Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

US Ambassador to Israel: “It Would Be Fine” If Israel Took Over Most of the Middle East

On Sunday, more than a dozen Arab and Islamic governments condemned statements made by US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee after he said in an interview with Tucker Carlson that Israel had the biblical right to take over land belonging to other states in the Middle East.

“It would be fine if they took it all,” Huckabee told Carlson in the interview released on Friday when questioned on whether Israel had been promised almost all the land in the Middle East in the Bible. The statement was part of a heated exchange where Carlson pressed Huckabee on his beliefs in Christian Zionism. (Huckabee later added that Israel was not interested in acquiring other countries’ land.)

In a joint statement released by the United Arab Emirates’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, several governments—including US allies like Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia—called Huckabee’s remarks “a flagrant violation of the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations” that threaten security in the region. The countries stated that the ambassador’s statements “directly contradict” Donald Trump’s 20-point plan from last October to end the war in Gaza.

Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a longtime supporter of the country’s expansion in the Middle East, had another response. He posted on X on Saturday: “I [heart emoji] Huckabee.”

Huckabee clarified later on in his Friday interview on The Tucker Carlson Show that his statement that Israel could take it “all” was “hyperbolic.”

In July 2024, the United Nations’ top court, the International Court of Justice, said that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem violate international law by infringing on the Palestinian people’s rights for self-determination.

Despite that, Israel and US policy has facilitated the expansion of settlements. As my colleague Noah Lanard wrote in February 2025, Trump has not just supported permanently displacing Palestinians from Gaza—he has also stated that he wants the US to take control of the region and have a “long-term ownership position,” manifesting in his administration’s “New Gaza” real estate project, complete with skyscrapers and industrial centers.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Armed Man Fatally Shot at Mar-a-Lago, Secret Service Says

An armed man was fatally shot on Sunday after driving into the secure perimeter of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate as another vehicle was exiting, according to a spokesperson for the US Secret Service.

“The individual was observed by the north gate of the Mar-a-Lago property carrying what appeared to be a shotgun and a fuel can,” the Secret Service’s press release reads. “US Secret Service and a [Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office] deputy confronted the individual and shots were fired by law enforcement during the encounter.”

The president and First Lady Melania Trump were at the White House at the time of the shooting.

At a press conference on Sunday morning, Palm Beach County Sheriff Rick Bradshaw said that the man was ordered to drop the two pieces of equipment that he was carrying. In response, “he put down the gas can [and] raised the shotgun to a shooting position.”

According to Anthony Guglielmi, the Secret Service’s Chief of Communications, the suspect was in his early 20s and from North Carolina. He was reported missing a few days ago by his family.

Guglielmi said that investigators believe the man picked up a shotgun on the way to Florida. Law enforcement recovered a box for the gun in the suspect’s vehicle.

The Sunday incident at Mar-a-Lago took place a few miles from Trump’s West Palm Beach club, where a man tried to assassinate him while he played golf during the 2024 campaign.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Putin Tried to Freeze Ukraine. Instead, He Sparked an Energy Revolution.

_This story was originally published b_y Yale Environment 360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

When Russian air strikes knocked out Ukrainian power plants earlier this winter, much of the Black Sea port city of Mykolaiv went dark, and indoor temperatures plummeted. Just 60 kilometers from the front, Tornado rockets, cruise and ballistic missiles, and attack drones have been raining down on the city of 450,000 for the last four years. Now, during the coldest winter in more than a decade, most of Mykolaiv’s citizens are once again enduring bitterly cold homes and, when electric water pumps fail, dry taps.

“Attacking decentralized solar power installations is not economically rational.”

But there are new glimmers of hope in Mykolaiv. Last November, 26 newly installed photovoltaic roof panels, paired with 100 kilowatt-hours of lithium battery storage, began to power heat pumps and generators to keep the city’s Urban Rehabilitation Center for Children and Persons with Disabilities up and running. Thanks to the Danish Refugee Council and Denmark’s foreign ministry, the project’s donors, the center continued operating even during a 32-hour stretch of shelling in mid-December. In addition to treating 70 patients a day, the center has opened its doors to at-risk Mykolaivians who lack heat. Several other institutions in Mykolaiv have also jettisoned their exclusive reliance on the national grid, which is mostly powered by large natural gas, coal-fired, and nuclear plants, and now draw energy from small-scale distributed systems that produce electricity at or near the point of use.

Since the war’s onset, Russia has targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure—its old-school fossil-fueled power plants, substations, and transmission lines—in an effort to advance its offensive and beat down the Ukrainian people. Before this winter even set in, half of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure lay in ruins. Economists estimate that total damage to the nation’s energy sector now exceeds $56 billion.

This winter is the most devastating yet: Attacks have left giant swaths of the country with irregular electricity and heat as temperatures have plummeted to minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit. The bitter conditions have left many schools and other public services closed since Christmas. In Kyiv, as well as in Kharkiv, Poltava, and Dnipro, more than 1,000 public heating tents, powered by diesel generators and wood-burning stoves, offer residents warmth and a place to charge their phones. But these improvisations aren’t enough. On January 14, President Volodymyr Zelensky declared a state of emergency in the energy sector.

While Ukraine’s energy system, which had a pre-war generation capacity of 60 gigawatts, scrambles to keep the lights on, grid operators are also looking past the next drone swarm, pushing to diversify the country’s energy sources, says Lars Handrich, a German energy expert who works closely with Ukraine. The plan is to replace the bulky thermal plants and centralized grid, which are vulnerable to drone and other attacks, with distributed renewables and modestly sized gas-fired plants that make less attractive targets for incoming fire. According to estimates from the Solar Energy Association of Ukraine, the nation installed at least 1.5 gigawatts of new solar generation in 2025—enough to power roughly 1.1 million homes—and grid operators intend to almost double the country’s renewable energy production over the next four years.

Ukraine is revamping its power sector as rapidly as it can, not for climate protection but for energy security. “Ukraine’s energy transition is not a slogan,” says Ievgeniia Kopytsia, a Ukrainian energy analyst at the Institute for Climate Protection, Energy and Mobility. “Since the full-scale invasion, Ukraine has added over 3 gigawatts of new renewable energy capacity. It’s a security-driven transformation, unfolding under extreme constraints, that prioritizes decentralization, flexibility, and speed of recovery.”

Wind and solar arrays with independent transmission lines are scattered over the landscape, which makes them harder to hit and easier to repair. “A coal power station [is] a large single target that a single missile could take out,” says Jeff Oatham of DTEK, Ukraine’s largest energy company and its largest private energy investor. “You would need around 40 missiles to do the equivalent amount of capacity damage at a wind farm.”

Solar, too, makes an unattractive target. “Attacking decentralized solar power installations is not economically rational,” says Ukrainian energy expert Olena Kondratiuk. “Missiles and drones are expensive, and significantly disrupting such systems would require a large number of strikes, while the overall impact on the energy system would remain limited.” Both solar and wind parks can function even when parts of them are out of operation.

Ukraine’s shift away from fossil fuels began before Russia’s full-scale invasion: To join the European Union, the nation must adopt the bloc’s climate criteria, and in 2021, Ukraine pledged to be coal-free by 2035. The war interrupted this phaseout, but it also accelerated Ukraine’s adoption of renewables, despite its strapped budget.

European countries are bankrolling most of Ukraine’s energy makeover, including all of the Mykolaiv solar installations. West of Kyiv, the city of Zhytomyr plans to run entirely on renewables by 2050 with the help of the Rebuild Ukraine initiative, which is largely European-funded. And in the Kyiv region and beyond, solar systems supported by the Solar Supports Ukraine program are keeping schools open during blackouts. A self-financed exception: Before the war began, the Sunny Citycooperative in Slavutych, a town near the Belarus border, crowdfunded to create a solar power plant on the roofs of three municipal buildings.

According to the International Energy Agency, Ukraine made “strong strides” in rebuilding and bolstering its system’s resilience this past summer. The renewables rollout was—and still is—dominated by rooftop solar, small photovoltaic arrays, wind, local storage, and biomass combustion.

Some self-sustaining energy zones combine renewables with conventional energy. The central Ukrainian city of Vinnytsia, for example, boasts five microgridst that combine local generation, including solar, gas, and hydroelectric power, with energy storage systems. Five major wind farms will join the energy mix in the next two years. In Khmelnytskyi, the national university’s 4,400-kilowatt microgrid includes a natural gas-fired cogeneration unit (it produces both electricity and heat), a 264-kilowatt solar array, a diesel-powered plant, and a gas-fired boiler house, which generates heat.

Before Russia seized territory that hosted more than half of Ukraine’s wind power capacity in 2014 and 2022, including major wind farms on the Sea of Azov coast, Ukraine had 34 wind parks, comprised of nearly 700 turbines. Since wind generation is so central to its decentralized energy strategy, Ukraine has sought to increase wind generation even in the midst of Russian attacks.

Just 65 miles from the front, DTEK is installing the 500-megawatt Tyligulska Wind Power Plant, the first wind park ever built in a war zone. It is a crucial source of electricity in southern Ukraine and will supply 900,000 households when it’s finished. The country currently has 7 gigawatts of wind power in the pipeline that could be installed this year, according to Andriy Konechenkov, of the Ukrainian Wind Energy Association, should conditions on the ground allow it. The new turbines would more than triple the country’s current wind-power capacity.

While the war has sidelined the rollout of utility-scale wind farms, solar installations atop households, businesses, and public institutions have continued at an unprecedented rate. Ukraine’s YASNO utility, which supplies electricity and gas to millions of Ukrainians, says its customers are snapping up the solar and storage packages that it offers. On sunny days, Ukraine even boasts energy surpluses.

The German-Ukrainian Energy Partnership, a platform for intergovernmental dialogue on energy matters, estimates that Ukraine’s long-term technical solar potential exceeds 80 gigawatts, on par with the output of 80 medium-sized nuclear reactors. “The sector is emerging as one of the fastest-developing renewable markets in Eastern Europe,” according to its website. A University of Technology Sydney study suggests Ukraine could meet 91 percent of its energy needs from a combination of solar and onshore wind using 1 percent of its land.

“Individual consumers want to get off the grid any way that they can,” explains Andriy Martynyuk of Ecoclub, a Ukraine-based NGO that helps communities develop renewables. “It’s largely a grassroots phenomenon and a bit chaotic now,” he says. But Martynyuk expects the demand for renewables will further surge when state subsidies for fossil energy, which have priced Ukrainian energy significantly below market rates, are eventually phased out.

This boom, of course, begs for storage options, and there, too, Ukraine has moved quickly. In 2024 and 2025, the country’s national grid operator invested in half a gigawatt of storage capacity—an impressive amount according to experts, who note that it is just under a quarter of Germany’s total storage supply. The battery projects that in Europe take two years to roll out, the Financial Times reports, take just six months in Ukraine.

In terms of a new, cutting-edge distributed energy system, Ukraine may be racing forward with the zeal of a new convert, but even the planned rollout of renewables in 2026 won’t keep most of the Ukrainian population safe from Russia’s depredations next winter. Wartime Ukraine has the will but not the financial resources to revamp its energy production on its own. The nation’s largest donor, the E.U., is already contributing nearly $200 billion to Ukraine’s budget for military expenditures and humanitarian aid, including energy. The speed with which Ukraine blankets its territory with distributed energy systems could make the difference between surviving another punishing winter—or succumbing to its cruelty.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Measles Cases This Year Near 1,000. That We Know Of.

There have been nearly 1,000 confirmed measles cases in the US in 2026 so far, according to new data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s more than four times the amount of cases as this time last year.

It’s unclear how much larger the spread could be, as the CDC’s number refers to reported and confirmed cases.

Many of the current cases stem from an outbreak in South Carolina, with the state nearly reporting around 800 cases since January. Twenty-six states have reported cases this year, spanning the entire country—from California to Maine and from Texas to Wisconsin.

Related

RFK Jr.HHS Wasn’t Worried About South Carolina’s Measles Outbreak. It’s Now Enormous.

During 2025, there were 2,281 confirmed cases of measles. The country is now at risk of, if not on track to, losing its measles elimination status that it’s held since 2000. Two doses of the measles, mumps, and rubella, or MMR, vaccine**,** usually administered in children, provides 97 percent protection, though distrust of vaccinations, fueled by mis- and disinformation, has risen in the past few years.

The surging 2026 numbers come after more than a year of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. serving as the head of the US Department of Health and Human Services. He, along with key allies, has led the agency toward an unprecedented reshaping of the nation’s vaccination system for children—a mission he began prior to becoming secretary.

There are no current death reports from 2026, though at least three people died from measles in 2025. As more Americans are at risk of becoming sick from the illness, Kennedy has continued to spread false information about alternative remedies like cod liver oil.

Despite the record numbers and quick spread in 2025, HHS told Mother Jones back in December that they weren’t especially worried about the brewing South Carolina outbreak. The CDC was “not currently concerned that this will develop into a large, long-running outbreak,” HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard wrote.

To date, that outbreak has led to at least 20 hospitalizations. Though, according to reporting from ProPublica, that number is likely much higher as hospitals in South Carolina aren’t required to report when they admit patients with measles-related illnesses.

Dr. Leigh Bragg, a pediatrician in South Carolina who is board certified in pediatric infectious disease, told ProPublica that she didn’t even know that anyone had been hospitalized due to the illness in her state until she saw it on social media.

“It’s a very big disservice to the public not reporting complications we are seeing in hospitals or even ERs,” Bragg said. “Measles isn’t just a cold.”

Even if reports of measles were required, the chaos the Trump administration has rained down on the federal workforce could make it hard to understand and address the scope of the issue.

In October, more than 1,000 CDC employees were laid off, only for some 700 to be rehired the next day. As Americans face another widespread public health crisis, the pinned post on Kennedy’s X account isn’t about how to protect yourself or your children from measles. Instead, it’s a video of himself working out in a sauna, shirtless, with Kid Rock.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s Favorite Appointee Right Now Is the One Who Didn’t Challenge His Power

President Trump’s favorite Supreme Court justice right now is the appointee who refused to restrict the president’s tariff agenda.

After the high court ruled against him in his tariff case on Friday, Trump has repeatedly singled out Justice Brett Kavanaugh in praise—the only one of Trump’s three appointments to dissent against the majority opinion that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, does not give Trump authority to impose tariffs.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed in 2017 and 2020 respectively, sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and the liberal justices in the majority opinion.

“I would like to thank Justice Kavanaugh for his, frankly, his genius and his great ability. Very proud of that appointment,” Trump said during the press conference following the Friday ruling. During that address, Trump claimed, without providing details, that the loss in the Supreme Court “made a president’s ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear rather than less.”

Trump initially announced that he would impose a global tariff of 10 percent, invoking a law never before utilized by a president which allows the executive to “impose an across-the-board tariff for 150 days unless Congress agrees to extend it,” according to the New York Times. On Saturday, per a Truth Social post, Trump raised the amount to 15 percent—the cap for this kind of tariff imposition.

It’s unclear how this global tariff will impact trade negotiations with world leaders. It’s also unclear, and not covered in the ruling, if the executive office will be refunding any retailers impacted by the previous tariffs. Estimates place the total amount that Trump has collected under IEEPA between $133 billion and $175 billion.

Related

Collage featuring the Supreme Courthouse, shipping containers at a shipyard, overlaid with a black and white crop of Donald Trump looking displeased.Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariff Regime

Amid Trump’s strong rebukes of the justices who opted to deny the overarching presidential authority, he continued to lavish praise on Kavanaugh, who, according to a recent Marquette Law School poll, has the lowest net favorability among all of his peers.

“I’m so proud of him,” Trump said of Kavanaugh on Friday, repeatedly citing his dissent.

“My new hero is United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Saturday morning, before mentioning the other two men who sided with him: “and, of course, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.” Despite dissenting from his liberal colleagues in the recent tariff case, Kavanaugh is the conservative justice most likely to side with liberals in outcomes, according to an analysis by SCOTUSblog.

Trump has long championed Kavanaugh, providing strong support for the appointee during his controversial approval process in 2018. When Christine Blasey Ford had accused then-nominee Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were in high school, Trump called for his followers to pray for him and his family. After Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the alleged assault, which she reportedly detailed to her husband and therapist several years prior, Trump wrote that Kavanaugh “is a fine man and great intellect.”

President Donald Trump, right, smiles as he stands with Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, left, before a ceremonial swearing in in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Monday, Oct. 8, 2018.

President Trump with Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh before a ceremonial swearing in on October 8, 2018Susan Walsh/AP

Around a year later, in 2019, the Times published another sexual misconduct allegation against him, spurring calls for his impeachment. Kavanaugh denied both of the women’s accounts.

Trump again came to the rescue: “Can’t let Brett Kavanaugh give Radical Left Democrat (Liberal Plus) Opinions based on threats of Impeaching him over made up stories (sound familiar?), false allegations, and lies. This is the game they play. Fake and Corrupt News is working overtime!,” Trump wrote at the time, adding the hashtag “#ProtectKavanaugh.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Federal Program That Helps Cities Prep for Disaster Stays Frozen Despite Judge’s Order

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

When it comes to adapting to the consequences of climate change, the federal government has relied heavily on one flagship program: Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities. Administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), BRIC has doled out $4.5 billion in grants to help states and cities prepare for future disasters. Wildfire retrofits in Washington State, safe rooms in Oklahoma, and sewer systems in Detroit have all benefitted from the program.

Despite bipartisan support for the effort, the Trump Administration issued a memo announcing its intent to shut down BRIC in April. Then, in December, a federal judge ordered FEMA to restore the program’s funding and “promptly take all steps necessary to reverse” the termination. The agency had two months to appeal.

Though that deadline passed last week, the Trump administration is still holding out. Two FEMA officials told Grist that the agency has taken no apparent steps to revive BRIC in compliance with the December court order. As a result, state and local governments across the country are holding critical projects in limbo as they await a resolution.

“It boggles the mind that almost two dozen states had to go back to court to ask Judge Stearns to enforce the existing court order.”

The officials who spoke to Grist requested anonymity to avoid retaliation from agency leadership. Separately, a FEMA spokesperson said the agency complies with court orders, but did not respond to questions about the future of BRIC.

FEMA’s deadline to appeal the judge’s ruling was February 9. On Tuesday, a coalition of state attorneys general accused the Trump administration of dragging its feet on compliance. (Those attorneys represent the states behind the original lawsuit over BRIC, which resulted in the December ruling.)

“Over two months have passed and Defendants have offered no indication to Plaintiff States, the public, FEMA’s regional offices, or apparently even Defendants’ own attorney that they have complied with the Order,” attorneys for almost two dozen states wrote in a court filing on Tuesday. The states asked the judge to compel FEMA to follow the order and make BRIC funding available.

BRIC actually launched during the first Trump administration, but most of its funding came from the Biden-era Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. That money endowed more than 2,000 projects nationwide. At the time of the April memo shuttering the program, FEMA told Grist that BRIC “was yet another example of a wasteful and ineffective FEMA program.” (The acting FEMA director who issued that memo, Cameron Hamilton, lost his job a few weeks later after telling Congress that he didn’t think Trump should abolish his agency.)

The BRIC pause is one part of an overall freeze on FEMA’s disaster mitigation spending. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the agency, has placed it under a de facto spending moratorium, requiring Secretary Kristi Noem’s sign-off for any expenses over $100,000. FEMA has not approved any new disaster mitigation projects, has refused to process paperwork for projects that were already in progress, and has been slow even to reimburse communities for the cost of disaster recovery, a core activity mandated by Congress.

When a group of around two dozen states sued to stop the cancellation of the program in a Massachusetts federal court, FEMA claimed that it was not canceling BRIC. Instead, it said in a court filing that it “ha[d] not ended” the program and “continue[d] to evaluate whether to end the…program or to revise it,” even as it acknowledged it had not made new funding available.

The judge rejected that argument and issued an injunction preventing the agency from stopping the program. Judge Richard Stearns, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in an order that the law “entitle[s] the States to a certain measure of funding for mitigation projects each fiscal year.”

The state attorneys general allege that FEMA has not provided states, grantees, or regional offices with any new information about the future of the program—nor has it made two years of suspended BRIC funding available to states. The plaintiff states said in Tuesday’s court filing that a senior agency official had told them FEMA is “still in the process of connecting with leadership about how BRIC will operate and on what timelines.”

“If they’re really concerned about the escalating cost of natural disasters and the burden on the federal government, they should be concentrating on resilience.”

Two agency employees who work on disaster adaptation confirmed the states’ allegation that FEMA has not yet restored the program. The decision on how to proceed appears to rest with senior Homeland Security officials, they added.

“I haven’t heard a word internally, at all,” one of the officials told Grist.

The December court order found that the states could suffer irreparable harm if BRIC projects that were already underway lost funding or collapsed due to an abrupt shutdown. The state attorneys general are now arguing that FEMA’s recent delays further threaten those projects. Attorneys for the states said that FEMA has refused to provide updates on the status of frozen projects, even when state officials have warned that projects are in jeopardy. The states submitted more than a dozen affidavits showing that FEMA has declined to provide updates for stalled projects, including a seismic retrofit for a rural California hospital and a pair of public school safe rooms in Wisconsin.

The Massachusetts cities of Chelsea and Everett, just outside of Boston, were relying on around $50 million in BRIC money to fund an ambitious flood protection project. The cities were going to build a flood barrier and storm surge control project that would prevent tidal flooding in a floodplain that contains a high school, a rail line, and a regional produce distribution center. The barrier would have doubled as an expansion of a park that will be submerged by high tides in the coming years.

But FEMA paused the project’s funding last spring, after the April memo. Since then, the effort has been in limbo. The pause has meant that the two cities lost out on $50 million in matching money from a state fund. After a year in stasis, local officials are weighing whether to split the project into separate stages, pursuing the storm surge system alone while punting on the other parts.

“We could just put it on a shelf and wait for federal funding, or we could attempt to break the project into phases,” said Emily Granoff, who leads the project and is the deputy director of housing and community development for the city of Chelsea. “This project needs to happen,” she added, “but we don’t have the information we need.”

Disaster experts said the delay amounts to dereliction of duty. “It boggles the mind that almost two dozen states had to go back to court to ask Judge Stearns to enforce the existing court order against FEMA,” said Shana Udvardy, a senior policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental advocacy organization. “What we’ve seen when it comes to this BRIC case [and others] is this Trump administration’s willingness to either outright ignore the law or suggest it has a plan in place to implement the law, an obvious delay tactic to get away with doing nothing.”

President Trump and Secretary Noem have said they want the federal government to play a smaller role in disaster recovery, but experts told Grist that destroying BRIC will jeopardize that goal. That’s because BRIC projects ultimately reduce disaster recovery costs by funding more resilient infrastructure before it’s needed.

“If they’re really concerned about the escalating cost of natural disasters and the burden on the federal government, they should be concentrating on resilience,” said Leo Martinez-Diaz, the director of the climate and sustainability program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “That’s the only thing that ultimately reduces the losses.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

As the Trump Administration Erases Black History, These Writers Are Keeping It Alive

One of the unmistakable throughlines of the second Trump administration is how it’s overhauling policies that directly affect African Americans, most notably by targeting programs and initiatives that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI.

For journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, it’s an attempt to take the country back to an era before the civil rights movement. “A lot of folks are saying, you know, that this administration is rolling back the ’60s, but I’m like, he—this administration’s actually going back further than that.”

The administration is also removing references to Black history from the nation’s museums, parks, and schools. When history itself is being erased at the highest levels, who’s left to tell us where we’ve been and where we’re headed?

This week on Reveal, as part of Black History Month, we’re bringing you conversations from our sister podcast, More To The Story, with three prominent Black writers who are fighting to tell a more inclusive American story.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Wants You to Forget That George Washington Owned Slaves

On Thursday just before noon, bundled up couples and small groups of people wandered through the President’s House on Independence Hall, some snapping photos and others inquiring what was happening as four National Park employees worked in tandem, behind a barricade, to reattach panel after panel of the President’s House slavery exhibits. They worked in the cold, lifting the massive glass squares up onto the brick wall and then screwing them into place. Philadelphia’s mayor Cherelle L. Parker approached, admiring the exhibit for a moment before shaking hands with the workers and thanking them.

“I want you to know I’m grateful,” Parker said. “It’s our honor,” one of the employees responded.

They continued to work until at least 16 panels of the memorial were reinstalled. The exhibits had been removed on a Thursday afternoon nearly a month before, in accordance with Trump’s 2025 “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” executive order to rid “public monuments, memorials, statues, markers or similar properties” of content that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.” But after the city sued, US District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe issued an injunction ordering the government to “restore the President’s House Site to its physical status as of January 21, 2026.” That order was overruled on Friday, just one hour before the deadline Rufe had set for the exhibit’s reinstallation. Now, the National Park Service must maintain the status quo—leaving 16 of 34 panels up—while the federal government appeals the initial injunction.

For a community that fought to restore history, the initial order to restore the President’s House exhibit had been cause for celebration. “We need to understand what we’ve done here. This is actually a moment in time; your children, your grandchildren, your great grandchildren, are going to be talking about this for years and decades to come,” said Michael Coard, attorney and founding member of Avenging the Ancestors Coalition (ATAC), a broad-based Black-led coalition of activists, on Thursday as the the National Park Service initially started to restore panels. “This here, right now, what we’ve done is people power.” As Coard spoke, he stood in front of a wall engraved with the names of the nine people enslaved by Washington. At the bottom of his podium rested the 1863 image “Scourged Back,” which was marked for removal from Harper’s Ferry National Historical Park last year.

ATAC had been an instrumental part of establishing the exhibit in 2010 and had filed an amicus brief in support of the city’s lawsuit on January 27.

The exhibit in Center City was one of a dozen other signs and materials from national parks removed after Trump’s executive order. The Washington Post reported that park staff interpreted the order as including “any references to historic racism, sexism, climate change, and LGBTQ+ rights.” As America approaches its 250th anniversary this year, these removals foreshadow a celebration that, on the national level, excludes underrepresented communities’ contributions to American history, refuses to reckon with its more difficult periods, and ultimately obfuscates the truth of our collective past.

When Philadelphia was the nation’s capital, the President’s House was the site where Presidents George Washington and John Adams lived and worked. The original building was demolished in 1832, but visitors today can still walk through its foundation, which sits near the Liberty Bell Center. The slavery exhibits at the President’s House include displays that memorialize the names and experiences of the nine people enslaved under Washington, along with relevant historical moments like Washington’s signing of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1793.

After the exhibit’s removal in January, the ATAC kept the space alive with numerous rallies. A few days prior to the court’s order to reinstall the panels, despite the leftover snow that piled along the sidewalks and on the lawn, hundreds of concerned Philadelphia community members gathered at the President’s House demanding the restoration of the slavery exhibit.

“African American history is American history, and we stand and continue to fight to make sure that Donald Trump will not whitewash the history here in the city of Philadelphia,” said Kenyatta Johnson, Philadelphia’s 2nd Council District President, as the crowd applauded. “It’s shameful that as we celebrate the 250th celebration of the birthplace of America that we have to be out here today advocating and fighting to make sure our true history—our true history, not his story—is known.”

Other speakers included a direct descendant of Black founding father Bishop Richard Allen, city council members, a historian, and a George Washington reenactor. They all echoed a similar message: the history presented by these panels needed to be restored because they tell an intrinsic part of American history, despite the current administration’s view that they were “disparaging.”

A brick wall with a display of poswers and flyers describing the history of slavery.

Before a federal judge ordered the restoration of the slavery exhibit, community members filled the space with their own. Jeffrey Kelly

​The main brick walls, where two long horizontal silver slabs hung covered in glue residue—a reminder of what had been there—had been plastered with various handmade flyers protesting the erasure of history and even recreating parts of the exhibit for those who came to view the site.

The City of Philadelphia filed their federal lawsuit against the US Department of the Interior and the National Park Service the day the panels were initially removed, arguing the removal of the exhibit was “arbitrary and capricious,” violating a 2006 Cooperative Agreement between Philadelphia and the federal government.

“This is not about hatred of America or the United States; it is about telling the full American story again.”

“This action is a disservice to our city, our nation, and it denies future generations the chance to learn from our history, fostering an environment of ignorance rather than understanding,” said Catherine Hicks, the president of Philadelphia’s NAACP branch, to the crowd. “We must confront the complexities of our past, honoring the lives and legacies of those who suffered under the institution of slavery.”

​Hannah Gann, a high school African American history teacher attending the rally, said every year she’d teach her students about the people Washington enslaved, particularly Ona Judge, a young woman who escaped to New Hampshire. This year, when her students heard the memorial was torn down, they were “upset that their real history was being erased and a huge part of our city’s history was being taken away and covered up.”

​Gann said the exhibit’s removal reminded her of how vital educators are.​ “We can’t just feel satisfied that we’ve done enough,” she said. “Every year we have to renew our energy, our commitment to the truth, our commitment to Black uplift and celebrating stories of Black resilience and power and having our students see themselves in those stories.”

As the rally to restore history took place in Philadelphia, in Washington, the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held an oversight hearing titled “All in for America250: Public-Private Partnerships Supporting America’s Semiquincentennial on our Public Lands.”

During the hearing, Alan Spears, National Parks Conservation Association’s Senior Director for Cultural Resources, recalled that when he was young, his parents would take him to places like Gettysburg. He said it was there that his passion for American History manifested, but it didn’t “take hold” until he started seeing people who looked like him in those spaces.

“I think what we’re looking at right now is the danger of taking that in a completely opposite direction, where people don’t see themselves reflected or are seeing themselves actively removed and excised from our shared national narrative,” Spears said during the hearing. “We don’t need to go in that direction. This is not about hatred of America or the United States; it is about telling the full American story again, about the times when we failed to live up to the better angels of our nature. That’s us too.”​

John Garrison Marks, a historian and ​the author of Thy Will Be Done: George Washington’s Legacy of Slavery and the Fight for American Memory, had hoped that America’s anniversary would be an opportunity to “establish a more complete, more inclusive and more widely shared understanding of the nation’s history,” including the history of slavery.

Marks said people have debated Washington’s involvement in slavery for almost 250 years. The founding father enslaved people right up until the day he died, while privately writing about becoming “uneasy” with slavery and hoping that the institution would be abolished in southern states. Washington even circumvented a Pennsylvania law by deliberately moving the people he enslaved in and out of the state every six months to ensure they wouldn’t be freed by the Gradual Abolition Act of 1780. Marks noted that the president understood the hypocrisy of leading a revolution to found a nation dedicated to the ideas of liberty and equality while enslaving people.

Marks said you can’t to talk about Washington without talking about his involvement in slavery. He argued that some people struggle to see Washington as “an actual human being” with “egregious flaws,” and instead see him as a symbol of the nation itself; for some, “criticizing Washington is criticizing America.”

​“There are a lot of people whose sense of patriotism, whose sense of self, is tied to the idea that America is the land of the free, is tied up in the idea that this is a nation that should only be celebrated,” he said. “And when you try to introduce this idea that we need to reckon with the history of slavery to understand Washington, there are a lot of people who view that as kind of a personal attack.”

With Philadelphia having the potential to see so many visitors this year, not only for the 250th anniversary, but for the FIFA World Cup or the MLB All-Star Game, the removal of the slavery exhibit at the President’s House was “a huge missed opportunity” to give people an uncensored history, one that Marks believes most people want to learn.

“On the eve of the 250th there are going to be people who are now waving the flag talking about how they love this country, and my thing is this: you can’t love a thing or a person until you know the good, the bad and the ugly,” Coard said after the rally. “So, the 250th shines a spotlight about the absolute necessity of knowing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about your country.”

Following the initial legal victory, community members werecautiously hopeful.

“My heart is really exploding with joy, but it’s the type of joy that we often experience as Black people in this country,” said Michelle Flamer, a retired attorney, who helped get the exhibit installed over 15 years ago. “Where is the permanency? I want to make sure that this is permanent and not to ever be taken away. This history belongs here. There have been many people who have talked about moving it somewhere else or telling it, and I support efforts to continue to tell this history as broadly and as widely as possible, but it belongs here on this ground, because this is actually where the president’s house existed.”

Whatever the result of the administration’s fight to change the signage at the President’s House and other sites across the country, nothing can change what happened at these places, and who it happened to.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariff Regime

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that most of President Donald Trump’s world-wide tariffs are illegal, dealing a setback to one of the president’s top priorities. Since his second month in office, Trump has set about to impose drastic, varying, and haphazard tariffs on countries across the globe. Trump purported that most of these tariffs were authorized under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. But in a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled that IEEPA did not give the president power to impose tariffs. Trump will now have to turn to other, more limited statutes to impose his unilateral tariffs.

Although the outcome is a clear loss for Trump, the court is likely doing him a favor.

IEEPA authorizes the president to respond to “any unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad, including through the power to “regulate… importation or exportation.” The Trump administration argued that the word “regulate” encompassed “tariff regulation,” which Solicitor General John Sauer described during oral arguments as “the quintessential, most historically-tested method of regulating imports.” But the justices disagreed, finding the words “regulate” and “importation” are not enough to give the president uninhibited tariff power.

“Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—’regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion. “Those words cannot bear such weight.”

To use IEEPA, Trump had taken a capacious view of the meaning of “unusual or extraordinary threat.” For tariffs on Canada and Mexico, he said it was because they were letting fentanyl across the border. For dozens of other countries, he seized on decades-old trade deficits that most economists agree are not a big deal. For Canada (a second time), he pointed to a World Series TV ad that offended him. For Brazil, it was the gall to prosecute a former president for trying to overturn the results of an election. Trump argued that it was his power alone to declare such emergencies, and that these declarations were unreviewable, even by the courts.

Roberts dispatched with this argument by saying that Congress could not have handed the president such broad powers over matters generally reserved for itself—the power to impose tariffs—without more explicit language: This view “would replace the longstanding executive-legislative collaboration over trade policy with unchecked Presidential policymaking,” Roberts wrote. “Congress seldom effects such sea changes through ‘vague language.'”

Although the outcome is a clear loss for Trump, the court is likely doing him a favor. Trump’s sweeping and erratic tariffs are a drag on the economy. They increase uncertainty and stymie investment. They raise prices and decrease employment. The result is a weaker economy heading into this year’s midterms**—**a downward trend that is likely to continue throughthe 2028 elections.

The Republican-appointed 6-3 court majority depends on Republicans winning at the ballot box, as does the pro-business, pro-Christian nationalist, anti-democratic agenda the conservative justices are enacting. They surely understand that this project could be undermined by a tariff-fueled recession, even if Trump himself doesn’t seem to get it. To bring the point home, the case was argued the day after Democrats overperformed in November elections in New Jersey, New York City, and Virginia, winning voters worried about high prices.

The best way to understand this case was not as a tricky task of legal or constitutional interpretation, but rather as an attempt to mediate between two competing factions of the Republican firmament. On one side is Trump, who has used tariffs to dole out rewards and punishments on businesses, individuals, and other countries. On the other side were some of the biggest GOP funders, including the Koch network, who are generally committed to a pro-corporate, libertarian capitalism. These longtime GOP funders prefer Trump to a Democratic president, but they don’t want him to completely take over the levers of the economy. Groups funded by the Kochs and likeminded tycoons funded some of the libertarian legal nonprofits that launched lawsuits challenging the tariffs. These same funders also poured millions into the Federalist Society and other outside groups that helped ensure each of the six Republican appointees made it to the high court.

The result is that the court’s GOP-appointees were mediating a disagreement between two parents who maintain a sometimes rocky marriage—the funders who enabled their majority, and the president who will protect it and who personally appointed three of them. The justices had to pick a parent in this fight, and enough of the conservative wing picked the billionaires and big business over Trump.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Claimed His EPA Climate Rollback Will Save Americans Money. That’s Very Unlikely.

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

The Trump administration claims its latest move to gut climate regulations and end all greenhouse gas standards for vehicles will save Americans money. But its own analysis indicates that the new rule will push up gas prices, and that the benefits of the rollback are unlikely to outweigh the costs.

On Thursday, the president and his environmental secretary, Lee Zeldin, announced the finalized repeal of the endangerment finding, a legal determination which underpins virtually all federal climate regulations. He claimed the rollback would save the US $1.3 trillion by 2055.

Late on Thursday night, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a regulatory impact analysis to back up that number. The savings will come from two places, the document says: some $1.1 trillion will stem from reduced vehicle prices, while another $200 billion will come from slashed electric vehicle purchases and lowered spending on charging infrastructure.

But a chart within the analysis indicates that the US will through 2055 incur $1.4 trillion in additional costs from increased fuel purchases, vehicle repair and maintenance, insurance, traffic congestion, and noise. An additional $40 billion in costs will come from reduced energy security, increased refueling time and lowered “drive value,” or costs associated with operating a vehicle.

In total, this means the repeal of the endangerment finding will impose an estimated costs of $1.5 trillion, overshadowing the projected $1.3 trillion in savings. And that’s before you take into account the huge social and climate costs.

“Their own analysis shows that the costs outweigh the benefits,” said Kathy Harris, who leads clean vehicle programming at the environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council.

In an emailed statement, an EPA spokesperson said: “The Trump EPA is following the law, ending the bogus overreach of previous administrations done by agenda-driven climate zealots.”

In a scenario that assumes severely lowered fuel prices, the benefits of the repeal would outweigh the costs, the analysis says.

That low fuel price case is based on report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). It was included in the document to properly account for the other “policies being implemented by President Trump that are intended to drive down the price of gasoline,” the authors write.

But that imagined circumstance is “not really realistic,” said Harris.

“That EIA’s low oil price [scenario] was never meant to show the effect of any policies that Trump would implement,” she said. “It’s designed to showcase the uncertainty and the volatility of domestic oil prices due to international forces on the global oil market that drives gas prices in the US and abroad.

“Like most actions within this administration, this decision lacks any regard for everyday people.”

The EPA also fails to provide evidence to support the claim that Donald Trump’s policy will “or even could” drive down fuel prices to the extent envisioned in that scenario, Harris said.

“They’re cooking the books here,” she added.

Trump has repeatedly pledged to lower gasoline prices for Americans. But when the analysis compares a case study in which vehicle regulations continue, versus one where they are repealed, it does not appear that promise will be met.

Eliminating the greenhouse gas standards, the regulatory impact analysis shows, will increase gasoline prices by some $0.75 per gallon by 2050.

“That’s about a 29 percent increase in gasoline prices compared to if we maintain the policies that are in place,” said Harris.

The administration’s analysis also fails to examine the additional costs that deregulation could create due to increased global warming, which experts say could be massive. “This is aligned with what we’ve been seeing from this administration, where they focus on the cost to industry while completely ignoring the costs to the health and climate costs,” said Harris.

Repealing the endangerment finding could increase the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by a stunning 10 percent by 2055, and impose up to $4.7 trillion in additional expenses tied to harmful climate and air pollution by that time, according to projections from advocacy group the Environmental Defense Fund.

Critics say the repeal will benefit Trump’s wealthy oil-boss donors while harming the working class and vulnerable Americans.

“Like most actions within this administration, this decision lacks any regard for everyday people and seems to be a play to deepen its loyalty to fossil fuel companies and billionaires who have proven that they are willing to take actions that endanger human life,” said Abre’ Conner, the director of climate and environmental justice at the NAACP.

The EPA spokesperson said: “These activists picked winners and losers and regulated our economy to the tune of trillions at the expense of the American people with zero measurable environmental impact to show for it. The people who are expressing outrage now are simply upset that their preferred ideology can no longer bypass Congress and the will of the people to dictate how Americans live, work, and drive.”

The person did not address questions about the agency’s economic analysis.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The US Government Keeps Using Dangerous Chemicals on Protestors

On January 31, federal agents fired tear gas into a crowd of civilians, clergy, and children gathered outside the ICE building in Portland, Oregon. Witnesses say, and video shows, that the demonstration was largely peaceful before the gas was deployed. In the weeks since, a federal judge moved to restrict the use of these chemical munitions at the site following reports that agents used them against demonstrators who posed no imminent threat.

Under the second Trump administration, displays of force against protesters have become increasingly common. So it’s important to know which chemicals are being deployed against those exercising their First Amendment rights—because they’re not benign.

Tear gas, the most widely deployed crowd-control weapon, can cause more harmthan temporary irritation. Beyond burning eyes and skin, it has been linked to corneal ulcers and menstrual cycle disruptions, with some reports suggesting possible associations with miscarriage.

But tear gas is just one type of chemical used by federal agents for crowd control.

On January 24, federal agents used hexachloroethane smoke—more commonly known as HC—on protesters at the same Portland ICE facility where they would tear gas children just a week later. According to medical experts, HC is “demonstrably more dangerous” than tear gas. The smoke releases zinc chloride, which can cause chemical burns, acute respiratory distress, and pulmonary edema at high concentrations. Safety data from the manufacturer also warns of potential long-term risks, including organ damage and cancer with repeated exposure.

The US Army has been moving away from HC use in training for decades due to health risks to soldiers, replacing it with less toxic alternatives. Yet spent HC canisters have been documented at protests in Portland—including during the 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstrations. Past reports linked exposure to symptoms ranging from vomiting and hair loss to prolonged appetite loss and significant weight decline.

As the Department of Homeland Security continues deploying these chemical agents, serious questions remain about their safety and the long-term health effects for those exposed—including DHS’s own officers.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Made Us a Soundtrack to World Peace

In the run-up to the inaugural Board of Peace meeting, which began about 40 minutes late on Thursday at the recently renamed Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace in Washington, representatives from over 40 countries jammed out to a mix of disco, ’80s hits, and Sinéad O’Connor classics.

“Does everybody like the music?” the president asked. “It’s good music.”

It was a joyful playlist with a much darker purpose.

Authorized by the UN Security Council last November, the board is supposed to be a temporary international force that coordinates reconstruction efforts in Gaza. But its charter, released in January, makes no mention of Gaza and leaves open the possibility of wielding power anywhere in the world.

“We’re going to make Gaza very successful and safe,” Trump said at the conclusion of the meeting. “And we’re also going to maybe take it a step further where we see hot spots around the world.”

Even U.S. allies think the whole thing is just a slush fund that positions the president as a global chairman able to sidestep accountability. But Trump wasn’t bothered.

Trump’s playlist—full of pride, happiness, and perseverance—functions more as an attempt to frame global atrocities as hope. You can check out the president’s songs below.

“Y.M.C.A” by Village People

Despite the early controversy, the disco hit has become a staple at MAGA rallies, so no real surprise here.

You Don’t Own Me by Lesley Gore

“You don’t own me / Don’t try to change me in any way.” Playing a song often regarded as a feminist anthem may be ironic for an organization that ignores Palestinian people’s sovereignty.

“You’re the One That I Want” by John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John

This tune, from the 1978 film of the musical Grease, is just too upbeat to feel appropriate here.

“Burning Love” by Elvis

An overwhelming, uncontrollable level of romantic desire (for power).

“Crazy” by Gnarls Barkley

I’m not “crazy” because you all say I’m “out of touch.” I’m actually “crazy” because “I just knew too much.”

“Eye of the Tiger” by Survivor

Where Trump is Rocky Balboa in Rocky III, a former champion who overcomes all the odds to achieve personal victory.

“Fun, Fun, Fun” by The Beach Boys

I’m having so much fun! Aren’t you?

“Gloria” by Laura Branigan

Gloria breaks down into feelings of paranoia. Hmm.

“November Rain” by Guns N’ Roses

They may have noticed how long and sprawling this ballad is because the track ended early.

“Nothing Compares 2 U” by Sinéad O’Connor

O’Connor once refused to perform in Israel, saying, “nobody with any sanity…would have anything but sympathy for the Palestinian plight.”

“Please, Please, Please” by James Brown and The Famous Flames

An artist known for his dynamic live performances. I’m unsure if this accurately describes the world representatives at the Board of Peace meeting.

“If I Can Dream” by Elvis

A song that draws parallels with Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. “There must be peace and understanding sometime / Strong wind of promise that will blow away the doubt and fear.”

“Time to Say Goodbye” by Andrea Bocelli and Sarah Brightman

The operatic vocals of Andrea Bocelli and Sarah Brightman are commonly played at memorial services and funerals. Ominous.

“Burning Love” by Elvis

The final song was a repeat. It seems like they were on shuffle for too long.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Tennessee Said Yes to ICE—and Turned Into a Deportation State

On a rainy evening in early May, several armed ICE agents in tactical vests closed in on a small red sedan at a gas station in South Nashville. The driver, a frightened 55-year-old Salvadoran man named Edgardo David Campos, gripped the steering wheel while bystanders took out their phones and began recording video. As agents pulled the driver side door open, one of them placed his hand on his holstered pistol. An onlooker yelled, “Do you have a warrant? Let him go!”

The agents soon dragged Campos from his vehicle, handcuffed him, and forced him into the back of an unmarked black SUV. He remained silent, with an expression of bewilderment and terror, as the growing crowd called out to him and the arresting officers.

Dash cam footage of ICE officers arresting a person from their car outside of a gas station; one officer holds a rifle.

Tennessee Highway Patrol dashcam footage from the May operation in Nashville.Tennessee Immigrant Rights and Refugee Coalition

Nearby, the Tennessee state trooper who had pulled him over stood watching, his squad car parked behind the red sedan. One of the bystanders shouted questions at him, wondering why he had stopped Campos in the first place. Another woman demanded the trooper’s name and badge number, before asking, “Where are you taking him?”

The trooper remained silent. “I don’t have to give you anything,” an ICE agent responded to the crowd. Within minutes, the agents and state trooper drove off, leaving Campos’ car abandoned at the gas station.

By now, the scene has become familiar in communities across the country. The federal siege of Minneapolis—in which masked deportation forces from multiple agencies terrorized immigrants, clashed in the streets with community members, and killed observers Renée Good and Alex Pretti—was the latest in a series of attacks on blue states, including previous high-profile campaigns in Los Angeles and Chicago. Democratic governors like California’s Gavin Newsom and Illinois’ JB Pritzker have lashed out at President Donald Trump and his administration, claiming that it is illegally occupying states and violating the Constitution.

For nearly a week in early May, state troopers roved the city’s Latino neighborhoods at night, with ICE officers riding shotgun and undercover vehicles following behind.

But in Tennessee, where Republicans hold a supermajority in both state legislative chambers, many elected officials have welcomed ICE with open arms. GOP Gov. Bill Lee and other state leaders have touted their close working relationship with White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s deportation campaign. As part of this collaboration, they have paired state police with ICE agents, deployed national guard, and green-lighted the federal occupation of Memphis under the “Memphis Safe Task Force,” which, as Mother Jones’ Samantha Michaels reported, residents compared to living in “a war zone, with helicopters circling over neighborhoods, National Guard officers patrolling downtown, and unmarked law enforcement vehicles in the streets.”

Campos’ arrest was part of a May operation in Nashville, dubbed “Operation Flood the Zone,” that could become a template for future incursions into Democrat-run cities in Republican-controlled states. For nearly a week in early May, state troopers roved the city’s Latino neighborhoods at night, with ICE officers riding shotgun and undercover vehicles following behind, leaving fear and panic in their wake. During the operation more than 600 vehicles were stopped, and ICE claimed that nearly 200 residents were arrested.

State troopers used pretexts such as bent license plates, unlit temporary tags, and dark window tints to pull people over, so that ICE, which can’t make routine traffic stops, could check their immigration status—and bypass constitutional and legal protections in the process. During the stops, some ICE agents carried assault rifles and “window punches,” in case a driver refused to roll down their window.

Related

A graphic-novel style illustration of a man in a baseball cap using his right hand to peek through closed blinds. The man, colored in dark blue and black, views a scene bathed in red.“I’ve Never Seen So Many Police Cars”

As the operation unfolded, Nashville’s Democratic city leaders, who had not been notified in advance, scrambled to understand what was happening. Anguished families searched for missing loved ones, children were left alone at home because their parents never returned, and terrified families went hungry for fear of leaving the house and being targeted. Businesses watched their sales plummet and clients disappear.

Zulfat Suara, a Nashville council member at large, said that as the operation unfolded, “lives were thrown into shambles. There was no due process; people weren’t allowed to see their attorneys. And we didn’t know what was going on.” An immigrant herself from Nigeria, Suara was the first Muslim to be elected to Nashville’s city council in 2019. Since the May ICE operation, she said, she now carries her US passport with her wherever she goes because Black and brown people are being deliberately targeted. “You just have to fit the profile,” she said.

Nine months after the state and federal operation, Nashville residents are still searching for answers about who was taken, and the role that Tennessee played in targeting residents. Meanwhile, across the state, Memphis is still occupied by more than 1,500 federal agents who are working alongside hundreds of state troopers and National Guard. City leaders and residents in both Democratic-led cities said they have been stonewalled by the state and the White House.

To investigate the toll ICE’s operations had in Tennessee, Mother Jones joined forces with Lighthouse Reports, the Nashville Banner, NewsChannel 5, Nashville Noticias, and the Institute for Public Service Reporting in Memphis. We analyzed hundreds of Tennessee Highway Patrol reports and dozens of hours of dashcam and bodycam footage; examined thousands of pages of ICE deportation data, criminal court documents, and school enrollment data; and spoke with deported immigrants and their families. We set out to reveal for the first time what happened to the people picked up in the May dragnet in Nashville and to learn more about how ICE collaborated with state troopers. (The Nashville police department does not currently collaborate with ICE.)

State leaders and ICE claimed the operation was about public safety, but, according to our analysis, only one-quarter of those arrested had any type of criminal record.

We found that more than 90 percent of the drivers stopped on the first night in Nashville—the heaviest day of arrests during the operation—were either Black, Latino, or Middle Eastern. We also found that state police and ICE mainly targeted South Nashville, the most ethnically diverse area in the city, and made traffic stops based on racial profiling. State leaders and ICE also claimed that the operation was for public safety reasons, but, according to our own analysis, only one-quarter of those arrested had any type of criminal record. Additionally, troopers ignored drivers breaking traffic laws, choosing to help ICE identify people to stop instead. Our analysis also showed that ICE arrested fewer people than it claimed after the operation.

During some traffic stops, people protested that they already had appointments with ICE to adjust their immigration status but were arrested anyway. In one case, an ICE agent told the husband of a woman who had an upcoming appointment that the reason for her arrest during the traffic stop was that “people didn’t show up for their appointments,” and that appointments were how “the previous administration did things.” At least 18 people arrested in Nashville were released, including several who were first sent to detention facilities in Louisiana and had to pay expensive immigration bonds. In the wake of the operation, we also heard stories of declining school enrollments and economic losses for immigrant-owned businesses in South Nashville.

“It felt like we were being hunted.”

ICE did not respond to our requests for comment. In a statement, Tennessee Highway Patrol responded that it “conducts lawful traffic stops based on observed violations of Tennessee law and does not engage in enforcement actions based on race, ethnicity, language, or national origin.”

“They kept claiming that this operation was about getting criminals off the street,” said Suara of THP and ICE. “Instead they were picking up people involved in churches, people that had never committed any crime. Good people just trying to make ends meet.”

Nearly every night from May 3 to May 10, at least eight state police vehicles would exit highway patrol headquarters near the Nashville airport with an ICE agent in the passenger seat—and ICE agents in undercover vehicles trailing behind—to trawl Nashville’s immigrant communities until dawn.

“It felt like we were being hunted,” said Jazmin Ramirez, a community organizer with the nonprofit Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC). “If you look Latino, you run the risk of being pulled over.”

Dash cam footage of ICE officers arresting a person from their van at night.

Tennessee Highway Patrol dashcam footage from the May operation in Nashville.Tennessee Immigrant Rights and Refugee Coalition

We watched more than 50 hours of Tennessee Highway Patrol dashcam and bodycam footage taken from the first night, when approximately 47 arrests were made. The footage, much of it previously unviewed, was obtained through a public information lawsuit filed by TIRRC. Much of the released footage is redacted, with the faces of the troopers and ICE agents blurred and segments of their conversations muted. Despite the redactions, which are being challenged in court by TIRRC, ICE agents and state police can be heard on multiple occasions racially profiling drivers to target for stops. In one instance, a trooper pulling over a car with four Latino men in it says to the ICE agent next to him, “This might fill us up. They’re definitely not English speakers.” On a separate occasion, a trooper runs a license before immediately handing it to an ICE agent. “Check him, he doesn’t speak any English,” he says. Yet another trooper tells an ICE agent in a different video, “Nolensville’s always gonna be good,” referring to a road that runs through an area with immigrant-owned businesses. There’s also footage of a highway trooper and ICE agent commandeering a Nashville police officer’s traffic stop after noticing that the driver is Latino. When the ICE agent asks whether Nashville police are aware of the operation, the trooper answers, “They have no idea.”

After finding the man’s ID, one agent notes that he’s the manager of a local Mexican restaurant. “The guacamole is never going to taste the same,” the agent laughs.

The footage captures troopers and agents competitively tallying up the number of people they could detain. “There’s six,” a trooper says of a traffic stop. “Another six,” the ICE agent sitting next to him says jubilantly. “Two juveniles…the driver doesn’t speak English,” the trooper says, handing him the driver’s license to check. The ICE agent responds, “The good news is we have MVM, which they’ll remove family units,” referring to a controversial private security firm that transported children during family separation in the first Trump administration.

In nearly every traffic stop we reviewed, a state trooper was accompanied by at least five ICE agents. During one stop, an ICE agent walks up to a car holding an assault rifle; in another traffic stop with a middle-aged woman alone in a minivan, an agent places his hand on the pistol in his holster. In some cases, agents would not allow drivers to call relatives to notify them they were being detained. “We’re not letting anyone know they’re in immigration custody,” one agent tells a state trooper after the driver begs to call a relative to come pick up his vehicle. “You all want to help me search this car?” the trooper asks the ICE agents, after placing the driver in the back of his squad car. After finding the man’s identification, one of the agents notes that he’s the manager of a local Mexican restaurant. “The guacamole is never going to taste the same,” the agent laughs. They proceed to leave the man’s abandoned vehicle in front of a Cricket mobile phone store. In many of the arrests, ICE agents drive off in the detained people’s vehicles, only to later leave them at commercial strip malls.

Throughout the operation, administration leaders like Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made claims that their “targeted enforcement” with state police had captured “the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens in Tennessee.” In a press release, ICE said it had detained 196 people—95 of whom had a criminal conviction—during the weeklong operation.

Social media post tracking ICE sightings and locations in Nashville.

A warning to residents via the Music City MigraWatch Instagram account following the May operation.Lighthouse Reports

Our investigation found these claims to be largely false. By matching ICE data with police reports and the names provided by the agency in its May 13 press release, we determined that at most 159 people were detained by ICE in the Nashville area, not 196—and that of those 159, only 40 had been convicted of a crime, not 95, as ICE claimed. The most common reason for a past conviction was a DUI, followed by traffic offense and forgery.

And instead of the “worst of the worst,” as Noem claimed, the majority of people arrested were in the process of adjusting their immigration status, or like many of the Venezuelan immigrants caught in the operation, previously had temporary protected status, which provides recipients with a legal work visa. The Trump administration revoked protective status for Venezuelans, despite court challenges, in early 2025.

Mike Holley, an attorney with TIRRC who represented some of the people detained during the operation, said he heard from many who had pending immigration court cases but were arrested anyway. “They were deliberately taking people who were the worst candidates for deportation,” he said. “People with ties to the community who were already in the system and have no criminal record. During ordinary times they would probably have released someone like that.”

“It was incredible to watch a city that’s so vibrant and full of people come to a standstill.”

Holley said it was clear that THP was racially profiling people from the footage he viewed of the first night of the operation. Holley called them “roving immigration patrols” and said they violated the pretextual stop doctrine and the Constitution. “This all goes back to the equal protection clause of the Fifth and 14th Amendments,” he said. “Tennessee has a parallel under the Tennessee Constitution…Even if you can stop someone pretextually for not using a turn signal, it can’t be based on race. You can’t just sit out there and say, ‘I’m gonna stop every Black person that doesn’t use their signal.’ But that’s what they chose to do. And that’s not allowed.” (Following Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence to a Supreme Court ruling in September, in which the court okayed the use of race by immigration officers as a proxy for immigration status, this brand of profiling became known as a “Kavanaugh stop.”)

In this case, however, it was largely Nashville’s thriving Latino community that was targeted, not its Black residents. Analyzing the ICE deportation data for the weeklong enforcement operation, we found that the overwhelming majority of people arrested were Latin American, with most being from Mexico and Guatemala, followed by Honduras, Venezuela, and El Salvador. At least seven people from the Middle East were also arrested during the dragnet, including people originally from Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Ramirez said it was startling to see the busy streets of Nashville empty out as the enforcement operation continued in immigrant communities. “It was incredible to watch a city that’s so vibrant and full of people come to a standstill,” she said. “There was just this fear in our community, and this hyper-alertness. Every vehicle looked suspicious.”

Dash cam footage of a local sheriff and ICE officers arresting a person from their car outside of a gas station.

Tennessee Highway Patrol dashcam footage from the May operation in Nashville.Tennessee Immigrant Rights and Refugee Coalition

In late October, city council member Terry Vo pointed out the MAPCO gas station in South Nashville where she’d witnessed Campos’ arrest. “It still haunts me,” she said.

That night, Vo had been driving around with Zulfat Suara and other city council members who are members of the Metro Council Immigrant Caucus to understand whom the state troopers and ICE were targeting. Vo pulled into the gas station to discover Campos surrounded by armed agents, with volunteer monitors from Music City MigraWatch yelling at him not to open his door.

“There are probably many more Edgardos out there that nobody knows about, right?”

As we pulled into the gas station, she pointed to a parking space in front of the convenience store. “That’s where they left his car,” she said. “At the time, we didn’t know who he was, who his family was.” Vo said the police and ICE left Campos’ car unlocked, and the council members searched it for contact information. “We didn’t know his name. We didn’t know anything about him. At that point, we handed it over to community advocates, who were eventually able to notify his family.”

Vo shook her head, visibly frustrated. “It was sad,” she said. “He’s an older man in the later years of his life and a very devout person. I often think, ‘Could I have done better?’” she asked. “I think if the community had not been there that night to record and watch, we wouldn’t even know he was taken. And there are probably many more Edgardos out there that nobody knows about, right?”

Holley said lawyers at TIRRC scrambled to reach people in detention, like Campos, during the operation, but they were moved quickly from one jail to the next in Tennessee and then to Louisiana or Texas, with no way to contact legal help and limited communication with family members. “A lot of people agreed to deportation before there was even a chance to talk with them,” Holley said. “They were either gone or had already signed something.”

The question of what happened to Campos and to the dozens of other people detained over those seven days has remained an open one for city officials like Vo, advocates, and members of the community. ICE and other state authorities have refused to say. The operation and its impact have remained a black box.

To provide answers, we analyzed ICE deportation data and Tennessee Highway Patrol incident reports. In Campos’ case, according to the THP, he was marked down as a “stopping violator.” This is the only reason stated in at least 90 percent of the Tennessee Highway Patrol traffic reports we analyzed from the Nashville operation.

After being taken into ICE custody, Campos was sent to the Putnam County Jail, 80 miles east of Nashville. After three days, he was transferred further east to the Knox County Detention Center. Like many people picked up during the operation in Nashville, Campos was transferred within days from Tennessee to Louisiana. Our investigation found that as of mid-October 2025, according to the most current publicly available ICE deportation data, 121 people were deported and 15 people were bonded out after being sent to Louisiana. An additional 12 people still remain in jail.

READ MORE COVERAGE FROM OUR PARTNERS


On May 16, Campos was sent to the Jackson Parish Correctional Center, in Jonesboro, Louisiana, which is run by the private LaSalle Corrections and has been cited for numerous violations of human rights and state detention standards. After nearly a month, he was deported to El Salvador on June 13.

ICE removal data lists Campos as a “threat level 1 convicted criminal for Fraud and Impersonating,” considered the most serious level of conviction. According to police records, Campos was charged in 2008 for a DUI. ICE’s removal charge, however, for fraud and impersonating, is based on a 25-year-old conviction for a fake ID and no driver’s license. (Undocumented immigrants cannot obtain driver’s licenses legally in Tennessee.)

“The pain had become too much,” Campos’ wife told us. “Who deserves this?”

After community advocates located Campos’ wife, Martha, she told them that her husband had been on his way home the night he was detained from mass at Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe Catholic Church in South Nashville. “I’m shattered because one doesn’t expect a blow this devastating,” she said in an interview with Nashville Noticias.

After Campos’ arrest, the Diocese of Nashville advised parishioners in a public bulletin to stay home. Many churchgoers never returned, said Martín Ochoa, a longtime parishioner at Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe. Ochoa said Campos and his wife had donated toys to the church’s annual Christmas collection for years. This year, the donation never came.

In a brief conversation at the church, Martha confirmed that her husband had been deported to El Salvador and said she did not want to speak further about the ordeal. “The pain had become too much,” she said. “Who deserves this?”

“I find it really interesting,” said Vo, “this narrative that was laid out that ‘We’re only going after the criminals,’ which made people feel comfortable that they wouldn’t be targeted—like, ‘Oh, they’re not coming after me. They’re only going after the bad people,’” she said. “But that was a farce. They’d pull you over, then look you up, thinking, ‘Oh, maybe we’ll catch somebody.’”

Five months after the dragnet, families gathered in North Nashville for Shwab Elementary School’s Halloween festival. The sun had finally come out, and parents watched as small children in costumes drew with crayons and others ran happily across the playground.

According to Principal Cheryl Bowman, the school’s student population is 56 percent Latino. Bowman said Shwab was still struggling to convince immigrant families that their children would be safe from ICE agents at school. These days, she said, they were lucky to get 100 people to attend a school function, about half of what they’d been accustomed to in the past. “We’ve done a lot of footwork going to families’ homes,” Bowman said, “and they’re just afraid to send their kids to school.”

“There are a lot of four-year-olds sitting at home.”

In fact, for the first time in her nine years at Shwab, the school’s pre-K program didn’t have a waiting list. The school was doing outreach to try to fill its two pre-K classes. “This is the first time since I’ve been here that we’ve had low enrollment,” Bowman said. “There are a lot of four-year-olds sitting at home.”

Because of the decline in enrollment, Bowman said she had had to let a teacher go and lost $140,000 in federal funding. Things got so bad during the May enforcement operation, she said, that teachers volunteered to drive students to school, because their parents were too afraid to leave their homes. “We just did what we had to do, because they needed to come to school,” she said.

Bowman said many families had left the school, either moving to other parts of Tennessee with less ICE presence or leaving the state altogether. “We’re family here, and it’s just very hurtful,” she said.

As school enrollment plummeted, businesses also suffered. In South Nashville, not far from where Campos was dragged from his car, Ishaq Albdi, whose family owns a string of grocery markets catering to Latinos, said sales had declined by 20 percent. “It has definitely hurt our business,” he said.

Customers asked for deliveries, because they were too afraid to leave their homes, he said. “There were people who would come in regularly. These were long-term customers,” he said. “And now they’re gone, and we don’t know if they were deported.”

This year’s legislation will require teachers, judges, social workers, and others to report undocumented immigrants to ICE and the state’s immigration division.

Several months later, in January, Tennessee Republicans introduced a slate of anti-immigrant bills, written in consultation with the White House’s Miller, that are designed to make the lives of immigrants even more inhospitable—yet another example of the state’s eagerness to lead the way on draconian deportation policies. During the last legislative session, Republican leaders created an immigrant enforcement office and declared that public records from the agency would remain confidential, including programs funded with federal tax dollars. This year’s legislation will require teachers, judges, social workers, and others to report undocumented immigrants to ICE and the state’s immigration division. Schools could also be required to verify immigration status for children attending school and either exclude them or charge tuition if they are undocumented. Another bill would allow state troopers to check the immigration status of out-of-state drivers passing through the state. And state or local officials who share information about ICE officers will face a felony charge and removal from office, an apparent response to Nashville Mayor Freddie O’Connell’s release of public documents naming some of the ICE agents involved in the operation last May.

Jazmin Ramirez, the TIRRC community organizer who has been commuting from Nashville to Memphis to help families there, said immigrants would not be deterred by the state’s draconian laws. “We were preparing for this as a community, but we were hoping it wouldn’t come,” she said. “We’re also not surprised that they’re here. In many ways, Tennessee has been a testing ground for a lot of these things.”

Nashville’s immigrant community is still paying the price. On a sidewalk near the Latino supermarket, a handful of day laborers regularly congregate, hoping for a day or two of wages. One man, who said he had lived in Nashville for 22 years and asked to remain anonymous, said ICE had come and taken people away from there in May. Months later, workers were still coming to the location because they needed to work to survive, he said, but they were afraid. “There are less people here now waiting for work,” said the man in Spanish. “But we are still here, because we have to work. We just hope they don’t come back.”

Araceli Crescencio contributed to this report.

This story was produced as part of a collaboration coordinated by Lighthouse Reports, in partnership with the Institute for Public Service Reporting, the Nashville Banner, Nashville Noticias, and NewsChannel 5 Nashville.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Tired of Dystopian Sci-Fi? You Might Like Solarpunk.

I was doomscrolling again. It was a fall evening in 2023, and I found myself sucked into a stream of posts about our collapsing climate: droughts causing billions in Dust Bowl–style crop damage, Florida’s worst-ever coral bleaching, a record melt in Greenland.

To distract myself, I picked up The Lost Cause, the latest sci-fi novel from author Cory Doctorow, a friend and fellow nerd. To my deep surprise, it stirred something unexpected: a feeling of hope.

At first glance, the novel’s backdrop is an absolute bummer. It takes place in America several decades from now, when rising seas have destroyed entire coastal towns and millions of climate refugees wander around homeless. Small farmers work as sharecroppers for Big Agriculture. The West is choked with forest fires so ferocious that Californians take hits from oxygen cans.

And yet, clean tech has gotten remarkably better. Solar panels are so cheap and powerful that they can be used to heat concrete kilns and build entire buildings carbon-neutrally. A progressive president’s Green New Deal guarantees universal employment, including jobs relocating entire coastal cities inland, away from the rising, voracious oceans. The heroes—SoCal resident Brooks and his twentysomething friends—spend their days doing on-demand work (solarizing schools, building high-density housing) and chill out at night, drinking artificial bourbon they brew in a bioreactor. While clean energy is abundant, so is political strife: MAGA-esque forces, armed to the teeth, violently oppose waves of climate “refus” arriving from fire-wrecked Oregon. When Brooks and his crew decide to build refugee housing anyway, their clash with right-wing old-timers gets nasty and violent fast—complete with cross burnings.

If you want to nudge people toward a better tomorrow, start with art.

So, not exactly a utopia. But what enchanted me about the book was its vibe of possibility. Here was a world where climate change had gotten worse, but people were adapting—cleverly using tech to rebuild communities that would generate far fewer emissions and far less waste than before. It was a glimpse of a new destination.

Sci-fi has always offered this, right? Heady alternatives to everyday realities! But for the past few decades, a big chunk of sci-fi had gravitated toward dystopia. The “cyberpunk” movement imagined technology and capitalism run amok—overcrowded, skyscrapered cities; enervated populations jacking into virtual reality realms; governments sidelined or incinerated. There were some notable exceptions: Novelists Kim Stanley Robinson and Ursula K. Le Guin, for example, imagined people living in closer harmony with nature or in worlds without capitalism. But they were outliers. The aughts, which brought us a second Iraq War, the Great Recession, and increasingly volatile natural disasters, also set the scene for astoundingly bleak bestselling young-adult series such as The Hunger Games, Divergent, and The Maze Runner. Winter was coming, and as far as many sci-fi writers could prognosticate, humanity was unlikely to rise to the challenge.

Dystopic tales of the future can be valuable, showing us what might happen if we let malignant trends go unchecked. But for me, man, those warnings have long since sunk in. I wanted pointers to a path forward. Which is why I’ve become so intrigued with solarpunk.

Doctorow’s book is part of a sci-fi trend that’s gained traction in recent years, picking up on the threads Le Guin and Robinson laid down. Solarpunk poses a fascinating question: What would a world that had seriously tackled climate change look like?

The covers of three books from the left: "The Lost Cause" by Cory Doctorow, "The Peace Keeper" by B.L. Blanchard, and "Another Life" by Sarena Ulibarri. "The Lost Cause" is a black book with blue type featuring a gold serpent-like creature. "The Peace Keeper" features a boat in a green marsh on the edge of a modern city. "Another Life" is a painterly image of a kneeling woman with her back to a tree. The woman dips her finger into a lake, creating a nuclear explosion that mirrors the tree behind her.

Solarpunk novels envision societies that benefit from clean tech and live in tandem with nature.Tor Books; Stelliform Press; 47North

Many solarpunk thinkers told me their first encounter with the idea, though he didn’t coin the term, was a 2014 essay by Adam Flynn, an American writer and public health strategist, titled “Solarpunk: Notes toward a manifesto”—his contribution to the Arizona State University sci-fi collaboration Project Hieroglyph.

“We’re solarpunks because the only other options are denial or despair,” Flynn wrote. Artists and activists needed to envision “ways to make life more wonderful for us right now, and more importantly for the generations that follow us…Imagine permaculturists thinking in cathedral time. Consider terraced irrigation systems that also act as fluidic computers. Contemplate the life of a Department of Reclamation officer managing a sparsely populated American southwest given over to solar collection and pump storage.”

Other writers were, it turns out, having similar thoughts. They were deeply worried about climate and weary of sci-fi’s doomerist turn. They wanted art that elucidated a way forward, so they set about creating fictional glimpses of a sustainable future. In a duet of novels, Becky Chambers sketched out a world where humanity had survived climactic collapse—the robots became self-aware and politely fled into the wilderness—and then figured out how to exist in a better balance with nature: Her characters live in skyscrapers engulfed with vines, ride e-bike camper vans powered by solar panel coatings, and have abandoned swaths of their world to the wild.

In Sarena Ulibarri’s 2023 novel Another Life, a communal society runs solar desalination plants that irrigate Death Valley. The 2018 Brazilian short-story anthology Solarpunk: Ecological and Fantastical Stories in a Sustainable World includes a classic hard-bitten-detective whodunit set in a world where homes have biodigesters that turn kitchen scraps into fuel.

Solarpunk often depicts technology deployed not to conquer nature, but to complement it—sometimes in deeply weird ways. In the story “Thank Geo,” whose author goes by the moniker BrightFlame, humanity has wired trees with probes that let people talk to them.

The solarpunk community’s interests extend beyond literature, though. Some of the greatest ferment is online, where everyday folks cram into themed subreddits, Tumblrs, and Substacks, posting their mood-board images of a better future. Some of it is fantasy—solar airships with grappling hooks hovering over vertical farms—but more often, the posts involve solarpunkish things already happening: people planting guerrilla wetlands in aqueducts, solar-powered root cellars, “agrivoltaic” farms where sheep graze beneath industrial photovoltaic arrays. Broadly speaking, as Ulibarri put it to me, solarpunk depicts “a future that I might actually want to live in.”

Solarpunk characters are flawed, despite the genre’s optimism: “As a society, we have not become suddenly worthy of utopia.”

I have often assumed, naively, that societal transformation depends on explicitly political discourse. People write manifestos and policy papers, and political movements and parties build on and promote those ideas. But the world of solarpunk operates on the same understanding that propels Steve Bannon: Politics is downstream of culture. If you want to nudge people toward a better tomorrow, start with art. The point, said Jay Springett, a writer who co-manages a popular solarpunk Tumblr, is to give people “permission to imagine a future.”

Another way of thinking about it, Doctorow told me, is to follow philosopher Daniel Dennett’s argument that “fiction is an intuition pump.” When reading a novel, Doctorow explained, you might “kind of mentally rehearse what you should do when bad things happen, so in that moment you’re not paralyzed—like a fire drill.”

A lot of apocalyptic literature would prime us with terrible intuition: how to survive in a Hobbesian everyone-for-themselves scenario of neighbor slaughtering neighbor for scarce fuel and food. Novels like The Lost Cause bolster a competing notion: that surviving and thriving in the face of climate-driven disruption happens only if people band together and rely on sustainable technologies.

One intriguing aspect of solarpunk culture is that it feels proximal—achievable. The tech is scaled up, but much of it involves innovations we possess now, like solar panels, wind turbines, 3D printers, passive cooling systems, and recycling (on steroids). “One of the key tenets of solarpunk is that you don’t need to wait for new technology,” explained novelist and teacher Cameron Roberson. We don’t need unobtainium or warp drives—just political will.

Indeed, solarpunk often depicts societies and groups that have strayed from capitalism—or hierarchical governments of any sort. Decision-making is often racked with the bitter internecine squabbles for which nonhierarchical groups are infamous. But things work…more or less? Doctorow jokes that part of the thought experiment in The Lost Cause is: “What would it be like to have a space program or a skyscraper that you made like you made Wikipedia? It would have all the fights; it would have all the frustrations—but also, it would be a skyscraper!”

This anti-capitalist turn is probably the most speculative aspect of solarpunk. A popular adage is that it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. Solarpunk flips that on its head: If you’re going to imagine the world not ending, maybe you need to imagine a new economic system.

At its weakest, solarpunk can get treacly, with societies too well adjusted to seem believable and denizens as amiable as Winnie-the-Pooh. The most interesting stories, to me, are ones in which we tackle climate change but are still terrible to one another. In 2022’s The Peacekeeper, Chippewa novelist B.L. Blanchard imagines a contemporary North America that was never colonized. Native populations have all the mod cons—smartphones, etc.—but are still so nature-oriented that they lean hard into clean tech. Emissionless public transit abounds and huge mirrors along the Great Lakes reflect sunlight onto massive solar panels. But their world isn’t free of misdeed; The Peacekeeper is a murder mystery, complete with a tormented detective.

As novelist Roberson puts it, we can save the world and still lose ourselves. In his forthcoming novel, a noir tale, the tech is clean and the souls are dirty. “Government is still government, people are still people, criminals are still criminals,” he told me. “As a society, we have not become suddenly worthy of utopia.”

Solarpunk, by now, has adopted some weary sci-fi cliches and added a few of its own. Domed cities! Grandpa explaining to the grandkids how everything fell apart! 3D printers that seem to be able to manufacture, well, anything! Even real-world corporations have picked up on the subgenre’s gauzy imagery. Yogurt-maker Chobani released an animated commercial in 2021 depicting a farm serviced by moss-covered androids and pole-mounted raincloud generators. Solarpunk forums argued hotly about whether this was a) corporate greenwashing; b) a sign that their vision could appeal to a wider public; or, more likely, c) both.

There are political crossovers, too. On an Instagram Live in 2023, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she was a big believer in solarpunk—the yet-unsuccessful Green New Deal package she championed did, in fact, contain the very blend of energy policies and economic reforms (job guarantees, universal health care, progressive taxation) that solarpunks fantasize about.

“To go, in less than 10 years, from Tumblr, where you and I found it, to having people in the halls of power endorse your cultural project, that’s pretty good,” said Andrew Dana Hudson, who penned a series of solarpunk stories. “We built an entire cultural architectural aesthetic around powering things with gasoline and coal,” he added. Now artists and writers need to make the alternative just as sexy and appealing.

The time seems ripe. Theodra Bane, a professor at the Brooklyn Institute for Social Research, has taught a solarpunk class for three years now. Far more students apply to get in than she can accommodate. Roughly a third, Bane said, will say something along the lines of, “I don’t know what solarpunk is, but the course description led me to believe that it is a positive, optimistic class—and I need optimism right now.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Video: Trump Nuked a Major EPA Climate Rule. Here’s What You Need to Know.

On February 12, Donald Trump dropped the climatic equivalent of an atomic bomb. He announced the repeal of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 endangerment finding, the basis of the EPA’s ability to regulate climate-warming emissions. “This will be the largest deregulatory action in American history,” proclaimed White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

“This is corruption, plain and simple,” countered Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

It also will likely end up costing Americans money, reports Dharna Noor of Guardian US, who, along with Grist reporter Jake Bittle, is featured in this explainer video from our Climate Desk collaboration and the talented team at Reveal.

In short, the administration’s move is an attempt to subvert reality. The Obama-era finding established that atmospheric greenhouse gases are bad for human health and welfare, allowing them to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. In 2025, a panel of scientists affirmed the finding, writing: “The evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused [greenhouse gases] is beyond scientific dispute.”

Condemnation was swift and plentiful, and called out the administration’s baldly transactional relationships with oil and gas producers. “Put simply, this is a gift-wrapped package for the fossil fuel industry,” Manish Bapna, CEO of the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, told Inside Climate News. “It is unscientific, it is bad economics, and it is illegal. So we’re gonna fight it.”

They already are, as Noor reports in this Guardian follow-up.

Legal experts say the administration may be biting off more than it can chew. “It seems to me unlikely that the [US Supreme Court] would say that the EPA has no power to regulate carbon,” Michael Lewyn, a professor of environmental law at Touro Law Center and critic of environmental regulations, told Grist.

Pat Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at Vermont Law and Graduate School, didn’t mince words when talking to Wired’sMolly Taft_._ “I don’t see any plan, any strategy, any end game…just fuck everything up as much as you can.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Colbert Takes CBS to Task, Again

Late Show host Stephen Colbert once again gave his audience the inside scoop on Tuesday amid the ongoing clash involving him, network executives, and a candidate for US Senate in Texas.

The latest comes as CBS refuted Colbert’s assertion that he had been instructed not to interview Texas State Representative James Talarico and that he had been dissuaded from bringing up the situation on air.

“There’s another big story today,” Colbert said on Tuesday, as a newsy photo popped up of himself. “And it’s me.”

“I was ready to let the whole thing go,” he continued, “until a few hours ago when my groupchat blowed up. Because, without ever talking to me, the corporation put out this press release.”

Colbert read a paper copy of the statement, which challenged the claim that he had been prohibited from interviewing Talarico. “A small piece of paper considering how many butts it’s trying to cover,” Colbert quipped. CBS’ lawyers, he continued, “know damn well that every word of my script last night was approved by CBS’ lawyers, who for the record approve every script that goes on the air.”

For those just tuning in: On Monday, Colbert said that CBS’s lawyers had instructed the host “in no uncertain terms…that we could not” have Talarico as the show’s scheduled guest. According to these lawyers, Talarico’s appearance would run afoul of equal time guidelines brought about by Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr. A January letter by Carr challenged long-held rules about what kind of broadcasts have to provide equal opportunity for time to political candidates in an election. Previously, talk shows and late-night hosts were excused. Carr, a key ally of President Donald Trump, laid out how he’d like to remove those exceptions.

According to Colbert, that meant CBS telling him not to interview Texas State Representative James Talarico, a rising Democratic name who is running to flip a US Senate seat blue. “We were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast,” the host said Monday.

Colbert still interviewed the Senate hopeful, but instead of doing it on air, The Late Show team posted the chat on YouTube, as streaming services do not fall under this FCC guideline. That video has since garnered over 5,421,000 views as of publication.

Rep. James Talarico and Stephen Colbert on the CBS series The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

Rep. James Talarico and Stephen Colbert on the CBS series The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty

This whole incident comes as Colbert only has a few months left on the show after being ousted by Paramount, CBS’s parent company.

“I’m just so surprised that this giant, global corporation would not stand up to these bullies. Come on, you’re paramount!” Colbert said on Tuesday, before joking, “No. No! You’re more than that. You’re Paramount +.”

And that the lawyers would send out this statement, without discussing with Colbert first, was “really surprising.”

“I don’t even know what to do with this crap,” he said, holding the printed out release at the end of the segment. “Oh, hold on,” Colbert continued, pulling out a dog poop bag, crumbling and picking up the paper, and discarding it to the side.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Big Tech’s Claims That AI Can Help Fix the Climate Crisis Are “Greenwashing”

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

Tech companies are conflating traditional artificial intelligence with generative AI when claiming the energy-hungry technology could help avert climate breakdown, according to a report.

Most claims that AI can help avert climate breakdown refer to machine learning and not the energy-hungry chatbots and image generation tools driving the sector’s explosive growth of gas-guzzling datacentres, the analysis of 154 statements found.

The research, commissioned by nonprofits including Beyond Fossil Fuels and Climate Action Against Disinformation, did not find a single example where popular tools such as Google’s Gemini or Microsoft’s Copilot were leading to a “material, verifiable, and substantial” reduction in planet-heating emissions.

Ketan Joshi, an energy analyst and author of the report, said the industry’s tactics were “diversionary” and relied on tried and tested methods that amount to “greenwashing.”

He likened it to fossil fuel companies advertising their modest investments in solar panels and overstating the potential of carbon capture. “These technologies only avoid a minuscule fraction of emissions relative to the massive emissions of their core business,” said Joshi. “Big tech took that approach and upgraded and expanded it.”

One widely cited figure claim came from a consulting firm’s blog post that attributed it to “experience with clients.”

Most of the claims that were scrutinized came from an International Energy Agency (IEA) report, which was reviewed by leading tech companies, and corporate reports from Google and Microsoft.

The IEA report—which devoted two chapters to the potential climate benefits of traditional AI—had a roughly even split between claims that rested on academic publications, corporate websites, and those that had no evidence, according to the analysis. For Google and Microsoft, most claims lacked evidence.

The analysis, released during the AI Impact Summit in Delhi this week, argues the tech industry has misleadingly presented climate solutions and carbon pollution as a package deal by “muddling” types of AI.

Sasha Luccioni, AI and climate lead at Hugging Face, an open-source AI platform and community,who was not involved in the report, said it added nuance to a debate that often lumped very different applications together.

“When we talk about AI that’s relatively bad for the planet, it’s mostly generative AI and large language models,” said Luccioni, who has pushed the industry to be more transparent about its carbon footprint. “When we talk about AI that’s ‘good’ for the planet, it’s often predictive models, extractive models, or old-school AI models.”

Green claims even for traditional AI tended to rely on weak forms of evidence that had not been independently verified, the analysis found. Only 26 percent of the green claims that were studied cited published academic research, while 36 percent did not cite evidence at all.

One of the earliest examples identified in the report was a widespread claim that AI could help mitigate 5-10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

The figure, which Google repeated as recently as April last year, came from a report it commissioned from BCG, a consulting firm, which cited a blog post it wrote in 2021 that attributed the figure to its “experience with clients.”

Data centers consume just 1 percent of the world’s electricity but their share of US electricity is projected to more than double to 8.6 percent by 2035, according to BloombergNEF. The IEA predicts they will account for at least 20 percent of the rich world’s growth in electricity demand to the end of the decade.

While the energy consumption of a simple text query to a large language model such as ChatGPT may be as little as running a lightbulb for a minute, partial industry disclosures suggest, it rises considerably for complex functions such as video generation and deep research, and has troubled some energy researchers with the speed and scale of its growth.

A spokesperson for Google said: “Our estimated emissions reductions are based on a robust substantiation process grounded in the best available science, and we have transparently shared the principles and methodology that guide it.”

Microsoft declined to comment, while the IEA did not respond to requests for comment. Joshi said the discourse around AI’s climate benefits needed to be “brought back to reality.”

“The false coupling of a big problem and a small solution serves as a distraction from the very preventable harms being done through unrestricted data center expansion,” he said.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Man Who Taught Nonviolence to Martin Luther King Jr.

Back in February 2010, the radio show State of the Re:Union, created by Al Letson, produced an award-winning episode looking at civil rights activist Bayard Rustin. The episode was called “Who Is This Man?” because while Rustin was not well known, his work supported the likes of Martin Luther King Jr.

Rustin was a man with a number of seemingly incompatible labels: Black, gay, Quaker—identifications that served to earn him as many detractors as admirers. Although he had numerous passions and pursuits, his most transformative act, one that certainly changed the course of American history, was to counsel MLK on the use of nonviolent resistance.

Rustin also helped engineer the 1963 March on Washington and frame the Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott. With such lofty achievements, why isn’t Rustin considered an icon of both civil rights and humanity? How could a person who changed the course of American history not be a household name? Was he purposely kept out of the history books?

This week on More To The Story, we bring you an important piece for Black History Month, a reflection on Rustin.

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

CBS Didn’t Want Colbert to Talk to This Democratic Candidate. He Did It Anyway.

Executives at CBS News made it clear to Late Show host Stephen Colbert: he wasn’t to interview Texas State Representative James Talarico last night, nor was he to discuss how he wasn’t supposed to talk to the Democratic US Senate hopeful. But Colbert, who only has months left of his tenure on the show after being ousted by Paramount Global, didn’t listen.

“You know who’s not one of my guests tonight?” Colbert began on Monday night. Talarico, he continued, “was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast.” Colbert said that, “in some uncertain terms,” the network added that “I could not mention me not having him on.”

“Because my network clearly doesn’t want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this,” he said, to cheers from the audience.

Colbert went on to explain how the directive to not interview Talarico follows January 21 regulatory guidance from Trump’s Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, upending longtime standards for how talk show and late-night hosts can interview politicians. For years, late-night hosts were granted an exception to the FCC’s equal opportunities requirement, which held that broadcast TV and radio must provide equal time for each candidate in a race, regardless of political affiliation.

“Let’s just call this what it is,” Colbrt said on air Monday, “Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV.”

As Colbert noted, the equal time rule doesn’t apply to streaming or cable. So, he interviewed Talarico anyway, off-air, and posted it to the show’s YouTube. According to Colbert, he wasn’t even allowed to put a URL or QR code on the screen to point viewers to the video. Still, as of publication, the interview has over 1 million views.

In his interview with Talarico, the pair discussed the unique circumstances of their chat. (Colbert would later say that the Texan is the first guest to exclusively appear on YouTube.)

“Stephen,” Talarico said, “this is the party that ran against cancel culture. And now they’re trying to control what we watch, what we say, what we read. And this is the most dangerous kind of cancel culture, the kind that comes from the top.”

“Corporate media executives,” he added, “are selling out the First Amendment to curry favor with corrupt politicians.”

Talarico is a rising Democratic name, maybe best known for being an outspoken man of faith who advocates for the separation of church and State. He’s hoping to flip one of Texas’ Senate seats blue.

As Colbert noted, this isn’t the first time Talarico has been on the opposing side of Carr’s FCC.

Earlier this month, the FCC launched a probe into ABC’s “The View” for having Talarico on, questioning if the hosts violated equal time rules. A situation that Colbert called “absolutely shocking” on air, before joking, “James Talarico did The View before my show? Et tu, Whoopi?”

The Late Show host asked Talarico about the probe, saying “Do you mean to cause trouble?”

Talarico laughed, stopped, and then answered with a blunt confidence: “I think Donald Trump is worried that we’re about to flip Texas.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Murdoch’s Defense in Epstein Lawsuit: Trump Is Lewd

A version of the below article first appearedin 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._

Sometimes there’s no smoking gun, but there’s the smell of gunpowder.

That seems to be the case with Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. The Trump gang’s handling of the scandal looks as if it is purposefully designed to raise suspicions. Fighting the release of the Epstein files, declaring this whole subject ought to be dropped, and, of course, Trump’s contradictory statements about his relationship with Epstein—it all comes across as fishy and suggests guilt of…something. Last week, the news emerged that in 2006, when sex crime charges against Epstein in Palm Beach became public, Trump called the city’s police chief and said, “Thank goodness you’re stopping him, everyone has known he’s been doing this.” Yet after Epstein was arrested on federal charges in 2019, Trump said he had known nothing of Epstein’s abuse of teenage girls: “I had no idea.”

Was he lying about what he knew back in the day? This—shall we say?—contradiction is hard to square. But it’s a good indication that nothing Trump claims about Epstein should be believed. Remember the birthday card? In July, the Wall Street Journal reported that a birthday album Ghislaine Maxwell prepared for Epstein in 2003 contained a greeting from Trump: A drawing of a naked female body with an imagined dialogue between “Jeffrey” and “Donald” that ended, “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret.” Trump’s signature mimicked pubic hair in the crotch of the figure.

Would Trump really sue? Perhaps he felt emboldened by the settlements he had wrung out of ABC News and CBS News for the bogus cases he filed against them.

Trump insisted this birthday message was a “fake thing.” He said, “I never wrote a picture in my life.” That was false; he had drawn sketches that were sold at auctions. And he said he was “gonna sue the Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else.”

That seemed like one of his many phony-baloney threats. After all, the Journal had found this Trump drawing in an album with well wishes from dozens of Epstein associates. It seemed legit. Would Trump really sue? Perhaps he felt emboldened by the settlements he had wrung out of ABC News and CBS News for the bogus cases he filed against them.

He indeed sued the Wall Street Journal, the reporters who wrote the story, and right-wing media titan Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corps owns the newspaper. He claimed the article had defamed him.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in southern Florida, contends that no such “authentic letter or drawing exists,” and it charges that the Wall Street Journal “concocted this story to malign President Trump’s character and integrity and deceptively portray him in a false light.” (This implies the birthday message was forged by someone, but the lawsuit presents no evidence of that.) Trump argues this article “resulted in overwhelming financial and reputational” harm for him. He demands at least $10 billion in damages.

The case proceeded with various motions—even after the House Government Oversight Committee released a full version of the Epstein birthday album it had received from the Epstein estate, which contained the Trump drawing. And Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal submitted a reply to Trump’s complaint with a motion to dismiss the case.

Murdoch says Trump is such a lout that an association with an affectionate note to a sex criminal cannot tarnish his public image.

This reply hasn’t received much attention. Yet it should, for in the filing, Murdoch et al. argue that Trump is too lewd a person to suffer reputational harm from this story. To prove this, Murdoch relies on the infamous Access Hollywood video in which Trump boasted that due to his celebrity status he could sexually assault women.

Yes, Murdoch, whose Fox News and New York Post provide the most prominent media platforms for slavish Trump worship, says Trump is such a lout that an association with an affectionate note to a sex criminal cannot tarnish his public image.

In this filing, Murdoch’s legal team offers several arguments to counter Trump’s claim. It notes first and foremost that the WSJ article was accurate and points to the release of the birthday album by the congressional committee as proof of that. The attorneys say there was “nothing defamatory about a person sending a bawdy note to a friend,” highlighting that three months before the birthday book was presented to Epstein, New York magazine quoted Trump saying he had known Epstein for 15 years and believed he was a “terrific” guy who was “a lot of fun to be with” and liked “beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” And the Murdoch retort states that there had been no malice—a prerequisite for winning a defamation case against a public figure—which only exists when a defendant has reason to believe the story is false.

“Bawdy” is doing a lot of work here. Murdoch’s lawyers could have gone with “sleazy” or “lecherous” or “misogynist.”

Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal’s response rips the hide off Trump’s case on many levels. For instance, it contends, rather reasonably, that reporting Trump was pals with Epstein before Epstein was busted is not defamatory. But the killer argument is that the WSJ article was “consistent with plaintiff’s reputation.” Trump, Murdoch’s lawyers maintain, “admitted to instances of using bawdy language when discussing women. Plaintiff thus cannot allege that the Article damaged his reputation.”

“Bawdy” is doing a lot of work here. Murdoch’s lawyers could have gone with “sleazy” or “lecherous” or “misogynist.” But they landed on a Benny Hill-ish description that’s less offensive in tone.

Murdoch asks the court to “take judicial notice of both the extensive public reporting of [Trump’s] past comments” and notes that Trump “has a well-documented reputation for bawdiness based on his past statements about women.” The complaint serves up examples starting with Trump’s infamous remark: “I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything…Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

It continues:

President Trump also has a well-documented history (over which he has never sued) of making bawdy comments in venues like The Howard Stern Show and elsewhere. In 1991, Plaintiff gave an interview with Esquire_, in which he stated, “[I]t really doesn’t matter what [the media] write[s] as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.” In 2006, on_ Larry King Live_, Plaintiff referred to actress Angelina Jolie as having “been with so many guys she makes me look like a baby[.]” Any allegation that President Trump wrote a bawdy birthday note is thus consistent with his public reputation—which he has himself acknowledged—for using “locker room” talk and does not plausibly state any harm._

The filing from Trump’s lawyer requests that the court toss out all the exhibits that chronicled Trump’s lewd and misogynistic remarks, asserting that these “random instances” did not render Trump “impervious to harm.”

The complaint includes as an exhibit a list of quotes from Trump assembled by Politico in 2015 that included a remark he made in 1992: “Women, you have to treat ’em like shit.” The Murdoch response further argues that there was no reason for the reporters and the newspaper to doubt the article’s accuracy—which would be necessary for proving malice—“because it was entirely consistent with President Trump’s reputation.”

Bottom line: Trump is precisely the kind of guy who would have hobnobbed with Epstein, not been put off or alarmed by Epstein’s interest in younger women, and sent him a message like this one.

Murdoch asked the court to kick the lawsuit to the curb:

This case calls out for dismissal. In an affront to the First Amendment, the President of the United States brought this lawsuit to silence a newspaper for publishing speech that was subsequently proven true by documents released by Congress to the American public. By its very nature, this meritless lawsuit threatens to chill the speech of those who dare to publish content that the President does not like.

In October, Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, replied. His filing requests that the court toss out all the exhibits that chronicled Trump’s lewd and misogynistic remarks, asserting that these “random instances” did not render Trump “impervious to harm.” It insists there was no evidence Trump “actually wrote and signed the letter or sent it” and claims the Journal article was “clearly calculated to subject President Trump to hatred, disgust, ridicule, contempt or disgrace.” The story, Trump’s mouthpiece maintains, was part of a “deliberate smear campaign.”

A hearing on the case was held in December. As of this week, Judge Darrin Gayles, an Obama appointee, had rendered no decision on Murdoch’s request for a dismissal.

This lawsuit could be seen as a sideshow to the ongoing Epstein mess. But it shows the length that Trump will go to in order to wipe away the Epstein stain. He might have said, “Yeah, as we all know, I did socialize with Epstein before his crimes were revealed and, like many others, contributed to an album compiled for his birthday—before I dumped him and kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago.” A stance like that would likely not have caused Trump that much trouble, given there’s already plenty of creepy images and videos of Trump hanging with Epstein at that time. Instead, Trump seems to be denying the undeniable.

His lawsuit is a case of Trump protesting too much, as well as a threat to the First Amendment. And it’s a tad ironic that Murdoch, whose media empire has done so much to elevate and protect Trump, now defends the Journal’s reporting by depicting Trump—accurately—as a vile misogynist. Or as his lawyers put it, “bawdy.”

There are still questions lingering about Trump and Epstein. What did Trump know and when did he know it? If this case isn’t derailed, there will be discovery. That means Trump will sit for a deposition, and, finally, he will have to answer those questions

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Louisiana Bets Big on “Blue Ammonia.” Communities Along Cancer Alley Brace for the Cost.

This story is from Floodlight, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action. Sign up for Floodlight’s newsletter here.

From her home in Donaldsonville, La., less than three miles from the world’s largest ammonia plant, Ashley Gaignard says the air itself carries a chemical edge.

The odor, she said, is sharp and lingering. Years ago, when her son attended an elementary school about a mile from the massive CF Industries ammonia production facility, he would begin wheezing during recess, she recalled. His breathing problems eased only after he transferred to a school several miles farther away.

“I’m not against progress,” Gaignard said. “We are against development that poisons and displaces and disregards human life.”

Ashley Gaignard sit and looks directly into the camera.

DONALDSONVILLE, LOUISIANA – JANUARY 28: Ashley Gaignard on January 28, 2026 in Donaldsonville, Louisiana.(Photo for Floodlight)

Now, along Louisiana’s Mississippi River corridor, fertilizer giant CF Industries and other companies are placing multibillion-dollar bets on “blue ammonia” — a product made from fossil fuels but with extra technology to capture planet-warming gases and pipe them underground for storage.

To date, no commercial-scale blue ammonia plants are operating — but more than 20 have been proposed nationwide, according to Oil and Gas Watch. Four of the largest such plants are slated for Louisiana, in communities already saturated with petrochemical pollution.

An extensive review by Floodlight found no evidence that existing carbon capture projects anywhere in the world have achieved anything close to the emissions cuts companies like CF Industries are promising. Permit documents, meanwhile, show that the proposed plants combined could be allowed to discharge more than 2,800 tons each year of air pollutants (not greenhouse gases), including more than 400 tons of ammonia.

Ashley Gaignard stands outside pointing to pollution in the distance.

DONALDSONVILLE, LOUISIANA – JANUARY 28: Ashley Gaignard on January 28, 2026 in Donaldsonville, Louisiana.(Photo for Floodlight)

Classified as a highly hazardous chemical, ammonia can damage the lungs and hurt the skin, eyes and throat. In the air, it can form fine particles that are linked to increased risks of heart disease and stroke, and can be deadly — particularly for children, older adults and people with heart or lung disease.

The Louisiana plants would also be allowed to release carcinogens, including benzene and formaldehyde.

The companies proposing those plants — CF Industries, Air Products, Clean Hydrogen Works and St. Charles Clean Fuels — have said their operations will provide an abundant source of clean fertilizer and clean energy to global markets, including countries whose climate and trade policies favor low-carbon fuels. They’ve also said they’ll create nearly 840 permanent jobs and millions in new tax revenue for local communities while prioritizing public health and safety.

Aerial view of CF Industries, the world's largest ammonia and nitrogen plant.

The CF Industries complex in Donaldsonville, La., is the world’s largest ammonia and nitrogen plant.(Ted Auch / FracTracker Alliance, 2024; with aerial support by SouthWings)

“We are designing the facility with advanced emissions controls, robust monitoring systems, and strong operational practices to minimize impacts,” said Chandra Stacie, the director of community relations for St. Charles Clean Fuels. “Our goal is to operate responsibly and be a constructive, long-term partner.”

Environmental advocates, scientists and community members, however, say the new ammonia plants would delay the phase-out of fossil fuels — and bring substantial air pollution and safety risks to places that have long borne the health costs of America’s industrial economy.

Why Louisiana became ground zero

While the historic streets of Donaldsonville recently served as the backdrop to the 2025 blockbuster Sinners, the town’s real-life drama is far less cinematic.

Donaldsonville lies at the center of Cancer Alley, a chemical corridor between Baton Rouge and New Orleans known for its elevated health risks and dense concentration of petrochemical plants and refineries.

Now this stretch of Louisiana is also ground zero for a new buildout: four proposed blue ammonia plants, with several more planned for Texas.

So, why the Gulf Coast?

South Louisiana has abundant natural gas for ammonia production and ports that connect to international shipping routes.

INTERACTIVE MAP

“Louisiana’s Blue Ammonia Plants”

The state offers an existing pipeline network, a seasoned chemical-industry workforce and political leaders who have consistently favored industrial development. The companies proposing ammonia plants can also tap generous state and federal incentives, including more than $2 billion in federal tax credits for carbon capture projects.

The Inflation Reduction Act, former President Joe Biden’s signature climate law, allows companies to collect up to $85 for each ton of carbon captured and permanently stored.

And the state of Louisiana is offering developers millions more in grants and tax breaks designed to spur economic development.

Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University who has studied carbon capture systems for years, said there’s little to be gained — and much to lose — from making ammonia this way.

“These plants increase air pollution, they increase global warming … they increase not only energy costs, but total social costs, and so there’s zero benefit — except to the people who are taking the subsidies to implement these projects,” he said.

INTERACTIVE MAP

“Proposed Blue Ammonia Plants Across the U.S.”

The scale of subsidies for the proposed Louisiana ammonia plants is “off-the-charts outrageous” — and amounts to a bad deal for taxpayers, said Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First, a nonprofit that tracks and analyzes economic development projects. The plants are unlikely to deliver anything close to $2 billion a year in public benefits, he said.

“It can only be accurately called a massive transfer of wealth from U.S. taxpayers to corporate shareholders,” he said.

Ambitious pitches, tougher reality

Ammonia has long been a workhorse of the global economy, quietly underpinning modern agriculture. It’s the key ingredient in nitrogen fertilizer, and demand is expected to grow as global food production strains to keep pace with population growth.

Now, producers say it could play a far larger role — not just as fertilizer, but as a climate-friendly fuel for ships and power plants.

Researchers work inside Sandia Labs.

Researchers at Sandia Labs explore using solar power-generated heat to produce ammonia. Using renewable energy to create ammonia instead of fossil fuels can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, researchers say. (Craig Fritz / Sandia Labs Flickr)

When it’s burned as a fuel, ammonia doesn’t emit carbon dioxide (though it can produce nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas roughly 270 times more potent than carbon dioxide).

It can also be burned with other fuels in power plants or potentially used to store hydrogen for shipping and later conversion for use in fuel cells.

But the process commonly used to make ammonia carries a heavy climate cost.

Most production relies on hydrogen derived from natural gas, a process that releases carbon dioxide. Enormous amounts of energy — typically from fossil fuels — are then used to force hydrogen and nitrogen to combine under extreme heat and pressure.

Nitrogen fertilizer plants in the U.S. released more than 46 million tons of heat-trapping gases in 2021 — roughly the emissions of nine million cars running for a year — according to a report by the Environmental Integrity Project. Globally, almost 2% of carbon dioxide emissions come from making ammonia — or as much as the energy system emissions of South Africa, according to the International Energy Agency.

That’s where carbon capture comes in. The companies planning blue ammonia plants say they will isolate most of the carbon dioxide released, piping it deep underground for permanent storage.

  • Texas-based Clean Hydrogen Works says its Ascension Clean Energy project, slated for Donaldsonville, will produce up to 7.2 million tons of ammonia annually and will capture “up to 98 percent” of the carbon dioxide produced.
  • Nearby, CF Industries and the Pennsylvania-based Air Products plan to build two plants they say will have capture rates of 95% or more.
  • About an hour to the east, the St. Charles Clean Fuels project would capture more than 99% of carbon dioxide generated, its developer says.

Those claims are unlikely to hold up, said Cornell University professor Robert Howarth, an expert on greenhouse gas emissions and ammonia pollution.

“Is the industry correct in saying that they can produce a really, really low emissions fuel using natural gas as their original feedstock?” he asked. “The answer is no. It’s just never been done, and I don’t think it can be done.”

Landscape view of CF Industries.

DONALDSONVILLE, LOUISIANA – JANUARY 28: CF on January 28, 2026 in Donaldsonville, Louisiana.(Photo for Floodlight)(Sean Gardner for Floodlight)/(Sean Gardner for Floodlight)

The majority of existing carbon capture facilities trap less than 60% of carbon dioxide, according to a 2023 review by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “No existing project has consistently captured more than 80% of carbon,” the institute found.

Blue hydrogen — a prerequisite for blue ammonia — “is neither clean nor low-carbon,” and pursuing it would divert time and money from more effective climate solutions, the institute concluded.

In an email to Floodlight, Air Products spokesperson Christina Stephens said the company is “very confident in our proprietary technology that allows us to capture 95 percent of the CO2 emissions.” She did not elaborate.

Stacie, the St. Charles Clean Fuels representative, said its facility’s design will be “conducive to high capture rates.”

Experts also note that carbon capture itself is typically powered by natural gas, adding emissions and undercutting its climate benefits.

Compounding the problem are emissions of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Methane is frequently emitted during drilling, processing and transport of natural gas. More escapes in the process used to extract hydrogen for ammonia production.

Total methane emissions from the fertilizer industry could be more than 140 times higher than official estimates, one 2019 study found.

Stephens, the Air Products spokesperson, said the company believes previous research related to methane leakage has flaws that led to inaccurate conclusions.

Stacie, meanwhile, said St. Charles Clean Fuels will monitor and verify methane emissions through “operations control and third-party verification consistent with emerging best practices.”

The local cost of a global fuel

Even if blue ammonia plants deliver the climate benefits their backers promise — benefits that experts dispute — their local impacts could still be substantial.

In 2024, the CF Industries Donaldsonville plant — near Gaignard’s house — released more toxic air pollutants than all but one other industrial site nationally, according to EPA data. The 7.1 million pounds of ammonia the plant released that year would more than fill the New Orleans Superdome, according to Kimberly Terrell, a research scientist for the Environmental Integrity Project.

Emissions from the planned blue ammonia plants could worsen respiratory health, Terrell said, with impacts extending far beyond the plant sites.

“I would be concerned about increasing asthma rates long term,” she said.

“We are living in a cauldron of toxic chemicals down here in Louisiana.” —Jane Patton, a campaign manager for the Center for International Environmental Law.

Ascension Parish, where three of the proposed blue ammonia plants would be built, hosts more than two dozen industrial facilities and already has the second highest amount of air emissions in the country, according to EPA data.

So the prospect of new ammonia plants in Ascension Parish worries Twila Collins.

She has lived her entire 55-year life in Modeste, a historic, predominantly Black community along the Mississippi River. If CF Industries gets its way, a massive ammonia plant would rise roughly a mile from her home.

Twila Collins looks directly into the camera.

Twila Collins poses for a photo inside her home in Modeste, a small Louisiana community next to the Mississippi River. She’s concerned about the potential health and safety dangers of a proposed CF Industries blue ammonia plant. (Sean Gardner for Floodlight)

Her message for the company is blunt: “Leave us alone and find somewhere else to go where there’s nobody living, so you won’t disrupt a community.”

Industrial pollution already drifts into her neighborhood, bringing smells “like a landfill,” she said, and a new ammonia plant would add another layer of pollution — and another set of health risks.

In a 2024 report, CF Industries said its employees “regularly maintain, replace, and update equipment” to reduce emissions.

But under its draft permit for the Blue Point plant, the company would be allowed to release more than 1,100 tons of air pollutants each year — equivalent to the weight of more than 27 fully loaded tractor trailers. That includes more than 140 tons of ammonia and more than 580 tons of carbon monoxide.

Collins said she can name more than 30 people in Modeste who suffer from cancer or respiratory problems. The issue is deeply personal. She herself has struggled with cancer. And in 2002, her 9-year-old son died of an asthma attack. He had struggled with asthma all his life, but Collins still wonders whether the industrial pollution surrounding Modeste helped trigger the attack that killed him.

Twila Collins stands outside in her community.

Modeste, La., sits in a heavily industrialized region, and Twila Collins suspects pollution from those factories is making many residents sick. (Sean Gardner for Floodlight)

She also worries about what could go wrong if something fails — an accident, a leak or worse — because ammonia production and carbon dioxide transport involve well-documented industrial risks.

CF Industries’ Donaldsonville plant has a history of deadly accidents: a 2000 explosion and fire killed three workers and injured at least eight others, and a 2013 blast killed one worker and injured eight more.

This past November, an explosion at another CF Industries plant in Yazoo City, Miss., led to an ammonia leak and prompted the evacuation of nearby residents.

Residents push back

While supporters emphasize the economic boost and high-paying jobs the projects could bring, many local residents have turned out at public hearings to oppose them.

So many people packed a hearing room on the St. Charles project in 2024 that it had to be canceled and rescheduled in a larger venue.

Some of the public fears have centered on the carbon dioxide pipelines that would be needed to make the projects work.

Air Products, for instance, has proposed piping millions of tons of carbon dioxide 38 miles to be stored a mile underneath Lake Maurepas. The project would be “the world’s largest permanent carbon dioxide sequestration endeavor to date,” according to the Louisiana Department of Economic Development.

Several residents at an information table at a public hearing.

At a November 2025 public hearing, many Louisiana residents raised health and safety concerns about Air Products’ plan to build a large blue ammonia plant in Ascension Parish. The project would pipe carbon dioxide and store it beneath Lake Maurepas. (US Army Corps of Engineers via Wikimedia Commons)

At a November public hearing on the project, Air Products vice president Andrew Connolly said the company has an “unsurpassed safety record.”

“All pipelines will be monitored 24-7 and we will meet or exceed all pipeline regulations,” he said.

More than 300 people turned out for that public hearing, according to Dustin Renaud, a spokesperson for the environmental law group Earthjustice. Among the more than 50 people who spoke, all but three opposed the project.

Opponents have warned of what could happen if a carbon dioxide pipeline ruptures, as happened in 2020 in Satartia, Miss. That disaster sent 45 people to the hospital and left some residents unconscious in their homes and cars. Starved of oxygen, cars stalled or couldn’t start, making evacuation difficult.

Aerial photo of a pipeline leak in Mississippi.

A carbon dioxide pipeline ruptured on Feb. 22, 2020, in Satartia, Miss., leaving this crater and prompting an evacuation. (Mississippi Emergency Management Agency)

The Air Products pipeline would run within half a mile of Sorrento Primary School, an elementary school in Ascension Parish with more than 600 students. An expert hired by Earthjustice concluded that a pipeline rupture could endanger the schoolchildren, along with residents of a nearby subdivision.

Stephens, the Air Products spokesperson, said the company will run the pipeline deeper than is required by code in the school’s vicinity. The pipeline will also have more shutoff valves than required, she said.

“We have a long safe history of operating the largest hydrogen pipeline network in the world right here in Louisiana,” she wrote.

Stacie, the St. Charles Clean Fuels representative, said the company will incorporate “detection systems, automated shutdowns, mechanical integrity programs and emergency response planning” — consistent with federal rules and “lessons learned from prior incidents.”

Still, some residents worry.

“We don’t have a good evacuation route,” said St. James Parish resident Gail LeBoeuf, who co-founded the environmental justice group Inclusive Louisiana. “If something would happen, we would just be stuck like Chuck.”

Promises of jobs, safety and economic growth

The companies behind the blue ammonia projects have said they will bring jobs and millions of dollars into the state economy — a message that has found a receptive audience in the state capital and some city halls.

CF Industries did not respond to Floodlight’s questions about its proposed plant, while Clean Hydrogen Works declined to answer questions.

Amid public opposition, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry in October announced a moratorium on new carbon capture projects. The order halted the state’s review of new permits for projects that would inject carbon dioxide underground, while allowing existing applications to continue — including the blue ammonia projects already underway.

In touting the CF Industries proposal last April, Landry noted that the company has been operating in the state for more than 50 years. “We don’t get to grow food in this country without the hard work of CF Industries and its employees,” he said.

President Donald Trump and Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, to Trump’s right, speak at the White House in March 2025, alongside Hyundai executive chairman Eui Sun Chung. Landry and Louisiana’s economic development department have supported controversial blue ammonia plants proposed for the state. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)

The oil and gas industry — which has strong ties to the ammonia and fertilizer industries — has for years been Landry’s largest industrial sector donor. It has contributed more than $1.1 million to his campaigns, according to data from FollowTheMoney.org.

Donaldsonville Mayor Leroy Sullivan has also spoken out in favor of the proposals by CF Industries and Clean Hydrogen Works.

“The benefits outweigh the things they’re saying,” he told WBRZ last year.

“These plants are safer, they’re better for the economy than some of the other industries that may be in the area.”

Sullivan previously worked at CF Industries for 26 years. In 2000, he was badly injured in an explosion at the Donaldsonville plant and spent more than a month recovering in a burn unit.

“It almost killed me,” he said at a public hearing last year on the Ascension Clean Energy proposal.

Neither Sullivan nor Landry responded to Floodlight’s requests for interviews.

For her part, Gaignard feels let down.

“What hurts the most is we’re watching the leaders that we elected … support these companies instead of supporting the community,” she said.

A lower-carbon alternative

There are cleaner ways to make ammonia.

Instead of extracting hydrogen from natural gas and then trying to capture the CO₂, producers can use renewable electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. That “green hydrogen” can then be combined with nitrogen to make what’s known as “green ammonia.”

At least one large-scale green ammonia plant is already operating. In Chifeng, China, a facility powered by wind turbines and solar panels began industrial-scale production in 2025. By 2028, the plant is expected to produce 1.5 million tons of green ammonia annually.

In the U.S., developers have proposed green ammonia plants in Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Washington.

“Instead of making this big labyrinth of pipes and equipment and sending CO2 everywhere and using more energy, you can simply produce that hydrogen with electricity from solar and wind,” said Jacobson, the Stanford professor.

In the debate over blue ammonia, the stakes are high.

For ammonia producers, the projects promise billions in federal tax credits and a foothold in emerging energy markets. They also offer oil and gas companies a way to delay the phase-out of fossil fuels, critics say.

“It’s a great way to lock in oil and gas infrastructure. … Something that we should be getting away from, as opposed to locking in for years and years to come,” said Alexandra Shaykevich, a research manager at the Environmental Integrity Project who tracks oil and gas projects.

For residents along Louisiana’s Cancer Alley, the stakes are more immediate. They’re being asked to live with new plants, new pipelines and new risks in places that have already absorbed decades of pollution.

But Gaignard plans to keep fighting for her community.

“I don’t look at this as red and blue and the left and the right,” she said. “We need to start looking at humanity.”

Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s Climate Repeal Will Kill America’s Transition From Gas Guzzlers to EVs

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

With the repeal of the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific finding on the dangers of greenhouse gases, the Trump administration is aiming to take out many federal actions on climate change in one blast.

The first impact of this deregulatory detonation will be on cars. The EPA packaged its withdrawal of the 17-year-old endangerment finding with elimination of the ambitious tailpipe pollution standards adopted by the Biden administration. It’s a move designed to alter the choices consumers are likely to see in showrooms, the kinds of vehicles rolling off assembly lines and the technology evolution unfolding in US manufacturing.

In fact, the change is already underway. Ford announced in December it would stop making its F-150 Lightning pickup truck and would otherwise scale back its electric vehicle plans. General Motors ended plans to build EVs at its Orion plant in Michigan, shifting the facility to production of big gas-powered models like the luxury Cadillac Escalade SUV and the Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck. Stellantis has cancelled plans for a fully electric Ram 1500 truck and has scrapped several plug-in hybrids, including the Chrysler Pacifica and Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe.

“China’s EV makers will face no competition from the US to dominate the world’s clean car market.”

There’s little doubt that the auto industry is pivoting—for the time being, anyway—to a future of higher emissions in the United States. EPA’s rescission of tailpipe pollution standards wipes out what the Biden administration had calculated would be a 7.2 billion-metric-ton cut in greenhouse gas emissions, the largest single step that any nation has taken on climate change.

But there are sharply different views on what this decision means for American consumers and carmakers. President Donald Trump and his top officials on Thursday touted a cascade of benefits they see rippling throughout the economy, starting with more affordable vehicles.

“You’re going to get a better car, a car that starts easier, a car that works better, for a lot less money,” said Trump from a podium in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, as he unveiled what he described as the biggest deregulatory action in history.

Critics of the move argue, however, that US car buyers will be left with fewer choices as the pressure for automakers to expand their EV offerings ends. They contend that the automakers will be hurt in the long run as they fall further behind China in a global market that remains committed to a transition to EVs.

“American families will suffer long-term harms so that giant auto and oil companies can pocket short-term profits,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign. “They’re popping champagne corks at the OPEC and GM headquarters, but also in Beijing, where China’s EV makers will face no competition from the US to dominate the world’s clean car market.”

The United States already is on a different trajectory than the rest of the world when it comes to EVs. In 2025, EV sales fell 4 percent in the United States while growing 33 percent in Europe and 20 percent worldwide, according to the UK-based research firm Rho Motion.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, appearing alongside Trump at the White House, said the Biden rules were forcing automakers to build vehicles that US consumers did not want. “No longer will automakers be pressured to shift their fleets toward electric vehicles, vehicles that are still sitting unsold on dealer lots all across America,” Zeldin said.

But EV sales in the United States had five consecutive years of growth before last year’s fall-off, which was at least partly due to the Trump administration rolling back federal support for EVs—most importantly, Congress’ repeal of the $7,500 federal consumer tax credit in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. After the tax credit expired last September 30, EV sales in the United States plummeted.

“Every other country is moving forward except us. We’re going backwards.”

In recent weeks, Ford, GM and Stellantis wrote off a collective $52 billion in investments they had made in electric vehicles. Those losses exceed the $34 billion in total profits for the “Big Three” in 2024.

Trump argues the lifting of regulations will accelerate a revival of the industry that is already underway. He talked about his January visit to Ford’s Dearborn Truck Plant in Michigan, when executive chairman Bill Ford Jr. said the plant was expanding to 24-hour shifts, six days a week to build its iconic F-150 pickup truck. “Perhaps no industry has benefited more from our historic deregulation campaign than the US auto industry,” Trump said on Thursday.

After the president announced the endangerment finding repeal, John Bozzella, president and CEO of the auto industry’s main trade group, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, put out a supportive statement, saying the action will “correct some of the unachievable emissions regulations enacted under the previous administration.” Although Bozzella had appeared alongside Biden administration officials and a phalanx of EVs at the rollout of the regulations in 2024, he has been urging the Trump administration to ease the rules.

“I’ve said it before: Automotive emissions regulations finalized in the previous administration are extremely challenging for automakers to achieve given the current marketplace demand for EVs,” Bozzella said. “The auto industry in America remains focused on preserving vehicle choice for consumers, keeping the industry competitive, and staying on a long-term path of emissions reductions and cleaner vehicles.”

But in its comments to the EPA last fall on the repeal proposal, the auto industry alliance raised concerns that the Trump administration’s total repeal approach “has the potential to further amplify the severity of policy swings in future administrations.”

With US automakers ditching EVs and tariffs making cheap Chinese EVs unaffordable, “consumers are worse off.”

Joshua Linn, an economics professor at the University of Maryland and a senior fellow at Resources for the Future, a think tank that studies energy and the environment, said the auto industry wants “a consistent set of standards over time, because that’s going to make planning much easier.”

Linn said that the Biden administration’s tailpipe standards, which targeted a 50 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 2026 levels by 2032, likely would have been difficult for automakers to meet, especially in the later years, when deeper greenhouse gas emissions cuts were being required. The Trump administration could have addressed those concerns by easing the rules, but this action is much more extreme, Linn said, and it goes beyond what would be best both for automakers and consumers.

Stringent standards likely would help US automakers to develop vehicles that could be sold in international markets where there are strong emissions requirements, Linn said. Instead, those markets are being dominated by Chinese competitors that are making high-tech, affordable EVs, especially BYD, which in 2025 surpassed Ford to become the world’s sixth-largest automaker, with 4.6 million vehicles sold.

Zeldin said consumers would benefit, now that US carmakers no longer were being pushed into electrification of their fleets. “If you want an electric vehicle, buy that,” he said. “If you want a diesel truck, then buy that. If you want a gas-powered vehicle or a hybrid, well, more power to you. That’s what freedom and choice look like.”

But US consumers don’t have access to low-cost EVs that are available elsewhere. The US government has long had high tariffs designed to keep Chinese EVs out of the domestic market, and now, US consumers won’t have a choice of comparable affordable EVs from US automakers any time soon, either. “Consumers are worse off,” Linn said.

Michael Berube, president and CEO of the clean vehicle advocacy group CALSTART, says the timing couldn’t be worse. “Weakening vehicle standards and undermining the endangerment finding injects uncertainty into the market at a moment when global competition for clean vehicle leadership is accelerating,” he said. “We risk ceding our leadership just as global demand for low- and zero-emission technologies continues to surge.”

Research by Rhodium Group indicates that EV sales in the United States, which were projected to be as much as 71 percent of the light-duty vehicle market in 2040 under Biden policy, will grow at about half the pace.

The Trump administration’s transportation department has a separate rulemaking underway to ease fuel economy standards for new cars. Instead of ramping up from a current average of 30.4 miles per gallon to 50.4 miles per gallon by model year 2031, as they would have had to do under the Biden pollution rules, carmakers would have a more modest goal of 34.5 miles per gallon.

As a result, the Trump team calculates the price of new vehicles will be about $2,330 less than it would have been under the Biden standards—a dramatic increase in claimed savings compared to the $1,000 they had calculated when first making the proposal last summer. The EPA detailed a number of changes in its economic projections, including the possibility of far lower gasoline prices in the future.

But even the original economic analysis acknowledged trade-offs: It said US car owners will be buying about 100 billion gallons more gasoline through 2050 as a result of the changes, costing up to $185 billion more at the gas pump. The Trump administration’s revised analysis concludes that the costs are far outweighed by other benefits, such as the lower cost of vehicles, especially in a future scenario in which oil prices are much lower.

As for the side effects, air pollution will be commensurate with that gasoline use—not only carbon dioxide but also harmful particulate matter and smog. The Biden administration had calculated that by reducing fossil fuel pollution, its car standards would have provided $13 billion in annual health benefits to Americans, especially people of color and those with low incomes who live in urban corridors. In counterpoint, the Trump administration argues its eased regulations will save lives, as consumers will be better able to afford new cars that provide more safety features.

For those who have worked for years to get cleaner vehicles on US roadways, the costs seem staggering. “To be honest with you, I’m heartbroken,” said Margo Oge, who spent 32 years at the EPA, including as director of the EPA’s office of transportation and air quality over three administrations, from 1994 to 2012. Now board chair emeritus of the International Council on Clean Transportation, Oge is worried about both the health and economic toll.

“Things are just going to get worse with air pollution, climate impacts and economic impacts…because every other country is moving forward except us. We’re going backwards,” she said. “The country is going to be an island of obsolete technologies, while everybody else is moving toward electrification.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

They Just Wanted to Grow Food. Their Suburban Neighbors Declared War.

This article is adapted from Kate Brown’s new book, Tiny Gardens Everywhere: The Past, Present and Future of the Self-Provisioning City, which will be published February 17, 2026, Copyright W. W. Norton & Company.

In 2013, Nicole and Dan Virgil lived in a lush, affluent suburb of Chicago. Dan had a good job. Nicole home-schooled their two kids.

Sifting through channels, they happened upon a documentary about industrial food production. “That’s gross,” Dan said, “Can’t we just buy food that is food?”

Nicole asked around among her friends. “Where do you get real food?”

They stared at her, not comprehending her question.

“Whole Foods?”

Nicole drifted through the aisles of expensive, organic food. Even pricey lettuce after a few days in the fridge wilted and turned slimy. She felt trapped, confined to the industrial food distribution network that girdled the globe.

I could try to grow a head of lettuce, she thought. It can’t be that hard. She was not indentured to the corporate grocer. She was free. Free to grow a head of lettuce. Maybe more.

Nicole hesitated. Her houseplants had always died. Her parents were among the first Black families to move to Stamford, Connecticut, a corporate city. Her father broke the color line to run the city’s music education program. Like many upwardly mobile families, her parents were eager to leave physical labor behind. Nicole does not recall anyone with a vegetable garden in her upscale suburb.

Nicole decided to plant her own garden. She and her husband Dan, an engineer, don’t do things by half-measures. They watched YouTube videos on gardening, checked books out of the library and drew up plans. They built a raised bed and dug a wicking reservoir under it lined to store stormwater and drain the swampy, clay soils. They experimented with two plots. They dropped seeds directly into the spaded-up lawn and other seeds into a fertilized raised bed. Most seeds rotted in the clay soils of the lawn. Those that germinated did not thrive in the nutrient-poor earth, but the seeds in the raised bed sprang up in a few days and thrived, producing in coming months vegetables of deep vibrant colors that were delicious.

Photo collage featuring the book cover for "TINY GARDENS EVERYWHERE" on the left and a portrait of the author, Kate Brown, a smiling bespectacled woman, on the right.

Mother Jones illustration; Annette Hornischer //American Academy

I paid a visit to the Virgils in Elmhurst. The Virgil’s front yard is neatly maintained with native flowers and turf grass. From the street, I could see no sign of a vegetable plot out back. In the backyard, Nicole gave me a tour of her garden made up of three long beds stuffed with produce. She and Dan had constructed frames from electrical pipes for the tomatoes and cucumbers to climb ten feet high. Enjoying the shade beneath, potatoes spread. The leaves of bush beans, spinach, chard and kale fluttered in the breeze. Their plants had it all. Air, water, light and soil. Nicole showed me proudly her cherry tomatoes grown from seeds she saved each year. Adapted to the microbes in her soil and their micro-climate, the tomatoes were unusually large, and a rich red color. She pulled vegetables from the garden and we sat down to a delicious salad in their sunny kitchen.

In summer months, Nicole said, the garden provided 90 percent of the family’s produce. Often, they had too much.

Nicole suggested the kids set up a vegetable stand as a home-school project to sell their surplus. Nicole hoped her son would get better at doing math in his head. Before they started, Nicole and the kids made a trip to the Elmhurst Director of Zoning to make sure their vegetable stand was legal. It was. The city did not regulate children’s businesses. The kids designed a logo, got signs printed, and set up a card table on Saturday mornings.

“Did you know, lettuce grows from DIRT?!”

Neighbors asked, “Where did you get all this produce?” The kids showed them their backyard garden. Nicole recalls a woman snapping photos and calling her friend. “Did you know, lettuce grows from DIRT?!”

The vegetable stand was a success. Each child made about $40.00 in spending money. Nicole’s shy son learned how to subtract and talk to strangers.

Autumn comes swiftly to Chicagoland. The Virgils hated to stop gardening. On the web, Nicole noticed farmers in Maine extended the growing season with long, plastic tunnels called hoop houses. You can buy hoop house kits for a couple of hundred dollars, but the Virgils are DIY people. Dan drew up plans for a wood frame connected with PVC pipes. He shored up the supports so the tunnel could withstand 80 mph winds and heavy snow loads. He carefully calculated the height and width of the tunnel to maximize the buildup of passive solar heating inside. They located the hoop house in the middle of the backyard, so it was not visible from the street.

A smiling African American woman stands behind lush tomato plants outside.

Nicole Virgil in her backyard garden.Photo courtesy of Nicole Virgil

The one thing the Virgils did not think about was the city’s zoning board. Dan and Nicole had lived in Elmhurst for several decades. Elmhurst is a town of squat, white-trimmed, yellow-brick ranch houses placed in the center of spacious lots like iced pastries on a tray. Green lawns frame the houses. The lawns are largely unfenced, rolling along block after block, connecting one neighbor to another, a green communal thread. The Virgils saw neighbors build hockey rinks in their front yards and assemble trampolines and outdoor living rooms in their backyards. They figured the hoop house fell in the same category of a temporary recreational structure. They didn’t count on one neighbor calling the city, asking if the hoop house needed a permit.

One day, they came home to find a Property Maintenance Violation Notice on their front door. The city required a permit for their “greenhouse.” The Virgils stopped building. Dan went down to City Hall and explained their goal—to extend the growing season for a few months. They were not building a greenhouse. They’d take the hoop house down in the spring. He came away with the understanding that as long as the tunnel was temporary, it was ok, like the skating rinks and summer cabanas.

The Virgils loved the hoop house. Temperatures were as much as 50 degrees warmer inside. With snow all around, they worked indoors in short sleeves. The plastic frame extended the season, March was the new May. The family harvested fall crops in December and got a two-month jump on planting spring crops.

A hoop house, a structure made of wood and plastic, covers a raised bed in an urban garden.

A hoop house in urban community garden.Education Images/Universal Images Group/Getty

The next fall, frosty winds blowing, they put the hoop house up. Again, the neighbor phoned city hall, this time repeatedly. The neighbor was worried about how the tunnel looked, about possible flooding, about noise from the plastic cover flapping in the wind.

Another citation followed. The Virgils were confused. The City of Chicago allowed hoop houses. They could not find any rules banning hoop houses in the Elmhurst City Code. Indeed, their citations listed no code violation at all. They asked what code or ordinance they had transgressed. City staff didn’t know. They said they would get back to them on that. A letter arrived a few weeks later stating they had violated two codes, one about occupancy of a tent or temporary structure in a residential zone and the other from the permanent building code banning membrane structures altogether. That was confusing. How could the hoop house be both a temporary and a permanent structure?

Elmhurst officials told the Virgils they could get a variance to change the municipal code, but it would cost $6,500 for their $100 structure. The Virgils asked if they could work with city council members to write a new code. That would be fun, they thought, helping to draft new laws to make their community more sustainable. The kids would get a civics lesson. Two city council members offered to sponsor the bill, but the City Manager would not entertain the idea. He told them to take the hoop house down.

The Virgils got a lawyer, had a hearing, and lost. They won on appeal but lost again when the city attorney appealed their victory.

The suggestion that she could not pursue a dream lit a fire under Nicole. Nicole is like that. When her high school music teacher told her she did not have the voice for opera, she trained even harder and became an opera singer.

Nicole called local CBS news. She talked to print reporters. Supportive neighbors formed a Facebook group. Nicole started a website, circulated a petition, and contacted urban farms and non-profits. She is articulate, funny, calm, intelligent, and informed to a granular degree. Nicole is a formidable force, but she and Dan were up against two powerful American institutions—the lawn and the suburb.

Nicole is a formidable force, but she and Dan were up against two powerful American institutions—the lawn and the suburb.

Unlike most parts of the world, Americans divide land by use—residential, commercial, agricultural, and industrial. Most suburban residential areas are zoned for single families, a category that excludes nearly everything on a lot but those defined as “basic accessories,” like garages and swimming pools. Like the rows of corn surrounding Chicago, Elmhurst is a mono-crop field with one product—bedroom communities dedicated to rest, relaxation, and consumption.

The Virgils’ hoop house confused city leaders. At city council meetings, they asked: “What are you going to do with all that food?”

“Are you growing food to sell—a commercial venture? Raising food to live on, a subsistence farm?”

A city council member speculated improbably that an (unheated) hoop house could be used to grow marijuana in Chicago in winter.

Why, they were asked, didn’t they just go to Whole Foods like everyone else? Residents in a middle-class community should be able to afford to buy their food.

The journalist and urban theorist Jane Jacobs wrote that suburban communities are utopias. Utopias are great, Jacobs noted, if you have no plans of your own. “As in all Utopias, the right to have plans of any significance belongs only to the planners in charge.” But the Virgils had their own dreams—to produce nutritious, organic food sustainably and affordably. They were turning their suburban lot, zoned for residence and recreation, into a space for production, toiling with their hands like working-class people, instead of consuming, often ostentatiously, as American suburbanites are encouraged to do.

An Elmhurst city council member, Steve Dunn, instructed the Virgils, “We are a sustainable community, but we are not a rural community.” Zoning chairman Michael Honquest concurred: “This is a suburban setting, not an agricultural setting.”

Nicole grew exasperated with these comments. “They tell us, ‘We are not a farming community.’ Well, okay, but I’m on two-tenths of an acre. I am not farming.”

A smiling African American woman holds harvested carrots in a covered hoop house.

Nicole Virgil harvesting carrots mid-winter in her hoop house.Photo courtesy of Nicole Virgil

Like the Virgils, I was puzzled. The Virgils do not live in a homeowner’s association or gated community. They own their property. Why can’t they do what they want on it within the parameters of the law? Despite repeated requests, no elected city official from Elmhurst would return my calls and emails. So, my confusion escalated. What harm did the hoop house cause?

It would have been easy enough for Elmhurst officials to investigate, but they didn’t. Had they done so, they might have discovered that the windblown plastic did not roar like a train, and there was no water run-off. On the contrary, the Virgils’ trenched beds absorbed 700 gallons of rainwater each. Nicole claimed that when they invited city council members to visit the hoop house, the elected officials declined. Instead, Elmhurst city officials poured thousands of dollars into judicial procedures and attorney fees to prosecute the Virgils. The case generated hundreds of hours in hearings and staff research. Why did they go to such expense and trouble?

If democratic procedure matters, then the case is even more puzzling. At city council meetings, a majority of attendees endorsed the Virgil’s hoop house and “the right to garden.” At council meetings over several years, less than a dozen people spoke against the hoop house while hundreds voiced support. Some supporters claimed racism was the underlying cause. Dan is white. Nicole is Black in a city that is 94 percent white.

There appears to be evidence to support the fact that plants, which are supposed to be apolitical, do the work of drawing abstract lines of race and class onto the American landscape. In the same years as the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968, which made it illegal to discriminate in the sale, rental, or financing of housing, the vast majority of American municipalities passed laws that one way or another left homeowners little choice but to plant turf grass in their front yards. The laws were vague. Residents could have plants no higher than six or eight inches unless they were “useful” or “ornamental.” Vague laws play an important role in the history of segregation. Law enforcement can deploy them as they see fit, and neighbors, as in the Virgil’s case, can weaponize the law by phoning in complaints. Scanning legal records shows an uptick in court prosecution of vegetation laws from just a handful recorded in the 1960s, to several dozen in the 1970s and 1980s, to scores of cases in the 1990s and early 2000s.

In these cases, we found, people charged with growing vegetables in residential communities were more likely to be people of color (usually either Black or a recent immigrant), but not always. In Orlando, Florida, Jason and Jennifer Helvenston, a white couple, plowed up their front yard to grow vegetables. “A budget thing.” The city fined them $500 a day until it was replaced with “approved ground covers.” White defendants usually found it possible to shift vague lawn laws in their favor or overturn fines, but this was rarely the case for non-white homeowners. Tom Carroll and Hermine Ricketts, a mixed-race couple, cultivated a front yard garden for seventeen years. The garden produced 80 percent of their food until the Miami Shores Village Council passed a law banning front-yard gardens and forced the couple to dig up their garden. Ketha Robbins in suburban Columbus, Ohio, sought to restore a forest to her backyard and landed in court.

As anti-gardening cases multiplied, a “Gardening While Black” hashtag appeared on Twitter. In a Detroit case, a Black man was harassed by two white women and then taken to court for gardening with children in a public park. In another case, a man received a ticket for his front yard garden despite no restrictions being listed in the town codes. In Tulsa, months before a scheduled trial to discuss the legality of Denise Morrison’s medicinal plant garden, city workers ripped it out. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, a white neighbor called the police on Black residents meeting in a community garden during the Covid-19 quarantine. She claimed, with no evidence, that the group had torn up plants and removed soil worth $1200.

In the Minneapolis suburb of Falcon Heights, city officials caught wind of Quentin Nguyen removing the sod from his front yard to plant a large garden as part of a neighborhood green initiative. They quickly imposed a one-year ban on front-yard gardens (although the former city mayor had just such a garden). Nguyen, a garden activist, planned to use his two-acre front yard to grow vegetables to give away. But neighbors fretted that the garden was a security issue: “I am worried about normalizing the presence of many different people in front yards during potentially all hours of the day without any kind of restrictions put on access.”

“I am worried about normalizing the presence of many different people in front yards during potentially all hours of the day without any kind of restrictions put on access.”

A neighbor and reported friend of Nguyen testified that the dispute was not “personal.” It “was not racial.” Nguyen, who came to the US from Cambodia as a boy, responded with angry disappointment. He saw his garden as a venue for reciprocal relationships. “I wanted to pay back. Help the community. I feel targeted. I feel my fundamental liberties are invaded.”

The demographics of communities with vegetable bans provide some context for these cases. During the decades of the 1990s-2000s, racial segregation continued to decline in American municipalities, but at a strikingly slowed pace, while segregation by income largely increased. Scanning the national database of municipal regulations, my research assistants found that communities with vegetable bans had 30.4 percent fewer Black, 28.5 percent fewer Asians, 7.8 percent fewer Hispanics, and 12.6 percent more white people than the population of their state. Those communities were also richer, with a 73.5 percent higher median income. This demographic profile supports what geographers call an “ecology of prestige” in which residents of higher-income communities attach greater importance to turf grass. Seeking a deep-green lawn, they apply more pesticides and fertilizer and influence neighbors to do the same. The more homogeneous the social fabric of a community, geographers found, the less likely the neighborhood would have a biodiverse range of plants. In other words, the economic and racial diversity that American communities fail to cultivate is reflected in the plant-scape. Mono-crop vegetation matches mono-crop demography.

The economic and racial diversity that American communities fail to cultivate is reflected in the plant-scape. Mono-crop vegetation matches mono-crop demography.

I asked Nicole if she thought the City of Elmhurst’s grievance about their hoop houses was racial. “I am certainly conspicuous around here,” Nicole noted. But in addition to race, she saw the controversy as circling class: “There’s just this perception that it [the hoop house] is low-brow and low class. That perception is next to impossible to chisel through.”

Ari Bargil, a senior attorney at the public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, pointed to the general mandate for suburbanites to recreate, not produce. “What a lot of these restrictions are designed to do is prevent people from sustaining themselves.” You can have a small raised bed, Bargil continued, “but they are saying that if you want to eat organic and nutritious food, you still have to go to Whole Foods like the rest of us.”

Working with Bargil and the Institute for Justice, Nicole campaigned to have her state representative draft a “Garden Act.” She made several trips to the Capitol in Springfield, lobbied legislators, and told her story over and over. Finally, six years of stubborn refusal to submit to what she considered arbitrary code enforcement paid off. The “Vegetable Garden Protection Act” passed in June 2021 gives Illinois residents the right to “cultivate vegetable gardens on their property or on the private property of another with the permission of the owner, in any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state.” Illinois joined Florida and Maryland in prohibiting homeowners’ associations and municipalities from requiring turf grass and restricting vegetables and native plants.

Nonetheless, Elmhurst’s City mayor vowed to continue to battle against hoop houses in his city. The city council issued a ban on all temporary structures, but finally permitted hoop houses after the Virgils spent a total of seven years fighting for them.

Dan and Nicole Virgil aspired to create a small world in concert with plants—plants attuned to their yards and to them. They are not alone. Other states are considering Right to Garden Laws, and a recent YouGov poll conducted in November 2025 showed that 16 percent of all US households are using their front yard, long a preserve for a lawn, to grow fruits, vegetables, and herbs. These households are part of a quiet movement across the United States to reclaim yards from turf grass to cultivate plants that feed humans, birds, bees, and more resilient communities.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

These Utilities May Be Wildly Overestimating the AI Boom—at Public Expense

This story was originally published by Grist in partnership with WABE, Atlanta’s NPR station, and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

As more and more data centers crop up throughout Georgia and the Southeast, a recent study finds they may need less energy than the industry and utilities have been predicting. That could have substantial implications for energy bills and the planet.

Data centers—especially the biggest ones, known as hyperscalers, used for high-powered computing like generative AI—use a lot of energy. And major utilities like Georgia Power have started expanding power plants and building other infrastructure to fuel them. Late last year, the Georgia Public Service Commission approved a staggering 10 gigawatt expansion for Georgia Power to meet projected demand that’s mostly from data centers, after previously greenlighting new natural gas-fired turbines for the same reason.

But the level of growth that Georgia Power and other southeastern utilities are planning for only has about a 0.2 percent chance of actually happening, according to a report for the Southern Environmental Law Center written by Greenlink Analytics, a nonprofit that promotes transitioning to clean energy, and Science for Georgia, an organization that advocates for the use of science in public policy.

“We believe that this is a very aggressive forecast coming from the utilities,” said Etan Gumerman, Greenlink’s director of analytics who did the modeling for the report.

Because the data center industry is growing and changing so fast, it’s hard to predict accurately. The report finds data center energy use across the region could grow by anything from 2.2 to 8.7 gigawatts by 2031. Still, rapid improvements to technology that could make AI much more efficient in the coming years are likely to dampen the overall increase in energy demand.

But electric utilities across the region are planning for the extreme high end of data center growth, the report finds. That creates a risk that utilities will build more infrastructure than data centers actually need. “Who’s going to pay for that?” asked Gumerman. “Not the data centers that never came.”

“The idea that we’re going to add this additional capacity with gas-fired turbines is horribly depressing.”

Regular customers, he said, will likely end up paying those costs. “And I think that’s the problem in a nutshell.”

The Greenlink report is far from the first to question the projections for how much energy data centers require and how much that generation will affect individual ratepayers. Many people, from public commenters to expert consultants to the Public Service Commission’s own staff, made similar points last year during hearings over Georgia Power’s now-approved expansion. The risk of residential and small business customers paying for infrastructure built mostly for data centers was a persistent concern.

The Georgia PSC has taken several steps to protect ordinary ratepayers from data center costs. New billing terms approved last year allow Georgia Power to collect minimum payments from large power users like data centers and commit them to 15-year contracts—measures designed to ensure those customers pay for any infrastructure built to serve them and continue to pay even if they leave the state.

As part of the agreement to approve the 10 gigawatt expansion last year, the utility agreed to backstop costs if the projected demand doesn’t materialize. The commission has also stressed it can still halt the recently approved projects. Clean energy and consumer advocates are skeptical these measures are enough.

In addition to the risk of rising costs for ratepayers, the sky-high demand projections for data centers are also stalling the transition away from fossil fuels as a source of electricity. Studies have found much of the coming data center demand could be met without building new infrastructure, through improving efficiency among utilities nationwide and through flexibility by the data centers themselves. Instead, utilities and data centers alike are falling back on natural gas.

The United States now leads the world in gas-fired capacity in development, nearly tripling the total from 2024 to 2025, according to Global Energy Monitor. Much of the capacity utilities are building is to meet increased demand from data centers, and more than a third of the whopping 252 gigawatts in development is on-site power for data centers.

That latter approach—where data centers are built with their own source of power, known as “behind-the-meter” generation—addresses the concern over rising costs, but not fossil fuel emissions. While some tech companies are pursuing nuclear energy for their data centers, currently most of the power is coming from gas.

In Georgia, for instance, Georgia Power officials have said the vast majority of the projected demand driving the company’s expansion comes from data centers. The utility has already delayed plans to close coal-fired power plants and begun adding new gas-fired turbines. The 10 gigawatt expansion approved in December will come mostly from new gas turbines, which have projected lifespans of 45 years, and natural gas-generated electricity purchased from other utilities.

“I think people would be a lot less hesitant and a lot less up in arms about these 10 gigawatts if it was sustainable, smart growth,” said Amy Sharma, executive director of Science for Georgia, a nonpartisan group advocating for the use of science in public policy. “The idea that we’re going to add this additional capacity with gas-fired turbines is horribly depressing and, as my high school daughter likes to remind me, so last century.”

The state legislature in Georgia is currently considering several bills to address data center concerns. One would ensure regular customers don’t pay for power generation built for data centers. Others would require more transparency from data center developers or even impose a statewide moratorium.

There are also bills to end the tax breaks that data centers currently receive in Georgia. State lawmakers already passed a bill to suspend tax exemptions for data centers in 2024, but Gov. Brian Kemp vetoed it.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Promises Billions in Aid to Gaza as Israeli Airstrikes Reportedly Kill 12 Palestinians

Donald Trump said Sunday that member states of his Board of Peace have pledged $5 billion toward reconstruction and humanitarian efforts in Gaza.

Countries will also send thousands of personnel to “maintain Security and Peace for Gazans,” the president wrote on Truth Social. The pledge will be officially announced during the board’s inaugural meeting on February 19 at the United States Institute of Peace (which the State Department announced had been renamed the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace last December).

While it remains unclear which of the more than 20 members would make the pledge, the Associated Press reported that Indonesia said up to 8,000 troops would be ready for deployment to Gaza by June.

Trump posted his message the same day Israeli forces reportedly killed at least 12 Palestinians in airstrikes. Gaza’s civil defense agency, an emergency service and rescue force, said five people were killed and several others were injured when a strike targeted a tent sheltering displaced families.

According to the Guardian, the Al-Shifa and Nasser hospitals confirmed they received the bodies of at least seven people.

An Israeli military official said that the airstrikes were conducted in response to Hamas violations of the ceasefire agreement, where several armed individuals allegedly crossed a border line that went into effect last October. The “yellow line” splits Gaza in two: one under Israeli military control and one where Palestinians face fewer mobility limitations but are still threatened by displacement and airstrikes.

Since the US-brokered ceasefire was declared, Israel has killed at least 601 Palestinians and injured 1,607, according to the latest numbers from the Palestinian Ministry of Health. As Daniel Levy, the president of the US/Middle East Project, a policy institute focusing on advancing a dignified Israeli-Palestinian peace, told my colleague Noah Lanard just days after the October ceasefire agreement, there is “no actual plan” for peace.

Although Trump’s Board of Peace was initially seen as an international organization that would end the war in Gaza, the organization’s charter does not mention Gaza, instead increasingits scope worldwide to “promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.”

And as Mother Jones’ Washington bureau chief, David Corn, wrote earlier this month, the Board of Peace has since devolved into a global slush fund where countries can upgrade a three-year term to indefinite membership by paying $1 billion.

Many of the US’ top allies in Europe have declined invitations, considering the Board of Peace a way to swerve accountability to the United Nations. Many have also condemned the organization as its charter designates Trump as the sole leader, as well as the US representative.

“Nobody should be above the law,” Kaja Kallas, the EU foreign affairs chief, told US ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz on Friday regarding Trump virtually controlling all decision-making in the international organization. “If countries are treated equally, there’s less chance for war and tyranny.”

But as Trump wrote in his Sunday social media post: “The Board of Peace will prove to be the most consequential International Body in History, and it is my honor to serve as its Chairman.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Tom Homan: Minnesota Should Say “Thank You” for DHS Operation

On Sunday morning, Border czar Tom Homan said elected officials in Minnesota “ought to be saying thank you” to the Trump administration for making the state safer.

“They were a sanctuary state,” Homan said on Fox & Friends. “Their county jails weren’t working with us across the state. So you know what? We fixed it.”

"They were a sanctuary state. Their county jails weren't working with us across the state. So you know what? We fixed it."

Border Czar @RealTomHoman responds after MN Gov. Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey call on the federal government to cover costs following recent I.C.E.… pic.twitter.com/JbndKW4f9M

— FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) February 15, 2026

The remarks came after Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, and others criticized the Trump administration for its violent campaign against immigrants and the suppression of protesters in the days following Homan’s announcement that the federal government would end Operation Metro Surge.

“They left us with deep damage, generational trauma, economic ruin. They left us with many unanswered questions,” Gov. Walz said. “Where are our children? Where and what is the process of investigations into those who were responsible for the deaths of Renee and Alex?”

Gov. Walz also stressed the economic toll on the people and businesses of Minnesota and said on Thursday that lawmakers would work to reestablish the fund the state used for Covid recovery, starting with $10 million in forgivable loans for small businesses.

Walz stated that the Trump administration has to “pay for what they broke here” and that he has been in contact with federal leadership.

Mayor Frey also highlighted the economic damage of Operation Metro Surge on Friday. Minneapolis city officials released a 38-page report that estimated the immediate impact since the start of the wave of federal agents arriving in the city in December 2025—including $47 million in lost wages for people who were afraid to leave home, which has led to an additional $15.7 million needed in rent assistance and 76,200 people experiencing food insecurity.

The assessment, which totaled immediate costs at at least $203.1 million, concludes that “significant external funding is required” for the city to recover.

“Was the chaos worth it? Was the fear worth it?” Frey asked in his press conference on Friday.

For Homan, it was. “President Trump gets another win,” he said on Sunday. “Every day he’s winning, and I’m just proud to be a small part of this administration.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Adorable Patients of This Special Bat Hospital Will Warm Your Heart

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

Australia is famously a place with some of the world’s most dangerous and frightening animals. Venomous spiders. Deadly snakes. Jellyfish with fatal stings.

But it is also home to one of the world’s cutest: the flying fox, also known as the giant fruit bat. I mean, look at this animal.

This is a baby bat taking a bubble bath. If it doesn’t melt your heart, nothing will.

A bat is washed with a toothbrush during their bubble bath.

Toothbrushes help get rid of particularly stubborn milk blobs at bath time.Harriet Spark/Vox

In northeastern Australia, not far from the coastal city of Cairns, is a place called Tolga Bat Hospital. It is, as its name suggests, a hospital for bats—one of the only such facilities on the planet. And it’s also one of the few places you can see a baby bat getting a bubble bath.

The hospital, which has just one full-time paid employee but a cadre of volunteers, has been treating bats for more than 30 years. It comprises a few small buildings with treatment rooms, cold storage for fruit, and a nursery for orphan bats, as well as several outdoor wire enclosures. The largest cage is akin to a long-term care facility; it’s for bats that can no longer fly and will live out their lives at the hospital.

Bats hang on mesh in enclosure.

A view of the large enclosure home to flying foxes that have severe injuries and cannot fly. They’ll spend their lives at the hospital.Harriet Spark/Vox

Tolga Bat Hospital cares for as many as 1,000 bats a year, the bulk of which are spectacled flying foxes, an endangered species and one of four distinct kinds of flying foxes in mainland Australia. They come in with disease, heat stress, or injuries from barbed wire. The hospital also cares for hundreds of baby spectacleds—named for the lighter fur around their eyes that makes it look like they’re wearing glasses—that have lost their mothers and can’t survive on their own.

On a warm afternoon in December, I visited the hospital with Australian photographer Harriet Spark. We met a lot of cute bats—and they were hard not to love. Flying foxes are furry with expressive eyes, large ears, and a dog-like snout. But it was the hospital founder and director, Jenny Mclean, whom I found even more endearing.

“You meet a bat, and they’re worth caring about,” Mclean, 71, told me that afternoon, as she fed a sick adult bat fruit juice from a syringe. “They have serious threats that they’re facing, all of them human-induced.”

A person with gray hair holds a fox wrapped in a blue blanket.

Jenny Mclean, Tolga Bat Hospital founder and director, holds an endangered spectacled flying fox. Harriet Spark/Vox

Mclean, who works around the clock at the hospital and doesn’t pay herself, said she feels a responsibility to help these creatures—not only because they’re suffering at our expense but because they help keep our planet healthy. Flying foxes are exceptionally good at pollinating plants and dispersing their seeds, Mclean said.

Giving back to these animals in some way, she said, is the least we can do.

The nursery is a small, two-story building with a verandah that looks out onto the lush grounds of the hospital. Most of the babies were outside when we visited, hanging with their feet on several mesh metal shelves. Spectacled flying foxes are enormous: These animals were about 2 months old and already football-sized. By the time they grow up, their wingspan could reach more than three feet.

The bats, still too young to fly, hung upside down, wrapped in their own wings, alongside stuffed animals. The stuffies, which Mclean buys from a local secondhand store, are meant to mimic mother bats, and the babies will often cling to them for comfort, Mclean told me. Some of the bats were drinking from bottles of flying fox formula attached to the shelves.

A person with dark, pulled back hair looks at bats hanging upsidedown.

Volunteer Mia Mathur stares at an orphan spectacled flying fox at the nursery at Tolga Bat Hospital.Harriet Spark/Vox

Even younger bats were in a room inside the building. Infants under one week are kept in an incubator because they have trouble regulating their body temperature. Slightly older babies are kept in plastic boxes with heating pads and socks that they can cling to. For feeding, “box babies” are swaddled in cloth around a small rectangular pillow so their wings are contained—forming baby bat burritos. A few had silicon pacifiers in their mouths.

Nearly all of these orphans lost their moms to Australian paralysis ticks: parasites that carry a potent neurotoxin in their saliva. When paralysis ticks bite bats and other animals without natural immunity, such as pet cats and dogs, the insects can, as their name suggests, cause paralysis and, eventually, heart failure.

A bat clings to pink bear.

The hospital buys used stuffed animals for the bats to cling to. Harriet Spark/Vox

During tick season, which typically runs from October to December, hospital workers search the ground below colonies, or “camps,” for infected bats, which often fall out of trees. If the infection is mild, workers treat the animal with an anti-toxin at the hospital. The babies, meanwhile, are often spared from paralysis. Mothers likely pick up ticks while they’re foraging without their young, Mclean said, and the parasites latch on before they have a chance to crawl onto the babies. That leads to an abundance of orphans in need of care.

Paralysis ticks live all across eastern Australia, but they only seem to affect spectacled flying foxes in the Atherton Tablelands, where the hospital is located, Mclean told me. The reason is still a mystery. One explanation, Mclean said, is that spectacleds in this region feed on the berries of an invasive shrub called wild tobacco, where they encounter the ticks. While the plant grows in other parts of Australia where both ticks and flying foxes are found, Mclean said, the moist climate of the Tablelands may make ticks more likely to venture out of the grass and into the branches of the invasive shrub. That’s where the flying foxes feed.

That afternoon, I followed Mclean into the main hospital building, where she treats adult bats with paralysis. Rows of small metal cages and cloth boxes sat on shelves along the wall. In some of the enclosures, large flying foxes hung calmly from the top, whereas in others, the animals—still facing the effects of paralysis—were lying down.

A bat wrapped in a yellow blanket lays in a yellow container

An infant flying fox wrapped and waiting to be fed.Harriet Spark/Vox

Using a towel, Mclean gently grabbed one of the bats from its cage to see if it would eat. The animal was having trouble swallowing, Mclean told me, as she placed a syringe with apple and mango juice in its mouth. The bat took a few sips and then pulled its head away. Mclean moved it into a small plastic bin for plan B: seeing if the animal would eat a small piece of pear instead. The bat began to chew, but then spat it out. “You have not got a good swallow, my girl,” Mclean said.

Tick paralysis is just one of the threats to Australia’s flying foxes, many of which are getting worse. Little reds, another species, get tangled in barbed wire, causing tears in their wings. Spectacleds in the Tablelands, meanwhile, are increasingly born with cleft palate syndrome (for reasons that are not yet clear), which makes it hard for them to feed. And more recently, severe heat waves tied to climate change have decimated flying fox populations. In 2018, unrelenting heat killed about 23,000 spectacled flying foxes in Far North Queensland, nearly a third of the entire population. Mclean says she received about 500 orphans that year from the heat wave alone.

Nonetheless, these animals lack support—they’re “maligned,” Mclean said—especially compared to koalas and other furry animals in Australia. “There are not that many people who will champion them,” she told me.

A sunset covered in flying bats.

Thousands of little red flying foxes leave their roost at sunset to find food near Tolga Bat Hospital in Far North Queensland. Harriet Spark/Vox

Bats have a bad rap, in part, because they can carry diseases. Flying foxes are no exception—in rare cases, they can carry Australian bat lyssavirus, a relative of rabies. What gets less attention is the fact that humans almost never contract a disease from flying foxes. “We get about a thousand sick and injured bats a year, and we get a lyssavirus bat once every three years,” Mclean said. (Workers at Tolga Bat Hospital get vaccinated before handling bats as a safety precaution.)

Ultimately, flying foxes are not a real threat to humans, she said. Disproportionately, humans harm them. “It’s this whole thing of, are we willing to share the planet or not?” she said. “If you’re not willing to share the planet, you are going to destroy the planet.”

If flying foxes continue to disappear, so will essential services like pollination and seed dispersal that keep forests alive, Mclean told me. “You can’t have a healthy person unless you’ve got healthy wildlife and a healthy environment.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

US Military Strikes Another Boat in the Caribbean Sea, Killing 3

The United States military killed three more people on Friday in their 39th boat attack in six months, according to a tracker maintained by the New York Times. All told, the strikes by US forces have killed at least 133 people in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean.

President Donald Trump’s administration has maintained, often without evidence, that they are targeting the boats as an anti-drug smuggling measure. Though, even if people on these boats were confirmed to be transporting drugs, a broad array of legal specialists have held that the “strikes are illegal, extrajudicial killings” because the military “cannot deliberately target civilians who do not pose an imminent threat of violence, even if they are suspected of engaging in criminal acts,” the Times reported on Saturday.

An 11-second video of the Friday strike, posted by US Southern Command, shows what appears to be a missile hitting a boat in open waters, with a caption claiming without further evidence that the three people killed were “narco-terrorists.”

The Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights advocacy organization, wrote on Friday that those killed by the US military at sea “are denied any due process whatsoever,” and that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “are asserting and exercising an apparently unlimited license to kill people that the president deems to be terrorists.”

The boat attacks have been accompanied by social media posts that include videos of the strikes, including by Hegseth and Southern Command. Multiple of the previous deaths came from a secondary attack on people who were alive after initial strikes, as confirmed by the White House.

“I can’t imagine anyone, no matter what the circumstance, believing it is appropriate to kill people who are clinging to a boat in the water,” Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, told the Associated Press in December. “That is clearly unlawful.”

Related

A middle-aged man and woman wearing heavy brown coats, their wrists handcuffed, are led by three men in dark tactical gear that’s labeled “DEA” across their chests.What Trump’s Venezuela Attack Means for the World

Friday’s strike follows increased US military operations in the region, including the administration’s capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in early January. According to Venezuela’s Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino López, US forces killed 83 people during the Maduro operation, including multiple civilians. Trump subsequently claimed that his administration will run the country and control their oil.

“Just as the U.S. killings of those aboard targeted vessels are entirely premeditated and intentional,” the Washington Office on Latin America wrote on Friday, “the ongoing attacks at sea appear designed to normalize killings at President Trump’s discretion, both within the U.S. military chain of command and in the eyes of the American people.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Judges Have Rebuked Trump’s Mass Detention of Immigrants Thousands of Times

Hundreds of judges across the nation have ruled over 4,400 times that President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement arm is detaining people unlawfully, according to a new Reuters review of court documents. And that’s just since October.

The Trump administration’s immense increase in detainments rests, in part, on their decision to detain people while their immigration cases are moving through the system—a departure from previous administrations’ interpretation of immigration law. This has led to a steep increase in immigrants petitioning the courts to be released, as Reuters reports, and the thousands of rulings finding that these prolonged detainments were unlawful.

Tricia McLaughlin, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, told Reuters that the increase in lawsuits came as “no surprise” because “many activist judges have attempted to thwart President Trump from fulfilling the American people’s mandate for mass deportations.” But not all of the judges challenging the Trump administration’s mass deportation mechanism were appointed by Democrats.

Just last week, a judge appointed by George W. Bush ordered the release of a Venezuelan detainee. “It is appalling that the Government insists that this Court should redefine or completely disregard the current law as it is clearly written,” wrote US District Judge Thomas Johnston of West Virginia.

Before Trump 2.0, if immigration enforcement agents detained someone without documentation who had no criminal record, they would typically be released on bond while their case went through the system. Trump officials are now often keeping those individuals locked up indefinitely.

Earlier this month, the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Trump administration a win. In a 2-1 ruling, that court held that the administration could hold people whose cases are actively going through the system. It’s a key win, as the circuit oversees Texas and Louisiana, where Immigration and Customs Enforcement has some of its most populated detention centers.

The number of people kept in detainment who have no criminal record—the population petitioning the courts to be released—has increased exponentially under Trump’s second administration. According to a recent report from the American Immigration Council, the Trump administration’s arrest practices have led to a 2,450 percent increase in people with no criminal record being held in ICE detention on any given day.

This mass detention, per the new Reuters review, has spurred detainees to file “more than 20,200 federal lawsuits demanding their release since Trump took office”—an overflow that has created a “legal logjam” and has resulted in people remaining locked up even after judges have ordered their release.

The environment of fear for scores of these detained immigrants doesn’t end after a judge orders their release. That’s true for Joseph Thomas, an 18-year-old who was detained with his father in Wisconsin in December and whose case was highlighted in the Reuters investigation. The pair are both asylum seekers and were driving on the father’s Walmart delivery route. Within a month, another Bush-appointee, Chief US District Judge Patrick Schiltz, ordered that they both be released.

Even though Thomas is out of detention and can return to school, things aren’t back to normal. He’s afraid to go in person to class and is instead learning online.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Their Courses Were No Longer Relevant, so These Economics Students Went to Work

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

As the fallout from the 2008 global financial crash reverberated around the world, a group of students at Harvard University walked out of their introductory economics class complaining it was teaching a “specific and limited view” that perpetuated “a problematic and inefficient system of economic inequality”.

A few weeks later, on the other side of the Atlantic, economics students at Manchester University in the UK, unhappy that the rigid mathematical formulas they were being taught in the classroom bore little relation to the tumultuous economic fallout they were living through, set up a “post-crash economics society.”

These small acts of discontent found echoes in campuses around the world in the months that followed, as normally staid economics students demanded a broader and more questioning syllabus that more accurately reflected and challenged the world as it was.

These disparate strands came together in early 2013 at the London School of Economics with the inaugural meeting of Rethinking Economics—a student-led organization that has gone on to challenge the way economics is taught at universities around the world.

“That first meeting was a bit chaotic,” recalls Yuan Yang, one of the group’s founders and a Labour MP since 2024. “It was just after our final exams and it was all a bit intense. But I was really surprised with how many students turned up not just from the LSE but from other universities as well.”

Yang, who was studying a masters in economics at the time, said the first meeting was held on a “bit of shoestring,” dependent on volunteers and “some real acts of kindness” from family and friends as well as some of the LSE’s leading academics.

“It is urgent that the economics discipline learn to understand these issues as systemic features of our capitalist economy.”

“It was very volunteer led,” she said. “My dad, bless him, helped out by doing some filming…and we had some of the leading professors helping out. [South Korean economist and academic] Ha-Joon Chang arrived early and helped us make name tags.”

Chang, now a leading author and professor of economics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, said the launch came after decades when the neoclassical school of economics had come to dominate universities “like Catholic theology in medieval Europe…a doctrine that fundamentally defines the way humanity sees the world.”

“By demanding that economics education should be more pluralist, more ethically conscientious, more historically aware, and more oriented towards the real world, Rethinking Economics has exposed the staggering deficiency in the way economists are educated and induced some significant, albeit woefully insufficient changes in economics teaching around the world,” he said.

Rethinking Economics has blossomed since the first meeting and now has thousands of members, including several eminent economists, across more than 40 countries.

According to its communications lead, Sara Mahdi, its aim is to make economics education “plural, critical, decolonised and historically grounded” rather than “dominated by a single framework presented as ‘neutral’ or ‘objective.’”

“We are building an international movement of young people who are organizing, educating and agitating for an economics that takes account of the real world we see around us,” she said. “One that portrays the economy as embedded in ecology, power, institutions, history and inequality, and treats competing economic theories and methods as legitimate, not marginal to a sort of classical, almost mathematical view, which has been dominant in many institutions for decades.”

Mahdi, a degrowth, economics and anthropology graduate from University College London and the Autonomous University of Barcelona, says the group has secured tangible changes in the way economics is taught—from full program redesigns to the introduction of new core modules—at scores of institutions.

“Since 2019 alone the movement has supported and recorded more than 80 campaign wins in universities across 35 countries, including 23 major curriculum reforms, impacting tens of thousands of students,” she said. “These are the kinds of reforms that don’t just add ‘one optional lecture,’ they reshape what students learn as mainstream economics.”

Today’s economic system is “showing its most violent face…with rampant militarism and unprecedented, obscene levels of inequality.”

Among the changes highlighted are the launch of a politics, philosophy and economics course at Goldsmiths, University of London in 2014, an interdisciplinary programme at the University of Lille in France in 2020, and an economics and society undergraduate programme and public sector economics masters programme at Leiden University in the Netherlands in 2023.

One of Rethinking Economics’s most active groups is based in South Africa, where the campaign grew out of a wider student protest movement calling for greater access to higher education for poorer communities.

The junior program officer at Rethinking Economics for Africa, Amaarah Garda, said what started as a protest about fees had become a broader critique of the academic system and its colonial outlook.

Initially, universities refused to change mainstream economics teaching, so the campaign changed tack. “We have had to carve out our own progressive courses and events at these universities,” Garda said. “So it is not that everyone who does economics is exposed to a more progressive vision, but those courses are now available.”

The movement was growing, she said, as students sought answers to the issues confronting them in the news and their day-to-day lives, from how war economies work to what is being discussed at UN climate talks.

“In South Africa, and perhaps globally, we can see that our students are finding these ideas not just interesting but more and more urgent given the multiple crisis that we are facing,” she said. “They are approaching us to explain topics because they can see how critical they are to society and they cannot get that information through their usual courses.”

Many academics have welcomed the space the campaign has opened up.

Clara Mattei, a professor of economics at the University of Tulsa in the US and president of the Forum for Real Economic Emancipation (Free), said her group was collaborating with students from Rethinking Economics to “improve economic education and make it a useful tool for expanding economic agency among the general public.”

She said the current economic system was “showing its most violent face…with rampant militarism and unprecedented, obscene levels of inequality with four people owning more wealth than four billion people.”

“It is urgent that the economics discipline learn to understand these issues as systemic features of our capitalist economy rather than as the result of market imperfections or crony capitalism,” she said, adding that students such as those involved in Rethinking Economics were “pushing toward more courageous frameworks within the economic tradition…to prioritize the logic of need over the logic of profit”.

Jayati Ghosh, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in the US, said Rethinking Economics was forcing established economists to ask the basic questions that many had been trained to overlook.

She said there were still power structures within institutions, think tanks and journals that wanted to maintain a narrower, restricted view of economics, but that the campaign was making headway. “It is a battle, but what I really appreciate about this group is that they go about things in a thoughtful way, they are willing to hear people from the other side.”

She said she had spoken to Rethinking Economics groups around the world.

“They bring in all kinds of people, not just economists and students but activists and others together, and they look at the same questions in such different ways…I have actually learned a lot from them…It has made me realize that economics is too important to be left to economists.”

Continue Reading…