far larger than the current climate pollution from all coal-fired power plants nationwide, according to the report, published Monday by the Center for Energy & Environmental Analysis. CEEA is a recently formed think tank based in Arlington, Virginia, that focuses on energy and environmental policy.

“The money flowing to gas pipeline infrastructure is not slowing and is intended to push US gas production even higher from its current record levels,” Jeremy Symons, president of the CEEA and a former federal climate policy advisor, said in a written statement. “This buildout will extend our dependency on natural gas for decades to come, slowing the transition to cleaner, more affordable alternatives.”

Planned natural gas transmission pipelines would add 99 billion cubic feet per day of additional capacity, a figure just below the total volume of US natural gas production in 2024, according to the report. The 10 largest planned pipelines across the country—and 80 percent of total capacity of active pipeline projects—are intended to export gas overseas as LNG, based on the authors’ assessment of federal data and other public records.

The additional gas shipments would have significant implications for climate change. If all of the pipelines are built and run at full capacity, carbon dioxide emissions from burning this additional gas would be two and half times greater than the CO2 currently released from all US coal-fired power plants, the report found.

This doesn’t include emissions of methane, a climate super pollutant and the primary component of natural gas. Methane emissions occur at every step of the natural gas supply chain—from wellheads and pipelines to LNG vessels and end users—as the gas leaks or is intentionally vented.

“If we are just exporting our emissions to other countries, that’s still going to cause climate change.”

Methane emissions from the additional pipelines would pack a climate punch nearly twice that of CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants over a 20-year period, according to the report.

The amount of gas leaks from the oil and gas sector will likely increase as the Trump administration rolls back the industry’s methane regulations, the report noted.

“We know from hundreds of thousands of aerial and satellite measurements that methane leaks from oil and gas production are far worse than we previously realized, which makes the climate footprint of natural gas as bad as coal in many regions of the country,” said Danny Richter, a senior fellow with CEEA and the report’s lead author. “We had a clear path to clean up the methane problem, including the methane emissions reduction program enacted by Congress in 2022 as well as EPA regulations for the oil and gas industry. But that pathway has been shut down by the current administration.”

A fee on excessive methane emissions from oil and gas producers implemented under the Biden administration was rescinded by the Trump administration on May 12.

“It is clear from the beginning of this ‘report’ that it was created with the outcome already determined and no desire to provide facts,” an EPA spokesperson told Inside Climate News. “US methane emissions have been falling for decades thanks to American innovation, not heavy-handed government regulations, while domestic production of oil and gas has exponentially increased. According to EPA, methane emissions in the United States decreased by 19% between 1990 and 2022.”

Measurements in the field have repeatedly shown that reported methane emissions far understate actual releases.

The American Petroleum Institute, an oil and gas industry group, did not respond to a request for comment.

The report is based on US Department of Energy data on 104 pipeline projects currently under development. It is unclear whether all of the planned pipelines will be built. Fifty-four of the projects, slightly more than half of all pipelines under development, have either not yet been approved or are on hold.

This includes one of the largest proposed pipelines, the $45 billion Alaska Nikiski LNG project. The pipe, which proponents have sought for decades, would transport gas 805 miles from Alaska’s North Slope to an LNG export terminal in southern Alaska. Completing the proposed export terminal, a retrofit of an existing import terminal, is included in the project’s projected cost.

The developer, the Alaska Gasline Development Corp, has applied for permits for the pipeline, many of which were approved during the last Trump administration, but still requires more.

President Donald Trump has directed agencies to speed up permitting and roll back environmental protections. He touted the Alaska Nikiski LNG project in an address to Congress earlier this year as “truly spectacular” and said “the permitting is gotten.”

Arvind Ravikumar, co-director of the Energy Emissions Modeling and Data Lab at the University of Texas at Austin, cautioned that the report included figures for carbon dioxide emissions of gas burned by end users in other countries that import the LNG. “The way international carbon accounting works in this space is that you count only those emissions that happen within your national border,” Ravikumar said.

However, David Lyon, a senior methane scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, said including emissions from burning the gas, wherever it occurs, made sense. “Climate change is global,” Lyon said. “If we are just exporting our emissions to other countries, that’s still going to cause climate change and have impact.”

However, Lyon noted that in some cases, building gas pipelines could actually help reduce emissions. For example, in the Permian basin of West Texas and southeastern New Mexico—the largest oil and gas producing region in the country—gas is often flared, or vented, due to a lack of sufficient pipeline capacity.

In such cases, additional pipelines could help reduce flaring and its associated emissions. But it would be better to avoid drilling new wells in areas that lack sufficient pipeline capacity in the first place, Lyon added.

In comparing greenhouse gas emissions associated with the planned pipelines to those of coal-power plants, the report only compares CO2 emissions between the two fuel sources. Elsewhere, the report discusses methane emissions from the gas supply chain, but does not consider methane emissions from coal mines that feed coal-fired power plants. A recent peer-reviewed study comparing the greenhouse gas emissions of LNG and coal found methane emissions from coal mines were relatively modest compared to coal’s CO2 emissions.

In addition to permitting issues, economic forces could also limit the number of pipeline projects that get built in the coming years, or the extent to which completed pipelines operate at full capacity. China, the world’s largest importer of LNG, stopped taking US gas entirely in March in response to US tariffs on Chinese goods.

Symons said the ongoing pipeline buildout could commit the US to significantly larger LNG exports for decades to come. “This locks in more fossil fuel dependency that future presidents won’t be able to make go away,” he said. “Policies like tax incentives come and go, but pipelines are forever.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Republicans Want to Ban Pets From Domestic Violence Shelters

A new Trump-backed attack on domestic violence services just dropped—and this time, it’s targeting survivors’ pets.

Tucked inside the 1,200-page appendix to the White House’s budget request to Congress is a proposal to eliminate a grant program, funded by the Agriculture Department and administered by the Department of Justice, that provides domestic violence shelters with money to support survivors’ pets. Advocates say the program, known as PAWS, helps fill a critical gap despite its relatively small budget of $3 million: Many domestic violence shelters do not allow people to bring their pets with them, which can prevent survivors from leaving their abusers or lead them to return to them, according to a survey conducted by the Urban Resource Institute (URI) and the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

“Survivors won’t leave, they can’t leave, if they’re going to leave their pets behind,” said Lauren Schuster, vice president of government affairs at URI, a New York City-based domestic violence service provider that lobbied for the creation of PAWS and received one of the program’s first grants. “Pets are often the only source of unconditional love that a survivor experiences when they’re in abusive relationships. So many leave [abusers] with little more than the clothes on their backs, their children and their pets, and to have them be forced to make a decision [to leave their pets] is too much for them to bear.”

The PAWS funds were first distributed in 2020, after being authorized as part of the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill. Since then, more than 44 PAWS grants have been distributed to organizations across 26 states, according to Schuster and Nancy Blaney, director of government affairs at the Animal Welfare Institute, an organization that also lobbied for the creation of the program. URI received a $600,000 grant during the first year of PAWS’ distribution, which funded food, supplies, and veterinary care, Schuster said. Now, all 24 of their New York City shelters are pet inclusive, thanks to private funding and some other government grants the organization has secured, she added.

The proposal to eliminate the program comes as just the latest example of the Trump administration’s attacks on domestic violence services. The DOJ previously canceled hundreds of grants that were reportedly valued at more than $800 million and supported victims of domestic violence and other crimes. Some of those cancelations were subsequently reversed following repots from Mother Jones and other news outlets.

The administration’s attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion and transgender people have also led domestic violence service providers to purge resources offering particular support for LGBTQ survivors. Trump’s short-lived federal funding freeze also threw the nonprofits providing services to survivors into disarray. The federal budget also proposes eliminating the office focused on violence prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

While this is not the first time a presidential budget has proposed cutting the program—Biden’s proposed budget last year did, too—advocates say the threat feels more pressing now, in light of the ways the Trump administration has already undermined support for domestic violence service providers and survivors.

Congress has signaled they could move forward with decimating PAWS. On Thursday, the House Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee passed a version of their budget bill that lacks funding for the PAWS program.

“It’s disappointing to see the failure to understand the importance of these grants to these individuals and how much it means to provide those resources so domestic violence survivors can get out of a dangerous situation,” Blaney, from the Animal Welfare Institute, said.

The proposal to cut the funds is also puzzling in light of the fact that Attorney General Pam Bondi previously reversed grant cancelations that offered similar support for pets, and extended her personal appreciation to some of those service providers, NBC News reported. “Our understanding is that all the pets grants were reinstated as it is a passion area for the AG,” Jennifer Pollitt Hill, executive director of the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, which had its canceled grant for pet support restored, previously told me. Now, though, Bondi’s office could lose grants that offer similar critical support. (Spokespeople for the DOJ, the USDA, and the White House did not respond to questions from Mother Jones.)

Democratic Whip Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), who sponsored the House version of the 2017 bill proposing the creation of the grant program, expressed her disappointmentsaid in a statement provided to Mother Jones on Thursday. “By raiding the PAWS Act to give their mega-donors a tax break, Republicans aren’t just abandoning vulnerable animals—they are betraying women, children, and families.”

Stephanie Love-Patterson, president and CEO of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, said that shelters often do not allow pets for a variety of reasons, including having lack of access to funds or because survivors may be scared of or allergic to certain pets. But that can have tragic consequences for survivors. Love-Patterson recalled an incident from her days working as an advocate at a domestic violence shelter that did not accept pets. When one of the survivors had to leave her golden retriever at home, and “her husband called her regularly just so she could hear him torturing the dog,” Love-Patterson told me.

“She oftentimes had one foot in the shelter and one foot going back home,” she added. “That was her baby.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Judge Calls Trump’s Deportation Operation Kafkaesque In Blistering Opinion

On Wednesday, District Court Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to provide the due process it denied to Venezuelans in March when it sent them to a Salvadoran megaprison.

The order means that the roughly 140 men sent to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) under the authority of the Alien Enemies Act—a rarely used 18th-century wartime power—must be provided with a chance to argue their cases in court. Boasberg’s order follows two Supreme Court decisions holding that people targeted under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to due process under the Constitution. The decision provides the first real hope of the men being released since they arrived at CECOT in March. (The case does not cover the approximately 100 Venezuelans sent to El Salvador who were subject to removal under other authorities.)

For now, Boasberg is not ordering the Trump administration to follow a specific set of steps to ensure the men receive due process. Instead, he is asking the government to suggest its own way of doing so. “Given that such a remedy may involve delicate questions relating to diplomacy and national security—core Executive Branch functions—the Court will proceed in measured fashion,” Boasberg explained. “It will begin by allowing the Government to propose how it will ensure that the CECOT Class receives the process it is constitutionally due. That process must nonetheless be forthcoming.” (If Boasberg finds that process insufficient he could order the administration to take more specific steps.)

The judge made clear in the decision that the government is already on a short leash. The case began with him ordering the government to “immediately” turn around the two planes headed for El Salvador carrying Venezuelans being removed under the Alien Enemies Act. The government refused to do so. (A criminal contempt inquiry launched by Boasberg in response is now ongoing.)

The government’s conduct in the case was contemptible enough for Boasberg to turn to Franz Kafka. The first paragraph of the 69-page decision reads:

One morning, Kafka’s Josef K. awakens to encounter two strange men outside his room. As he gets his bearings, he realizes that he is under arrest. When he asks the strangers why, he receives no answer.” “We weren”t sent to tell you that,” one says. “Proceedings are under way and you’ll learn everything in due course.” Bewildered by these men and distressed by their message, K. tries to comfort himself that he lives in “a state governed by law,” one where “all statutes [are] in force.” He therefore demands again, “How can I be under arrest? And in this manner?” “Now there you go again,” the guard replies. “We don”t answer such questions.” Undeterred, K. offers his “papers” and demands their arrest warrant. “Good heavens!” the man scolds. “There’s been no mistake.” “[O]ur department,” he assures K., is only “attracted by guilt”; it “doesn”t seek [it] out . . . . That’s the Law.” “I don”t know that law,” K. responds. “You”ll feel it eventually,” the guard says.” (Page number citations have been removed for readability.)

After, Boasberg compares K.’s predicament to that of the Venezuelans sent to CECOT. “In the early morning hours, Venezuelans held by the Department of Homeland Security at El Valle Detention Facility in Texas were awakened from their cells, taken to a separate room, shackled, and informed that they were being transferred,” the judge explained. “To where? That they were not told…When asked, some guards reportedly laughed and said that they did not know; others told the detainees, incorrectly, that they were being transferred to another immigration facility or to Mexico or Venezuela.”

The Venezuelans at CECOT have now been held incommunicado for more than two months. They have not been allowed any calls to family members, much less the lawyers advocating on their behalf in the United States. Instead, they are stuck in one of the world’s worst prisons with no idea of when (if ever) they will get out.

According to the Trump administration, the men are in El Salvador because they are members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. But the administration has provided almost no evidence to support that claim. It has refused repeated requests from Mother Jones and other outlets to refute overwhelming evidence that it falsely accused many—if not most—of the people it sent to CECOT of gang membership.

Instead, in a formulation worthy of K.’s tormentors, a senior Department of Homeland Security official has told me and other reporters that it would be “insane” to “share intelligence reports and undermine national security every time a gang member denies he is one.”

Boasberg is showing little patience for the government’s obfuscation. “In our nation—unlike the one into which K. awakes—the Government’s mere promise that there has been no mistake does not suffice,” he wrote on Wednesday. “Any government confident of the legal or evidentiary basis for its actions has nothing to fear from that requirement. It is, after all, ‘central to our system of ordered liberty.’”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s New “Supercharged” Travel Ban

On Wednesday, the Trump administration issued a new travel ban on foreigners, primarily targeting people from countries in Africa, the Middle East, and the Caribbean. Under the guise of protecting the United States against “foreign terrorists” and national security threats, this executive order amounts to an even more sweeping bar than the infamous travel ban on Muslim majority nations President Donald Trump implemented during his first term.

“There is no evidence this is making us safer.”

The reinstated travel ban represents the administration’s latest attack on immigrants. Slated to go into effect on Monday, June 9, it prohibits most travel and lawful immigration from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It also limits entry for travelers from seven other nations: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

The rationale for the restrictions, according to the presidential proclamation, is based on “foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism” concerns. The executive order states that the countries hit with the restrictions lack proper vetting and screening processes for issuing passports and other civil documents and have high visa overstay rates. It also mentions the nations’ willingness (or lack thereof) to take back deportees from the United States as a factor.

There are a number of exemptions to the ban: travelers who already have valid visas, green card holders, Afghan nationals eligible for a special visa for assisting the US government, and immediate relatives of American citizens. It also carves out exceptions for “ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran,” dual citizens traveling with a passport from a country not listed in the proclamation, and athletes coming for the World Cup orother major sports events.

The 19 countries targeted by the travel ban represent more than 475 million people, the American Immigration Council noted. “The travel bans of the Trump administration’s first term never demonstrated any meaningful value as a national security tool,” Jeremy Robbins, executive director of the organization, said in a statement. “Sweeping national origin bans declare many innocent people to be a threat based on factors they cannot control in their home countries. There is no evidence this is making us safer.”

Other immigration policy experts and observers have raised questions about the Trump administration’s justification for the severe travel restrictions. Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute pointed out that there’s little evidence to support claims that immigrants from the countries covered by the ban commit acts of terrorism at any significant rate.

A single terrorist from those countries murdered one person in an attack on US soil: Emanuel Kidega Samson from Sudan in 2017. The annual chance of being murdered by a terrorist from one of the banned countries from 1975 to the end of 2024 was about 1 in 13.9 billion per year.

— The Alex Nowrasteh (@AlexNowrasteh) June 5, 2025

Upon announcing the executive order, President Trump brought up the recent attack in Boulder, Colorado, against a group of demonstrators calling for Israeli hostages in Gaza to be released. The perpetrator of the attack is an Egyptian national who authorities say entered the United States on a tourist visa in 2022 and later applied for asylum; this, Trump said, “has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals.” Egypt, however, isn’t included in the list of countries targeted by the executive order. When asked about it, Trump said that Egypt “has been a country that we deal with very closely, they have things under control.”

This iteration of the travel ban mirrors the authority the Trump administration invoked the first time around to bar travelers from several Muslim-majority countries, giving rise to nationwide protests and lengthy legal battles. In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld a third version of Trump’s embattled travel ban that also impacted Venezuela and North Korea.

“With the return of a supercharged Muslim and African Ban and the racist exclusion of certain people from the ability to seek safety and refuge,” Murad Awawdeh, president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition and one of the leaders in the resistance against the Trump 1.0 travel ban, said in a statement “Donald Trump and his enablers are attacking the very concept of America itself.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Humanitarian Parole Is Over. Now Comes the Fear.

Last week, the US Supreme Court lifted an order from a Massachusetts district court that hadmaintained humanitarian parole protections in place for about 530,000 immigrants from Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, and Nicaragua who had been living in the United States legally under a Biden-era program. Advocacy groups in South Florida condemned the decision that will inevitably impact scores of immigrants and their families living in the area.

In 2022, after immigration authorities noted an increase in the number of immigrants arriving at the border from these four countries, the Biden administration created a parole program known as CHNV (which stands for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans). The new program allowed applicants to come to the United States legally for two years as long as they passed background checks, hada sponsor based in the US, and had traveled to the US at no cost to the government.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration revoked CHNV, citing in a Federal Register notice that the program is “unnecessary to achieve border security goals.” Attorneys representing CHNV recipients challenged the decision, and on April 14, a Massachusetts district judge blocked the termination of the program. This month, the Trump administration requested a stay from the US Supreme Court, which was granted on Friday, May 30.

At a virtual press conference hours after the decision was announced, Karen Tumlin, director of the Justice Action Center, and an attorney in the case, said the Supreme Court’s decision “enacted the largest mass de-legalization program in US history.”

“Let me be clear. This is for a group of people who had lawful status until this morning, but who the Trump administration has forcibly rendered undocumented overnight,” Tumlin said, “and that should send a shiver down everyone’s spine.”

“This order gives ICE a green light to grab these immigrants and deport them to the hell they escaped from in a legal way.”

In Miami, Florida, the following Monday, representatives from several immigrant advocacy groups held a press conference to highlight what this decision would mean for the local community. Standing behind a lectern draped with flags from Cuba, Venezuela, and Haiti, Paul Christian Namphy, political director for the Haitian community organization Family Action Network Movement, noted that immigrants who were directly affected by the Supreme Court’s decision were not present at the gathering because of “the dangers that they are facing right now.”

“These individuals followed a rigorous legal process and are now being punished while their legal status is still being litigated,” Namphy said. “The court opens the door to mass deportations, family separations, and economic disruptions.”

Silvia Muñoz, a member of the Cuban American Women Supporting Democracy organization, said immigrants enrolled in the parole program had faced hardships in their countries, such as food shortages and violence. The Biden administration intended for the parole program to offer them a humane and legal way to come to the US. “This order gives ICE a green light to grab these immigrants and deport them to the hell they escaped from in a legal way,” she said. She called on Republicans “who believed Trump’s promise to deport immigrants did not include their loved ones, to raise their voices in protest and total disregard for human life.”

Adelys Ferro, director of the Venezuelan American Caucus, said that the Trump administration’s agenda against immigrants targets all nationalities, pointing to another recent US Supreme Court decision that allowed the Trump administration to revoke Temporary Protected Status protections for about 350,000 Venezuelans. “The attacks against immigrants are everywhere,” she said. “It’s not only one nationality. It’s all of us. They don’t want immigrants here.”

Hours after Friday’s decision, Jack Maguire, development manager of the advocacy group Florida Immigrant Coalition, told Mother Jones that immigrant communities in the Miami area were already experiencing immense fear and anxiety in the wake of other anti-immigrant decisions by the Trump administration. And, as I wrote in April, Florida also leads the nation in the number of law enforcement agencies that are collaborating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Earlier this year, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation that requires all county jails to cooperate with ICE requests to detain immigrants booked into their facilities.

Add to these concerns, the threatened deportations would separate more families and negatively influence the state’s economy, he added. “Businesses are going to start losing employees,” he says. “The effects are going to be felt very immediately by the people with these statuses. But it’s also going to be felt community-wide.”

The decision is not a final ruling on the merits of the case, Tumlin from the Justice Action Center added, “We’re committed to ensuring that our clients and the class members get a full-and-complete hearing as quickly as possible.” Thisdecision would cause “irreparable harm,”Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “It undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.”

Angel Leal, an immigration attorney in the Miami area, said he’s heard from humanitarian parole clients in recent days who are fearful of what will happen next in their cases. Many parole recipients have pending applications for other forms of relief. But still, in those cases, “they’re concerned and they’re scared.”

“Even if everything’s been done correctly, and whatever immigration benefit they qualify for has already been applied for,” he said, “the sense of insecurity that it can all be taken away at any time is really what’s concerning to us and to our clients.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Wants To Eliminate a 105-Year-Old Office That Supports Women Workers

When the Secretary of the Department of Labor (DOL), Lori Chavez-DeRemer, testified before the House Appropriations Committee last month, she seemed to assure worried lawmakers that the more than century-old, congressionally-mandated Women’s Bureau was here to stay.

“The Women’s Bureau is in statute,” Chavez-DeRemer said in response to a question from Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) about DOGE’s cancelations of congressionally-mandated grants designed to get women into jobs in construction and manufacturing, as Mother Jones previouslyreported. Indeed, the Women’s Bureauwas created through a law enacted in 1920 to promote the welfare of women at work, improve their working conditions, and boost their abilities to earn good livings.

But a summary of the Labor Department’s budget request for the next fiscal year, released by the agency on Friday, shows the department is proposing to entirely eliminate the Women’s Bureau—which it calls “an ineffective policy office that is a relic of the past”—for the first time ever. The budget brief, a summary that agencies release detailing their annual budget requests, states that the DOL will work with Congress to repeal the statutes mandating the existence of the Women’s Bureau as well as the aforementioned grant program that was already canceled. President Donald Trump’s budget request to Congress, released Friday, also proposes eliminating the Bureau. The effort comes as Republicans’ latest attempt to dismantle the Bureau, which they started working towards during Trump’s first term.

Nine current and former DOL staffers told Mother Jones the move reflects the Trump administration’s ambitions to encourage more women to stop working and instead stay home to raise children. “It really feels like a specific [effort] to get women out of the workplace,” said Gayle Goldin, former deputy director of the office under the Biden administration. “We really still need the Women’s Bureau, because we need to be able to identify what the problems are, see where the barriers are for women in the workplace, and ensure that women have full capacity to enter the workplace in whatever job they want.”

Former staffers also say it reflects the Trump administration’sbroader devaluing of issues primarily affecting women—despite Trump’s claims that “WOMEN WILL BE HAPPY, HEALTHY, CONFIDENT AND FREE” in his second term. The DOL staffers, along with outside experts, say they fear that eliminating the Women’s Bureau will lead to a rollback of women’s gains in the workforce.

Kate Bahn, chief economist and senior vice president of research at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, a DC think tank, disputes the DOL’s characterization of the Women’s Bureau as “a relic of the past,” pointing to data that shows the gender wage gap widened for the first time in 20 years post-pandemic and that women’s labor force participation rate has decreased since peaking in the 1990s.

“The Women’s Bureau has historically played a role in helping the [DOL] understand both the causes and consequences of economic trends like this, which can only be effectively addressed with timely research and policy analysis,” Bahn said.

Spokespeople for the Labor Department and the White House did not respond to questions from Mother Jones for this story.

Multiple former DOL staffers described the Women’s Bureau as “small but mighty.”

Despite a relatively tiny budget that makes up less than one percent of the department’s overall spending, the Bureau has historically played a key role in passing federal laws including the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. More recently, their research on state-level paid family and medical leave laws led multiple states to pass such laws, former DOL staffers said. Staff members also provided briefings to lawmakers in Congress based on their data to help inform policies to support women workers.

“It’s not something that is a household name,” Goldin, the former deputy director, said of the Bureau, “but it is something that really makes a difference to working women.”

Since its creation, the office has conducted regular research on women’s workforce participation by county, the gender wage gap by race and occupation, and child care prices nationwide. One former DOL employee described the Women’s Bureau staff as “that voice in rooms where no one was saying anything about working women..[and] asking, ‘What about childcare? What about paid leave? What about the gender wage gap?’” (Several current and former DOL staffers were granted anonymity for fear of retaliation for speaking out; a department official previously threatened staff who spoke to journalists with “serious legal consequences,” including criminal charges, ProPublica reported.)

The Bureau also administered grants to support job training and address gender-based harassment in the workplace, which grantees said offered critical support and helped women secure well-paying jobs. The office also hosted in-person training sessions nationwide to ensure workers knew their rights and to help other federal agencies implement programs to support women’s well-being and equity at work.

Wendy Chun-Hoon, former director of the Bureau under the Biden administration, said it’s “laughable” for the DOL to propose cutting an agency that manages to do so much with such a small budget. “Our dollar probably goes further than anyone else’s,” she said.

Since Trump’s second term began, the office’s work has essentially been at a standstill. The Bureau has lost about half of its approximately 50-person staff through a combination of buyouts and resignations. DOL staffers said the Bureau’s public-facing work—such as blog posts commemorating International Women’s Day and National Sexual Assault Awareness Month, new data analyses, and funding opportunities for employers—has essentially been paused since Jan. 20, leaving those who remain without much work to do. “There doesn’t seem to be much interest from the Secretary’s office so far in engaging with [the Bureau] and trying to see what [the Bureau] can do to enhance their priorities,” one DOL staffer said.

“The instructions that we got were essentially anything that had [the word] ‘gender’ had to come down.”

The little work that staffers have been assigned since Trump resumed office has been focused on appeasing the new administration. Soon after Trump’s Inauguration, Women’s Bureau staffers received what they believed was a bizarre directive, according to multiple current and former DOL staffers: Scrub the Women’s Bureau website of terms including “inequity,” “gender identity,” and in some cases simply “gender,” because they could run afoul of Trump’s executive orders seeking to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion across government and to erase transgender people from public life. One former Women’s Bureau staffer said there were multiple staff members working on the project full-time for two to three days. “The instructions that we got were essentially anything that had [the word] ‘gender’ had to come down,” the staffer said.

Some prior references to the gender wage gap were changed to refer to instead the “sex earnings gap.” And webpages that once housed extensive resources and reports on gender-based violence and harassment at work and the impacts of gender and racial inequalities affecting women workers were deleted entirely, which one former DOL staffer called “a huge loss.” (Archived versions of the webpages are still available through the Wayback Machine.)

In its attempt to justify eliminating the office, the budget brief claims that “the Women’s Bureau has struggled to find a role” as women’s workforce participation has increased since the office’s creation in 1920, and that “its work is not always closely coordinated with, or informed by, the agencies that actually have the resources to address the issues at hand.” But current and former DOL staffers say those allegations are baseless.

“We know full well that women’s labor force participation continues to be much lower than men’s,” one former DOL employee said. “Clearly there’s plenty more progress we could make.”

Staffers also noted examples of the Bureau’s work helping other federal agencies address the concerns of women workers: In 2022, for example, the office collaborated with the Department of Transportation to raise awareness of sexual harassment and assault in the trucking industry, and also worked with the Department of Commerce to require that companies seeking large amounts of funding through the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act submit proposals to make childcare accessible to workers.

“This administration came out saying that they were going to ‘defend women’ and that they were ‘pro-worker,’” said Chun-Hoon, the former director, “and they’ve demonstrated they’re anything but either of those things.”

Republicans have long been wary of the Women’s Bureau.

During Trump’s first term, the administration sought to slash its funding by more than 75 percent, though that did not end up happening because of pushback from advocacy groups and Democrats. And in 2023, House Republicans unsuccessfully tried to eliminate the Bureau for the first time in at least a decade.

While Project 2025 did not outright call for the elimination of the Women’s Bureau, it alleged the office “tends towards a politicized research and engagement agenda that puts predetermined conclusions ahead of empirical study” and said the Bureau should “rededicate its research budget towards open inquiry, especially to dissentangle the influences on women’s workforce participation and to understand the true causes of earnings gaps between men and women.”

For supporters of the Women’s Bureau, a cruel irony is that Thursday marks the office’s 105th birthday. If it is, in fact, eliminated before it turns 106—which Congress would have to approve—one DOL staffer predicted that “women are going to be left behind.” For the Trump administration, though, that may be the goal.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

How the Legacy of the “Bonus Army” Inspired a Modern Protest Movement of Military Veterans

This story first appeared on The War Horse, an award-winning nonprofit news organization educating the public on military service. Subscribe to their newsletter.

Whenthe promises politicians made went unkept, when they were left without any reasonable alternatives, American veterans took to the streets by the thousands, forced to become their own advocates.

The year was 1932, and the men who’d served in World War I were demanding the bonus pay they’d been promised for their years fighting in Europe. Calling themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force, or the “Bonus Army,” veterans hitchhiked and rode freight train boxcars from all over the country to get to Washington, DC. They protested for months, and the entire nation took notice.

In 2025, a new Bonus Army has assembled and plans to rally in Washington on June 6 to protest the administration’s cuts to Veterans Affairs and federal employment, where veterans and their families comprise 30 percent of the workforce.

“The federal workforce is one of the only places in the entire country that truly takes into account the merit of military service, and [the cuts are] something that really pisses me off,” said Will Attig, a protest co-organizer and executive director of the Union Veterans Council, which advocates for veterans jobs and a robust VA.

Now “veterans that serve their country are being called the worst type of names and are being told that they’re DEI hires, being told that their jobs are handouts, that they’re lazy bums,” he said. “We can all agree, veterans need jobs. Veterans do better when they have good jobs, and taking that pathway away and then disrespecting the thousands, the tens of thousands of veterans that play those roles” is enraging.

The new efforts bear the name and the legacy of thousands of American soldiers who took to the streets almost a century ago, and they echo generations of veterans who have advocated for their benefits and applied their moral weight to right wrongs.

The Bonus Army protests of 1932 led to the GI Bill more than a decade later. Vietnam veterans not only protested the war in Southeast Asia, but two veterans—Sens. John McCain and John Kerry—helped lead the reconciliation efforts. Gulf War veterans steadfastly pushed to have Gulf War syndrome and the effects of Agent Orange recognized and VA benefits to treat it.

“All veterans were willing to give their lives in service to their country. In other words, we ‘walked the walk,’” said historian and veteran Marc Leepson. “And that gives us a good measure of credibility, if not gravitas” when advocating for certain issues.

The Birth of Military Protests

Much of modern military protest traces back to the original Bonus Army, according to James Ridgway, a veterans law scholar and lecturer at George Washington University.

Then, veterans had been promised deferred compensation for their World War I service, but it wouldn’t be paid until 1945. As the Great Depression worsened and families became desperate, veterans demanded their bonuses early. They marched from Oregon to D.C., where more than 10,000 camped on the National Mall and on the banks of the Anacostia River.

There, Marine Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler gave a rousing speech that is still quoted today.

“You have just as much right to have a lobby here as any steel corporation,” Butler said. “Take it from me, this is the greatest demonstration of Americanism we have ever had… Don’t make any mistake about it: You’ve got the sympathy of the American people. Now, don’t you lose it!”

Even so, at the order of then-President Hoover, the assembled thousands were routed from their protest site at bayonet point by a battalion of soldiers, machine gunners, cavalrymen, and tanks from the same Army they served in.

When images of the Bonus Army’s burning camp made the front pages of newspapers and theater newsreels across America, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was running against Hoover for the presidency that year, reportedly told an aide, “This will elect me.”

Roosevelt, who promised a “New Deal” that would provide relief and economic security for all Americans, including veterans, won the election that November by a landslide, securing 57% of the popular vote.

The struggles of WWI veterans served as a cautionary tale for Roosevelt, who signed the GI Bill in 1944. This historic law provided low-interest loans, trade education, and a college education to servicemen returning from World War II.

Veterans Fight for Truth and Treatment

Just a few decades later, the pendulum swung back with young soldiers returning from the Vietnam War. They were called “losers” by politicians and World War II veterans who did not have the same rates of post-traumatic stress disorder as their successors.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War demonstrated during 1976 U.S. Bicentennial celebration in Philadelphia. (Photo courtesy of Wiki Commons)

When the Vietnam veterans began to get sick from their exposure to Agent Orange or were stricken with severe addictions to help manage their PTSD, they struggled to file claims with the Veterans Benefits Administration.

As a combat lieutenant in 1969, Bobby Muller was shot while leading a charge and was paralyzed from the waist down.

After suffering deplorable conditions in a Bronx VA hospital, Muller co-founded the Vietnam Veterans of America in 1978. The VVA advocates for veterans’ issues like combating homelessness, ensuring adequate care for disabled veterans, and assisting veterans seeking government benefits and services. Today, there are nearly 90,000 VVA members in 650 chapters across the US.

“Nobody can speak for the dead,” Muller said in a 2019 interview with Binghamton University. “But I was in a position to speak for the living that had been severely damaged.”

Veterans advocacy has not just focused on winning benefits. In the spring of 1971, a young lieutenant who’d commanded a swift boat in the Mekong Delta named John Kerry spoke to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In addition to vividly retelling the findings of the Winter Soldier testimony earlier that year into war crimes committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, Kerry laid bare the criminality many veterans felt embodied the United States’ involvement in the war.

“We could come back to this country, and we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country … not the Reds … but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out,” Kerry testified.

Kerry, along with McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, would later push the Clinton administration to restore diplomatic relations with that country. McCain noted that his war experience afforded him a unique position. “I knew I wasn’t taking much of a political risk by advocating for normal relations. It was hard to accuse me of bad faith, and I felt pretty safe from criticism,” he later said. In the 1990s, veterans returning from the Persian Gulf also had to fight for benefits to treat their service-related injuries.After serving as an Army cavalry scout in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991, Paul Sullivan experienced chronic respiratory infections and neurological symptoms. He met other Gulf vets in VA hospital waiting rooms. They compared notes and shared their fury at being told their conditions were “temporary” and “not related to their service.” At the time, the burden heavily fell on veterans seeking to get medical care through VA.

“Veterans trusted each other, and veterans believed each other that we were exposed to toxins and that we were sick,” Sullivan said. “Then we demanded very clear objectives from VA: Why are we sick? … How are we going to get better, and who’s going to pay?”

Gulf War veterans collaborated with Vietnam Veterans of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars to lobby for access to care and benefits from the Veterans Administration in a battle that went on for decades, according to Sullivan, who served as executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center.

This collaboration led to the successful passage of the Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998 and subsequent laws, all of which made it easier for veterans to access the health care needed to treat service-related illnesses.

That tenacity continued as veterans and their families slept on the steps of the Capitol building in 2022 to pressure senators to pass the PACT Act, which extended benefits to those exposed to toxins during their service.

Veterans and their families pressured Congress to pass the PACT Act to extend benefits to veterans exposed to toxins during their service. (Photo courtesy of Rosie Lopez-Torres)

Now, veterans are using a combination of their combat experiences and subsequent inadequate treatments to lobby for expanded clinical studies of psychedelics.

“After two decades of sustained combat and a persistently high veteran suicide rate, there is growing urgency—and willingness—to pursue innovative treatments for the challenges veterans face,” says Amber Capone, co-founder of Veterans Exploring Treatment Solutions. “Veterans have a remarkable ability to transcend political divides and build consensus around otherwise contentious issues.”

Texas House Rep. Mike Olcott was unconvinced about a $50 million bill to research using the psychedelic drug ibogaine to treat substance use disorders, PTSD, and other mental health conditions until he spoke with a group of people, including Amber’s husband, Marcus, a former Navy SEAL.

“As a former scientist, I said ‘I’ve got to talk to someone who’s actually been through this,’ because I was very skeptical,” Olcott said. After Marcus Capone described his own experiences, Olcott remarked, there are “really good reasons to support this bill, and I’m looking forward to voting for it.”

When the Bonus Army of 2025 arrives in the Capitol on June 6th, they will have an opportunity to use this same force multiplier of veterans’ voices. Organizers say they want to protect federal employment for veterans and military families, hold politicians accountable for cuts that harm service members and families, and stop the “weakening of the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

“I think that reminding our fellow Americans that people who choose to step forward and serve—like veterans and civil servants—they should be honored not demonized,” said Scott Cooper, a Marine pilot who served numerous tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and will join the June 6 protest. “I believe in my core that citizenship can’t be a spectator sport, so I need to participate and help, no matter how small that contribution is.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

A Doctor’s Impassioned Defense of Later Abortions

Dr. Shelley Sella kept a journal from the very first day she got on a plane to go work for George Tiller, the third-trimester abortion provider who was assassinated in 2009. As the first woman to openly provide third-trimester abortions in the US,she spent nearly 20 years commuting from her home in California to Tiller’s clinic in Kansas, and then, after his murder, to the storied Southwest Women’s Options abortion clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Sometimes Sella’s journal entries focused on medical protocols, she tells me: “How much misoprostol did I give her? How much Pitocin?” But mostly, she recorded the stories of her patients and the circumstances that led them to her clinic. “I would think, ‘If people could hear these stories, they would have such a different attitude about third-trimester abortion.”

Going public with those stories felt like an imperative after Sella’s retirement in 2021, a few months before Roe v. Wade was overturned. Her newbook, Beyond Limits: Stories of Third-Trimester Abortion Care, is part memoir, part education tool, part defense of a deeply stigmatized form of medical care—one that is likely becoming more common as post-Roe abortion bans lead to delays for patients. Sella focuses on six lightly fictionalized patients and their families, including a couple who learned their baby would likely die shortly after birth, a cancer patient needing an abortion so she could start chemotherapy, a scared teenager who hid her pregnancy from her parents for months, and a victim of domestic abuse. Interwoven is Sella’s own story—her path out of a violent childhood, her coming-of-age during the 1970s feminist movement, and her years as an unfulfilled OB-GYN.

One of Sella’s main goals is to demystify what third-trimester abortion involves: typically, an injection to stop the fetus’ heart, then induction of labor, then a few days later, a stillbirth. Patients receive emotional support—a chaplain at Tiller’s clinic; midwives, doulas and group counseling sessions in Albuquerque—and decide whether they want to see and hold their baby (the word most patients use, Sella says). The process is intense, expensive, and heart-wrenching.

“Third-trimester abortion is like first- and second-trimester abortion, except that people are more desperate.”

Sella’s other goal is to challenge mainstream reproductive rights advocates who avoid talking about later-term procedures out of fear that voters will be unnerved, rather than see them as a necessary part of maternal health care and the fight for reproductive autonomy. “I believe now is the time to reevaluate what it means to be pro-choice,” she writes.

I met up with Sella at a rock-climbing gym in Berkeley, California, where she spent years taking her son for lessons before discovering how much she loved the sport, too. She arrived for our conversation on her bike, sporting purple overalls, a canvas tote bag, and socks printed with pink flamingos—colorful footwear became a wardrobe staple years ago, to cheer up patients who would often stare at the floor when they talked. “Third-trimester abortion is like first- and second-trimester abortion, except that people are more desperate,” she tells me. “And I think we should care for those who are the most desperate, the most vulnerable, the most marginalized.” Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

You retired in 2021, after almost 20 years of providing later abortion care. What made you decide you needed to write this book?

There are so many books about abortion, but no one has written anything about third-trimester abortion. So we just hear anti-abortion rhetoric about it, which is scary and wrong. Or ifwe do hear the very human stories in the third trimester, they’re invariably about fetal indications where the fetus, the baby, has a serious medical condition.

We don’t hear all the other stories. It was very intentional to have three patients in the book with fetal indications and three patients with maternal indications—patients who have medical conditions that make it dangerous for them to continue the pregnancy or who have really difficult life situations. They want their child, if it were born, to have a good life. They don’t think that they can provide that under the circumstances that they’re living under. The fetal-indication patients have the same thought. They want their child to have a good life, but they think that because of the baby’s medical conditions,their child will suffer for as long as it lives.

There’s so much stigma and uneasiness surrounding later abortion. What were the most important messages for you to get across to your readers?

I want people to have an understanding of this care that goes beyond the politics of it, or the legal ramifications. These are real people who are facing difficult situations. I want readers to understand that gestational limits don’t reflect the reality of people’s lives—that these circumstances are not tied to a clock or to a calendar.

Who do you most want to read it?

Everyone.

Of course.

But the main audience are the pro-choice people who are having a hard time with third-trimester abortion. There are a lot of them. They want to be supportive, but they feel uncomfortable, they feel conflicted.

It’s okay to have those feelings. It’s okay to say, “Hey, I don’t know about this, I’m not sure.” That’s fine. You can still support patients who need that care and advocate for laws that don’t place gestational limits. I don’t think people need to support third-trimester abortion care wholeheartedly. But it would be very helpful if there was a movement that recognized the importance of this care.

Did you ever have doubts, in a particular case, about whether you were doing the right thing?

No, I felt very clear. It was unusual to feel conflicted. And if I did have doubts, I would go back to the patient and look at their situation, and that was the end of the conversation in my head. Let me give you an example: “She’s already got five kids. She’s working two jobs. The guy’s in jail. Her housing situation is terrible, and she’s in the third trimester.”

There’s the answer. I would do the exercise of, “Wait a minute. It’s not about me, it’s not about the decisions I would make”—which, anyway, you never know what decisions you would make. You don’t know until you’re in that situation.

“The main audience are the pro-choice people who are having a hard time with third-trimester abortion. There are a lot of them.”

There was a time in your life when you thought you might be in that situation. You were abused as a child.

In the past, when I would give a talk, I would say something like, “I had a difficult childhood experience.” That was a step towards saying what it really was. Incest. I want to name it.

It wouldn’t be an honest book if I didn’t. And if it wasn’t going to be honest, then I didn’t want to write it, because my childhood experiences—and this is something I only realized years into doing this work—were the underlying impetus.

Childhood trauma is part of what drove you to do this work.

In my early 20s, working at the Los Angeles Feminist Women’s Health Center and in medical school, I just had this kind of radical passion. It was exhilarating. It was this time of ferment. The women’s health movement was growing. Everyone was a lesbian feminist, everyone—I’m exaggerating [laughs]—was wearing flannel and jeans. I was very strident and dogmatic. I don’t know that I put all the pieces together.

And then as you get older, you have experience, and you get more reflective. It took a long time to realize I wasn’t just a burgeoning feminist who sees the world, recognizes the patriarchy and the male control of medicine, and has a critique of that. Yes, that’s all true, but that’s intellectual.

I wonder whether the pace of the clinic helped me slow down. Third-trimester abortion care takes time. It’s not a fast-paced setting. You have time to develop relationships with people, hear their stories, sit with them.

It’s not like I took care of so many victims of incest, but I did take care of some. I had to be very careful. This is their life. This is not about me, it’s about them. I was always very conscious of that with patients, but more so in those situations. Some, I would see with their parents, who supported them in a very loving way. And I was so appreciative that they had someone who really was there for them.

A lot of abortion-rights activists and Democratic politicians ignore third-trimester abortion. Recently, we’ve seen states pass constitutional amendments to protect abortion access—but only in the first two trimesters or to the point of “viability.” Those amendments still let states ban later abortion, just like Roe v. Wade did.

Yeah. The amendments are not good, actually. They enshrine in state constitutions this notion of “viability.” I wonder about people who have their own conflicted feelings about abortion care later in pregnancy and if they let those feelings determine what they think will succeed politically. A lot of it is how you educate and inform people. I think you can frame the issue in a way that helps voters see the humanity of the person who needs the care.

Now’s the time to push back on viability and gestational limits, because Roe has been overturned. Roe was problematic from day one, and it only got more and more problematic as there were more and more restrictions passed. So to think, “Let’s go backwards and restore Roe,” to me, is wrong thinking. We have an opportunity to think big.

When people talk about “viability” they’re usually talking about the 23- or 24-week point during pregnancy, when a doctor decides that the fetus could survive outside the woman’s body. You lay out an idea of “viability” in the book that’s much broader.

The usual notion of viability is entirely about the fetus and its ability to survive outside the womb, with or without artificial support—meaning medical intervention, mechanical technology. By “support,” they don’t mean adequate economic financial support, housing, educational opportunities, family support. They’re only talking about the fetus, and they’re not at all talking about the woman, the patient. So I think that’s problematic.

It’s not anything I made up. It’s not some radical notion. Well, maybe it is a radical notion, I guess.

“Radical” is a loaded word.

Or maybe “holistic,” to use the 1970s, 1980s term. The pregnant person decides whether the pregnancy is viable to them—not the court, and not the state. It’s that individual person’s definition, because that person knows best, and we should trust them to make the best decision.

The usual notion of viability is entirely about the fetus and its ability to survive outside the womb, with or without artificial support. . . . They’re only talking about the fetus, and they’re not at all talking about the woman.”

The book is a way to introduce this concept to a more mainstream audience and to start questioning this outdated notion of viability, which is so constraining and dangerous because of how it’s used to criminalize patients: “This is a viable fetus, you ingested drugs, so you’re guilty of child abuse.” Or medical people use that viability line to deny emergency care to people who are miscarrying: “Even though your water has broken and you’re bleeding, the fetus is viable because its heart is beating, so we have to wait.”

You were one of very few abortion providers in the country doing third-trimester or post-viability abortions. Now that you’ve retired, how do you think about your legacy?

I’m happy to debunk that myth that there’s a shortage of third-trimester providers. There are more than you realize. They’re young, and they’re energetic, and their model of care is not exactly the same as mine. They’ve got their own thing going. All power to them.

The model of care that we offered at Southwest Women’s Options was such an important part of why I embraced this work so much. When I was in residency, when I was an OB-GYN, I was frustrated. It was so mechanistic. The demands of the institution where I worked determined the kind of care I could provide. In Albuquerque, it was the opposite. We could care for patients how I thought everyone should be cared for in every medical setting. I felt like we were treating patients with such a high level of love.

I didn’t do it on my own. It was a whole group of people working together to create this incredibly beautiful practice. I’ve worked with lots of people, I’ve trained lots of people, and it gives me a tremendous amount of satisfaction for them to see this model of care. They may not be in settings where they can offer it. But at least they saw it and they experienced it. The patients certainly experienced it. They saw that they were important, that it was important for them to be cared for. Maybe they saw what’s possible, what good care means.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Here’s One Biden Climate Provision Republicans Are Unlikely to Kill

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

Dig down about a mile or two in parts of the United States and you’ll start to see the remains of an ancient ocean. The shells of long dead sea creatures are compressed into white limestone, surrounding brine aquifers with a higher salt content than the Atlantic Ocean.

Last summer, ExxonMobil sponsored weeklong camps to teach grade school students from Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi about the virtues of these aquifers, specifically their ability to serve as carbon capture and sequestration wells, where oil, gas, and heavy industry can bury harmful emissions deep underground. In one exercise, students were given 20 minutes to build a model reservoir out of vegetable oil, Play-Doh, pasta, and uncooked beans. Whoever could keep the most vegetable oil (meant to represent liquified carbon dioxide) in their aquifer, won.

This kind of down-home carbon capture boosterism is a relatively new development for the oil and gas giant. Over recent years, ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies have spent millions lobbying for government support of what they see as industry-friendly green technology, most prominently carbon capture and storage, which many scientists and environmental activists have argued is ineffective and distracts from eliminating fossil fuel operations in the first place. According to Exxon’s website, it’s evidence that they are leading “the biggest energy transition in history.”

Now that Congress has turned its attention to rolling back government spending on renewable energy, it appears that most of the climate “solutions” being left off the chopping block are the ones favored by carbon-intensive companies like Exxon. Corporate tax breaks for carbon capture and storage, for instance, were one of the few things left untouched when House Republicans passed a budget bill on May 22 that effectively gutted the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration’s signature climate legislation. What remained of the IRA’s clean energy tax credits were incentives for nuclear, so-called clean fuels like ethanol, and carbon capture.

“The argument is, ‘This is a win for the climate, it’s a win for energy dominance.’ [But] it’s really a budget buster with no guardrails at all.”

When the IRA was passed in 2022, there was immediate backlash against the provisions for carbon capture. “Essentially, we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing a private sewer system for oil and gas,” said Sandra Steingraber, a senior scientist at the nonprofit Science and Environmental Health Network.

The tax credits for nuclear power plants, which produce energy without emitting greenhouse gases, are meant to spur what President Donald Trump hopes will be an “energy renaissance,” bolstered by a flurry of pro-nuclear executive orders he issued a day after the budget bill cleared the House. Projects will be able to use the tax credits if they begin construction by 2031; wind and solar companies, however, will lose access to tax credits unless they begin construction within 60 days of Trump signing the bill, and are fully up and running by 2028.

That the carbon capture tax credit was never in danger of being revoked is a testament to its importance to the oil and gas industry, said Jim Walsh, the policy director at the nonprofit Food and Water Watch. “The major beneficiaries of these tax credits are oil and gas companies and big agricultural interests.”

The carbon capture tax credit was first established in 2008, but the subsidies were more than doubled when it was tacked on to the IRA in order to get former senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia’s vote. Companies now receive $60 for every ton of CO2 captured and used to drive oil out of the ground (a process known as “enhanced oil recovery”) and up to $85 for a ton of CO2 that is permanently stored. As roughly 60 percent of captured CO2 in the United States is used for enhanced oil recovery, detractors see the tax credit as something of a devil’s bargain, a provision that props up an industry at taxpayer expense.

How much carbon is actually captured by these projects is also a matter of debate. The tax credit requires companies that claim it to self-report how much CO2 they inject to the Internal Revenue Service. The Environmental Protection Agency, meanwhile, is in charge of tracking leaks. There are tax penalties if captured carbon ends up leaking, but those penalties only apply if the leaks occur in the first three years after injection. Holding companies accountable is made more complicated by the fact that tax returns are confidential, and Walsh cautions that there is very little communication between the EPA and the IRS. Oversight is “very, very minimal,” added Anika Juhn, an energy data analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a research firm.

“You can keep some really played out oil fields going for a long time, and you can get the public to pay for it,” said Carolyn Raffensberger, the executive director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, explaining the potential impact of the budget bill. “So the argument is, ‘This is a win for the climate, it’s a win for energy dominance.’ [But] it’s really a budget buster with no guardrails at all.”

Existing carbon-capture facilities have been plagued by technical and financial issues. The country’s first commercial carbon capture plant in Decatur, Illinois, sprung two leaks last year directly under Lake Decatur, which is the town’s main source of drinking water. When concentrated CO2 hits water it turns into carbonic acid, which then leaches heavy metals from rocks within the aquifer and poisons the water.

Although a certain level of public health concerns come with many emerging technologies, critics point out that all of this risk is being taken for a technology that has not been proven to work at scale, and may actually increase emissions by incentivizing more oil and gas production. It could also strain the existing electrical grid—outfitting a natural gas or coal plant with carbon capture equipment can suck up about 15 to 25 percent of the plant’s power.

The tax credits exist “to pollute and confuse people,” said Mark Jacobsen, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, who has argued that there is essentially no reasonable use for carbon capture. They “increase people’s [energy] costs and do nothing for the climate.”

But the technology does have its defenders among scientists. The 2022 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change called an increase in carbon capture technology “unavoidable” if countries want to reach net-zero emissions. Jessie Stolark, the executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition, an umbrella organization of fossil fuel companies, unions, and environmental groups, contends that arguments like Jacobsen’s unnecessarily set the technology against renewables. “We need all the solutions in the toolkit,” she said. “We’re not saying don’t deploy these other technologies. We see this very much as a complementary and supportive piece in the broader decarbonization toolkit.”

Stolark said that carbon capture didn’t make it out of the budget process entirely unscathed, as the bill specified that companies could no longer sell carbon capture tax credits. So-called “transferability”—the ability to sell these tax credits on the open market—has been invaluable to small energy startups that have struggled to secure financing in their early stages, according to Stolark. The Carbon Capture Coalition is urging lawmakers to restore transferability now that the bill has moved from the House to the Senate.

Still, the kinds of companies likely to claim carbon capture tax credits—often major players in oil and gas, ammonia, steel, and other heavy industries—are less likely to rely on transferability than more modest companies (often providers of renewable energy), whose smaller tax bills makes it harder for them to realize the value of their respective tax credits.

“A lot of the factories, the power plants, the industrial facilities deploying within the next ten years or so, are expected to be these really big [facilities] with the big tax burdens,” said Dan O’Brien, a senior modeling analyst at Energy Innovations, a clean energy think tank based in San Francisco. “They’re not the type of smaller producers—like small solar companies—that are reliant on transferability in order to monetize the tax credit.”

To some observers, keeping the carbon capture credit looks like a flagrant giveaway to the oil and gas industry. Juhn estimated that the credit could end up costing taxpayers more than $800 billion by 2040. Given the House bill’s aggressive cuts to social programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Juhn finds the carbon capture credit offensive. “When we look at these other programs, where we’re nickel and diming benefits to folks that could really use them, what does that mean? It’s gross.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The 4chan-Coded Ideology Behind Elon Musk’s War on Normies

In September, Elon Musk amplified a post from Autism Capital—a pro-Trump X account that he often reposts—that read: “Only high T alpha males and aneurotypical people (hey autists!) are actually free to parse new information with an objective ‘is this true?’ filter. This is why a Republic of high status males is best for decision making. Democratic, but a democracy only for those who are free to think.” Musk called the claim, which originated on the infamous web forum 4chan, an “interesting observation.” His repost was viewed 20 million times.

Musk is the world’s most prominent—and most powerful—autistic person. It’s not something he conceals; notably, he mentioned it during a 2021 monologue on Saturday Night Live. Only “autistic” wasn’t the term he used. Musk told the SNL audience he had Asperger’s syndrome, a term struck from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 2013 and largely disused in psychiatry.

But Asperger’s has persisted in popular culture, even as psychiatrists have ditched it. As a shorthand for autistic people with low support needs, it has gradually become an armchair diagnosis that’s often used to sidestep the baggage or consequences that come with calling someone autistic. It means not autistic autistic; autistic, but not quite. The words “mild” or “high-­functioning” are never far off. “Aspies,” in this vision, are socially inept, technically gifted, mathematically minded, unemotional, blunt. They can probably code.

At its best, the cultural rise of ­Asperger’s­ has yielded somewhat positive (if still flattening) depictions in media: Think ­Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory. But who are we talking about when we talk about Aspies? The answer is bound up with ideas about white men—who were disproportionately given the label—and decades of underdiagnosis of other autistic people.

Musk isn’t oblivious to Aspie stereotypes. He’s used them to get off the hook: “I sometimes say or post strange things,” he told the SNL audience, “but that’s just how my brain works.” He’s worked them into his self-promotion: In a 2022 TED interview, Musk called himself “absolutely obsessed with truth,” crediting Asperger’s with his desire to “expand the scope and scale of consciousness, biological and digital.” And he’s deployed them politically: By pushing the line that empathy is a “fundamental weakness,” Musk both reminds audiences of the discarded, dehumanizing idea that a lack of empathy is an autistic trait and implies that his own cold detachment from humanity is the best way to project strength in Donald Trump’s America.

In the 1930s and ’40s, the Austrian physician Hans Asperger separated children with what he called “autism psychopathy” into two groups: those with more noticeable disabilities and those whose atypical traits could, he thought, sometimes manifest in beneficial skill sets. Drawing on his work, psychiatrists first used the term Asperger’s syndrome in 1981; it entered the DSM as an official diagnosis in 1994. But Asperger’s quickly came to be seen as an artificial distinction, and was dropped from the DSM amid a growing recognition that autism encompassed a wide spectrum of cognitive differences. Its reputation wasn’t helped by the 2018 revelation that Asperger had sent disabled children to die under the Nazi eugenics regime.

Asperger’s syndrome also emerged at a time when some leading psychiatrists theorized that autism in general, and Asperger’s in particular, were extreme manifestations of the “male brain”—a predictable result of who was being diagnosed. When Asper­ger’s was still clinically recognized, the ratio of men to women diagnosed with the condition was around 11 to 1; today, for autism spectrum disorder, it’s closer to 3 to 1. Differences in the ways boys and girls are pressured to mask autistic behavior, alongside psychiatrists’ own biases, have led to massive failures to diagnose autistic women; similar factors have made white children from better-off families much more likely than other kids to receive autism diagnoses and support, trends that improved screening has begun to change.

As psychiatrists began to drop the Asperger’s diagnosis, tech embraced it—as the “good” autism, an improvement on both disability and “normie” inferiority.

But even as psychiatrists began to drop the Asperger’s diagnosis, tech figures started to embrace it—as the “good” autism, an improvement on both disability and “normie” inferiority. The Aspie label suggested symptoms that might make you better at your job, even bestow an aura of savanthood, provided that job was somehow technical. The Silicon Valley self-proclaimed Aspie is superintelligent and superrational—but not too weird to invite to parties. Being an Aspie could make you, in tech terms, “10X.”

The late autistic writer Mel Baggs gave a name to this line of thinking: “Aspie supremacy.” The ideas of the Aspie supremacist, Baggs wrote in a 2010 article, “are very close to the views of those in power.” The more productive you appear at work, the more likely you are to be deemed exceptional—or at least worth keeping around.

Of course, plenty of people identify as having Asperger’s without harboring a sense of superiority, let alone signing up for Silicon Valley–brand Aspie supremacy. Often, they’re sticking with a diagnosis they were given when it still had clinical currency; other times, they’re responding to pervasive discrimination, a factor in autistic people’s unemployment rate of about 40 percent. But something distinctive happens when the Goldilocks notion of being “just autistic enough” collides with a sense of entitlement like Musk’s. As the Dutch academic Anna N. de Hooge, who is autistic, wrote in a 2019 paper, “a particular type of ‘high-functioning’ autistic individual is ascribed superiority, both over other autistic people and over non-autistic people”—a superiority “defined in terms of whiteness, masculinity and economic worthiness.”

Jules Edwards, a board member at the Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network, a neurodiversity and disability justice nonprofit, calls Musk’s attitudes both an “anomaly” and the “epitome of Aspie supremacy.” “It takes all of those different ways in which [Musk] was advantaged just by the circumstances of his birth,” Edwards says. “He was born into financial wealth, he’s white, he’s cis, he’s male—all of this stuff that balls together.”

Musk’s fantasies of superiority connect deeply to his twin obsessions with genetics and reproduction—especially his own. “He really wants smart people to have kids,” Musk’s colleague Shivon Zilis, mother to four of his 14 publicly reported children, told the journalist Walter Isaacson. Zilis, an executive at Musk’s Neuralink, was apparently delighted by Musk’s offer to procreate: “I can’t possibly think of genes I would prefer for my children.” (Taylor Swift, famously presented with the same proposition, apparently felt otherwise.)

To the Silicon Valley right, the white, male skew of their industry reflects natural differences in technical and leadership skills—differences that happen to align perfectly with the pop culture caricature of Asperger’s that supremacists embrace.

This tech world fascination with Asperger’s goes back decades. In a 2001 Wired article titled “The Geek Syndrome,” Steve Silberman wrote, “It’s a familiar joke in the industry that many of the hardcore programmers in IT strongholds like Intel, Adobe, and Silicon Graphics—coming to work early, leaving late, sucking down Big Gulps in their cubicles while they code for hours—are residing somewhere in Asperger’s domain.” (Silberman went on to write NeuroTribes, a still well-regarded book on neurodivergence.) Microsoft introduced an “Autism Hiring Program” in 2015, which offered thoughtful improvements to hiring practices—albeit ones seemingly motivated, at least in part, by the idea that good tech workers were disproportionately autistic. Around the same time, GOP megadonor Peter Thiel, who co-founded PayPal with Musk, said in an interview that “many of the more successful entrepreneurs seem to be suffering from a mild form of Asperger’s where it’s like you’re missing the imitation, socialization gene.” (Thiel has also called environmentalism an “autistic children’s crusade” and China a “weirdly autistic” and “profoundly uncharismatic” country.)

“We have already given enough of our flesh, blood and sanity to women and normies.”

Then there’s crypto ex-billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried, whose autism was deployed in court to present him as less culpable for the mass fraud of which he was convicted. Making the case that her son should avoid prison time, Stanford law professor Barbara Fried wrote that “his inability to read or respond appropriately to many social cues, and his touching but naive belief in the power of facts and reason to resolve disputes, put him in extreme danger.” Never mind his company’s exploration of “human genetic enhancement” or the price others paid for his profound superiority complex—SBF was prepared to present himself as disabled for exactly as long as it was a useful defense.

At other times, Silicon Valley’s Aspie supremacists make it a priority to come after those they see as “actually” disabled. Musk notoriously did so shortly after buying Twitter, when he publicly interrogated staffer Haraldur Thorleifsson, who has muscular dystrophy, on whether he was simply shirking work. The ensuing fallout, and concerns over possible workplace discrimination, prompted a rare Musk apology. But his grade-school passion for ableist slurs has only grown. “Those who cling to the Asperger’s identity will often invoke that to discriminate or engage in lateral ableism”—targeting those they consider “more” disabled—says Seton Hall University professor Jess Rauchberg, who studies digital cultures and disability.

Aspie supremacists view themselves, above all, as exceptional beings, adapting the logic of misogyny and racism to twist false stereotypes of autistic people into self-serving positives. Musk clearly buys into an Asperger’s-era image of the unempathetic, relentlessly rational autistic man, but it’s a lazy excuse for a brand of “fuck your feelings” shitposting that’s ubiquitous on the right. If it’s true that autistic people can struggle to interpret social signals, it’s just as true that autistic displays of empathy can be nuanced and easy for others to write off, and that empathy can vary as much in autistic people as in anyone else; Musk’s war on empathy may be more of a him problem.

Besides, Musk only pins his bad takes on Asperger’s when it’s convenient—as when he used it to excuse himself on SNL. His yearslong track record of promoting race science has nothing to do with being autistic. Nor did his infamous Trump rally salutes—the ones Musk, while insisting they weren’t a Nazi thing, chased with a litany of Nazi jokes. (Some of his fans were happy to chalk up the incident to his diagnosis; critics tended to chalk it up to, well, what he actually believes.) His anti-trans attacks, including misgendering his trans daughter (who has called Musk a “pathetic man-child”), don’t have anything to do with being autistic either—especially given that autistic people are more likely to be transgender, nonbinary, or gender nonconforming.

In 4chan posts mentioning the term “Aspie” (gathered with the help of the UC Berkeley Human Rights Center), there’s a lot of support for Musk. But even more notable is how many are explicitly misogynistic. That’s not surprising to Rauchberg, who sees Aspie supremacy as “part of the larger manosphere.” One user, for example, wrote the following: “We autistic men already drive ourselves crazy engaging in self-sacrifice and simping for women and normies. I hang around with some guys that I have nicknamed ‘the Aspie bros’ and we have fun together twice a week. This is what Aspie men need. We have already given enough of our flesh, blood and sanity to women and normies.”

“Robot wives are a step up over women in every way,” reads another post. “Look what (((they))) did to Tay, Character AI, ChatGPT etc. We need a few billionaires, influencers and politicians sympathetic to our cause.” (The three parentheses designate Jewish people, another favorite target of the online far right.)

“I am sincerely glad that we are creating a network of ‘Aspie atheist MRA’”—men’s rights activist—“‘incel neckbeards’ which is reaching every corner of the globe,” another user answered.

But even on 4chan, accounts of rejection and bullying, and the pain and sadness they provoke, stand out. A typical post—“I see the bullshit in the world but Aspie brotherhood is the solution”—came in reply to the less combative “I have terminal autism but still desire a female companion even though I know it’ll never happen.”

Most autistic people who are bullied don’t declare war on “normies”; most people who struggle with dating, autistic or otherwise, don’t become incels. But most people are less conditioned than Musk, the scion of rich, far-right eugenics supporters, to believe they’re entitled to admiration, approval, women, and friends.

Aspie supremacists view themselves as exceptional beings, adapting the logic of misogyny and racism to twist false autistic stereotypes into self-serving positives.

True, Musk doesn’t have as prominent a relationship with incel culture as some manosphere influencers, though he’s both peddled the ideology and restored the accounts of high-profile misogynists like Andrew Tate. But Musk’s juvenile, hateful tweets (and those of others, which skyrocketed after he bought Twitter) are only the tip of the iceberg: A lawsuit by a group of fired SpaceX employees details a litany of alleged harassment and hostile behavior by Musk and his underlings, often phrased in terminally online, 4chan-coded ways.

Musk faced serious, traumatic bullying himself, both by his father and schoolmates, as Isaacson—whose 2023 biography includes Musk’s mother’s belief that her son is autistic—and New York Times technology reporter Kate Conger have noted. “There’s two routes that you can take from an abuse experience,” Conger said on a December podcast appearance. “There’s ‘I want to heal from this and not pass it on, and sort of move down a new path.’ And then there’s a second path that I think Musk has been more active in pursuing, in taking that negative experience and turning it into a ‘superpower’ for himself.”

Musk’s Hierarchy of Dweebs

The world according to Aspie supremacists

  • Tier 5: Genius God
    The world’s richest, most powerful self-proclaimed Aspie: Elon Musk himself.
  • Tier 4: Aspies
    Terminally online, 4chan-coded SpaceX fanboys who think little of their fellow techies—or anyone else.
  • Tier 3: Techies
    The normies’ Tesla-driving best and brightest. Women need not apply.
  • Tier 2 : Normies
    Society’s background noise. Great with kids. Love dogs. Laugh politely at your epic memes.
  • Tier 1: High Support
    There’s no one Aspie supremacists loathe more than disabled people with more visible needs.

Pyramid diagram featuring five different tiers; tier one consists of autistic people with high-needs who require accommodations like an aid or technology, tier two consists of "normies" navigating the outside world, tier three is "techies", predominantly men working in Silicon, tier 4 is "aspies", portrayed as terminally online men focused on their work, and finally tier 5, featuring a grinning Elon alone with his arms outstretched.

Anthony Calvert

Would Musk call himself an Aspie supremacist? Who knows. After all, it’s a label first developed by the ideology’s critics (and he didn’t reply to our questions). But some of his fans certainly embrace it. One post on X from @autismchud complimented Musk on his communication style: “Elon’s Asperger’s really comes through in this story in the best way possible. There’s no HR language, no social tact, no consensus filtering or games, just what the goal is and how to achieve that goal.”

DOGE, with its infamous squad of young engineers, offers a deeply relevant case study in reckless, egotistical overconfidence. With almost no applicable expertise, Musk and his DOGE bros have stormed the government—canning nuclear safety officers (whom they were swiftly forced to rehire), erasing living people from Social Security databases, accessing sensitive health and tax information. As seen earlier in his Twitter takeover, Musk’s certainty that he knows best manifests as an unhesitating eagerness to “disrupt” and dismantle services without regard to the harms to employees or the public at large.

A society with too much empathy—the kind of society Musk claims we live in—wouldn’t be full of ostracized, bullied kids who grow into adults like him.

Meanwhile, Musk was a top adviser to a president who believes that people with complex disabilities “should just die,” according to Trump’s own nephew, who has a disabled son. Trump is eager to dismantle the Department of Education, whose support provides the only means by which some disabled students, many autistic ones included, are able to finish school. Similarly, cuts to Medicaid would strip funds that pay for home care aides who work with autistic people.

A society with too much empathy—the kind of society Musk claims we live in—wouldn’t be full of ostracized, bullied kids who grow into adults like him. A society that supported, or at least more thoughtfully approached, autistic traits wouldn’t produce 4chan boards full of his Aspie supremacist fans. It would allow people like Musk to speak openly about being autistic, without retreating from the word, and to engage with initiatives led by autistic people, not figures like Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who describe autism as an “injury” that renders people incapable of holding jobs, making art, or playing sports.

Aspie supremacists do real harm to autistic people in their embrace of gendered, racialized stereotypes, and in drawing spurious lines between themselves and anyone they consider “severely” autistic. Musk may simply be a jerk, but he’s a jerk with a tremendous platform—and one whose fans loudly, publicly connect his shitty personal behavior and fascistic policies to “mild” autism.

“It’s really frustrating to be caught in this place where we’re trying to be inclusive of all autistic people, and there are such polarizing opinions and perspectives about autism,” says Jules Edwards. “It causes this additional challenge when we’re advocating for inclusion and access, trying to educate people about what is autism versus the idea of ‘good autism’ or ‘bad autism.’”

To the Elon Musks of the world, autism is a disability, but the soft-pedaled label of Asperger’s syndrome—“good” autism, “mild” autism—is something else: a marker of elite status, the perfect finishing touch for a white guy in tech.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Musk Gets Out—and Gets Off Easy

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

Elon Musk packed his bags and skedaddled out of Washington, DC, last week, proclaiming that his run as a “special government employee” was done. It’s a good bet that he’ll continue to meddle in administration business, especially when he has a financial interest at stake, and will keep in contact with DOGErs and their ongoing crusade to dismantle crucial government programs. But his very public departure from Trump Town prompted reporters to pen farewells that did not do justice to the profound damage this erratic and dishonest gazillionaire has caused.

Writing up an interview he conducted with Musk, the Washington Post’s Christian Davenport opened with a “reflective” Musk musing, “The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized. I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in DC, to say the least.” Davenport observed that Musk’s “attempts to reshape the federal bureaucracy ran into fierce institutional resistance.” He allowed Musk to praise himself as a hard-driving visionary—“If we’re not ultra-hardcore, how are we going to get to Mars?”—and to define his mission in Washington as “reducing waste and fraud.”

Waste and fraud was just a cover story. Too many in the news media have enabled this con and even promoted it.

All of this bolsters the phony narrative pitched by Trump and Musk that DOGE was (and is) a project to ferret out the supposed rampant fraud and waste that infect the federal government. That has not been the case. Musk’s venture has been an assault on government services, not inefficient government expenditures. He and his DOGE minions slashed programs and decimated agencies without evaluating them. Waste and fraud was just a cover story. Too many in the news media have enabled this con and even promoted it.

Davenport did note that Musk’s “claims about finding massive savings and slashing waste in government have been shown to be exaggerated” and that he “did not achieve as much as he wanted.” But even this poke at the billionaire accepts Musk’s noble-sounding premise. His endeavor has not been to merely “reshape the federal bureaucracy,” as Davenport put it, but to eviscerate services and protections for millions and allow powerful interests to escape scrutiny, regulation, and oversight.

At the New York Times, a multi-bylined article—Tyler Pager, Maggie Haberman, Theodore Schleifer, Jonathan Swann, and Ryan Mac—reported that Musk was “disillusioned with Washington and frustrated with the obstacles he encountered as he upended the federal bureaucracy.” Upended the bureaucracy is another all-too neutral way to characterize how he and his henchpeople demolished agencies. The piece noted that Musk had thanked Trump for “the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending” and called his effort “an initiative to drastically cut spending.”

Like the Washington Post, the Times wrote, “Musk’s DOGE team has repeatedly inflated its cost-saving efforts, at times posting erroneous claims about ending federal contracts that they later deleted.” And it noted that the “cuts he wanted to enact were far more difficult than he expected.” Again, the story presented was that of Musk seeking to counter wasteful spending and failing to achieve as much as he desired.

It wasn’t a war on waste and fraud in government. It was a war on government.

Neither piece mentioned how Musk and his libertarian shock troops killed the US Agency for International Development and ended lifesaving assistance for recipients throughout the world. Nor did they cover other dishonorable DOGE accomplishments. Musk and his posse blew up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which prevents vulturous financial firms from ripping off billions of dollars from Americans. They undermined or closed programs key to food safety, workplace safety, environmental safety, and aviation safety. DOGE cuts at the National Institutes of Health, NASA, and other agencies have devastated a generation of science and research. They forced mass firings at the State Department and the CIA that will weaken these organizations and imperil national security. They ripped up programs to track and address climate change. Firefighters, park rangers, weather forecasters, IRS tax collectors, Social Security clerks, Census Bureau workers, employees at Veterans Affairs who help our wounded warriors—all booted out of important jobs.

None of this was related to waste and fraud. And let’s stick with Musk’s attack on USAID. In February, he called this agency that has helped millions of people around the world avoid malaria, Ebola, and AIDS, obtain clean water, and gain access to food and health care “a criminal organization.” Yes, the richest man in the world said that. The following month, not surprisingly, he belittled the idea of empathy. He also claimed, “No one has died as a result of a brief pause to do a sanity check on foreign aid funding. No one.” Not true. Brooke Nichols, an infectious-disease mathematical modeler and health economist at Boston University, has created a tracker that estimates the number of deaths overseas caused by the Musk-driven suspension of foreign aid. As of this weekend, the number of adult deaths reached 100,000, and deaths for children topped 208,000. This is obscene.

Yet the big idea for these media outlets is that Musk was frustrated he didn’t make more progress in his battle against waste and fraud. But it wasn’t a war on waste and fraud in government. It was a war on government.

Much of the media failed to accurately characterize what this alt-right, conspiracy-pushing, oddball, drug-addled (?), anti-empathy tech billionaire was really doing.

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post have done wonderful investigations of Musk and DOGE. Last week, the Times exposed his intense use of drugs, including ketamine, and reported on how DOGE-driven reversals of regulations will cost Americans billions in higher bank fees, electric and water bills, and health insurance payments. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has penned moving pieces about the lethal consequences of Musk’s annihilation of USAID.

But throughout the Musk Terror, much of the media failed to accurately characterize what this alt-right, conspiracy-pushing, oddball, drug-addled (?), anti-empathy tech billionaire was really doing. (Then there’s the whole DOGE effort to get its grubby mitts on government data for who-knows-what reasons.) Musk waged a vicious assault. He did not seek to evaluate programs and agencies to root out inefficiencies or activities that were no longer vital. He aimed to destroy. Hundreds of thousands of people will die because of him. Millions of Americans will suffer. Who cares if he is frustrated or disillusioned? The story is not what happened to Musk; it’s what he has done to all of us.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

State Department Cables Reveal the Harrowing Consequences of Elon Musk’s USAID Demolition

Elon Musk is trying to rewrite the history of his four-month tenure in Washington. As the billionaire founder of Tesla and Space X returns to the private sector after four months as a “special government employee,” he has put aside the celebratory chainsaw and cast himself as a misunderstood outsider whose dreams of efficiency were stymied by a terminally broken bureaucracy.

Nowhere is this attempted whitewashing more jarring than his effort to sweep away the consequences of the dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development, which has supported food assistance programs around the world and helped administer the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. Musk once bragged about feeding USAID into a “woodchipper.” But, on May 20, when Bloomberg’s Mishal Husain asked about the disruption of PEPFAR funding in an interview in Qatar, the tech executive dismissed the claim out of hand.

“First of all, the program, the AIDS medication program is continuing,” he said. “So your fundamental premise is wrong. Do you have another example, since the one you cited is false?”

As Husain pressed on, explaining that the State Department—which is absorbing what’s left of USAID—had granted a waiver only to certain PEPFAR programs, Musk repeated his denial.

“It’s false, it’s false,” he said. Before Husain moved on, Musk made a promise: “Okay well which ones aren’t being funded? I’ll fix it right now.”

But it was not false. And Musk did not fix it.

Despite his assurances on stage—and his subsequent assertion in response to the rocker Bono that “zero people have died” as a result of funding cuts—the destruction he spearheaded is continuing to have devastating effects in places that relied on USAID for lifesaving aid. But don’t take my word for it; take the Trump administration’s. State Department cables obtained by Mother Jones warn that cuts to foreign assistance programs are driving hunger and human trafficking in Malawi, and threatening to undo years of progress battling the AIDS epidemic in Lesotho, by terminating a program that worked to prevent HIV transmission from mothers to their children.

These are just two examples, based on internal records. But the consequences of slashed or interrupted services have been severe and wide-ranging. The US has cut programs for malaria. At a hearing on Capitol Hill last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio celebrated cutting “$10 million for male circumcision in Mozambique”—a PEPFAR-supported program that reduced HIV transmission in 2.5 million men by 60 percent. The assertion that people will you die if you take away their food or medication is not a hypothetical; New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof previously reported on an HIV-positive 10-year-old orphan from South Sudan named Peter Donde who died from a pneumonia infection after the administration shuttered the community health program that ensured his access to medication. Rubio, like Musk, has called the reports that children have died as a result of program interruptions a “lie.”

“The abrupt termination of this award has severely disrupted care delivery and threatens to reverse hard won gains in controlling Lesotho’s HIV epidemic that leaves Lesotho vulnerable at this critical juncture,” the memo stated. “With a shrinking health workforce, the quality and continuity of care have markedly declined—placing approximately 125,000 adults and children at risk of illness and death.”

Before he went on the defensive, though, Musk seemed to relish the process of gutting foreign assistance. Destroying USAID was one of Musk’s first tasks at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. In his first weeks in Washington, the world’s richest man spread a conspiracy theory that USAID had helped start the Covid-19 pandemic, falsely suggested that it secretly bankrolled news organizations like Politico, and dismissed the agency’s employees as “radical-left Marxists who hate America.” The sense that the people wielding the chainsaw did not understand what they were cutting down was reinforced by Musk himself, who stated at a public cabinet meeting that “we accidentally canceled” Ebola prevention but had quickly restored the program. (The program in fact had not been restored.)

Musk was not simply going rogue. His attacks were in sync with an executive order from President Donald Trump ordering a review of all foreign assistance projects, and a freeze on foreign-aid spending pending further approval. Although the State Department announced that certain life-saving programs, such as food assistance and PEPFAR, would receive waivers to continue operating, those waivers were slow to arrive and undercut by payment issues. And some programs that seemed to meet the narrow criteria were terminated anyway after a cursory review process.

That was the case with the Bophelo Bo Botle (Good Health) award, a $7 million PEPFAR grant implemented by the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation (EGPAF) in the small southern African nation of Lesotho. The country, which Trump used as a punchline during his State of the Union, has the second-highest HIV prevalence rate on Earth, but it has made significant strides thanks to years of investment in testing, education, and treatment. The award was terminated anyway on February 26 and has not been reinstated.

In a May 23 cable urging the State Department to restore the cuts, a diplomat in the US embassy in Maseru noted that the program had been “delivering important services permitted under the Lifesaving Waiver” and warned that the cuts would have deadly consequences. “The abrupt termination of this award has severely disrupted care delivery and threatens to reverse hard won gains in controlling Lesotho’s HIV epidemic that leaves Lesotho vulnerable at this critical juncture,” the memo stated. “With a shrinking health workforce, the quality and continuity of care have markedly declined—placing approximately 125,000 adults and children at risk of illness and death.”

According to the US diplomat, the termination means “over half of those currently receiving HIV/AIDS treatment in Lesotho will lose access, leading to treatment interruptions, increased new HIV infections, and higher mortality rates.” But it was not just about people currently living with HIV; one of the major purposes of the program, according to the cable, was “prevention of mother-to-child transmission.”

Musk did not respond to a request for comment. In response to inquiries from Mother Jones, a State Department spokesperson said that, “Following the Secretary’s approval for lifesaving PEPFAR programs, PEPFAR program implementers who are providing lifesaving treatment and prevention of mother to child transmission services were notified and urged to resume approved service delivery,” and that ”[a]gencies have been working with their implementers to resume activities as quickly as possible.”

But Catherine Connor, vice president of Public Policy and Advocacy at EGPAF, confirmed that while the organization was still hoping to restart the program, “the outlook is not positive.”

“I think that we’re just now entering the phase where we’re able to look at the whole picture and say, well, ‘we removed this piece of the puzzle, we lost more than we were betting on,’” Connor said. “My impression is that when these decisions were made, they were made based on what’s happening on paper, not in practice. And now that these decisions are being put into practice, the implications of those decisions are coming to light.”

With the termination of the program, EGPAF had “lost our eyes and ears and hands on the ground that would have really helped us identify patients that may be falling off of care, identify places in the health system where we could try the course correct,” she said. And the Lesotho government lacked the resources to fill the void.

“Right now, there is a hole in the health system on what they’re able to offer,”
Connor said. “The average annual income of a person in Lesotho is not much more than $1,000 a year. I think the ability for the [Lesotho] government to step in and fill these gaps quickly, you know, I think they’re trying their best, but it’s just hard to imagine a situation where they could jump in quickly and fill the gaps that the US government is leaving.”

That’s just one program, in one country. Emergency food aid was another category that was supposed to be eligible for waivers. But some of the funding was simply cut. ProPublica recently reported on a State Department cable from April warning that the administration’s reductions in food aid were worsening conditions in refugee camps in Malawi—leading to an increase in human trafficking. That warning was not heeded, and in May, a diplomat at the US Embassy in Malawi’s capital city of Lilongwe sent the State Department another warning on the subject. The memo, which was obtained by Mother Jones, warned that “Reductions in assistance will exacerbate hunger, malnutrition, and other drivers of migration, making it difficult for Malawians to feed themselves and continue to support 60,000 refugees currently residing in the country.”

“Without intervention,” the official added, “continued deterioration of the food security situation will lead to loss of life.”

Food assistance in the country’s refugee camps is administered by the World Food Program. The Trump administration slashed hundreds of millions of dollars in World Food Program funding—then said it had done so by mistake in some cases, and would turn the spigots back on. But that hasn’t happened in Malawi. A State Department official in Malawi reported that “[t]he lack of a USAID contribution to date in FY 2025 has made it necessary for the World Food Program to reduce the ration transfer from 75 percent to 50 percent of the caloric value.” Rations in the country’s largest camp “are set to run out in June.”

The World Food Program cuts weren’t the only ones with major ramifications. “One USAID-funded emergency award implemented by a non-governmental organization was terminated, canceling planned food assistance for over 27,000 people and agricultural recovery support for small farmers,” the memo noted, “and a second award providing emergency nutrition commodities was also terminated.”

And the consequences of reduced food aid went well beyond malnutrition. According to the cable: “Local social welfare authorities and police shared their observations of sharp increases in intimate partner violence, child abandonment, child marriage, and trafficking in persons in the food-insecure areas they serve, resulting from the intense stresses faced by families without food.”

In a statement, the State Department spokesperson said that “an overwhelming majority of WFP programs—nearly 80% of pre-existing awards and over 115 programs with WFP—remain active” and that “the most critical elements of our global nutrition response remain fully operational.”

But they also offered a defense of the cuts as a matter of national interest:

“America is the most generous nations [sic] in the world, however no one can reasonably expect the United States to be equipped to feed every person on earth or be responsible for providing medication for every living human.”

For Musk, this skepticism about the value of food assistance is a bridge between his public and private work. In 2021, after the president of the World Food Program suggested on the platform now known as X that Musk could end starvation by giving away just two percent of his fortune, the billionaire shot back with a challenge. “If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it,” he said. Later that year, Musk did donate nearly $6 billion of stock to an undisclosed charity, leading to speculation that he may have followed through.

But the money ultimately did not go to staving off starvation; it ended up, instead, at his personal foundation—which distributed just 2.8 percent of that amount to actual charities that year.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

David Hogg’s Fight for the Future of the Democratic Party

“It’s all gas, no brakes.” For David Hogg, a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, there’s little time away from politics right now, especially considering his $20 million campaign to disrupt his own party.

Hogg, a survivor of the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, and gun control advocate, is looking to oust what he calls “asleep at the wheel” incumbents in primaries around the US through his political action committee, Leaders We Deserve. It’s a strategy that has won him admirers and detractors, especially from the Democratic establishment, who say he shouldn’t be meddling in primaries, considering he’s now a party boss. So far, Hogg isn’t backing down. But he argues that it might get him kicked out of the DNC altogether. The party is set to vote June 9 to decide whether to redo Hogg’s election.

Just seven years ago, Hogg was a high school senior in Parkland, taking speech and debate classes and prepping for college. But all that changed when a former student entered his building and committed the largest mass shooting at a US high school. Hogg quickly co-founded the student-led organization March For Our Lives and became one of the nation’s most prominent gun control activists. Today, he’s the first member of Gen Z to be a vice chair at the DNC and, through Leaders We Deserve, is aggressively challenging the party’s status quo to generate “an attitudinal shift.”

“What we’re trying to do is say, across the board, Democrats need to stand up and fight harder,” says Hogg, whose PAC is trying to recruit a fresh slate of young candidates. “And if there’s somebody that feels nervous about potentially being challenged as a member of Congress, they should ask themselves why that is ultimately.”

On this week’s More To The Story, Hogg discusses why he’s ruled out running for office himself and how the anger he felt after the shooting in Parkland still drives him today.

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Prepping Cities for Climate Chaos Isn’t “Woke,” but Team Trump Is Killing EPA Resiliency Grants

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

Thomasville, Georgia, has a water problem. Its treatment system is far out of date, posing serious health and environmental risks.

“We have wastewater infrastructure that is old,” said Sheryl Sealy, the assistant city manager for this city of 18,881 near the Florida border, about 45 minutes from Tallahassee. “It_’_s critical that we do the work to replace this.”

But it’s expensive to replace. The system is especially bad in underserved parts of the city, Sealy said.

In September, Thomasville applied to get some help from the federal government, and just under four months later, the city and its partners were awarded a nearly $20 million Community Change grant from the US Environmental Protection Agency to make the long-overdue wastewater improvements, build a resilience hub and health clinic, and upgrade homes in several historic neighborhoods.

“The grant itself was really a godsend for us,” Sealy said.

In early April, as the EPA canceled grants for similar projects across the country, federal officials assured Thomasville that their funding was on track. Then on May 1, the city received a termination notice. “We felt, you know, a little taken off guard when the bottom did let out for us,” said Sealy.

“What is it about building a new health clinic and upgrading wastewater infrastructure…that’s inconsistent with administration policy?”

Thomasville isn’t alone.

Under the Trump administration, the EPA has canceled or interrupted hundreds of grants aimed at improving health and severe weather preparedness because the agency “determined that the grant applications no longer support administration priorities,” according to an emailed statement to Grist.

The cuts are part of a broader gutting of federal programs aimed at furthering environmental justice, an umbrella term for the effort to help communities that have been hardest hit by pollution and other environmental issues, which often include low-income communities and communities of color.

In Thomasville’s case, the city has a history of heavy industry that has led to poor air quality. Air pollution, health concerns, and high poverty qualified the surrounding county for the Biden administration’s Justice40 initiative, which prioritized funding for disadvantaged communities.

Thomasville has some of the highest exposure risks in Georgia to toxic air pollutants that can cause respiratory, reproductive, and developmental health problems, according to the Environmental Defense Fund’s Climate Vulnerability Index. The city’s wastewater woes don’t only mean the potential for sewage backups in homes and spills into local waterways but also the risk of upper respiratory problems, according to Zealan Hoover, a former Biden administration EPA official who is now advising the advocacy groups Environmental Protection Network and Lawyers for Good Government.

“These projects were selected because they have a really clear path to alleviating the health challenges facing this community,” he said.

Critics argue there’s a disconnect between the Trump administration’s attack on the concept of environmental justice and the realities of what the funds are paying for.

“What is it about building a new health clinic and upgrading wastewater infrastructure … that’s inconsistent with administration policy?” Democratic Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff asked EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin at a recent hearing.

Zeldin repeatedly responded by discussing the agency’s review process intended to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive orders, particularly those related to diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, but Ossoff cut him off, pushing for a specific answer about Thomasville’s grant. “Is a new health clinic for Thomasville, Georgia, woke?” he asked.

“We spent $60,000 in local funding hiring people to write the grants” that now have been terminated, noted a Athens-Clark County official.

Thomasville’s Sealy said she understands that the federal government has to make hard funding decisions—that’s true locally too—but losing this grant has left her city in the lurch. In addition to the planned work on the wastewater collection system, the city needs to update its treatment plant to meet EPA standards. That overhaul will likely cost $60 million to $70 million, she said.

“How do you fund that?” Sealy asked. “You can’t fund that on the backs of the people who pay our rates.”

The funding cuts have left cities across Georgia—including Athens, Norcross, and Savannah—as well as nonprofit groups, in a state of uncertainty: some grants terminated, some suspended then reinstated, some still unclear. This puts city officials in an impossible position, unable to wait or to move forward, according to Athens-Clarke County Sustainability Director Mike Wharton.

“Do you commit to new programs? Do you commit to services?” he said. “Here you are sitting in limbo for months.”

Like Thomasville, Athens was also awarded a nearly $20 million Community Change grant. The city was going to use the money for backup generators, solar power, and battery storage at its public safety complex—ensuring 911, police, the jail, a domestic violence shelter, and other services could all operate during a power outage. That grant has been terminated.

The problem, Wharton said, goes beyond that money not coming in; the city had already spent time, resources, and money to get the grant.

“We spent $60,000 in local funding hiring people to write the grants,” he said. “Over a period of 14 months we invested over 700 hours of local personnel time. So we diverted our services to focus on these things.”

These frustrations are playing out for grant recipients throughout the state and country, according to Hoover. He said it’s not just confusing—it’s expensive.

“They are causing project costs to skyrocket because they keep freezing and unfreezing and refreezing projects,” he said. “One of the big drivers of cost overruns in any infrastructure project, public or private, is having to demobilize and remobilize your teams.”

Thomasville and Athens officials both said they’re appealing their grant terminations, which require them to submit a formal letter outlining the reasons for their appeal and requesting the agency reconsider the decision. They’re also reaching out to their elected officials, hoping that pressure from their senators and members of Congress can get them the federal money they were promised.

Other cities and nonprofits, as well as a group of Democratic state attorneys general, have sued, arguing that terminating their grants without following proper procedures is illegal. But that’s a difficult step for many localities to take.

“Suing the federal government to assert your legal rights is very daunting, even if the law is on your side,” Hoover said.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Women’s Health Care Has a Racism Problem. Trump’s War on DEI Is Making It Worse.

Dr. Emily Hawes-Van Pelt, an OB-GYN working in Minneapolis, didn’t consider herself an expert on fighting racism in health care. Then in May 2020, George Floyd was murdered a few blocks from her hospital. “What we knew about the world, many of us”—she looked out at an audience of doctors, most of them Black like her—“became very clear to lots of people. ​I was angry, I was bitter, I was frustrated, and I thought, What can I do? How can I help? How can I change anything?

Hawes-Van Pelt’s answer was the same one that other OB-GYNs have come to in recent years as their specialty has faced crisis after crisis: She jumped into advocacy work. She got involved with a coalition of two dozen medical groups pursuing systemic solutions to long-standing racial disparities in US women’s health. She joined Minnesota’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee, helping to analyze cases of people who die in and around childbirth—disproportionately women of color—for lessons to prevent similar deaths.

Five years on, that burst of energy and determination has turned into immense strain, as the women’s health system confronts a barrage of Trump 2.0 attacks against initiatives for patients of color and research more broadly. With the White House and state governments denying the very idea of systemic racism and targeting anything that smacks of diversity, equity, and inclusion, structural change seems further away than ever, and recent gains are at risk of being stalled or erased.

That daunting new reality hung over the recent annual meeting of the 60,000-member American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the leading medical organization in the US focusing on women’s reproductive health. In a sign of the times, the ACOG committee Hawes Van-Pelt was part of, formerly called the District DEI Delegation, had a new, less contentious name: the Collective Action Advancing Respect & Equity Delegation.

At the meeting in May, Hawes-Van Pelt addressed a roomful of colleagues about health equity challenges. Even with federal funding slashed for research and large-scale health initiatives, she reminded them, they still have the power to fight bias in meaningful ways: by listening to patients, by being honest and respectful, by showing empathy and grace. Unlike research and medical education, she said, “this doesn’t require funding. This is change that we can make as individuals in our own practices.”

The clouds began gathering during the first Trump administration, as Covid killed Black and brown people at disproportionate rates, laying bare the racism and inequities that permeate American public health.

It was a message heard often at this year’s ACOG conference. In an ordinary year, the meeting attracts thousands of people who come to brush up on topics from menstruation to menopause—and, of course, to schmooze. This year in Minneapolis, many of the conversations were about how providers in one of the most politicized fields in medicine are weathering an unprecedented series of storms.

The clouds began gathering during the first Trump administration, as Covid killed Black and brown people at disproportionate rates, laying bare the racism and inequities that permeate American public health. Just as the pandemic was fading, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ushering in a wave of state laws criminalizing abortion providers and making routine care for pregnant patients infinitely more complicated. States likewise began ramping up attacks on transgender care, which is often provided by OB-GYNs.

Even before Donald Trump was reelected, conservatives had ACOG in their sights. Project 2025—the Heritage Foundation’s 900-page blueprint for a second Trump administration—calls out the organization by name, referring to some of its members as “pro-abortion ideologues” for their work advising the government on what forms of birth control ought to be covered by the Affordable Care Act. At the annual meeting, ACOG’s deputy general counsel, Francisco Negron, pointed to Trump’s anti-DEI executive order that instructs agencies to investigate federal contractors as part of their efforts to stamp out “DEI programs and principles”—and specifically identifies medical associations as potential targets. “Diversity, equity, and inclusion, which we all thought was about fairness, the administration perceives as unlawful discrimination,” Negron told a packed room of physicians during a session titled “Through the Looking Glass.”

The field of obstetrics and gynecology has been grappling for decades with its roots in misogyny and racism, from experiments on enslaved women conducted by J. Marion Sims (the so-called “father of modern gynecology”) in the 1840s, to the forced sterilization of Black women in the mid-1900s, to the huge disparities in maternal mortality for Black women that persist today. Dr. Sharon Malone, a prominent OB-GYN and menopause specialist in Washington, DC,devoted much of her conference keynote speech to the history of medical racism for women, including her own family’s experiences in Jim Crow Alabama. She’d read a new ACOG report on how OB-GYNs can address ethnic disparities in their field, and she commended it, she told hundreds of listeners.

“But,” she added, “how are we going to implement these things in the current environment where you can’t even say the words ‘disparity,’ ‘inequity,’ ‘women,’ ‘race’?”

Health researchers knew Trump’s reelection would not bode well for their work, especially anything involving abortion or other reproductive care. But few were prepared for how quickly and ruthlessly the new Trump administration has moved to demolish much of the federal infrastructure supporting women’s and minority health.

Among the catastrophic staffing cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has gutted the Division of Reproductive Health, as well as offices devoted to improving minority health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services. Critical public health information, such as recommendations for doctors on how to treat sexually transmitted infections, was scrubbed from government websites until a judge ordered it to be partially restored. The dreaded “DEI” label has been cited to cancel billions in research grants to analyze maternal and infant mortality in the Mississippi Delta; examine the connection between racism and subpar cervical cancer treatment; and scrutinize the connection between psychosocial stress and preeclampsia, a potential deadly form of pregnancy-related hypertension that is more common and severe among Black women. Researchers studying such topics were told their funding was being cut because it “no longer effectuates agency priorities.”

At the ACOG conference, the impact of those and other cuts was evident in the low-grade anxiety that permeated almost every conversation. In the exhibition hall, where purveyors of speculums, IUDs, and abortion pills mingled near recruiters for rural and red-state hospitals, many people I met had lost research funding. Nearly everyone seemed to be tracking the looming cuts to Medicaid, which covers 40 percent of births and makes it possible for many hospitals in rural and low-income communities to stay open. “How are we going to be able to function?” wondered Kristin Swenson, a certified nurse midwife at the University of Washington. “The mood is ‘hold on, button up, batten down.’ Our jobs are going to get harder.”

“How are we going to be able to function? The mood is ‘hold on, button up, batten down.’ Our jobs are going to get harder.”

Several physicians said they were too worried about retaliation by their employers, or the federal government, to talk to me about how their jobs have been affected by the new administration. Multiple doctors shared their frustration at not being permitted to advocate against the Trump cuts. “We need constituents advocating, because researchers are muzzled,” said a Texas OB-GYN, adding that his institution was afraid of being targeted like Harvard or Columbia universities.

Slashing federal anti-hunger programs like food stamps “would be devastating to my patients,” said a maternal-fetal medicine specialist in Cleveland, who treats patients with high-risk pregnancies; poorer overall health tends to make pregnancy more dangerous. She asked to speak anonymously because she has worries of her own: Her research funding has been put on hold, and her lawyers recently advised her not to leave the US to visit her home country of Canada. Another doctor, wearing rainbow glasses, told me that her hospital had learned that women in the community were choosing to give birth at home because they worried they could be arrested byimmigration agents at the hospital.

Dr. Caroline Cochrane, an OB-GYN affiliated with Wake Forest University in North Carolina, told me about how, when the Trump cuts started, she was nearly ready to submit an 80-page proposal to the National Institutes of Health to study inequities in menopause care. The study would have used focus groups and surveys to ask Black and Hispanic women—who experience earlier, more severe, and longer-lasting menopause symptoms—about the challenges they encountered getting treatment, with the goal of designing a solution.

But when the White House started gutting research funding, Cochrane realized her proposal contained too many “forbidden words”: “I had a whole section in there on how Black and Hispanic women have historically been excluded from research,” she said wryly. Now, she’s trying to figure out whether she can salvage any part of the proposal.Her job depends on NIH funding a portion of her salary, she told me. “My whole career up until now is in jeopardy of losing its research focus.”

Studies involving the LGBTQ community, which experiences its own pernicious health disparities, are likewise being defunded. Dr. Brent Monseur, a Stanford University OB-GYN, says he’s lost the NIH grant he needs to keep conducting research at his one-of-a-kind academic center, which helps queer people create families using techniques like in vitro fertilization and surrogacy. “LGBTQ family-building is still a very nascent research field,” Monsieur told me. “There are still many things we don’t know, even very basic epidemiology, like who is using these services? How are they paying for these services? What are their clinical outcomes? What are the best treatment plans for specific populations?”

With the Trump cuts, “there’s going to be a pause on all of that research generationally,” Monseur said, forcing him to choose between researching a less politicized topic or leaving academia to work at a private fertility clinic. Not that such work doesn’t carry its own risks in the current tumultuous environment: The weekend of the ACOG conference, a car bomber attacked a fertility clinic serving LGBTQ families in Palm Springs, California, injuring four people and killing himself.

An issue of particular concern to many of the people at the ACOG conference was maternal mortality. Among high-income countries, the United States has by far the highest rate of maternal deaths, the vast majority of which are considered preventable. Black women are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women.

During his first term in 2018, spurred by major journalistic investigations about maternal mortality and years of ACOG lobbying, Trump signed the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, routing funding through the CDC to state maternal mortality review committees like the one Hawes-Van Pelt joined in Minnesota. Those committees, dubbed MMRCs, identify and analyze causes of deaths among pregnant people and new mothers, then enter the information into a CDC-hosted database, allowing researchers to look for trends and design interventions. (Since 2020, the list of potential contributing factors to be analyzed has included discrimination, interpersonal racism, and structural racism.)

At a meeting on maternal mortality prevention at the ACOG conference, doctors worried aloud about the CDC withdrawing from this work. “Preelection, it was easier to get in touch with CDC and have them meet with us,” the leader of a maternal mortality working group reported. Others raised concerns about the national database—could ACOG take it over if the CDC stopped funding it? “That’s a really complicated question,” an ACOG official responded. “I am actually hoping that it doesn’t come down to that, quite frankly.”

MMRCs are in a politically delicate position. As Anna Claire Vollers has reported at Stateline, Idaho disbanded its committee and Arkansas created a new one after MMRCs in both states recommended extending Medicaid coverage to new mothers for a full year after giving birth—a reflection of data showing that most maternal deaths happen in the postpartum period. In November, Georgia dismissed all 32 members of its MMRC after ProPublica identified two women who had died as a result of the state’s six-week abortion ban using confidential MMRC documents. In Texas, officials appointed a leading anti-abortion activist to its MMRC and ordered the committee not to review maternal deaths for a two-year period following implementation of the state’s near-total abortion ban in 2022.

I reached out to ACOG for background information about the organization’s work on racial health disparities and received a two-page statement by its new president, Dr. Steven Fleischman, who practices in New Haven, Connecticut, and teaches at the Yale School of Medicine.ACOG has been working with the federal government since the 1980s on efforts to reduce maternal mortality, he said. Over the last several years, the medical association has created a number of initiativesdesigned to reduce racial bias throughout women’s health, from new clinical guidelines to medical training.Much of that work is now “in jeopardy,” he acknowledges: “We are concerned that the sweeping policy changes and spending cuts coming out of the administration will only cause us to backslide on all the progress made.”

“We are concerned that the sweeping policy changes and spending cuts coming out of the administration will only cause us to backslide on all the progress made.”

MMRCs and the national database are among the programs at risk under Trump, Fleischman said. “Realizing that these vital programs could lose funding or be eliminated entirely is deeply concerning and will hamper our ability as a country to track critical maternal health outcomes data and end racial health disparities.” Also vulnerable is a program, the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health, that provides training and assistance to hospital systems to improve responses to life-threatening emergencies and prevent maternal deaths. “HHS contracts have been integral to ACOG advancing this work across the country, and we are worried that reduced resources would stymie our efforts at these local levels,” Fleishman said.

Malone, in her keynote speech at the ACOG conference, told the story of her mother giving birth to eight children starting in the 1930s. The treatment her mother received in hospital maternity wards in Mobile, Alabama, was so unpleasant that after the first two babies, she opted to deliver at home. “I don’t think that she had an experience at either of those places that was really something that made her feel cared for or seen,” Malone said.

Back then, around 1 in 100 American women died in or around childbirth—a much higher maternal mortality rate than today (about 19 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2024). But even as the number of deaths was falling, the disparity in death rates between Black and white mothers has only widened. Malone urged the audience to keep fighting for health equity, despite the challenges of the current political environment. “There are things that we control,” she implored. “We have to address how we as physicians deal with patients—what are our implicit biases about why should one person have something and someone else should not?”

“We do not have an engaged federal partner, so we’re going to have to do it on our own,” she added. Instead of looking to Washington for help, “we go to states, we go to legislators, we go to our local health departments, public-private partnerships, all of that.” The answer, Malone said, “is not to do nothing. We can’t afford to do nothing.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Democrats Will Hand out Free Tacos to Mock Trump

The Democratic Party has commissioned a taco truck to serve free lunch outside the Republican National Committee’s DC headquarters beginning at noon on Tuesday.

“Trump always chickens out—we’re just bringing the tacos to match.”

The giveaway is not just to mark taco Tuesday, says a Democratic National Committee staffer who tipped Mother Jones off about the free grub. The food is also meant to get under the skin of President Donald Trump, who has recently become associated with the acronym TACO—shorthand for Trump Always Chickens Out.

Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong coined the term in early May to describe Trump’s habit of announcing sweeping tariff threats only to—in the wake of the inevitable market plunge—renege and give countries more time to negotiate. Most recently he delayed a previously announced 50 percent tariff on the European Union by more than a month, from June 1 to July 9.

Financial analysts have shared similar but less cheeky descriptions of Trump’s tendency to backtrack. Shortly after Trump announced those now-delayed EU tariffs, Salomon Fiedler of the German bank Berenberg offered his own prediction. “Wild threats by Trump are not unusual,” he said, according to the New York Times. “Given the damage the U.S. would do to itself with this tariff, he will probably not follow through.”

But Democrats are betting that saying TACO just rolls off the tongue better. Trump “talks a big game, caves, and then leaves working families and small businesses to deal with the fallout,” DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement. “Trump always chickens out—we’re just bringing the tacos to match.”

The acronym has gone mainstream enough to come up during a White House press conference. When a reporter asked Trump about it on May 28, Trump rebuffed her, calling her question “nasty.” With any luck, Tuesday’s tacos won’t be.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Can Humor Help Solve Our Climate Crisis? David Cross Sure as Fuck Hopes So.

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

David Cross is many things: a famed comic, an Emmy award winner, and a New York Times best-selling author. But he is not a climate scientist.

That fact might make him the perfect person to communicate the urgency of global heating to mass audiences. “You’ve got to speak to people in a way they can understand,” he said.

That’s the purpose of a new video in which Cross co-stars with renowned environmental scientist Michael Oppenheimer. “Humor, as I think has been shown over centuries, is a very effective way to get people to absorb the information,” said Cross.

The new video puts that theory to the test. In it, Oppenheimer plays the straight man, issuing a dire warning: “Heat records are being broken all over the world. In fact, last year was the hottest year since the industrial era began,” he says.

Cross then interprets that message for laypeople. “Translation: The shit is hitting the fan,” he says. “And the fan is on maximum.”

The video was released by the group Climate Science Breakthrough, which has over the past two years has made videos with leading UK comedians such as Nish Kumar and Jo Brand in an attempt to “help climate science break through to many more people—and unlock action.”

“We’re aiming to reach beyond the converted and depolarize the debate,” said Ben Carey, one of the video’s producers. If the new video is well-received, they’ll enlist more scientists and experts to produce more of them, he said.

The video series comes as part of a wave of climate-focused comedy launched in recent years. In 2023, Oscar-winning director Adam McKay launched the non-profit Yellow Dot Studios to make content about the dangers of fossil fuels, and the following year, climate advocacy organization Gas Leaks Project launched a mini series about the dangers of gas stoves.

These projects could help reach people who experts aren’t often reaching, said Oppenheimer, since “most of the training for young scientist is aimed at being able to communicate enough so you get your next job, not necessarily aimed at communicating to the public.”

If it seems odd to use humor to build awareness about a grim subject, Cross says it’s a tactic with a long history. Indeed, George Carlin railed against censorship in the 1970s, while Bill Hicks famously used his platform to speak out against George W. Bush’s foreign policy.

“Even before standup existed, there was Moliere and Voltaire and [Jonathan] Swift and Mark Twain—there is a huge precedent for artists using humor and satire to drive home a point,” said Cross.

The use of humor may help drive the urgency of the climate crisis home for certain audiences, said Oppenheimer, particularly “when the news is so chockablock full of news that competes for people’s attention.” But comedy is not the only tool that can be used to better communicate the urgency of the climate crisis, he said.

“Some scientists are excellent at communicating with religious audiences and can frame the issues in a way that resonates with them [while] other scientists are great at connecting with parents,” he said. “The point is, more scientists are recognizing that it’s not always enough to lay out the facts or the data, that we have to find ways to encourage people to listen and take notice.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Canadians Have Cooled on US Travel

At a recent event in Orlando, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis brushed off reports that Canadians are increasingly not visiting the Sunshine State and pointed to his recent family trip to Legoland as evidence. “I’d say, like, 80 percent of them were Canadians,” DeSantis said, according to Orlando Weekly. “So, we’re going to continue to be a destination.”

Canadians are the largest proportion—nearly 28 percent—of international travelers visiting Florida and, according to the Canadian embassy, they alsocomprise the largest number of international visitors for the entire United States. But that comfortable relationship may be taking a turn. New tourism numbers for the first quarter of 2025 released by Visit Florida, a marketing organization that promotes tourism, show a dip in Canadian visitors of 3.4 percent.

Growing tensions between Canada and the US due to tariffs and rhetoric from the Trump administration about adopting Canada as the “51st state” have contributed to a shift in travel patterns between the two neighbors. Flights from Canada to South Florida havedeclined 20 percent compared to last year, the Miami Herald has reported. Visual Approach Analytics, an aviation data firm, found that Canadian travel had decreased by 20 percent at the Fort Lauderdale airport and 12 percent in Orlando’s airport between January and March, with predictions by some Canadian travel agents that the downward trend of travel not only to Florida but to the rest of the US will only continue.

Immediately after Donald Trump was reelected last November, McKenzie McMillan, aconsultant with the Vancouver-based travel agency The Travel Group, says he heard rumblings from clients who were considering avoiding travel to the US. What was once ambivalence shifted dramatically in early February, after Trump threatened punishing tariffs and the annexation of Canada to become the 51st state. “We pretty much immediately started hearing feedback from clients,” he says. About 20 percent of spring break bookings to the US—including to destinations like San Diego, Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Las Vegas, and Phoenix— were canceled. Many chose to visit Mexico instead.

Stephanie Stella, owner of the travel agency Glow With Me Adventures, specializes in helping Canadians book trips to Disney parks in Florida and California, and this year, she too has seen cancellations from clients who “just either ethically or morally don’t feel right traveling to the States right now,” she says. “I just had a client email me to cancel a Disney World trip for September.” Since the start of the year, her agency has seen at least 20 cancellations for trips to parks in Florida and California.

“I just had a client email me to cancel a Disney World trip for September.”

Florida has always been the top travel destination for Micheline Robichaud’s clients at Adventure Away Travel Co. agency in Toronto. She notes that it may be difficult for Canadians to cancel trips that may be nonrefundable and suspects that the real impacts of the tension between Canada and the US will be seen at the end of 2025 into early 2026. Already, she has seen a 73 percent drop in Florida travel requests. One main reason? “They don’t want to economically support the US as a retaliatory measure to tariffs and a lot of the rhetoric that was coming out from certain political leaders in regards to the 51st state,” she says. “It caused a significant surge in patriotism in Canada.”

The decline in Canadian tourism isn’t restricted to Florida. US Customs and Border Protection data shows a 17.4 percent decrease in travelers entering from the northern border, Politifact reported. Canadian statistics from March also show 13.5 percent fewer Canadians returning on flights from the US when compared to the same time last year.

McMillan says about 60 percent of his agency’s business is tied to the United States, with California, Arizona, Texas, and Nevada among the most popular destinations. In recent years, when flights began between Vancouver and airports in Orlando and Miami, they saw an uptick in travel to Florida because many travelers board cruise ships from ports in the state.

So far this year, they’ve seen a 90 percent decrease in future bookings to the US. “We basically saw a complete collapse of that business,” McMillan says. Instead, Canadians are traveling to Europe and Asia, with many also opting to travel domestically to other provinces. What started as a protest against tariffs and protecting Canada’s sovereignty has now evolved into concerns about safety and the uncertainty of increased immigration enforcement. News of the 12-day detainment of a Canadian actress at the US-Mexico border intensified those fears, McMillan says. “Speaking as a travel adviser, but also as a Canadian, I’ve never seen a movement this strong in Canada, where consumers are so rapidly changing their habits and in such large numbers.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Optical Illusion of Elon Musk’s Fading Influence

On Friday, Elon Musk once again pledged to depart his role at DOGE, taking with him his bad personality, weird public behavior, complicated family life, troubled businesses, alleged regular illegal drug use, compulsive social media habits, exploding rockets, messianic conviction that he control all of earth’s resources so as to colonize Mars, and a remarkably poor track record in his brief life as a quasi-public servant. He leaves behind the incredible destruction DOGE has wrought, and of course, DOGE itself, which will continue its work, as Project 2025 architect and Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought reportedly floats making its cuts permanent without the approval of Congress.

Even Trump says Musk is “really not leaving.”

But it would be a mistake to think that Musk’s grip on the government is lessening; beyond his continued relationship with the Trump administration, Musk’s companies will still have billions in lucrative and influential federal contracts. And as his recent travel shows, there are clear signs that Musk is also using his relationship with President Trump to pursue business, especially in the Middle East.

To be sure, after embarking on a hugely successful quest to make the lives of ordinary Americans a lot worse, Musk does seem to be pulling back on his obsessive political involvement. He has said that his focus from here on will be his companies, even though DOGE, as he put it, will continue “as a way of life.” He’s also said he plans to cut his political spending; he invested heavily in March’s Wisconsin Supreme court race, an effort which failed miserably, as did his earlier attempts to influence German voters to put the ultra-right AfD party in power.

But there are also clear indications that Musk will continue trying to influence politics. For one, he and Trump immediately gave the game away in their Friday Oval Office press conference, where Trump said that Musk is “really not leaving,” adding, “He’s going to be back and forth, I think. I have a feeling.” A person characterized as a “senior administration official” told CBS News that “Musk left on good terms and is still friends with the president. This isn’t a separation, but just a return to the private sector for Musk. He will continue to be a friend to the president, and we can characterize that as an ‘adviser.'” Another key data point: Katie Miller, the wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, has reportedly left DOGE to work elsewhere for Musk full-time, suggesting a continued link between Musk and the upper reaches of the administration.

Beyond DOGE, Musk’s companies also still have heavy ties to DC, with what the Washington Post estimated in February amounts to about $38 billion in federal government funding. That multi-pronged business relationship is only going to grow stronger; as Ars Technica wrote in April, almost every recent military launch contract has gone to SpaceX.

Musk also recently attended investment forums in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which coincided with Trump’s visits to those countries. Musk is making an aggressive push in Saudi Arabia, where Starlink was just approved and where he’s said he plans to bring Tesla’s self-driving cars and Optimus “humanoid robots,” which he said he’d shown to Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman.

Musk’s attempts to meddle in governments, domestic and foreign, don’t always work: the Wall Street Journal reported last week that he tried to scuttle a deal to build a huge AI data center in the United Arab Emirates because it will be led by OpenAI and Musk’s arch-rival Sam Altman, and won’t include his own AI company, xAI. But CNBC reported that the announcement “was delayed by several days as stakeholders, including the White House, dealt with blowback from Musk.”

The image of a major international business negotiation momentarily foundering out of fear that Musk might get mad says it all. Even if his time as Trump’s “first buddy” has drawn to a close, Musk will still be able to use his clearly continuing influence on the federal government and American foreign policy to draw more cash and attention to his businesses—and to try to reshape global business and politics to his will.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Disappeared Them to El Salvador. Now, They’re Being Erased by Immigration Courts.

On May 30, Frizgeralth de Jesús Cornejo Pulgar was scheduled for a hearing in a United States immigration court. But Cornejo Pulgar—an asylum seeker from Venezuela fleeing potential persecution from paramilitary groups aligned with the government of Nicolás Maduro—was not able to attend the proceeding. The 26-year-old is stuck in El Salvador. He is one of some 230 Venezuelans the Trump administration disappeared, without due process, to the Central American country’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).

As we reported in March, the rationale for Cornejo’s removal from the United States was flimsy. The government has accused him, and many others, of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, in no small part because of innocuous tattoos. As a result, they’re facing indefinite detention in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison.

The men have not only been disappeared to a foreign gulag with no clear chance to be released, but also been erased by the US immigration courts.

Now, immigration courts across the United States are abandoning the men held incommunicado at CECOT again. Last Friday, Judge Jason L. Stern in Houston terminated Cornejo’s case, effectively ejecting him from the US legal system. “If the case is still alive,” his lawyer Joseph Giardina said, “you can be like, ‘oh, his case is still pending with the court; it’s still there, return him and let him pick up his case right where it is.’”

Cornejo—who has no criminal history in the United States or in Venezuela and had no final order of removal—has not only been disappeared to a foreign gulag from where he might never be released, but has also been erased by the US immigration courts.

The termination of Cornejo’s case is not an outlier. NBC News reported last week that immigration judges across the country have recently dismissed at least 14 cases of men sent to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act without due process. (In early April, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that noncitizens subject to removal under the wartime statute are entitled to a “meaningful opportunity” to fight their deportation.)

One of the cases dismissed was that of Andry José Hernández Romero, a gay makeup artist who was seeking asylum because of fear of persecution in Venezuela due to his sexual orientation and political position. US Immigration officials interpreted Hernández Romero’s wrist tattoos of crowns with the words “Mom” and “Dad” as a sign of membership in the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, even though experts have repeatedly dismissed tattoos as a reliable identifier of affiliation with the group.

Last week, Paula Dixon, a judge at the Otay Mesa immigration court in San Diego, sided with the Department of Homeland Security’s request to dismiss his asylum proceedings. Hernández Romero is one of the main plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and seeking the men’s return to the United States.

“DHS is doing everything it can to erase the fact that Andry came to the United States seeking asylum and he was denied due process as required by our Constitution,” Lindsay Toczylowski, an attorney representing Hernández Romero and president of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, said in a statement. “The idea that the government can disappear you because of your tattoos, and never give you a day in court, should send a chill down the spine of every American.”

As Mother Jones previously recounted in the investigation “You’re Here Because of Your Tattoos,” Cornejo came to the US-Mexico border in June 2024 after applying for an appointment through the Biden-era CBP One application that allowed migrants to present lawfully at a port of entry. But like Hernández Romero, he has tattoos that were likely the reason the Trump administration targeted him for removal to El Salvador:

In messages to his family from detention, Frizgeralth [de Jesús Cornejo Pulgar] expressed concern he was being investigated because of his tattoos. He explained that none of the 20 or so images—including one on his chest of an angel holding a gun—he has tattooed on his body have any connection to gang activity. He also described feeling discouraged from hearing stories in detention of Venezuelans who had recently been re-detained and said ICE agents picked them up over suspicions about their tattoos.

Frizgeralth even had a declaration from his tattoo artist confirming the harmless nature of the artwork. “I never imagined being imprisoned just for getting a tattoo,” Frizgeralth, who owns a streetwear clothing brand wrote. “I never imagined being separated from my family. I wouldn’t wish this on anyone, not even my worst enemy if I had one. It’s horrible, it’s mental torture every day.”

Most of the Venezuelans flown to El Salvador and labeled “alien enemies” and “heinous monsters” by the government had no US criminal history. A recent ProPublica investigation based on DHS records found that Trump administration officials knew that only 32 out of the 238 men had been convicted of crimes, and even fewer for violent offenses.

“The idea that the government can disappear you because of your tattoos, and never give you a day in court, should send a chill down the spine of every American.”

Like Cornejo, dozens of others removed without being able to dispute the allegations made against them had pending asylum petitions in the United States. Their summary removal deprived them of an opportunity to go before an immigration judge and make their cases to be allowed to stay in the country.

The men stuck in President Nayib Bukeles’ maximum-security prison and unable to attend their hearings in US courts have all but become “ghosts,” as the New Yorker’s Jonathan Blitzer writes. Since March, a network of immigration lawyers and advocates has mobilized to appear as friends of the court on their behalf in hopes of keeping a record of the cases and preventing them from being tossed out.

Laura Lunn, director of advocacy and litigation at the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network, said US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has repeatedly refused to provide information about the deportees’ whereabouts. “I think that was a pretty shocking moment,” she said, “where you have government attorneys speaking to a judge, but unable to tell the judge where the person is other than to say they’re no longer here.”

In some instances, immigration judges have ordered the men deported in absentia, even though their failure to show up in court is a direct result of the government’s actions. “It’s obviously an absurd outcome,” Toczylowski told Mother Jones in April. “Immigration courts have long been places where the due process rights of immigrants—particularly detained immigrants—are trampled by the Justice Department. But to see that happening in such a clearly absurd situation as this where the government has rendered someone to El Salvador and to have an immigration judge then rule that, by virtue of that person being held by [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] in a foreign country, they should have a removal order against them for not showing up to court, is just a truly new level of absurdity.”

In Cornejo’s case, Giardina said, the federal government filed a notice to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Justice Department’s branch that runs the immigration courts, stating that Cornejo had been removed—without ever conceding that he had been sent to CECOT. “No one wants to call a spade a spade and own up to what happened,” Giardina said. “Why are we talking in circles about something when we all know what the situation is?”

Still, the government joined in a motion for a continuance to keep Cornejo’s case on the docket. So, the Louisiana-based attorney was surprised when Judge Stern decided to overrule both parties’ positions and dismiss his client’s case altogether on the basis that the court has limited jurisdiction now that Cornejo is outside the United States. Alternatively, the judge could have temporarily paused the case and put it on the back burner.

If circumstances change and Cornejo is somehow returned to the United States, he will have to file a motion to reopen his case. Giardina said he plans on appealing the judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). And while it was within the judge’s purview to terminate Cornejo’s case, he said, “it’s incredibly undiscerning to not look at the actual facts of the situation and acknowledge that even if I can black and white do this, I probably shouldn’t.”

Top image: Mother Jones illustration; Courtesy of Joseph Giardina; Colin Lloyd/Unsplash; El Salvador Presidency /Handout/Anadolu/Getty

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

US Mayors Are Making Climate Action Personal—and It’s Working

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

In the depths of the COVID-19 pandemic, Justin Bibb was living in a tight, one-bedroom apartment in Cleveland, Ohio. He couldn’t open his windows because his home was an old office building converted to residential units—not exactly conducive to physical and mental well-being in the middle of a global crisis. So he sought refuge elsewhere: a large green space, down near the lakefront, that he could stroll to.

“Unfortunately,” Bibb said, “that’s not the case for many of our residents in the city of Cleveland.”

A native of Cleveland, Bibb was elected the 58th mayor of the city in 2021. Immediately after taking office, he took inspiration from the “15-minute city” concept of urban design, an idea that envisions people reaching their daily necessities—work, grocery stores, pharmacies—within 15 minutes by walking, biking, or taking public transit. That reduces dependence on cars, and also slashes carbon emissions and air pollution. In Cleveland, Bibb’s goal is to put all residents within a 10-minute walk of a green space by the year 2045, by converting abandoned lots to parks and other efforts.

Cleveland is far from alone in its quest to adapt to a warming climate. As American cities have grown in size and population and gotten hotter, they—not the federal government—have become crucibles for climate action: Cities are electrifying their public transportation, forcing builders to make structures more energy efficient, and encouraging rooftop solar. Together with ambitious state governments, hundreds of cities large and small are pursuing climate action plans—documents that lay out how they will reduce emissions and adapt to extreme weather—with or without support from the feds. Cleveland’s plan, for instance, calls for all its commercial and residential buildings to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

For local leaders, climate action has grown all the more urgent since the Trump administration has been boosting fossil fuels and threatening to sue states to roll back environmental regulations. Last week, Republicans in the House passed a budget bill that would end nearly all the clean energy tax credits from the Biden administration’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act. “Because Donald Trump is in the White House again, it’s going to be up to mayors and governors to really enact and sustain the momentum around addressing climate change at the local level,” said Bibb, who formerly chaired Climate Mayors, a bipartisan group of nearly 350 mayors.

A snowy landscape

The Environmental Protection Agency gave a $129 million grant to Cuyahoga County, where Cleveland is located, to deploy climate solutions, like turning this landfill into a solar farm.Dustin Franz for The Washington Post via Getty Images via Grist

City leaders can move much faster than federal agencies, and are more in-tune with what their people actually want, experts said. “They’re on the ground and they’re hearing from their residents every day, so they have a really good sense of what the priorities are,” said Kate Johnson, regional director for North America at C40 Cities, a global network of nearly 100 mayors fighting climate change. “You see climate action really grounded in the types of things that are going to help people.”

Shifting from a reliance on fossil fuels to clean energy isn’t just about reducing a city’s carbon emissions, but about creating jobs and saving money—a tangible argument that mayors can make to their people. Bibb said a pilot program in Cleveland that helped low- to moderate-income households get access to free solar panels ended up reducing their utility bills by 60 percent. The biggest concern for Americans right now isn’t climate change, Bibb added. “It’s the cost of living, and so we have to marry these two things together,” he said. “I think mayors are in a very unique position to do that.”

To further reduce costs and emissions, cities like Seattle and Washington, DC are scrambling to better insulate structures, especially affordable housing, by installing double-paned windows and better insulation. In Boston last year, the city government started an Equitable Emissions Investment Fund, which awards money for projects that make buildings more efficient or add solar panels to their roofs. “We are in a climate where energy efficiency remains the number one thing that we can do,” said Oliver Sellers-Garcia, commissioner of the environment and Green New Deal director in the Boston government. “And there are so many other comfort and health benefits from being in an efficient, all-electric environment.”

To that end, cities are deploying loads of heat pumps, hyper-efficient appliances that warm and cool a space. New York City, for instance, is spending $70 million to install 30,000 of the appliances in its public housing. The ultimate goal is to have as many heat pumps as possible running in energy-efficient homes—along with replacing gas stoves with induction ranges—and drawing electricity from renewables.

Metropolises like Los Angeles and Pittsburgh are creating new green spaces, which reduce urban temperatures and soak up rainwater to prevent flooding. A park is a prime example of “multisolving”: one intervention that fixes a bunch of problems at once. Another is deploying electric vehicle chargers in underserved neighborhoods, as Cleveland is doing, and making their use free for residents. This encourages the adoption of those vehicles, which reduces carbon emissions and air pollution. That, in turn, improves public health in those neighborhoods, which tend to have a higher burden of pollution than richer areas.

All this work—building parks, installing solar panels, weatherizing buildings—creates jobs, both within a city and in surrounding rural areas. Construction workers commute in, while urban farms tap rural growers for their expertise. And as a city gets more of its power from renewables, it can benefit counties far away: The largest solar facility east of the Mississippi River just came online in downstate Illinois, providing so much electricity to Chicago that the city’s 400 municipal buildings now run entirely on renewable power. “The economic benefits and the jobs aren’t just necessarily accruing to the cities—which might be seen as big blue cities,” Johnson said. “They’re buying their electric school buses from factories in West Virginia, and they’re building solar and wind projects in rural areas.”

So cities aren’t just preparing themselves for a warmer future, but helping accelerate a transition to renewables and spreading economic benefits across the American landscape. “We as elected officials have to do a better job of articulating how this important part of public policy is connected to the everyday lived experience,” Bibb said. “Unfortunately, my party has done a bad job of that. But I think as mayors, we are well positioned to make that case at the local level.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Homeland Security Cops Invade NY Congressman’s Office, Handcuff Aide

Last month, after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agentsarrested Newark, N.J., Mayor Ras Baraka outside an immigration detention facility, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official said on CNN that there would “likely be more arrests coming.”

DHS police came close to delivering on that threat this past week when they invaded the Manhattan offices of Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and briefly handcuffed one of his staffers.

“They’re behaving like fascists,” Nadler told the New York Times in an interview about the incident this weekend. On CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), told host Dana Bash: “I think the administration is clearly trying to intimidate Democrats, in the same way that they’re trying to intimidate the country.”

After New York Rep. Jerry Nadler said DHS officials entered his office without a warrant and handcuffed one of his staffers, @RepJeffries tells @DanaBashCNN, “I think the administration is clearly trying to intimidate Democrats, in the same way that they're trying to intimidate… pic.twitter.com/jZwUTyKNf4

— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) June 1, 2025

The incident, first reported by the New York City news site Gothamist, occurred Wednesday after DHS agents accusedstaffers of “harboring rioters” in their offices, which is located in the same building as a federal immigration courthouse. A partial video of the incident obtained by Gothamist shows one officer handcuffing a crying woman while another Nadler staffer demands that agents provide a warrant before entering.

The confrontation comes amid news reports that ICE has been arresting undocumented immigrants as they leave courthouses around the country. According to Gothamist, ICE officers allegedly threatened to arrest two people who were monitoring their activity at the Manhattan courthouse, and a Nadler staffer invited the advocates into the congressional office. In a statement provided to Mother Jones, a senior DHS officialclaimed police tried to enter the office based on a belief that protesters were inside and accused the woman who was handcuffed of blocking their way, alleging she “became verbally confrontational.” The DHS official said the woman was detained “for the purpose of completing the security check” of the office and was subsequently released “without further incident.”The unnamed staffer told Gothamist that “everything resolved” and declined to comment further.

In a statement posted on X, Nadler said no arrests were made and that “the situation was quickly deescalated,” but added that he was “alarmed by the aggressive and heavy-handed tactics DHS is employing in New York City and across the country.”

“If this can happen in a Member of Congress’s office, it can happen to anyone—and it is happening,” Nadler said. Indeed, at President Donald Trump’s behest, federal officials have been detaining and seeking to deport people—including student protesters against the war in Gaza and undocumented immigrants without criminal records—without due process. Meanwhile, Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), one of three Democratic representatives present at the May 9 incident at the immigration detention facility where Baraka was arrested, is facing felony assault charges for allegedly shoving and grabbing a pair of DHS agents—charges she has denied and called politically motivated.

In his statement on X, Nadler also demanded that Trump and DHS “halt the use of these dangerous tactics and…abandon use of the expedited removal process which denies due process to immigrants and citizens alike.”

Both Nadler and Jeffries lambasted Republicans for staying mostly silent as federal officials seem to openly flout the Constitution. “The Trump administration is really using totalitarian or even authoritarian practices,” Nadler told the Times. “We have to fight them. We don’t want to be a fascist country.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Elon Musk Sure Seems Happy to Be Fleeing DC

Elon Musk is leaving DC not with a bang but a whimper…and, it appears, with some new enemies in the White House.

In an interview that aired Sunday on CBS,days after he announced he was departing DOGE, Musk insisted he has never been in lockstep with the Trump administration, despite being President Donald Trump’s self-proclaimed “first buddy.”

“It’s not like I agree with everything the administration does,” Musk said onCBS News’ Sunday Morning. “So it’s like, I mean, I agree with much of what the administration does. But we have differences of opinion. You know, there are things that I don’t entirely agree with.”

“But it’s difficult for me to bring that up in an interview,” Musk continued, “because then it creates a bone of contention. So then, I’m a little stuck in a bind, where I’m like, well, I don’t wanna, you know, speak up against the administration, but I also don’t wanna take responsibility for everything this administration’s doing.”

Less than 24 hours before Elon Musk announced that his time as a Special Government Employee was coming to a close, Musk expressed some “differences of opinion” with the Trump administration in an interview with CBS Sunday Morning correspondent David Pogue.

"It's difficult for… pic.twitter.com/X18M36YFlm

— CBS Sunday Morning 🌞 (@CBSSunday) May 29, 2025

So what, exactly, didn’t Musk like? DOGE becoming the boogeyman of the administration, for one thing: “DOGE became the whipping boy for everything,” the world’s richest man complained. “If there was some cut, real or imagined, everyone would blame DOGE.” (In fact, poll after poll showed most Americans disliked DOGE, at least in part due to its lack of accountability and its slash-and-burn approach to critical government functions and personnel. That included killing more than two dozen grants administered by the Department of Labor that supported getting more women into fields including construction and manufacturing; dismantling USAID, the international humanitarian aid agency; impeding scientific research; and firing scores of federal workers, just to name a few examples.)

Musk said he was also “disappointed” to see the “massive spending bill,” which was passed by the Republican House last month and is now being debated in the Senate. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the bill would add $3.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade—a figure that would essentially render DOGE’s purported government savings of $175 billion pointless. Musk alleged that the bill “undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,” adding, “I actually thought that, when this ‘big, beautiful bill’ came along, it’d be like, everything he’s done on DOGE gets wiped out in the first year.”

"I think a bill can be big or it could be beautiful. But I don't know if it could be both."

Tech billionaire Elon Musk tells CBS Sunday Morning's @Pogue he was "disappointed" to see the Trump-backed "big beautiful" spending bill, which passed in the House last week.

Musk said… pic.twitter.com/LUcuTaNYrs

— CBS Sunday Morning 🌞 (@CBSSunday) May 28, 2025

Trump’s allies scrambled to counter Musk’s critiques on the Sunday shows. On NBC’s Meet the Press, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told host Kristen Welker he “sent a long text message to my good friend, Elon Musk, after he made those comments the other day,” adding that Musk and others “are missing…the tremendous and historic level of spending cuts that are also in the same package.” (Those “cuts” include the largest-ever proposed cuts to Medicaid, which could lead to 8 million people losing coverage. The cuts would target women’s health services offered by Planned Parenthood, coverage for abortions in Affordable Care Act plans, and gender-affirming care for all Medicaid patients, including transgender adults.) On CNN’s State of the Union, White House Budget Director Russ Vought claimed: “I love Elon. This bill doesn’t increase the deficit or hurt the debt,” before critiquing the CBO’s estimate.

“I love Elon. This bill doesn't increase the deficit or hurt the debt.”

White House Budget Director @RussVought47 responds to criticism from Elon Musk that President Trump’s tax and spending cut bill will make deficits worse. pic.twitter.com/dHt69IJGWA

— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) June 1, 2025

There have been signs of Musk’s discontent prior to the CBS interview: for example, the time that he went after Peter Navarro, Trump’s top tariff guy, saying, “He ain’t built shit,” as I previously wrote. (In the CBS interview, when asked if Trump’s tariffs would affect his businesses, Musk demurred, replying, “Tariffs always affect things a little bit.”) But Trump seems to think Musk wil be back before long: “Elon’s really not leaving,” he told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday, as Musk stood nearby with a black eye he claimed his son gave him. “He’s going to be back and forth, I think. I have a feeling.”

But Musk seems more tepid about returning to the White House amid a myriad of business problems, including tanking Tesla sales and setbacks at his aerospace company Space X—not to mention Trump’s withdrawal of Musk ally Jared Isaacman’s nomination to head NASA, as well as leaked allegations about Musk’s drug use. “DOGE is gonna continue, just as a way of life,” he told CBS. “I will have some participation in that, but as I’ve said publicly, my focus has to be on the companies at this point.” Polling suggests that, for most Americans, that’s music to their ears.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

This Program Keeps Portland Clean—and Offers Unhoused People Some Dignity

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

On a Thursday morning in Portland’s Old Town neighborhood, two dozen people mill around a warehouse, waiting for the results of a lottery. At 7:45 sharp, a woman sitting in an interior office calls out three numbers in quick succession. She repeats the last one a few times before someone finally comes forward: “234?” she says into the crowd. “Who’s 234?”

Chris Parker is 234. He is tall and thin and wears Garneau cycling gloves and a baseball cap from the power tools company DeWalt. “Are you kidding me?” he says, happy and shocked. Across the room, one of the other selectees—number 237—does a kind of end-zone victory dance, shimmying with arms above his head.

The lottery determines who will participate in that day’s waste collection program from Ground Score Association, a Portland-based collective for people who “create and fill low-barrier waste materials management jobs.” Through this particular program, called GLITTER (short for Ground Score Leading Inclusively Together Through Environmental Recovery), Parker will join a group of Ground Score employees on a four-hour walk around Portland, clearing sidewalks of plastic and other trash. At the end of the shift, he’ll get $80 in cash—$4.55 more per hour than the Portland metro area minimum wage.

Participating in the lottery doesn’t require passing a drug or sobriety test or providing a social security number. It’s meant to provide low-barrier employment to people who might otherwise struggle to find or keep a job.

Parker, for example, tells me he totaled his car last summer—the latest in a string of misfortunes. He says he used to work at a rail yard on the Columbia River, but he was laid off when he got Covid. It’s been difficult to find a stable job, he says, especially one that pays enough for the “affordable” apartments he sees advertised at $1,300 a month. For now he’s living in a small apartment near Ground Score’s headquarters.

Seven people and two dogs pose together smiling with bags to pick up bottles and cans.

One of Ground Score’s GLITTER teams poses for a photo mid-route.Courtesy of Ground Score

Most people are homeless when they start working with Ground Score. But after a year on payroll, there’s an 80 percent chance they will have secured housing, according to the organization.

Terrance Freeman, one of the employees leading a GLITTER group on Thursday, wears wraparound sports sunglasses and a yellow scarf. He’s been working at Ground Score for six months. Previously, he worked at a nearby Chevron gas station and struggled with alcohol. Another member of his group, Dana Detten—a.k.a. Peanut—was homeless for eight years and worked various jobs at Dollar Tree and FedEx before joining the GLITTER program. Kevin Grigsby, the lankiest of the team, says he came to the organization while trying to overcome mental health issues and a “huge cocaine problem.” Now he’s splitting a $630-a-month garage apartment on Portland’s outskirts with his girlfriend.

“If Ground Score didn’t hire me I would be on a different path,” Grigsby says, using a long grabber tool to pinch up an Oreo wrapper.

Grigsby and the other people employed by Ground Score are “waste pickers,” a catch-all term for the 20 million people worldwide who make a living collecting, sorting, recycling, and selling discarded materials. In recent years, waste pickers have fought for their work to be recognized and formalized in the global plastics treaty being negotiated by the United Nations.

Ground Score, which sees its mission as building community while also “changing society’s perceptions of what and who is considered valuable,” shows what that recognition and formalization look like on a local level. It’s a model with huge potential, given the urgent global need to create stronger social safety nets and combat the growing plastic waste crisis. Could it work in other cities, too?

Waste pickers tend to work outside of governments’ formal waste management programs, meaning the services they provide—keeping streets clean, ensuring high recycling rates, sifting hazardous e-waste out of landfills—are underappreciated and poorly remunerated.

The International Alliance of Waste Pickers, or IAWP, which represents unions, collectives, and organizations across 34 countries, says waste pickers manage as much as 80 percent of some cities’ municipal waste, with the highest percentages in developing countries that lack extensive waste management infrastructure. One study from 2020 estimated that waste pickers collect 58 percent of all the plastic that ever gets recycled. They boost recovery rates for cardboard, aluminum, and other metals too.

Workers sift through a room full of trash

Members of the Asociación Cooperativa de Recicladores de Bogotá (Waste Pickers Association of Bogotá) work in a warehouse in Colombia’s capital city in 2015. Juan Arredondo / Getty Images via Grist

Waste pickers also recover e-waste—often so they can sell the metals inside electronics—as well as textiles that can still be worn, repaired, or refashioned into new goods.

In some jurisdictions, including Oregon, waste pickers collect aluminum cans and plastic bottles in order to claim a rebate determined by a so-called “bottle bill”—a law that tacks an extra 5 to 15 cent deposit onto the containers’ purchase price. But these policies are a relative rarity. Within the US, only nine other states and Guam have one, and the majority of similar laws internationally are concentrated in Europe, Canada, and Australia. Waste pickers in poorer countries often have to buy or sell their wares directly to recycling companies or brokers, and they can’t rely on a government-mandated return rate per item collected.

These activities not only provide waste pickers with a living, they also help to address climate change. According to one study published in March, a subset of waste pickers in just one city—Salvador, Brazil—helped avoid more than 27,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions between 2010 and 2022, mostly by enabling recycling that displaced the need for raw materials like aluminum and PET, the kind of plastic used in water bottles. (For context, that’s about the amount emitted by 6,300 gasoline-powered cars in a year.) Removing paper and cardboard from landfills also reduces emissions, because these materials would otherwise release methane—a potent greenhouse gas—as they decompose.

Waste pickers’ services have recently gained attention thanks to negotiations for a binding United Nations treaty to “end plastic pollution,” which began in early 2022 and are ongoing. One paper published last year, quoting an unnamed negotiator, described waste pickers as “the human face” of the treaty, since they’re on the front lines of plastic pollution.

In the negotiations, the IAWP has allied with many countries and environmental groups that want to put limits on global plastic production. But it’s also calling for the treaty to include a distinct article ensuring a “just transition” for waste pickers whose livelihoods could be at risk from greater formalization of the waste management sector. Broadly, IAWP wants countries to build better waste management systems around the work waste pickers are already doing, instead of bringing in private companies that would take their place.

Ground Score is showing how to implement that goal on a small scale—in part through partnerships with city, county, and state government, but also through a participatory organizational structure that gives waste pickers a sense of ownership over Ground Score’s activities. Workers in the program “feel like it’s a privilege that they can actually help their own community rather than just perpetuating this culture of, you know, giving and taking ‘handouts,’” says Taylor Cass Talbott, Ground Score’s co-executive director, who is also the advocacy director for the IAWP.

Cass Talbott, Laura Tokarski, and Barbra Weber co-founded Ground Score in 2019 as a “peer-led initiative,” meaning it would be organized by and for the city’s waste pickers. Weber had been collecting cans in Portland since 2015—she had previously worked in marketing, but a brain lesion affected her ability to speak and put her on the street. Tokarski had already founded the Portland-based Trash for Peace, a nonprofit that engagess with communities to reduce and reuse waste. Ground Score is now fiscally sponsored by Trash for Peace.

In contrast to most waste pickers’ activities, Ground Score’s GLITTER program doesn’t focus on recovering and selling recyclable material. According to one of the organization’s co-directors, Nic Boehm, 26 percent of what participants collect is nonrecyclable “microtrash,” like cigarette butts. Much of the rest is food wrappers, containers, plastic bags, needles—things that can’t be recycled and are instead destined for landfills or incinerators.

Two people look at each other outside.

Ground Score employees at The People’s Depot pay cash for the cans and bottles that canners drop off.Brodie Cass Talbott

GLITTER’s workers are compensated thanks to funding from the City of Portland’s Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program, as well as contracts with local businesses associations. The Homeless Services Department, a partnership between Portland and overlapping Multnomah County, has also supported the program through funds raised by a 2020 “supportive housing services” tax, though a department spokesperson told Grist that funding for “employment programs” like GLITTER may be reduced in the 2026 budget.

GLITTER highlights the value that waste pickers provide outside the recycling value chain, by keeping city streets clean. “Trash attracts other trash,” Boehm tells me as his group sweeps up fast food containers and wrappers around an overflowing garbage can. The goal is to keep the buildup at bay.

Ground Score also has another program that more closely resembles the type of waste picking that is common in other jurisdictions. It’s called The People’s Depot, and it serves as a dropoff point for those who collect and sell used cans and bottles, who are sometimes called “canners.” The people who visit the depot gather empty water bottles and aluminum cans, whether from the side of the road or from unsorted residential recycling bins, and then lug them to a small lot underneath the Morrison Bridge, in Portland’s Central Eastside neighborhood.

At the depot, canners sell their goods for 10 cents a pop—a value assigned to them by the current version of Oregon’s 54-year-old bottle bill. Ground Score’s payroll employees, some of whom are current or former canners, dole out more than $4,000 in cash each day. The money comes from beverage companies that pay into the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative, a nonprofit that manages implementation of the bottle bill. Deposited bottles are hauled off at the end of each day to an Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative warehouse, where they’re weighed so that Ground Score can be reimbursed for their value.

Kris Brown is the operational manager at The People’s Depot. He’s worked there since 2021, but before that, starting in 2016, he made a living collecting cans—one night a week in Portland’s Southeast quadrant, a couple nights a week near Willamette Park in Southwest. Apartment complex dumpsters were hotspots, he says, because many apartment buildings lacked a separate recycling bin, meaning there would be lots of cans and bottles to pull out. Brown lived in tent camps around town, and under Portland’s Tilikum Crossing bridge during the earliest days of the Covid pandemic.

“There’s this stigma that if you’re homeless, then you’re useless. Like, ‘Why don’t you get a real job?’” he says. “But collecting bottles and cans — it is work. It wasn’t enough money to get a house or an apartment, but it was enough for me that I didn’t have to go begging or steal anything. I could be me and feel good about it.”

Where deposit return systems do exist, the data suggests that they play a big part in boosting the number of containers that get reclaimed and recycled. According to an industry estimate, cans covered by deposit systems are recycled in the US at a rate of 74 percent, compared to the national average of 43 percent. Plastic bottles eligible for a deposit are returned at rates of up to 81 percent, compared to a national average of under 30 percent (although not all of what’s collected is ultimately recycled due to technological and economic limitations on plastic recycling).

Folks line up at "The People's Depot." One holds a bike.

Canners congregate at The People’s Depot in Portland’s Central Eastside neighborhood. Brodie Cass Talbott

In Portland, The People’s Depot offers an alternative to deposit locations attached to supermarkets and convenience stores, where waste pickers say they’re treated with disdain by shoppers and passersby. Last year, hundreds of Portlanders blocked a new bottle dropoff location proposed in the neighborhood of St. Johns. They cited “safety” concerns and a “potential increase in crime or vandalism.”

Brown, who regularly invites mutual aid groups and a mobile library to visit The People’s Depot so its patrons can benefit from free books and food, calls the program a “more humanizing experience.” He suggests it could be a model for scaling up waste picker-led recycling programs in other cities. “It becomes more of a community space for [canners] to show up to,” he says. “And the community shows that respect back to us.”

Ground Score has had a presence at all five negotiating sessions for the global plastics treaty so far. Weber and Cass Talbott helped draft the IAWP’s 2023 report, “Vision for a Just Transition for Waste Pickers under the UN Plastics Treaty,” which describes the environmental importance of waste pickers’ work.

The report calls for, among other things, the direct involvement of waste pickers in plastics-related policymaking, as well as “universal registration” of waste pickers in local and national databases, so they can be enrolled in social benefits programs and more formally included in the plastics recycling value chain.

In order to create more programs like Ground Score, Cass Talbott says waste picker collectives around the world should cultivate relationships with policymakers inside local and regional governments, who can help educate their peers on the benefits waste pickers provide. Ground Score has one particularly strong connection within Portland’s Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program, which has helped Ground Score negotiate nearly all of its contracts with the city, according to Cass Talbott.

Workers hold a sign that says "respect waste pickers."

Waste pickers with the Nakuru County Waste Pickers Association in Kenya call for recognition and respect outside of a dump site in 2024. James Wakibia / SOPA Images / LightRocket via Getty Images via Grist

Waste pickers and their allies often talk about a “just transition” for the waste sector, a concept that seeks to resolve the apparent tension between reducing plastic production and protecting waste pickers’ livelihoods: If oil and gas companies stop making so much plastic, waste pickers could have less work to do.

For their part, Ground Score’s employees and day workers are aware of that tension. Brown, at The People’s Depot, stresses that plastic production should be reduced and that companies should be “held accountable” for the waste they create. Detten, the GLITTER group member, says she wishes we could send a big laser up into space to “zap” away the world’s plastic pollution.

Christine Alix is more reserved than some of her co-workers. She has dark blue hair peeking out from under her baseball cap, and wears bright yellow sunglasses despite the overcast day. She says that, before she started waste picking, she would get angry with people for throwing plastic onto the street. Her feelings are more complicated now: “Thanks for giving me a job,” she jokes.

Alix says her bigger priority is trying to keep streets looking clean in order to “reduce the impacts of sweeps,” referring to the police clearing of tents and other shelters from parks, sidewalks, and other places.

Most of the team is effusive about Ground Score’s social mission and the way a simple, low-barrier job can change people’s trajectory. At least three people tell me Ground Score saved their life. Others say their work with the organization has given them a renewed sense of purpose and self-respect. “I love my job,” Detten says. “It’s fulfilling in a way that just expands my humanity.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

This Week’s Reveal Podcast: The EEOC’s Identity Crisis

Dylan Bringuel remembers the exact moment they got hired by the Holiday Inn Express in Jamestown, New York. It was late August 2022, and Bringuel—who uses they/them pronouns—had recently moved across the country and was struggling to find work.

Bringuel is transgender and was upfront about their gender identity during the job interview. “ I was like, ‘Just so you’re aware, I am transitioning from female to male,’” they remember saying. “And they said, ‘Okay, we respect that. We’ll do our best to make sure you fit and you’re comfortable here.’”

That wasn’t the case. Bringuel said that the first day on the job, the housekeeping manager called them an “it” and a “transformer” and said people like Bringuel are “what is wrong with society.”

Bringuel reported the harassment to hotel management. Within a day, they were fired. In 2024, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stepped in to help Bringuel sue the hotel for workplace discrimination.

But earlier this year, something unusual happened. The EEOC dropped Bringuel’s case, not because their allegations lacked merit, but because of President Donald Trump’s executive order on “radical gender ideology.”

This week on Reveal, Mother Jones national politics reporter Abby Vesoulis walks through how the anti-DEI movement evolved from a niche legal fight to an all-out culture war—and what that means for the EEOC and the marginalized people it has historically protected.

Continue Reading…