Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

Climate Groups Sue Over Trump’s Orders to Expand Offshore Drilling

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

Green advocacy groups filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration on Wednesday, marking the first environmental legal challenges against the president’s second administration.

Both focus on the Trump administration’s moves to open up more of US waters to oil and gas drilling, which the plaintiffs say are illegal.

“The Arctic Ocean has been protected from US drilling for nearly a decade, and those protections have been affirmed by the federal courts.”

“Offshore oil drilling is destructive from start to finish,” said Kristen Monsell, the oceans legal director at the conservation organization Center for Biological Diversity. “Opening up more public waters to the oil industry for short-term gain and political points is a reprehensible and irresponsible way to manage our precious ocean ecosystems.”

In the first lawsuit, local and national organizations including the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Louisiana-based Healthy Gulf, and the Northern Alaska Environmental Center took aim at the president’s revocation of Joe Biden-era protections for 265 million acres of federal waters from future fossil fuel leasing. Trump signed an order withdrawing the protections just hours into his second term.

Another related challenge, filed by many of the same groups, calls for a court to reinstate a 2021 decision affirming protections from nearly 130 million acres in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.

“The Arctic Ocean has been protected from US drilling for nearly a decade, and those protections have been affirmed by the federal courts,” said Sierra Weaver, a senior attorney at the organization Defenders of Wildlife, which is a plaintiff in the case. “Though these coastlines have been protected, the administration is showing no restraint in seeking to hand off some of our most fragile and pristine landscapes for the oil industry’s profit.”

The lawsuits will probably be the first of hundreds of environmental lawsuits filed by green groups against the Trump administration. During his first weeks in office, Trump has already rolled back a swath of Biden-era environmental protections while freezing green spending programs—part of his pledge to boost the fossil fuel industry.

Trump says the US must boost fossil fuels—which are responsible for the vast majority of global warming—to meet demand and ensure that the United States remains a global energy leader. The US is currently producing more oil and gas than any other country in history.

The Guardian has contacted the White House for comment about the litigation.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Report: Sepsis, Maternal Deaths Surged in Texas Following Abortion Bans

There’s been ample evidence over the past few years that abortion bans lead to death and major health risks for pregnant people and babies. Now, a groundbreaking analysis by ProPublica shows just how dire the situation has become in Texas since the state implemented a six-week abortion ban in 2021, followed by an even more draconian, near-total ban after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade in 2022.

According to ProPublica, dozens more pregnant and postpartum womenhave died in Texas hospitals since those bans were implemented, compared with maternal deaths in the state immediately before the pandemic. A total of 79 maternal hospital deaths were reported in the state in 2018 and 2019, versus 120 hospital deaths in 2022 and 2023, ProPublica reports. Jonas Swartz, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, told the outlet that the 2022-23 figure was likely “an underestimation of the number of people who died.”

ProPublica notes that not all deaths of pregnant women and new mothers occur in hospitals; the Texas hospital data used in the analysis also don’t provide the causes of women’s deaths.But other data confirms there has been a sharp rise in maternal deaths in the state since the abortion bans. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, for example, shows that the rate of maternal deaths in the state rose 33 percent from 2019 through 2023—making Texas an outlier, given that the national maternal mortality rate decreased by 7.5 percent over the same time frame, ProPublica notes.

ProPublica also found that for women who were hospitalized when they lost their pregnancies in the second trimester, the number of women suffering from sepsis shot upmore than 50 percent—from 147 women in the period before the implementation of the six-week ban, also known as SB8, to 213 women after. Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that can lead to septic shock and is caused by the body’s improper response to an infection. According to the ProPublica analysis, rates of sepsis were found to be particularly high in patients whose fetuses still had detectable cardiac activity when the patient was admitted to the hospital.

ProPublica notes its analysis of sepsis rates is conservative “and likely missed some cases” given that it does not, for example, reflect miscarrying patients who were turned away from emergency rooms.

At the time Texas enacted its six-week abortion ban, in 2021, it was the most restrictive law in the country, allowing private citizens to sue anyone who “aids and abets” an abortion for $10,000. The following year, Texas enacted a post-Dobbs trigger ban that prohibits almost all abortions and threatens anyone providing one with criminal charges and $100,000 fine. While both bills claim to offer exceptions for medical emergencies and life-threatening physical complications, respectively, they have had a chilling effect on doctors who have wound up delaying necessary abortion care to people experiencing pregnancy complications—sometimes, until it’s too late—for fear of breaking the law.

Last year, ProPublica reported on two Texas women—Josseli Barnica andNeveah Crain—who died of sepsis in 2021 and 2023, respectively, after doctors delayed in intervening while they were miscarrying. (The outlet also reported on two women in Georgia, Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller, who died after experiencing rare complications from abortion pills; their deaths could have prevented by a routine procedure—a dilation and curettage, or D&C, which is functionally the same as an abortion—to clear unexpelled fetal tissue from their uteruses, if performed in time.)

Following ProPublica‘s publication of Barnica’s and Crain’s stories, more than 100 Texas doctors sent a letter to state legislators demanding that the near-total banbe amended to reduce the risk of future maternal deaths. Several bills have been introduced in the current legislative session to amend the law.

ProPublica says it conducted its analysis by purchasing and analyzing Texas hospital discharge data from 2017 to 2023. More than a dozen maternal health specialists reviewed the findings and characterized them as more evidence that abortion restrictions lead to poor health outcomes and dangerous delays in care for pregnant people. Many of the experts told ProPublica that the abortion bans were the only reason they could see for the dramatic rise in sepsis rates.

Other recent analyses have also shown the devastating health impacts of abortion bans—in Texas, and beyond.

A paper by the Journal of the American Medical Association, published online last week, analyzed US national vital statistics data from 2012 through 2023 and found that infant mortality rates were 5.6 percent higher in 14 states—including Texas—after they adopted six-week or near-total abortion bans. The researchers found Black infants, those with serious birth defects, and those born in Southern states faced disproportionately larger increases in mortality. (“Texas had a dominant influence on the overall result,” the paper notes.)

Another new analysis—presented at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine conference last month—found that adverse maternal outcomes, and particularly sepsis, increased in Texas following the implementation of SB8. (A link to the full paper was not immediately available.)

So far, abortion opponents have been largely unmoved by evidence suggesting that abortion bans lead to negative health outcomes. Miller’s and Thurman’s deaths were not enough to make Senate Republicans back a resolution to guarantee abortion access to protect a pregnant person’s life, as I wrote last year. Meanwhile, some lawmakers in Texas are trying to restrict abortion even further, introducing legislation to reclassify abortion pills as “controlled substances” and allow Texas women who obtain abortions to be charged with homicide, potentially allowing them to face the death penalty.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Elon Musk Is Trying to Buy the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Not content with spending more than a quarter of a billion dollars to elect Donald Trump and Republican candidates in 2024 and then taking a wrecking ball to the federal government, Elon Musk is now trying to flip the balance of power on the top court in one of the country’s most important swing states.

Building America’s Future,a dark money group backed by Musk, is spending at least $1.6 million in support of Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel, a conservative judge in suburban Milwaukee who is running for an open seat in an April election that will decide whether progressives or conservatives control the court. The group began running ads across the state on Thursday.

“Elon Musk is buying off Brad Schimel,” his opponent, Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, responded. She is backed by Democrats and progressive groups.

To a remarkable degree fo~~r~~ a state supreme court justice hopeful, Schimel is running as a MAGA-aligned candidate who wants to export Trump’s radical agenda to Wisconsin. He attended Trump’s inauguration, welcomed the president’s endorsement, and pledged that “we’re going to nationalize” the race.

Clearly, the stakes are high. Conservatives controlled the Court for fifteen years, helping to entrench an extreme right-wing agenda, but progressives won a majority with Janet Protasiewicz’s victory in April 2023. The progressive majority subsequently struck down the heavily gerrymandered maps that had ensured lopsided GOP legislative majorities for more than a decade. That allowed Democrats to pick up 14 seats in the state legislature in 2024, giving them a chance to retake both chambers in 2026.

The fate of Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban**—a measure that criminalized abortion as manslaughter unless it was to save the life of a mother—**which Schimel supports, and a 2011 law championed by former Republican Governor Scott Walker that eliminated collective bargaining rights for public sector unions are pending before the Court. The justices could also decide the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s congressional map. Republicans have a 6 to 2 advantage despite the closely divided nature of the state, and the decision could help determine the balance of power in the US House of Representatives.

“Elon Musk and Donald Trump want a MAGA Supreme Court to ensure that maps are rigged to lock in power for far-right legislators; to overturn elections when they don’t like the results; and to suppress voters that don’t kiss their ring,”

Musk’s intervention in Wisconsin shows how his oligarchic plans go well beyond Washington. “Elon Musk and Donald Trump want a MAGA Supreme Court to ensure that maps are rigged to lock in power for far-right legislators; to overturn elections when they don’t like the results; and to suppress voters that don’t kiss their ring,” said Wisconsin Democratic Chair Ben Wikler. “Musk’s attempt to buy Wisconsin’s Supreme Court is a red alert that his attack on democracy isn’t limited to gutting the federal government. He wants it all.”

Musk first mentioned the race on X in January, writing that it was “very important to vote Republican for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to prevent voting fraud!” He was referencing a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in July 2024 reinstating mail-in ballot drop boxes, even though there is no evidence that the use of drop boxes has led to voter fraud.

“Elon Musk highlighted a critical issue in this race: election integrity,” Schimel said after Musk’s tweet. “Wisconsin’s voter ID law is under serious threat—Susan Crawford is the attorney who tried to eliminate the law and called it ‘draconian.’ If she wins, can we really expect the law to survive?”

Schimel, as Wisconsin’s attorney general from 2015 to 2019, defended the state’s strict voter ID law in court and claimed it was a key reason why Trump won Wisconsin in 2016. He also sent Department of Justice staff to monitor the polls in heavily Democratic areas in that election, which Democrats viewed as voter intimidation.

“We battled to get voter ID on the ballot for the November ’16 election,” he told conservative radiohost Vicki McKenna in April 2018. “How many of your listeners really honestly are sure that Sen. [Ron] Johnson was going to win reelection, or President Trump was going to win Wisconsin if we didn’t have voter ID to keep Wisconsin’s elections clean and honest and have integrity?”

Though Schimel said the law would “keep Wisconsin’s elections clean and honest,” the state didn’t present a single case of voter impersonation in court that the law would have stopped. But it did prevent tens of thousands of disproportionately Democratic voters from casting a ballot in 2016, as Mother Jones reported.

In a University of Wisconsin study published in September 2017, 1 in 10 registered voters in Milwaukee County and Madison’s Dane County who did not cast a ballot in 2016 cited the voter ID law as a reason why. That meant that up to 23,000 voters in the two heavily Democratic counties—and as many as 45,000 voters statewide—didn’t vote because of the voter ID law. Trump won the state by a little more than 22,000 votes.

Meanwhile, Schimel hasopenly solicited donations from dark money groups, anapproach thatis highly unusual—and some might say unethical—for a judicial candidate who may eventually hear cases from those very interests. “I’m hoping that very soon we’re going to start seeing friends like Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Fair Courts America,other groups like that—that very soon they’re going to get on the airwaves and help take some pressure off,” he said recently, referring to the state’s top business group and another dark money organization linked to conservative billionaire Richard Uihlein, one of the biggest funders of the election denial movement. Shortly thereafter, the Musk-aligned group started running ads in the race while the Uihlein-affiliated PACdisclosed it had spent $1.35 million on TV ads attacking Crawford.

The 2023 race was the most expensive Wisconsin Supreme Court contest ever, topping $56 million, which quadrupled the previous amount. Protasiewicz outraised her GOP-backed opponent Dan Kelly, but conservative groups outspent liberal ones. Kelly was supported by prominent election deniers and funders of the insurrection who wanted to see a MAGA takeover of the court.

After that loss, the anti-democratic forces on the right are redoubling their efforts to take control of state supreme courts all over the country, including waging an unprecedented effort to overturn a Democratic victory on the North Carolina Supreme Court. More than likely, Musk and Trump are just getting started in Wisconsin.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Team Trump Invents Fake “Emergency” to Sidestep Environmental Laws

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

Environmentalists were outraged on Wednesday after the Trump administration moved to fast-track fossil fuel projects through the permitting process, with activists describing it as an attempt to sidestep environmental laws that could harm waterways and wetlands.

In recent days, the US Army Corps of Engineers created a new designation of “emergency” permits for infrastructure projects, citing a Day One executive order signed by Donald Trump which claims the US is facing an “energy emergency” and must “unleash” already booming energy production.

“Agencies are directed to use, to the fullest extent possible and consistent with applicable law, the emergency Army Corps permitting provisions to facilitate the nation’s energy supply,” the order said.

“We don’t understand why a housing development… would qualify as an emergency.”

The move from the Army Corps could allow officials to rubber-stamp 688 pending applications for permits—including more than 100 for pipeline projects and gas-fired power plants—which are necessary for any entity aiming to build infrastructure in navigable US waters or wetlands, or discharge pollutants into them. Environmental reviews could be circumvented, and public comment periods could be skipped over.

“The Trump’s administration’s push for an emergency review of wetland destruction permits is a blatant attempt to sidestep environmental laws and fast-track fossil fuel projects at the expense of our wetland and our communities,” Matt Rota, senior policy director for the Louisiana-based environmental group Healthy Gulf, said on a Wednesday press call. “This emergency proposal will increase climate change, destroy wetlands and leave people even more vulnerable in its wake.”

Reached for comment, Doug Garman, a spokesperson for the US Army Corps of Engineers, said the agency “is in the process of reviewing active permit applications relative to the executive order.”

Despite Trump’s claims that the nation is facing an “energy emergency”—part of a campaign promise to boost planet-heating fossil fuel production—the US is currently extracting more oil and gas than any other country in world history, and levels are still increasing.

“The Trump administration appears to be gearing up to use false claims of an ‘energy emergency’ to fast-track and rubber-stamp federal approvals for projects across the country that will be destructive to America’s wetlands, waterways and communities,” said David Bookbinder, law and policy director at the green non-profit Environmental Integrity Project.

The Army Corps permitting process is meant to examine opportunities to minimize threats infrastructure projects pose to wetlands. Fast-tracking permits through that process could have disastrous impacts for the climate, activists say. Fossil fuels are responsible for the vast majority of global heating, and the wetlands being threatened also play a critical role as an absorber of greenhouse gases.

Because they can slow down waves and absorb rain, wetlands can also protect communities from storms, Rota said. “These wetlands are vital to the survival of coastal Louisiana, as each acre of wetland can absorb a million gallons of water and act as a buffer between communities and the storm surge caused by hurricanes that continue to increase in intensity due to climate change,” he said.

Among the projects that now receiving priority treatment from the Army Corps are oil and gas pipelines set to be built in the wetlands of Louisiana and Texas. Others are related to the controversial Enbridge Line 5 pipeline which crosses Wisconsin and Michigan, and for which developers want to construct a tunnel to bury the pipeline below two of the Great Lakes.

“If approved, this project will risk our fresh water and the millions of people who rely on it for drinking, jobs and tourism in exchange for a foreign oil company’s profits,” said Sean McBrearty, Michigan director of the environmental non-profit Clean Water Action, about the Line 5 proposal on Wednesday’s call.

And though the Army Corps cites Trump’s “energy emergency” order as the impetus for the move, not all of the projects on the “emergency” list relate to energy. One is a gold mine proposed in an Idaho national forest, and another is a plan proposed by the energy giant Chevron to build a housing subdivision on a former oil field.

“We don’t understand why a housing development qualifies either as an energy project, or certainly why it would qualify as an emergency,” said Bookbinder.

The move will likely be subject to court challenges. The Army Corps is permitted to curtail the National Environmental Policy Act—which requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental effects of major projects—in true emergency situations wherein officials have identified an “unacceptable hazard to life, a significant loss of property, or an immediate, unforeseen, and significant economic hardship.”

“We will find out the extent to which that is legal at some point, I’m sure in the not too distant future,” said Bookbinder.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

A Federal Judge Is Weighing Whether to Drop the Case Against Eric Adams

On Wednesday afternoon, New York City Mayor Eric Adams arrived at a federal courthouse in lower Manhattan for what may be the last hearing in his criminal case. US District Judge Dale Ho heard arguments from Adams’ lawyer and deputy US attorney Emil Bove over the Department of Justice’s request that the bribery and fraud charges against Adam be dismissed. The extraordinary development in Adams’ legal case led to the resignations of seven federal prosecutors and escalating calls for the mayor to resign or be removed from office.

Characteristically defiant, Adams seemed unperturbed as he strode into the wood-panelled courtroom. Ho had set the last-minute hearing just yesterday. Bove, the second highest-ranking official in Trump’s Department of Justice, had traveled to New York City to personally defend the motion. Ho, who was nominated to the bench by former President Joe Biden in 2023, acknowledged that his authority to deny the request was narrow and told the parties that he wanted to “proceed carefully.”

After being indicted on charges stemming in part from illegal campaign contributions last September, Adams has insisted that he was unfairly targeted for political reasons. Still, Adams publicly courted President Donald Trump after the November election and has shown a willingness to cooperate with the administration’s sweeping immigration enforcement plans. In his letter ordering prosecutors to drop the charges, Bove made the unusual argument that the case had “unduly restricted” the mayor’s ability to address illegal immigration and violent crime.

In a remarkable move, the acting head of the Manhattan US attorney’s office, Danielle Sassoon, resigned rather than heed orders to dismiss the case, claiming that Adams’ lawyers “repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo” during one meeting. The accusation that the charges are being dropped in exchange for Adams’ cooperation on Trump’s immigration priorities have been widely echoed by the mayor’s critics, including the city’s Public Advocate Jumaane Williams and Comptroller Brad Lander (who is challenging Adams in the mayoral primary). The Department of Justice is requesting that the case be dropped without prejudice, meaning that the charges can be brought again—which has only fueled concerns that the Trump administration could use the threat of prosecution to exert influence over Adams.

Ho, at times deferential to Bove, prodded at the Department of Justice’s reasons for dismissing the case. Bove argued that dismissing the case is “a standard exercise of prosecutorial discretion” and that the judge had a straightforward decision to make.

Bove outlined the arguments made in the Department’s request for dismissal, claiming that the criminal inquiry into Adams amounted to an abuse of the criminal justice system. He said that the legal battle had meaningfully impeded Adams’ ability to make decisions around public safety. Adams’ lawyer, Alex Spiro, said that the mayor’s security clearance had been revoked because of the indictment and had prevented his access to sensitive information about “terroristic threats.”

Bove also argued that the prosecution was influencing the upcoming mayoral primary election, saying that Adams’ presence in court at that very moment amounted to “actual interference” in his ability to both govern and campaign.

At one point, Adams told the judge plainly that he had “not committed a crime.” Under oath, Adams said that he had not made any other agreements with the government in exchange for the dropping of his charges. Later, Bove seemed to refer to this answer when he insisted that the mayor had clearly established that there was no “quid pro quo.”

Ho brought up two amicus briefs that were submitted on Monday—one from three former US attorneys and the other from the watchdog group Common Cause—which argued against the case’s dismissal. Bove called the brief submitted by the former federal prosecutors “partisan noise.” The judge did not seem to come to a conclusion as to whether he would take them into consideration.

Ho did not make a ruling at the end of the hearing, saying that he did not want to “shoot from the hip” but would not allow the proceedings to drag on.

Even if Ho grants the dismissal, it will by no means put an end to the scrutiny on Adams’ relationship with the Trump administration. Yesterday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul met with a series of influential political figures as she weighs using her legal authority to remove the mayor. One of them was Rev. Al Sharpton, who told reporters that the governor would wait for Ho’s ruling on the dismissal.

When Adams left the courthouse, a small but lively group of protesters awaited him. One held a sign that read, “No Trump puppets running NYC.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

RFK Jr., Onetime Environmentalist, Kills NIH Climate Change Programs

In 1999, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., then an environmental lawyer, was named by Time magazine as a “hero of the planet” for his pioneering work to clean up America’s waterways. On February 14 of this year, his second day as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, he ended HHS funding for climate change and health programs at the National Institutes of Health, a move that will likely terminate this work.

That day, Ken Callahan, a senior adviser for policy and implementation in the Immediate Office of the Secretary for HHS, sent an email to Dr. Matthew Memoli, the acting director of NIH, noting that HHS would no longer support three programs run by the agency: the Climate Change and Health Initiative, the Climate Change and Health Research Coordinating Center, and the Climate and Health Scholars Program. In the email, a copy of which was obtained by Mother Jones, Callahan cited Executive Order 14154, titled “Unleashing American Energy,” which President DonaldTrump signed on his first day in office last month to revoke executive orders President Joe Biden had previously issued to implement actions to address climate change.

NIH, Callahan wrote Memoli, “will no longer participate in the…three initiatives unless Congressional [sic] mandate/authorized.” He left open the possibility that NIH could move forward on its own with the scholars program.

The defunded NIH programs do not focus on the causes of climate change, but rather its health effects.

These NIH programs do not focus on the causes of climate change. Instead, they concentrate on research and training to protect people from the health consequences of extreme weather events.

The Climate Change and Health Initiative, according to its website, “aims to stimulate research to reduce health threats from climate change across the lifespan and build health resilience in individuals, communities, and nations around the world, especially among those at highest risk.​” Its annual budget is $40 million.

A recent fact sheet prepared by the program notes that it has funded projects that study the long-term health impacts of wildfires; develop strategies for combating malaria (an increasing threat in the United States as temperatures rise); assess plans for addressing children’s asthma following hurricanes (which cause the spread of mold and mildew, exacerbating the disease); examine how common medications can make older adults more sensitive to heat; research how best to deal with gastrointestinal injury caused by heat-related algae blooms; and explore the the connection between heart health risks and drought. It has also sponsored projects that seek to predict the spread of Lyme disease, reduce the exposure of schoolchildren to wildfire smoke, and use urban planning to make cities more flood resistant.

The Climate Change and Health Research Coordinating Center was set up in 2023 to foster collaboration within the research community to better understand and reduce the health consequences of climate change. The Climate and Health Scholars Program connects climate and health scientists from outside the federal government with NIH researchers.

Callahan, the Kennedy aide who wielded the axe, served as chief of staff to the deputy HHS secretary during the first Trump administration. Prior to that he was a Republican operative, who worked several jobs in the GOP world, including director of political and field operations at the Republican Party of Wisconsin and direct marketing manager at the National Republican Congressional Committee. For the past four years, he has been a principal at the Hargan Group, a healthcare industry consulting firm.

As climate change progresses, research has increasingly pointed to the many health threats it poses. According to a 2022 study, more than half of known human pathogenic diseases can be aggravated by the crisis, including dengue and malaria. As Inside Climate News recently reported:

Climate change already kills Americans every year through rising heat, floods, runaway wildfires, exacerbated air pollution and other impacts. It’s also linked to increased spread of infectious disease, rising risks of chronic illness and heightened pandemic risk. The World Health Organization estimated in 2023 that climate effects will cause an extra 250,000 deaths a year globally between 2030 and 2050.

Such worrisome findings have prompted an increasing number of health researchers to focus on the issue.In its 2024 annual report, the Climate Change and Health Initiative put it this way: “As climate-change related disasters and exposures become more frequent and detrimental to human health, NIH must continue to undertake the research needed to understand and address the health impacts of our changing climate—especially for vulnerable populations in the US and globally.”

In the past weeks, Elon Musk’s crusade to dismantle large chunks of the federal government has targeted climate-change-related programs. The HHS decision to stop funding the NIH programs appear to be in sync with that, and it certainly jibes with Trump’s long-running and baseless denial of the climate crisis. (He has called it a hoax originating in China.) HHS did not respond for a request for comment.

Kennedy pointed out that on the topic of climate change, he and Trump “agree to disagree.”

During one of his confirmation hearings for the HHS position last month, Kennedy pointed out that on the topic of climate change, he and Trump “agree to disagree.” He stated, “I believe climate change is existential. My job is to make Americans healthy again.”

But these are not separate matters. According to the scientific and public health communities, there is a strong connection between these two issues that Kennedy has professed to care about. Yet in his initial hours as HHS secretary, he moved to kill NIH programs that strive to protect the health of Americans from the various threats of a warming globe. In doing so, this former “hero of the planet” failed to live up to both his past passion and his much-ballyhooed mission of the moment.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s Order to Expand IVF Access Does Not Expand IVF Access

On Tuesday, President Trump signed an executive order on in vitro fertilization. Despite the executive order’s claims that it’s “expanding access” to the procedure, it does not actually do that. Instead, the order directs the assistant to the president for domestic policy to submit to Trump, within 90 days, “a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.”

This is far less than Trump’s campaign promise to force the government or private insurers to fund IVF, which one estimate says could cost around $8 billion, based on an average cost of about $20,000 per cycle.

IVF describes a process in which an egg and sperm are combined in a laboratory setting to create an embryo, which is then transferred to a person’s uterus so they can carry the pregnancy. It’s often used for people struggling with infertility, LGBTQ couples, and single parents.

As the executive order notes, IVF is incredibly expensive. While costs vary, the price of a single cycle ranges from $12,000 to $25,000, the White House says. According to RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, a nonprofit organization that advocates for expanding IVF access, only a handful of states require insurance companies to cover IVF and fertility preservation in their plans.

Some reproductive rights advocates are calling the order a meaningless attempt at messaging that does not actually do anything to bring down costs or expand availability.

“Don’t be fooled by Trump and Republicans pretending to care about protecting IVF,” said Mini Timmaraju, CEO of the abortion rights group Reproductive Freedom for All. Timmaraju noted congressional Republicans repeatedly blocked a floor vote last year on a bill that would protect IVF access nationwide, as I covered at the time.

The sponsor of that bill, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), said in a post on X reacting to the executive order news: “Trump’s executive order does nothing to expand access to IVF. But if he’s actually serious about delivering on his campaign promise, he can prove it by calling on Republicans to back my Right to IVF Act. Otherwise, it’s all just lip service from a known liar.” (The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Duckworth’s bill.)

At the same time, anti-abortion advocates are freaking out over Trump’s executive order, with a prominent one alleging Tuesday night, “IVF turns children into a product to be created, sold, and discarded—violating their basic human rights.”

Trump is also, of course, responsible for appointing the three justices to the Supreme Court—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—who created the conservative supermajority that made it possible to overrule Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which directly imperiled IVF access. Dobbs was cited in a decision last year by the Alabama Supreme Court that ruled that frozen embryos—which are often discarded in the IVF process—could be considered children under state law. That decision caused nationwide panic as IVF advocates worried that the Dobbs could be used to enact a broader crackdown on IVF. (The state’s Republican governor, Kay Ivey, subsequently signed legislation into law providing doctors and health care professionals civil and criminal “immunity” for providing IVF services.)

Trump responded by promising he would expand IVF access if elected without providing details on how, exactly, this would work. His order basically continues this tradition of vagueness.

Dr. Jamila Perritt, president and CEO of Physicians for Reproductive Health and an ob/gyn based in DC, said the order “does not seem to have any meaningful impact on access to fertility treatments but the intentionally gendered language throughout this order makes me concerned that this will worsen discrimination regarding who can access resources for family building and, by default, determine who is worthy of care.” (The executive order says the administration wants to “make it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children.”)

Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy at the Guttmacher Institute, also said that the abortion rights organization is “deeply concerned that this administration may attempt to limit IVF access to only straight, married couples or otherwise discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals and single parents.”

The White House did not immediately respond to questions about whether the administration would support measures making IVF more accessible to LGBTQ families—a legitimate question, given that the Trump administration has been doing everything they can to erase transgender people from public life, and given LGBTQ peoples’ frequent reliance on IVF to start families.

Other reactions were more mixed. Sean Tipton, chief advocacy and policy officer for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), said in a statement that the organization was “gratified” to see the executive order, but said the solution is already clear. “There is a fix to this problem: Require health insurance plans to cover IVF for patients who need it,” Tipton said.

But doing that would presumably require an act of Congress (though, as Tipton told me, “in 2025 America, it’s less clear”), and there is no bill that has been currently introduced by any GOP members that would back this.

Tipton pointed to the HOPE with Fertility Service Act, which would require health insurance plans to require appropriate fertility coverage and gained bipartisan support after it was introduced in the House last year, as a piece of model legislation, adding that ASRM hopes it will be reintroduced with bipartisan support in March.

In the meantime, Tipton added, Trump should immediately ensure “that all federal employees, civilian and military, have access to IVF.”

Last September, the Biden administration announced the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program would offer expanded fertility benefits to federal workers and their families, with every state offering at least two plan options for IVF coverage—news that would affect an estimated 8 million people on FEHB plans, according to RESOLVE. But Tipton says that didn’t go far enough, because it did not require every plan to include fertility benefits. “It was good,” Tipton said, “but not nearly as good as what they should’ve done.”

TRICARE, the military health insurance program used by more than 9 million active service members, retirees, and their families, does not cover IVF services (though active duty service members who incur an injury that leads to their infertility may be eligible to access IVF and other fertility benefits at no cost, TRICARE says).

Trump, Tipton said, “can make TRICARE cover it and make every insurance plan available to federal employees include it—he can do that with a stroke of a pen.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Airlines Sue to Avoid Consequences for Breaking Disabled Travelers’ Wheelchairs

Five major airlines—American Airlines, Delta, JetBlue, Southwest, and United—havejoined an airline trade association lawsuit to overturn a Department of Transportation rule that forces airlines to treat wheelchair users and their mobility devices with dignity. The rule, issued last year by then–Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, made mishandling wheelchairs an automatic violation of the federal Air Carrier Access Act. The lawsuit, filed this past week in the Fifth Circuit Courtof Appeals, asserts that the rule is “unlawful.”

Buttigieg worked on the rule with disability advocates including Samantha Jade Duràn when creating the rule. Duràn’s own wheelchair was damaged by an airline in 2017 when it was placed with luggage in the cargo hold.

“My brake was completely broken, to the point where I couldn’t brake at all,” Duràn told me. Duràn couldn’t afford to have the wheelchair repaired, so she used the damaged one for two and a half years—which, she points out, is very dangerous.

Airlines damage or lose thousands of wheelchairs every year. People can stay in their own wheelchairs until they are at the gate, after which they will use an aisle chair for the most part. The number of mobility devices damaged or lost was not even counted until 2018, when Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D–Ill.), a wheelchair user herself, pushed for tracking of those damages and losses to be required in Congress’ annual reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Agency. As my colleague Russ Choma reported at the time, airlines had pushed lawmakers to resist the measure. “When the public gets information on how often assistive devices are broken, it will force them to actually handle wheelchairs better,” Duckworth said.

In addition to the new rule, the Department of Transportation also fined American Airlines $50 million last October for its mistreatment of disabled passengers, including damage to wheelchairs. At the time, Buttigieg said that the “era of tolerating poor treatment of airline passengers with disabilities is over.”

But if the airline industry’s lawsuit succeeds, that era may return sooner than expected. This infuriated Duràn, who called the about-face “beyond aggravating” after seeing how difficult, and slow, the initial progress had been~~.~~

The rule that the airlines are targeting was only finalized in December—and Duràn believes it made all the difference in her treatment on a flight last week. “I was treated with dignity,” she said. “They treated me like a normal human being.”

It is unclear just how the current Department of Transportation will respond to the lawsuit. At a January event with the Century Foundation, Duckworth said that Sean Duffy, the then-incoming Transportation Secretary, had “pledged to support the legislation that was passed that would make air travel more accessible.”

Read the lawsuit below.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Dr. Phil Wants to Sell You Mass Deportations

In the tumultuous swirl of President Donald Trump’s anti-immigration crackdown—which has both succeeded in terrorizing communities across the country and largely failed to detain all those violent criminals supposedly rampant in the United States—an unexpected bit player has emerged: Phil McGraw.

Better known as the TV personality Dr. Phil, who rose to fame on the Oprah Winfrey Show during the ’90s, McGraw appears to have positioned himself as a willing narrator of our dystopian immigration policies. It follows a relatively recent embrace of Trumpism that in less than a year has taken McGraw from 2024 rally speaker to filming ICE raids.

There he was in Chicago last month, tagging along for an Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid with the intimate access to border czar Tom Homan usually reserved for New York Mayor Eric Adams. Amid his documentation,McGraw seemed to employ a cinema vérité style. “Where you from? Where were you born?” McGraw asks in a video posted to Instagram, as officers detain a man they believe is a convicted sex offender. “You ever been deported from the United States?”

At one point during the arrest, the man seems to recognize the absurdity of McGraw’s presence. “You’re Dr. Phil,” he says. McGraw asks the man how he knows him. “You’re on TV,” he replies. It was a collision of valorizing cop propaganda and D-list celebrity. The main reward for McGraw, it seems, is content for his social media.

McGraw partaking in the raid struck many as inappropriate, even confounding. But his ICE embed was one of several highly publicized anti-immigration spectacles to have taken place since Trump’s return to power.

ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight 🔊 pic.twitter.com/O6L1iYt9b4

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 18, 2025

The most absurd saw newly appointed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, one week after the inauguration, in heavily caked-on makeup and earrings, joining ICE officials for a predawn raid in the Bronx. “We’re getting the dirtbags off these streets,” Noem said in a three-second video clip, clad in a bulletproof vest. Then, of course, there’s the perennially camera-ready Adams, who, in between hanging out with Tucker Carlson, has been actively selling out New York’s sanctuary city policies since securing the president’s protection from federal corruption charges.

His aid in doing so? Dr. Phil. As my colleague Isabela Dias reported:

Back in December, McGraw reportedly brokered a friendly meeting between Homan and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, after which, according to Gothamist, the Democrat said he would alter sanctuary city laws to give local authorities more latitude to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement.

Still, a discredited psychologist with barely remaining celebrity clout among a burgeoning landscape of fresh-faced right-wing influencers strikes as an oddity. Is he a patsy? Or, like Adams, does McGraw see something to gain by hitching a wagon to Trump?

As NBC News reports, it’s been less than a year since McGraw launched Merit Street Media, a period of reported struggle for the nascent venture that has seen McGraw taking an increasingly supportive stance of Trump’s immigration policies as the company attempts relevance. So between episodes with titles like “The World’s Biggest Bride Update,” will front-row access to cruelty boost Merit viewership? In this era of tabloid trash as politics, it just might work.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

US Fish and Wildlife Service Has Halted Critical Conservation Funding

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

The US Fish and Wildlife Service, the nation’s only government agency dedicated to conserving plants and animals, has frozen its vast portfolio of international conservation grants, Vox has learned. The agency, which supports wildlife protection in the US and overseas, ordered many of the organizations it funds to stop work related to their grants and cut its communication with them. According to USFWS internal communication shared anonymously with Vox, the agency has frozen grants for international projects that amount to tens of millions of dollars.

The freeze jeopardizes dozens of projects to conserve wildlife around the world, from imperiled sea turtles in Central America to elephants in Africa. Grant programs from the federal government protect species whose habitats straddle borders, and they also benefit Americans, such as by reducing the risk of pathogens like coronaviruses from spilling into human populations.

“I hope that most people care about wildlife, even if I fear they do not.”

On January 20, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for a three-month pause on “foreign development assistance.” The effort suspended funding under the US Agency for International Development, the nation’s humanitarian and development agency, as part of a broader effort to dismantle the agency (which does literal lifesaving work). USAID also funds biodiversity conservation overseas, on the scale of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Some of those funds support grants for international conservation under the US Fish and Wildlife Service, making a pause on its grants somewhat expected. (On February 13, a federal judge temporarily lifted the pause, which should soon allow foreign aid money to flow again. It’s not clear whether this means the service will lift its freeze on grants.)

But the Fish and Wildlife Service funding freeze goes well beyond conservation projects supported by USAID. Numerous other projects are supported directly by Fish and Wildlife and, according to some of their recipients, could not accurately be described as foreign development assistance—and thus shouldn’t be impacted by Trump’s pause. In other words, money should still be flowing to organizations that work to conserve wildlife overseas with support from Fish and Wildlife. Instead, the agency has put all of those projects on ice.

The sudden suspension of Fish and Wildlife grants reveals how government agencies are scrambling to fall in line behind new leadership, often lacking clarity on how to carry out the Trump administration’s orders. Legally, the service may still be able to fund many of its international grantees, though experts I spoke to said the funding falls into a gray area. One Fish and Wildlife employee familiar with the agency’s international efforts said they think agency leadership thought it would appear better if they halted funding for all international projects. The employee spoke with Vox on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak with the press.

The employee told Vox they fear the Trump administration will be hostile towards international conservation efforts. In his first term, President Donald Trump’s administration moved to weaken the Endangered Species Act—the nation’s strongest wildlife protection law, implemented by Fish and Wildlife—and other environmental regulations meant to protect threatened animals and their ecosystems. “I hope that most people care about wildlife, even if I fear they do not,” they told me.

This week, further inflaming concerns about wildlife protections, the Department of Interior laid off more than 2,000 employees as part of broader government job cuts. The Fish and Wildlife Service is part of the Interior Department.

International conservation is a little-known part of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s remit. The agency, which had a budget of about $4 billion in 2024, works to protect some of the world’s most endangered and globally recognized animals including elephants, rhinos, and primates. Many of them live in poor regions of the world that lack funding for conservation, making US government support essential. Animals, such as migratory birds, also move and live across borders, so conserving them requires working internationally.

The grants from Species Funds “are probably the most efficient grant funds we have because they’re so targeted.”

Americans benefit from curbing threats to wildlife overseas, such as deforestation—which, among other things, can make it easier for zoonotic diseases to spill over into human populations. As the world’s largest economy, the US has precipitated the declines of animals abroad. Mining rare earth metals for our smartphones, for example, has helped destroy forests in Africa’s Congo Basin, whereas US carbon emissions fuel global climate change. Scientists say that with more climate warming more species will likely go extinct.

Several nonprofit organizations that receive funding from Fish and Wildlife confirmed with Vox that they received stop-work orders. Any costs associated with their grants would be “temporarily disallowed,” they were told, according to two emails reviewed by Vox. The grants range from under $100,000 to a few million.

In an email from agency leadership, Fish and Wildlife staff were directed on what to say in response to questions from grantees about funding: “The Department of the Interior continues to review funding decisions to be consistent with the President’s Executive Orders. The Department’s ongoing review of funding complies with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and orders.”

Funding from the service supports most of the world’s major conservation groups, such as the Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS). Peyton West, the FZS US executive director, said that money—at least some of which is now on pause—goes a long way. It helps support, among other things, anti-poaching efforts in a game reserve in southern Tanzania that have helped elephant populations rebound. “Less poaching means less illegal wildlife trade and all the illegal activity that goes along with it,” West said.

“The grants from USFWS Species Funds are probably the most efficient grant funds we have because they’re so targeted,” she told Vox. “The goal is to do one thing—protect the world’s most iconic but vulnerable species—and the focus is on the basic core needs to make that happen.”

Several other organizations that receive funding from Fish and Wildlife declined to go on the record, in fear that drawing attention to themselves may put their funding from the federal government at risk. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from Fish and Wildlife, did not respond to a request for comment. The National Audubon Society, which also has grant funding from the service, directed Vox to a February 6 statement from the organization. “Audubon is prepared to work with the new administration, Congress, and our partners to meet the challenges ahead and secure a future where birds and people thrive,” Audubon CEO Elizabeth Gray said in the statement.

The Fish and Wildlife Service spends an almost invisible fraction of taxpayer money, compared to other government efforts. What it does, however, is vital and cannot be overlooked, environmental advocates told me. “There are so many issues with efficiency in our government, but I think it’s fair to say that the USFWS species conservation funds are managed very well in that respect,” West said. “They are also probably the best bang for buck of any of our grants because they focus on critical core activities, they leverage other funding, and they bring law and security into some of the most remote areas in the world.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Cabinet Officials Embrace Far-Right Influencer Who Has Praised Fascists

Last week, the Washington Post sparked a media kerfuffle when it reported that talk-show-host-turned-defense secretary Peter Hegseth had invited MAGA provocateur Jack Posobiec to “participate” in Hegseth’s first overseas trip and that this was “triggering alarm among US defense officials worried about the military being dragged into partisan warfare.”

This article and pieces in other outlets noted that Posobiec was a 2020 election denier and a promoter of conspiracy theories who had championed Pizzagate—the bonkers idea that Democrats were running a Satanic pedophile ring from the basement of a Washington, DC, eatery. They reminded readers that last year at a conservative conference, he had proclaimed, “Welcome to the end of democracy. We are here to overthrow it completely. We didn’t get all the way there on January 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it.”

As it turned out, Posobiec, a podcaster and a senior editor at Human Events, an ultra-right publication, told Politico that he didn’t tag along with Hegseth. Instead, he accepted an invitation from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to travel with him as media to Ukraine for the secretary’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

All of this raises a troubling question: Why are Trump cabinet officials reaching out to a right-wing activist who has associated with white nationalists and who has pushed dangerous and debunked conspiracy theories (one Pizzagate believer showed up armed at the restaurant and fired an AR-15 rifle inside)? Moreover, last year, Posobiec published a book that praised fascist leaders who used violence to suppress their opponents and that demonized modern-day progressives as “unhumans,” claiming these diabolical people are waging an “Irregular Communist Revolution” to annihilate American civilization.

In Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them), Posobiec and his co-author Joshua Lisec, urged a crusade to wipe out these “unhumans.” The book villified them as “people of anti-civilization” who are “ugly liars who hate and kill.” The book was a hyper-othering of political rivals, loaded with rhetoric that could provoke violence. The “unhumans,” Posobiec and Lisec maintained, were behind the Black Lives Matter movement, in charge of academia, and in control of corporations, the media, and even churches. “They just want an excuse to destroy everything,” they wrote. “They want an excuse to destroy you.”

“Our study of history has brought us to this conclusion: Democracy has never worked to protect innocents from the unhumans. It is time to stop playing by rules they won’t.”

Repeating many assertions of the tinfoil-hat crowd, Posobiec, who was part of MAGA’s fraudulent Stop the Steal movement, and Lisec insisted that the riot at the US Capitol was a “lawfare trap” sprung to “destroy” Donald Trump’s followers and “make them an example to any other Republicans who want to get uppity in the future.” They claimed all was calm on Capitol Hill until guards “fired on the peaceful crowd with nonlethal munitions and flash-bangs.” The “insurrection hoax was used to begin a purge of Trump supporters from the military and from public life,” they wrote. In their eyes, the violent rioters, who injured more than 150 law enforcement officers, were “well-meaning patriots.”

With Unhumans, Posobic and Lisec went beyond the usual Tump-land talking points and hailed the efforts of past fascist dictators, while calling for trampling democracy in orderto vanquish their political enemies. To defeat the “unhumans” (liberals, Democrats, and others of that ilk), the pair contended, the right must be vicious and adopt extreme and underhanded measures. “Our study of history,” they wrote, “has brought us to this conclusion: Democracy has never worked to protect innocents from the unhumans. It is time to stop playing by rules they won’t.”

As examples of those who successfully fought against “unhumans,” they cited Francisco Franco, Spain’s fascist tyrant, and Augusto Pinochet, Chile’s fascist despot. These two men each led a murderous and repressive regime that smothered democracy. The Spanish government estimated that 114,000 Spanish civilians disappeared and were presumably killed by Franco’s forces during the Spanish Civil War and his subsequent 36-year-long dictatorship. Pinochet disappeared and killed thousands during and after the military coup he led in 1973 that overthrew a democratic and socialist government.

In their book, Posobiec and Lisec described Franco, who was backed by Nazi Germany, as “a great man of history.” And they justified the brutality and violence of Pinochet’s regime: “The story of tossing communists out of helicopter hails from Pinochet’s elimination of communism during the mid to late 1970s. Wherever Pinochet was, there was no communism.”

In their subtitle, the authors stated their goal was to “crush” the political opposition—a battle they see as being underway today. For them, Franco and Pinochet are excellent examples of winners in the right’s crusade against the “unhumans” of the left.

In the midst of President Trump’s blitzkrieg against the federal government and his political foes, Trump’s most senior officials are embracing Posobiec. But Hegseth and Bessent are not the first Trumpers to do so. Before the book was published last year and before he became Trump’s running-mate, JD Vance gave a thumbs-up to this McCarthyite paranoia by providing a blurb that the duo used to peddle the book:

In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags. Today, they march through HR [Human Resources], college campuses, and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people. In Unhumans_, Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back._

Vance’s recent speech in Munich, in which he was a cheerleader for the AfD, a far-right extremist party with a strong Nazi taint, echoed the sentiments of Posobiec and Lisec’s work.

Other MAGA luminaries have celebrated the book. Steve Bannon wrote a foreword for it. Donald Trump Jr. proclaimed it “teaches us how…to save the West.” Ret. General Michael Flynn, Trump’s disgraced first national security adviser, declared Unhumans “exposes their battle plans and offers a fifth-generation warfare system to fight back and win.” And Tucker Carlson said of Posobiec that he “sees the big picture and isn’t afraid to describe it.”

When Bessent, Hegseth, Vance, or other Trumpers cozy up to Posobiec, they are legitimizing and boosting a purveyor of falsehoods, a denigrator of democracy, and an agitator who has extolled murderous fascist dictators as role models for the right’s fight against Democrats, progressives, and the left. Put simply, they are endorsing a fan of right-wing political violence.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Administration Cuts Off Legal Aid For Youth Facing Deportation

In an email circulated today by the federal Department of the Interior, the Trump administration has issued a stop-work order for organizations providing legal services, funded by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, to unaccompanied minors entering the United States. The order will lead to 25,000 minors losing the legal representation they now have, as well as about a hundred thousand missing out on programs designed to educate them about their rights.

The new order comes little more than a week after the Trump administration rescinded an earlier stop-work order and funding freeze for four programs providing legal services to undocumented immigrants. I previously reported on how this funding freeze was not only an attack on the rights of immigrants, but also on Congress’ “power of the purse”:

Following a flurry of anti-immigrant executive orders by Donald Trump on his first day in office, the Department of Justice sent emails last Wednesday ordering legal service providers in immigration courts to “stop work immediately.” The order was sent to organizations working within four federally funded programs designed to help people navigate the complex immigration court system, through assistance outside the courtroom—like going over legal paperwork and court date requirements—and inside the courtroom, through direct legal representation….

Bettina Rodriguez Schlegel, chief of staff at immigrant rights organization Acacia Center for Justice, said via email that “members of Congress from both sides of the aisle” in both Republican and Democratic administrations “have agreed that these vital programs help individuals better understand their rights and obligations while they are in immigration proceedings.” She adds, “Particularly as the administration announces plans to ramp up detention and enforcement operations around the country, it is more vital than ever that people have access to due process protections, afforded to everyone in the U.S – regardless of immigration status – under the Constitution.”

Lukens sees the recent executive action to defund and ban immigration support as another clear violation of the constitutional “power of the purse,” a key plank of the Constitution which gives Congress power over how federal funds are spent. “The executive branch is obligated to spend funds that have been appropriated,” Lukens says. “That’s just basic constitutional law.” His organization is moving forward with the lawsuit; he hopes for a verdict that will make those obligations even clearer, and prevent future attempts to bar immigrants from receiving legal services.

That lawsuit, which challenges the Trump administration’s previous attempt to usurp Congress’ constitutional power over how federal funds are spent, is still ongoing. And even though those four programs are restored for now, as I wrote in that previous article, there was no reason to believe Trump wouldn’t attempt something similar in the future—as he now looks to have done.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

“I’m Suffering:” Holiday Massacre of Federal Workforce Is a Rude Awakening for Rural Westerners

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

A President’s Day weekend swept by fear and grief from the sudden termination of thousands of federal employees in the US Forest Service and Department of Interior left chaos and uncertainty after the latest assault on the federal workforce by the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

For people on the ground in mountain communities, small towns and rural areas, the cuts were nothing short of devastating. They came with no explanation, warning or discernment, and the impact on public land and wildlife, observers say, will be felt for years.

“It’s pretty hard to fathom,” said Claire Thompson, 35, a trail leader who was fired Friday afternoon after eight years with the US Forest Service. “It feels like they’re punishing the people who least deserve it. We have chosen to stay in careers working for so little money. We are literally the boots on the ground, physically working all day.”

“It feels like they’re punishing the people who least deserve it.”

Jobs cut included park rangers and interpreters, National Environmental Policy Act coordinators, endangered species biologists, trail crews, maintenance staff, and wastewater treatment operators.

Thompson and her partner, who was also fired on Friday, were co-leaders of the Wenatchee River Ranger District’s trail crew east of Seattle, Washington. They and their crew spent six months of each year clearing downed trees from hundreds of miles of trails, helping fight wildfires, coordinating volunteer efforts, and assisting with wildfire prevention work, among many other jobs. The Forest Service also fired the team’s mule packer who brought supplies into the wilderness for trail work, a front-country ranger, an office staff member, the rest of the trail crew and all but one of a team of wilderness rangers, according to Thompson.

Official counts of everyone fired across the country are still hazy, as many were still receiving termination emails over the holiday weekend, but early numbers show at least 3,400 people were fired from the Forest Service and about 2,300 people from the Department of Interior, the agency that oversees the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Most of the employees were “probationary,” which meant they had been in their current positions for less than one year. While some were new employees of their agencies, many others, like Thompson and her trail crew, worked for the federal government for years but had recently been promoted to new positions.

“This is super specialized work, and a lot of it is because of the remote nature of it,” Thompson said. “We’re experienced veteran employees. It’s not something you can hire a random contractor to do.”

“These are dedicated career employees who have worked through several administrations.”

A Western biologist who agreed to speak with High Country News on the condition of anonymity because of fears of retribution, said they made more money in the private sector but saw a dream job in the position as a biologist working with fisheries and riparian ecosystems at the Interior Department.

The biologist worked seasonal gigs in the federal government for 12 years before leaving for the private sector and returning to Interior in a permanent role last summer.

They understand agencies reorganize and cut staff when administrations change, but the biologist said these mass firings were indiscriminate—not targeted or thoughtful reductions. “These are dedicated career employees who have worked through several administrations. I worked through the first Trump administration. We’re not partisan,” they said. “We just put our heads down and do our work.”

And adding insult to injury, everyone HCN talked with received the same email stating that they were being fired for performance issues. The email from Forest Service Human Resources Director Deedra Fogle read, “You have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest.” But each person HCN spoke with who was fired also stated their annual reviews were all positive, and some hope to work with unions and attorneys to challenge the terminations.

President Donald Trump repeatedly distanced himself from the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 while on the campaign trail, but efforts to slash agencies like the BLM are straight from its playbook. Cuts to recreation employees, however, seem contrary to portions of Trump’s first term when he signed the Great American Outdoors Act that increased support and funding for public lands including deferred maintenance in national parks.

The White House announced the “workforce optimization initiative” on February 11 as part of an executive order to be more efficient and save money. But the jobs they cut, Thompson said, aren’t going to save them much. Thompson, never made more than $22 an hour.

In fact, the Park Service alone contributes $55.6 billion to the national economy but spends only one-fifteenth of 1 percent of the federal budget, said Kristen Brengel, senior vice president of the National Parks Conservation Association. And as people gear up for spring break and summers spent outside, they may well find shuttered and understaffed visitor centers, closed campgrounds, overflowing toilets and impassable trails, she said.

Kate White co-lead the wilderness program on the Wenatchee River Ranger District in Washington. The group maintained 30 backcountry toilets and packed out 1,000 piles of improperly disposed human waste each season in the Enchantment Special Use Permit Area in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, one of the busiest and most fragile areas in the state. They also carried out hundreds of pounds of garbage on their backs, educated visitors, helped with search and rescue, and assisted in wildland firefighting.

The cuts expanded beyond trail crews, rangers, and biologists.

Cody Anderson was the NEPA coordinator and wilderness manager in the Wrangell Ranger District in the Tongass National Forest. He made sure projects followed the law and could get done. He said he worked seasonal jobs with the BLM with “above satisfactory” reviews before landing a permanent job with the Forest Service seven months ago. He was fired Thursday along with six other Forest Service employees in the 2,000-person town of Wrangell, Alaska.

“I’m suffering, and I have a bunch of friends who are suffering,” he said. “But at the end of the day, it’s these wilderness areas that will suffer as well.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Across the US, Protesters Rally Against Donald Trump and Elon Musk

On Monday, thousands of protesters across the country hit the streets to tell Donald Trump and Elon Musk “No kings on Presidents’ Day” in response to the barrage of alarming actions—from legally questionable executive orders to mass firings—taken by the administration since the inauguration.

From California to Florida, demonstrators were seen armed with signs that read “Resist fascism” and “Fight for Democracy,” as they marched against Trump’s agenda. Some braved freezing temperatures.

“I thought it was important to be here on Presidents Day to demonstrate for what America stands for,” 55-year-old Emily Manning, an engineer who was one of nearly a thousand protesters in Boston, told the Associated Press. “American values are not the values of the plutocracy or the limited few rich people.”

Many of the protests were organized by the 50501 Movement, a grassroots organization aimed at mobilizing against “the anti-democratic and illegal actions of the Trump administration and its plutocratic allies.” The group started as a decentralized effort born from a Reddit thread of the same name; it organized a similar set of nationwide protests earlier this month.

A demonstrator holds a poster displaying a prohibited traffic sign reading “Musk DOGE” during a rally to protest President Trump’s policies on Presidents Day Monday, Feb. 17, 2025, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Etienne Laurent)

Big crowd at the SF Tesla dealership protesting our unelected overlord. A tiny sign hangs from an upstairs window

Ruth Malone, RN, PhD (@remalone.bsky.social) 2025-02-17T20:31:00.189Z

Shannon Perry, a special education teacher from Centreville, Va., wears a handmaids costume while attending a “No Kings Day” protest on Presidents Day in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Protesters holding a banner and signs march from Union Square to Washington Square Park. (Photo by Ron Adar / SOPA Images/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)

People protest as part of the “No Kings Day” protest on Presidents Day in Washington, in support of federal workers and against recent actions by Trump and Elon Musk, Monday, Feb. 17, 2025, by the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

People take part in the “No Kings Day” protest on Presidents Day in Washington, Monday, Feb. 17, 2025, by the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

February 17, 2025, New York City, New York, United States: Protesters hold a rally and march against U.S. President Donald Trump, the GOP Congress, and ”unelected oligarchs”. (Credit Image: © Michael Nigro/Pacific Press via ZUMA Press Wire)

February 17, 2025, New York City, : Protesters hold a rally and march against U.S. President Donald Trump, the GOP Congress, and ”unelected oligarchs” (Credit Image: © Michael Nigro/Pacific Press via ZUMA Press Wire)

Meanwhile, despite reports of tension, Trump and Musk’s partnership in upending the federal government seems stronger than ever. Last week, the pair sat down for their first joint interview with Fox News‘ Sean Hannity, where Musk compared reactions among Democrats to Trump’s policies to “rabies.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

To Win America, Democrats Must Win the Story

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

Politics is a realm of stories. It is through stories that people understand their lives and the world. All good stories have heroes and villains. Whoever defines the story in a political battle usually triumphs, and the more a story is repeated, the greater the likelihood it prevails. Democrats and citizens who care about preserving American democracy must keep this in mind.

In December 2017, the New York Times reported, “Before taking office, Mr. Trump told top aides to think of each presidential day as an episode in a television show in which he vanquishes rivals.” The first season of Donald Trump’s presidency didn’t always play out that way, as he stumbled along—and then came the midterms, a sound rejection of Trumpism; the pandemic that he mismanaged, with lethal consequences; and the 2020 election that he lost and failed, though he tried, to overturn with his criminal conniving and promotion of violence.

In Season 2, Trump has stuck to the script. To get elected last year, he went full demagogue and mounted an extensive disinformation campaign that demonized immigrants and Democrats even more than he had done before. (“They’re eating the dogs…They’re eating the cats.”) He invented enemies—Venezuelan gangs taking over whole cities in Middle America—and vowed to conquer them. And as president once again, he has set up a series of rivals to best, including Mexico, Canada, Panama, and Colombia—as well as migrants, anything woke, the transgender community, anyone involved in past prosecutions that targeted him and his January 6 brownshirts, and, most of all, the US government.

Define the narrative, win the narrative.

At the center of his blitzkrieg has been the assault led by Elon Musk on the executive branch, with the US Agency for International Development and foreign aid the first targets for vanquishing. How the story of this attack is conveyed to the public will determine how it registers—and that will determine whether Trump, with the help of Musk, will succeed in establishing an autocracy that will crush the common good and benefit an American oligarchy. Are Trump and Musk fighting to remake a bloated, corrupt, inefficient, out-of-control bureaucracy and save American taxpayers money? Or are they waging a battle to undermine the one force that can counter the otherwise unchecked power of wealth and safeguard Americans from corporate abuses that threaten their safety, health, security, and well-being, as well as the environment we all share? Define the narrative, win the narrative.

Trump and Musk might have the advantage at the moment. Theirs is a holy war against waste, fraud, and abuse—against anonymous federal workers who are depicted as lazy and dumb yet underhanded and diabolical. Musk insanely has characterized USAID as a “criminal organization” that is part of a nefarious cabal that uses its funds illegally to support leftists, Democrats, the liberal media, academia, and evil election-riggers. The Trump White House decried USAID for spending $47,000 for a “transgender opera in Colombia.” (It didn’t.) And Trump denounced the agency as being run by left-wing “lunatics.”

For Trump and Musk, USAID has been merely the first and most vulnerable casualty of their war on the inept and capricious feds.

It’s a reckless smear campaign against an agency that spends $23 billion—one-third of 1 percent of the federal budget and far less than Musk’s $101 billion proposed compensation package from Tesla—helping millions of people around the world avoid malaria, obtain clean water and health care, build democracies, and develop better economies. The smearers know that the American public is both skeptical and uninformed about US foreign assistance. Americans tend to believe that 25 percent of the US government’s budget is used for foreign aid, while noting it should probably be 10 percent, far higher than the actual level of spending.

For Trump and Musk, USAID has been merely the first and most vulnerable casualty of their war on the inept and capricious feds—which has spread to an assortment of agencies that do crucial work, including the EPA, the IRS, the FAA, the Department of Eeergy, the Department of Education, the National Instituteas of Health and the Centers for Disease Control. A battle against supposed bloat is how they want Americans to see their crusade, and the media are helping them.

Recently the New York Times published a lengthy account on Musk’s “aggressive incursion into the federal government.” (There were six names on the byline.) “Empowered by President Trump, Mr. Musk is waging a largely unchecked war against the federal bureaucracy,” the newspaper declared. It noted his goal was to “reshape the federal work force.” It quoted Trump publicly praising Musk for being “a big cost-cutter.”

The piece did point out that there are extensive and unprecedented potential conflicts of interest for Musk, given the multitude of financial interests he and his companies have related to the federal government. And it quoted historian Doug Brinkley calling Musk’s efforts “a harbinger of the destruction of our basic institutions.” Overall, though, the article cast what’s transpiring in terms favorable for Musk and Trump. Battling the federal bureaucracy and reshaping the workforce to save money probably sounds good to many Americans. No one really likes a bureaucracy, right? It’s faceless, an abstraction. Think Kafka. Disruptors versus nameless red-tape pushers—that’s a characterization that favors the destroyers.

Musk wants to emasculate, if not eradicate, government and create a libertarian dystopia in which modern-day robber barons like him can romp along however they like.

But Trump and Musk are prosecuting a war on institutions that exist to serve and protect the public interest. (They do sometimes fail, can be hampered by fraud, waste, and political influence exerted by powerful interests, and warrant scrutiny and, frequently, reform.) These agencies and departments establish rules and standards to prevent corporations from despoiling the air and water. They establish safety regulations for the railroad business and other transportation industries. (Air traffic controllers!) They make sure foods, medical devices, and drugs are safe. They research remedies for disease and plan to thwart pandemics. They try to keep workplaces safe. They seek to monitor Big Finance and maintain a stable financial system. They protect consumers from being ripped off. They oversee national security. They strive to bolster cybersecurity. They should be monitoring the rise of artificial intelligence and ensuring it is safely and wisely developed and implemented. And they do much more.

Musk wants to do away with most of this. During a public chat on X with Vivek Ramaswamy and two GOP senators, he expounded, “Regulations, basically, should be default gone. Not default there, default gone. And if it turns out that we missed the mark on a regulation, we can always add it back in.” He said, “These regulations are added willy-nilly all the time. So we’ve just got to do a wholesale, spring cleaning of regulation and get the government off the backs of everyday Americans so people can get things done.” The man who has amplified racist, antisemitic, far-right, and loony social media posts also blathered, “If the government has millions of regulations holding everyone back, well, it’s not freedom. We’ve got to restore freedom.”

His is not just an effort to cut costs and modernize a bureaucracy—an appealing-sounding task. He wants to emasculate, if not eradicate, government and create a libertarian dystopia in which modern-day robber barons like him can romp along however they like, and the rest of us work and live at their mercy.

What’s up for grabs is the foundation of America. We are fighting over what sort of society this country will be.

That was not the story told by the New York Times. In all its thousands of words, the article did not include Musk’s publicly stated wish to eliminate all regulations or explain his desire to empower the powerful and erase any checks on the elites. Remember the awful derailment in 2023 in East Palestine, Ohio, of a train carrying hazardous materials? Republicans, including JD Vance, then a US senator from that state, blasted the Biden administration for failing the good people of East Palestine. Musk wants to weaken the government’s ability to prevent such accidents. Or to prevent E. coli outbreaks in food. Or to track climate change. Or to develop intelligence on national security risks to the United States. Or to pursue criminals. Or to regulate crypto and other financial interests.

In a recent issue of ny Our Land newsletter, I asked whether Democrats realized they were in a war. In the days since, more of them seem to be getting it and displaying the fierceness and fight required to meet this moment. But as they rush—or speed-walk—to the barricades, they need to be as savvy as Trump and Musk and, without the supersized bully pulpits these two demagogic liars possess, figure out how to out-story the forces of fascistic populism and to convey clearly the aims of Trump and Musk and the true nature and stakes of this fight.

Democrats have been forceful in defending USAID. But they should not allow this conflict to become mainly a clash over foreign aid, an easy matter for Musk and the right to exploit. The war goes far beyond that. What’s up for grabs is the foundation of America. We are fighting over what sort of society this country will be. Trump sees this battle as an entertaining TV show in which he can be the valiant hero, with the richest man in the world as his faithful sidekick, combatting a malignant mass of do-nothing, self-serving, out-of-touch unelected functionaries. By pushing this simple plotline, he seeks to turn the United States into an oligarchic empire that he rules. Those who wish to preserve the nation as a somewhat functioning democracy that often (though hardly always) serves the common good and that applies some checks on the influence and actions of the wealthy and powerful have the arduous task of counterprogramming Trump TV with reality, as ugly and messy as it may be. Whoever succeeds in establishing the story will likely write the ending.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

CDC Staffers Describe an Increasingly Chaotic Agency as Layoffs Begin

Late last week, the mood at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta was tense. President Donald Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency had called for a massive reduction in the federal workforce, after having savaged the US Agency for International Development just a few weeks before. But at the CDC, a mammoth agency with about 13,000 employees and an annual budget of nearly $9.7 billion, no one seemed to know exactly what was coming. Senior leaders weren’t sure how to prepare their teams for the immediate future, even as they all knew that at least 1,300 layoffs were imminent.

Over the weekend, Mother Jones spoke to five CDC staffers from several parts of the agency at various levels of seniority. These government workers, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation, described a professional environment that has felt increasingly chaotic since Trump’s inauguration, with leaders scrambling to interpret and comply with broad executive orders that forbade any mention of diversity, equity, and inclusion. “We can’t do the science and the public health work anymore because we’re so consumed with responding to the executive orders or other mandates and censorship,” said one senior leader. “The current buzzwords right now are efficiency and accountability,” she added, “I cannot imagine a less efficient way of operating.” Another noted, “The feeling in the building is fear.”

One senior leader said that her team of supervisors had been given less than 24 hours to submit a list of names of workers in her center to the Department of Health and Human Services that could potentially be laid off. Those names were required to be sorted into categories organized by how critical their work was—but with only 10 percent of their workers were permitted to be categorized as being essential. The supervisors complied because “we were concerned that if we didn’t designate a top 10 percent we would just lose everybody,” she said. After spending hours engaged in the difficult task of sorting the team they learned the following day that none of their suggestions had been accepted. Those who received layoff notices seemed to be chosen at random. “The list made zero difference,” one of the supervisors said. “And we don’t think it even went up to HHS at all.”

“We can’t do the science and the public health work anymore because we’re so consumed with responding to the executive orders or other mandates and censorship.”

Another staffer shared an email that had come from senior management about the layoffs, expressing sadness about the cuts while encouraging employees to “support one another” through this difficult time.

Meanwhile, the more junior employees were left wondering when, or even if, they would receive an email informing them that they were going to be laid off. “We’re all terrified about what’s happening to our colleagues,” said one. In order to share information with one another, they had taken to using group chats on the encrypted communication platform Signal.

When it came to layoffs, rumors were flying. “I’ve gotten a lot of information about this from Reddit, not from CDC leadership, which feels very telling,” said someone who had worked [can we say for years at CDC or something so as not to us so many “staffer” references.] another staffer. The CDC did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones.

Mother Jones obtained a screenshot of a Signal chat in which one employee warned colleagues not to open any email they suspected might be a layoff, because once the email had been read, the recipient would immediately lose access to the “network and campus.” If someone did open the email, they “should respond to it and CC [a] supervisor saying they disagree and are…filing grievance with the action and would like to know the justification.”

Finally, on Friday, the first round of layoffs appeared. But the rollout was disorganized. “I literally found out about [the layoffs] from the news,” one person said. “Like I was getting news alerts on my phone, having family and friends texting me, asking if I still had a job.”

That staffer still has a job, but someone else with whom I talked from the Division of Global Health Protection, does not. At 8:30 p.m. on Saturday, she received an email that she recognized from other reports on Signal as a notice of termination; the subject line was “Read this email immediately.” She had been hired in 2023 through a streamlined process for disabled people, though she had worked as a contractor for CDC for nearly two decades before that. CDC workers hired through that program, called Schedule A, are subject to a two-year probationary period; other employees have only one year of probation. About halfway through her probationary period, she had been told that her work exceeded expectations as part of an evaluation.

When she told her boss that she had received the termination email, the supervisor “was trying to be supportive, but she doesn’t really know what’s going to happen. She said they’re rolling with the punches, but no one’s really fighting back and there’s no firm action to take right now, because we’re at the whims of [President Trump].”

Aside from the implications for their livelihoods and careers, the haphazard nature of the layoffs was concerning to those who spoke to Mother Jones. “We have really highly skilled individuals that have technical specialties that are hard to find and hard to fill,” said one. “The fact that the current administration isn’t making strategic decisions about who to let go and what contracts to end—that is frightening.”

They all expressed dismay about the disruptions the executive orders had caused to their guidance to the public. Shortly after the release of the executive order to cease all work on projects having anything to do with diversity, equity, and inclusion, forbidding even the mere mention of one of those words**,** the CDC paused in publishing its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, its main way of transmitting scientific information to healthcare providers and others. Yet even after the MMWR was restored a week later, staffers said**,** there was widespread confusion about how to interpret the orders. Some of the centers combed through all their public-facing material to scrub any mention of DEI while still keeping much of the other information intact, while others took everything down out of an abundance of caution.

The sudden disruption was especially problematic for the CDC’s partner organizations—thousands of state and local health departments, contractors, and community public health nonprofits that rely on the CDC’s guidance. A screenshot of the platform that one center uses to distribute funding to its partners showed a message saying the site was unavailable due to HHS having “issued a pause” on non-emergency external communications.

Another employee from that same center said that almost all of her meetings with partner organizations had been canceled, leaving her calendar “70 percent empty.” The only external communication that was permitted in her center was answering partners’ technical questions. Someone else noted that her center was no longer allowed to distribute approved funds to partner organizations because the funding packages “had canned language in there about the about not discriminating based on race, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, and all that has to be stripped before they’re able to even touch anything.”

Add to the confused messages about programs and employment was the confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services. His record of anti-vaccine activism, they said, threatened to undermine a key component of their agency’s work: the prevention of infectious diseases. Several noted that they agreed with Kennedy on some points, especially his dedication to combatting the epidemic of chronic disease in the United States. Yet they noted that any investigation of what Kennedy refers to as the “root causes” of disease would be incomplete without factoring in the influence of race, socioeconomic status, and gender on the risk of chronic disease.

And what about the well-documented racial disparities in access to health-enhancing resources such as nutritious food and safe spaces to exercise? “Black and Brown people are far more likely in most parts of the country, to have less access to these environments,” one staffer said. “I fear that in the future you won’t be able to put that in writing.” That inequity, she added, “doesn’t feel like a political statement—there’s data backing this up.”

All of these CDC employees, and now one former employee, emphasized that they believed strongly in the mission of the agency and that they had chosen a career in the government because of their dedication to public health. One person had left a lucrative career in the private sector to work at the CDC; another noted that she had chosen to serve for more than a decade despite the comparatively low pay. “The message that I want to get out there,” another said, is that “public servants are not your enemy.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

America Will Pay Dearly for the NIH’s Mindless War on Wokeness and DEI

One Sunday in January, biologist Mark Peifer, a professor at the University of North Carolina’s medical school, got a call from campus police. Rising temperatures in a malfunctioning cold room at his lab had tripped an alarm. Materials he needed for his work—which has furthered the understanding and treatment of colorectal cancer—were in danger of being compromised.

He was able to get the cold room repaired that same day, and had the funding to do so, so the disruption was minimized. But now Peifer is concerned about the stability of that funding, which comes from the National Institutes of Health. His grants cover equipment and supplies directly related to his research. But the work takes place in shared research buildings and requires other, shared equipment and staff efforts—which is why, for every dollar he gets from the NIH, his institution gets an additional 55 cents in “indirect funding.”

That money is what paid to fix the cold room. It also goes toward his building’s HVAC, electricity, and sanitation, and pays for Peifer’s research assistants and the accountants who keep track of his grants.

“It’s incredible to me that we would give up this thing that has such obvious societal benefits.”

At least, it used to. On February 7, the NIH announced a 15 percent cap on indirect costs—an allowance that previously has averaged about 30 percent across the nation. For UNC, it meant a 40 percent research funding cut. The indirect rate, negotiated between the government and a given institution, is based on local and regional costs and various other factors.

Peifer and other researchers I interviewed say cuts of this magnitude will be devastating. “If my lab closes down, it will mean 10 people no longer have a job,” he says, and these are people “who live in my community, pay rent, go to the grocery store.” If they stand, the reductions will create roadblocks for fledgling scientists, he says, because in many cases undergraduates will “no longer have an opportunity to engage in research.”

“It will end biomedical research in the county. That that’s what it really comes down,” Peifer says, noting that even facilities doing private biomedical and pharmaceutical research depend on public funding and the discoveries that result from it.

On February 10, almost two dozen Democratic state attorneys general sued the Trump administration over the NIH directive, citing “immediate and devastating” effects. A federal judge quickly granted a temporary restraining order covering the 22 states in question.

“A lawsuit like this about grant funding is unusual,” says Don Kettl, a professor emeritus and former dean at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. “But it’s become increasingly common for state attorneys general to join together to challenge policies.”

Kettl argues that the NIH directive, which upends decades of federal science policy, violates federal law: “Assertion of an Executive Branch power to cut or eliminate grants runs right into the teeth of the Impoundment Control Act.”

The directive noted that private funders of biomedical research, such as the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and the Packard Foundation, offer grantee institutions 15 percent or less for indirect costs, and said the federal government should not exceed those rates. But the government is by far the largest funder of such work, and its citizens benefit broadly, economically and in terms of medical innovations, from a thriving, publicly funded research infrastructure.

The NIH has existed for more than a century in the form of national labs and institutes, and to characterize the work it funds as “lifesaving” is not hyperbole, Peifer explains. Although cancer now vies with heart disease as America’s leading cause of death, “we have cancer death rates down 30 percent in the last 30 years,” he says, and “we’ve gotten even better at treating heart disease.”

The NIH cuts are part of a ham-fisted effort by the Trump administration to gut federal spending while rooting out “wokeness.” Capping indirect costs will save the $4 billion, the administration claims, but it’s easy to read between the lines. The NIH announcement cites a Heritage Foundation report titled, “Indirect Costs: How Taxpayers Subsidize University Nonsense,” which asserts that every 1 percent increase in indirect costs leads to two more “DEI employees.”

“The economics…would be dramatically different. New facilities would go unbuilt, private industries would suffer, and scientific support staff would be laid off. “

Indeed, the impetus for the cap may have come from Heritage staffer Lindsey Burke, who, in her chapter of the Project 2025 manifesto, writes that “these [indirect] reimbursements cross-subsidize leftist agendas and the research of billion-dollar organizations such as Google and the Ford Foundation. Universities also use this influx of cash to pay for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts.”

The cost-saving claims don’t hold up, in any case. Every dollar in NIH research grants generates $2.46 in economic activity, research shows—a total of $93 billion in 2023 alone. “It’s incredible to me that we would give up this thing that has such obvious societal benefits,” Peifer says.

The research is a key driver of private sector innovation. The$1.7 trillion US biotech industry was built on a century of government-funded discoveries at universities and research institutes. “Those developments that biotech firms and pharma put into practice come from NIH and NSF research,” Peifer says. And NIH-funded academic and private labs fuel the roughly $57 billion US market for sophisticated scientific tools and equipment.

Peifer lives in North Carolina’s Research Triangle, which is home to Duke, North Carolina State, and UNC-Chapel Hill. Because the area is a biomedical research hub, biotech, pharma, and equipment firms have a strong presence in the area—an estimated 4,000 tech companies and 600 life science companies. “They will be devastated,” Peifer predicts.

Peifer is eager to dispel the myth that slashing NIH funding is merely a matter of concern for academic scientist in their ivory towers. “There are so many working class jobs on the line: millions employed in the support industries,” he says.

Peifer himself was raised in working-class family, he told me. His dad often worked two jobs, including driving a forklift for General Motors. He wouldn’t be where he is today, he says, if not for publicly funded science. “We’re giving kids an opportunity to do something that their parents maybe didn’t have an opportunity to do. Do we really want to throw that away?”

Peifer and Kettl concede that there’s room for differing views on how research funding should be allocated. “There is a legitimate question about just how indirect costs should be calculated, but the costs are never the same between two institutions,” Kettl says. Notes Peifer: “If you want to build a building in Boston, it’s a whole lot more expensive than if you want to build a building in Birmingham, Alabama.”

The problem is that the administration’s blunt-force tactics, Kettle says, amount to “a clumsy effort to cut federal spending” that “is sure to stifle research and undermine the economy, with untold consequences down the line.”

On Wednesday, after nearly two weeks of ignoring two court orders instructing federal agencies to unfreeze any funds they were withholding, NIH officials finally relented. The online news outlet Popular Information reported that an internal NIH memo had authorized staff to resume payments, including indirect funds in excess of the 15 percent cap. The memo confirmed that the NIH had been aware of the court orders. One of its authors, Michael Lauer, has since left the NIH.

The administration is weakening science in other ways, too. On Friday, senior administrators at the NIH and CDC were informed that more than 5,000 probationary employees, those employed for less than two years, are set to be fired as part of widespread reductions across the government. “It’s an irreversible blow to the one of the most important engines of American science and an indication that this is a war to destroy biomedical research,” Peifer said in an e-mail after the news dropped. “I am not sure how I’ll be able to sleep tonight.”

For now, if his cold room breaks, Peifer will follow UNC’s directives and use indirect funds to fix, noting in the work order that he is adhering to previously negotiated agreements. But if the 15 percent cap is allowed to go forward, everything changes.

“The economics of research would be dramatically different,” Kettl says. “New facilities would go unbuilt, private industries would suffer, and scientific support staff would be laid off. “The inevitable result,” he says, “would be less research.”

Already, Peifer’s undergraduates applying to PhD programs can’t be sure those programs will continue to exist in their present state, and post-doctoral students may end up with fewer opportunities to hone their skills. More broadly, research and development into surgical techniques and treatments for cancer and other deadly diseases could slow down significantly.

It won’t be scientists like him who are hurt the most, Peifer says. Rather it will be “the people who could have had a new treatment for a devastating disease and don’t have it.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s Anti-DEI Order Stops Maryland National Guard from Celebrating Frederick Douglass

On the last day of January, the Department of Defense—now run by ex-Fox News host and alleged domestic abuser Pete Hegsethdeclared so-called “identity months,” like Black History Month, “dead” at the DoD. On the very same day, President Trump signed a proclamation affirming that February was Black History Month.

“Basically, what the DOD said is, ‘We’re not doing that, he’s Black and this is February so, no.'”

The DoD guidance says both that “the valor and success of military heroes of all races, genders, and backgrounds” should be celebrated and that the department “will focus on the character of [military members] service instead of their immutable characteristics.”

The consequences of the memo soon became clear.

In early February, the Maryland National Guard announced that it would not participate in an event to honor the life and legacy of famed slavery abolitionist Frederick Douglass, citing the DoD memo. (The White House proclamation mentions Douglass as an example of a pioneering Black America.)

“Since this event is organized as part of a Black History month celebration, the Maryland National Guard cannot support,” says the letter from Maryland National Guard Lt. Col. Meaghan Lazak, which adds that they cannot provide a band, troops, a flyover, or military vehicles for the event.

The letter was posted on Facebook by Tarence Bailey Sr., who identifies himself as a distant relative of Douglass and is one of the organizers of the event. Bailey also told the Washington Post that the Massachusetts National Guard, which participated in the parade last year, bowed out this year, citing the DoD guidance. (He did not immediately respond to a Facebook message on Sunday.)

Bailey told the newspaper that the news prompted the organizers to cancel the parade portion of the event. (It will still include performances, dinner, and awards, according to the website.)

“Basically, what the DOD said is, ‘We’re not doing that, he’s Black and this is February so, no,’” Bailey told the Washington Post. “You’re discrediting everything—all of the work he did for this nation not as a Black man but as an American…They should really be ashamed of themselves.”

Spokespeople for the White House and the Defense Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Sunday.

Douglass was born enslaved in Maryland in 1818, taught himself to read, and escaped slavery to the North at 20 years old. He gave speeches against slavery around the country with the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society and recounted his years spent in slavery in his autobiography, The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, published in 1845. He later helped people on the Underground Railroad; ran his own newspaper, The North Star; published two more autobiographies, titled My Bondage and My Freedom and The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass; and worked in several high-ranking federal positions under five different presidents. He died in 1895, at 77 years old. (His biography is still available on the National Park Service website.)

The incident offers some of the clearest proof of the absurd impacts of the anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion executive orders Trump issued last month, as my colleague Alex Nguyen covered at the time. And with new reporting from the Washington Post published Saturday showing that internal documents from DOGE suggest Trump plans to expand the anti-DEI directives over the next six months, including by firing workers in offices established to ensure equal rights, expect more impacts to come.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

DOGE Worker Says He Was Radicalized by Reading Writer Who Later Denied Holocaust

In a since-deleted Substack post, an engineer working for Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) wrote about his radicalization, noting a key influence was an essay by Ron Unz—an infamous figure who has written about race science; donated money to the white nationalist website VDare, which according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is a hate group; and has been accused by the Anti-Defamation League of “hardcore antisemitism,” including Holocaust denial.

The Substack post, titled “Why I Joined DOGE,” was written by DOGE engineer Gavin Kliger.

Kliger has already been in hot water. He also reportedly reposted white nationalist Nick Fuentes disparaging a Black child on hisnow-private X account. (On the account, Kliger called former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a slur and demanded military tribunals and executions of undocumented migrants who commit crimes, according to Rolling Stone.)

The post was published Friday and was still available online Sunday morning around 9:30 a.m. ET. It was deleted on Sunday. In the post, Kliger credits Unz’s “Our American Pravda“—a 2013 essay published in The American Conservative that railed against what Unz claimed were systemic media failures—with beginning the engineer’s “political awakening.”

Unz writes that he “concluded that the Holocaust was largely, perhaps almost entirely a hoax” and “a ridiculous concoction of wartime propaganda.”

“Reading it was like putting on glasses for the first time,” writes Kliger, whose LinkedIn says he is a senior advisor to the Director for Technology and Delivery at the Office of Personnel Management. “The issue wasn’t just bias—it was that entire narratives, the ones we took for granted as truth, were carefully curated illusions.” (Mother Jones saved a copy of Kliger’s Substack post before it was deleted.)

Unz is a writer, former (failed) gubernatorial and Senate candidate from California, and one-time publisher of The American Conservative. He has crusaded against everything from bilingual education (his 2016 Senate campaign slogan was: “Keep English. Vote Ron Unz!”) to media coverage of the Black Lives Matter movement.

The essay that Kliger cited, “Our American Pravada,” was widely discussed on the right in 2013. It was also part of an eventual wider series—”American Pravada,” published on Unz’s website, The Uniz Review—that includes striking comments denying the Holocaust, questioning 9/11, and engaging in anti-Black racism.

In an email to Mother Jones on Sunday, Kliger said he did not read the later “American Pravada” posts from Unz.

“I specifically referred to this 2013 article from The American Conservative, ‘Our American Pravda.’ Note the ‘Our’,” Kliger wrote. “I have neither referenced or read [the other work in the “‘American Pravada” series].” (The DOGE engineer also noted The Atlantic‘s Conor Friedersdorf recommended the 2013 Unz essay in a blog.)

Kliger did not respond, as of publication, to a follow-up question about whether he finds it worrying that his radicalization was shaped by Unz given the views the writer later espoused about the Holocaust and Black people.

A recurring part of Unz’s “American Pravda” blogs is antisemitism and what the ADL has described as Holocaust denial. In a more than 17,000-word 2018 post, for example, Unz wrote:

Anyone who reads serious history books knows that Jews have generally enjoyed a reputation for producing many of the world’s greatest swindlers and frauds, hardly surprising given their notorious tendency to lie and dissemble.

In another blog, published last January, Unz doubles down, writing that he “concluded that the Holocaust was largely, perhaps almost entirely a hoax” and “a ridiculous concoction of wartime propaganda.”

Unz has also questioned the 9/11 attacks that killed more than 2,900 people and injured thousands more. He boosted conspiracy theories implying that Israeli Mossad agents were behind the attacks. In a 2018 post, Unz writes:

Based on my very recent readings in this topic, the total number of huge flaws in the official 9/11 story has now grown extremely long, probably numbering in the many dozens. Most of these individual items seem reasonably likely and if we decide that even just two or three of them are correct, we must totally reject the official narrative that so many of us have believed for so long.

As we wrote in 2017, Unz has also been a pathway for the alt-right. He has recruited contributors to The Unz Review to write about so-called human biodiversity, which includes posts blaming Black mothers for facing higher rates of maternal mortality and headlines like “Can nations have IQs?”

One regular contributor, John Derbyshire, was fired from the National Review in 2012 after penning a racist column in Taki magazine that urges his children to “avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally,” “stay out of heavily black neighborhoods,” and “before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white,” among other exhortations.

Unz’s characterizations of Black people do not fare much better. In a 2016 article discussing killings by the Ku Klux Klan—in which Unz claims the KKK’s murders are overcovered by media—he paints a picture of the mainstream press as misunderstanding violence in the era of Black Lives Matter. Unz writes:

For example, Trayvon Martin seems to have been a violent young thug and his antagonist, George Zimmerman, a half-Hispanic Dudley-Do-Right, whose main offense was attempting to defend himself while at risk of being beaten to death after he was attacked late at night without provocation in his own community. Similarly, Michael Brown of Ferguson fame was a gigantic, thuggish criminal, who casually committed the strong-arm robbery of a convenience store at night, then suddenly attacked the local police officer who attempted to stop and question him soon afterward.

Spokespeople for the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment about Kliger and Unz.

Kliger’s deleted Substack posts recount a series of events and grievances that he says slowly eroded his faith in government and media: Warped polling that wrongly predicted Clinton would beat Trump in the 2016 election; reportedly violent 2017 protests led by members of antifa at Berkeley, where his LinkedIn says he completed his undergraduate studies in 2020; regulations on firearms; and COVID-era lockdowns and restrictions, including vaccine mandates.

But DOGE, Kliger promises, offers an alternative to the institutions that led to those aforementioned disappointments.

“For the first time in my lifetime, we have a genuine attempt to reform the federal government from within,” he writes of DOGE. “Not another blue-ribbon parade or congressional committee, but a focused effort to streamline bureaucracy, eliminate redundant agencies, and return power to the states.”

Kliger’s post ends with a recruitment attempt: “DOGE needs people with both technical expertise and the backbone to challenge bureaucracy. If you have those skills, don’t sit on the sidelines. Reach out. Apply.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Tiny Texas Reptile Testing the “Drill, Baby, Drill” Agenda

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

While President Donald Trump has caused chaos and confusion in his first few weeks in office, he’s made one thing very clear: His administration will do everything in its power to supercharge oil and gas production.

That agenda is unwelcome news for a small lizard in West Texas.

The dunes sagebrush lizard—a tan, scaly reptile measuring just a few inches long—lives in the Permian Basin, the largest oil producing region in the country. It’s found nowhere else on Earth. The basin stretches across West Texas and southeastern New Mexico and produces, by some estimates, as much as 40 percent of US oil. It’s likely that you’ve traveled in a car or plane using fuel derived from oil in the Permian Basin.

Drilling for oil and gas, and the infrastructure that supports it, harms the dunes sagebrush lizard, according to more than two decades of research. Roads and well pads damage and fragment the reptile’s habitat, as does the process of mining sand for fracking. These activities are threatening to extinguish the lizard, which is now unable to survive across nearly half of its historic range, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, a government agency.

To stave off extinction, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the lizard as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act last spring. The ESA is the nation’s strongest law for protecting wildlife. Under the law, it’s illegal to kill endangered animals and plants (with some exceptions) and the government is required to devise and implement a plan to revive their populations.

Now, however, environmental advocates fear that federal protections for this lizard—which were decades in the making—are at risk. Donald Trump’s agenda for energy dominance has allied his administration with the oil industry, which has long viewed regulations to protect rare animals as a barrier to drilling. Especially when they live in oil country.

That puts this humble lizard in a tough spot. Like several other species, it has become a political wedge used to criticize and dismantle environmental regulations that most Americans support, according to environmental advocates. And over the next four years it will serve as a test—of the ESA, and how far the Trump administration is willing to go to undermine the protections it affords.

To an untrained eye, dunes sagebrush lizards look pretty generic. They’ve got prickly scales, snakelike heads, and long, spindly feet, much like other lizards.

It’s their home—and adaptations to it—that make them so unique. The lizards live in “neighborhoods” within a rare habitat comprising sand dunes and woody shrubs, where they’re known to dive, or swim, under the sand to stay cool. To breed and find food, these animals move between neighborhoods, said Lee Fitzgerald, a researcher and professor at Texas A&M University who’s been studying these lizards for more than 30 years. Oil and gas infrastructure, such as access roads and well pads, disrupts this flow by fragmenting the landscape, Fitzgerald said. “When they’re isolated, they go extinct locally,” he told Vox. Studies dating back to the ’90s have shown that there are fewer lizards where you have a higher density of well pads and more fragmentation.

Trump has instructed agencies to “suspend, revise, or rescind” actions that are “unduly burdensome” to energy exploration and development.

Fitzgerald loves these lizards. They’re an important piece of a rare duneland ecosystem, he said. Other people in Texas oil country, however, see them as a nuisance—as only an impediment to development. A decade ago, when the Fish and Wildlife Service first proposed listing the lizard as endangered, Sen. Ted Cruz claimed that the government was using the lizard to shut down oil and gas production. “You know my view of lizards? They make dern fine boots,” Cruz told the crowd, which laughed and applauded.

And these attitudes have persisted. Shortly after the lizard was listed as endangered, Wayne Christian, commissioner of the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the state’s oil and gas industry, repeated Cruz’s joke, laughing. “This doesn’t have a thing to do with ‘saving lizards.’ It’s about shutting down US oil and gas production to win political brownie points,” Christian said in a statement after the listing.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s a lizard, a chicken, a whale, or a unicorn. Radical environmentalists won’t be satisfied until we all get out [sic] energy from firewood and are living in a cave again.”

Yet protecting the lizard isn’t the barrier to oil drilling that companies would have you believe, Fitzgerald said. The area they live in is small, making up about 4 percent of the Permian Basin. Plus, techniques like horizontal drilling allow companies to extract oil and gas under lizard habitat without disturbing the surface. In fact dozens of oil and gas firms are already enrolled in voluntary plans to conserve the lizard that are approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service. “The habitat is easy to avoid,” Fitzgerald said. “It’s easy to achieve conservation of this lizard.”

The idea that listing it as endangered would upend the oil and gas industry is not rooted in reality, said Jason Rylander, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, an advocacy group that’s been working for decades to conserve the lizard. Instead, Rylander says, conservative leaders in states like Texas are weaponizing the lizard and other endangered species to push a specific narrative: that environmental regulations like the Endangered Species Act are bad for industries like oil and gas and should be made less stringent or dismantled altogether. The lesser prairie chicken, which was listed in 2023, is similarly a thorn in the side of many Republicans lawmakers.

“The lizard is in a position for being used as a rationale that the Endangered Species Act is bad, even though conserving the lizard is relatively easy,” Fitzgerald told me.

Ben Shepperd, president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, a trade group that represents the oil and gas industry, said, “We have no problem working with regulations to protect species.” He disagreed with the suggestion that the Texas oil industry opposes regulations to protect the dunes sagebrush lizard. “We strongly believe that conservation and development can work hand in hand,” he told Vox.

Shepperd did not respond to follow-up questions asking how those comments align with statements by the PBPA that called the proposal to list the lizard an “attack” against “American independence” and the Permian Basin. Shepperd previously said he doesn’t think the lizard is in danger of extinction.

Sand dunes with purple flowers.

Lizard habitat in West Texas. Lee Fitzgerald

Shepperd told Vox the petroleum industry has been at the “forefront of conservation efforts for multiple species,” spending tens of millions of dollars on efforts to improve habitat and “support species throughout the ranges.” Those efforts have significantly improved both the habitat and populations of the dunes sagebrush lizard, he said. He did not respond to a follow-up question asking for evidence of improved habitat and population. A 2020 report from the American Conservation Foundation on voluntary efforts by the oil and gas industry to conserve the lizard says some companies have changed their operations to avoid impacting the animal’s habitat.

President Trump has not made specific comments about the dunes sagebrush lizard (he has degraded other tiny, endangered animals, such as the delta smelt), but he aims to make it easier to exploit important wildlife habitat for oil and gas. On his first day in office, the president signaled that his government may use what he spuriously called a “national energy emergency” to bypass the standard protocols to protect wildlife under the Endangered Species Act.

Trump has also called on each government agency to “suspend, revise, or rescind” actions that are “unduly burdensome” to energy exploration and development. Doug Burgum, Trump’s secretary of the Interior Department — which oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service — has already signed secretarial orders that aim to boost fossil fuel extraction over endangered species protections.

“The lesser prairie chicken and dunes lizard are our test cases,” said Rylander, who is also the legal director of the Center’s Climate Law Institute. “They’re both recently listed species in the oil country, and both have been delayed in their listings for decades, and now they’re finally on the list. What is the Trump administration going to do about that?”

The Endangered Species Act is considered the strongest wildlife law in the US, and among the strongest in the world. And it explicitly prohibits the government from considering economic factors when it determines whether or not a species is endangered.

Yet the protections it affords aren’t bulletproof.

Last fall, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the Interior Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service over the dunes sagebrush lizard. The suit—which asks the court to vacate the endangered listing—alleges, among other things, that the government didn’t rely on the best available data to evaluate the lizard’s extinction risk. To determine that risk, the Fish and Wildlife Service looked at how much healthy habitat the lizard has left, not at the total number of lizards and how it’s changed over time. Making the determination based on habitat availability instead of population size is inadequate, the suit alleges.

Fitzgerald, the nation’s leading expert on the lizard, disagrees. You don’t need to know the exact number of lizards to figure out that they’re in decline, he said, especially because they depend on a very specific type of habitat. The lizard is endangered, he said.

Paxton’s suit also alleges that the federal government did not fully consider existing voluntary agreements by companies to conserve the animal, such as through horizontal drilling. Rylander of the Center for Biological Diversity says that such agreements to protect the lizard population are voluntary, untested, and lack oversight. The Fish and Wildlife Service, meanwhile, asserts that the risk of extinction for the lizard is high even with these efforts in place. “I don’t think the Texas arguments are particularly strong,” Rylander said of the lawsuit.

Paxton’s office did not respond to a request for comment. The Fish and Wildlife Service declined to comment.

There are a few ways this could play out, Rylander said. One is that the district court, where this was filed, rules in favor of Texas and moves to throw out the listing; the proceedings would likely take years and it would be fought by groups like the Center for Biological Diversity. Another is that the Texas judge rules in favor of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the listing stays.

The Fish and Wildlife Service, under the Trump administration, could alternatively try to settle the lawsuit with Texas by agreeing to reconsider its decision to list the lizard as endangered. That could lead to delisting, if the government could somehow prove the species isn’t at risk of extinction. “The Trump administration would have to justify a change of position in a new rulemaking process—which could take a year or more,” Rylander said.

The agency could also simply admit a legal error in making the decision to list the lizard, vacating the listing while it reconsiders the ruling.

It’s likely that the federal government will reconsider the listing, said Gabriel Eckstein, a law professor at Texas A&M University. “They’re going to be pressured to either undo it, reverse it, reconsider—I’m not sure which,” Eckstein said.

Another possible outcome, though more unusual, would involve Congress. Lawmakers could pass a bill that includes a rider to delist the lizard or the prairie chicken. This is how a population of gray wolves in the Rocky Mountains was delisted in 2011: A congressional spending bill included a rider calling on Idaho and Montana to delist the gray wolf.

Andrew Bowman, the president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, a nonprofit advocacy group, said that he anticipates such legislative riders as one tool used in the broader threats to wildlife in the next few years. Bowman also fears a more wholesale dismantling of the Fish and Wildlife Service that would have far greater impacts on wildlife in the US. “It takes a lot of money and time to do listings, to do recovery plans, to designate critical habitat,” he said. “Will they just find a way to hollow out the agency so that the law basically becomes ineffective?”

How Trump and his agencies ultimately approach this small lizard, if at all, will reveal how far his agencies will go to undermine the Endangered Species Act. Will this reptile be sacrificed in the name of Trump’s energy dominance agenda—opening other endangered species to threats—or will the letter and spirit of the law, as it exists now, prevail? In all likelihood, this reptile will remain the subject of litigation for years to come, all the while inching closer and closer to extinction.

“The lizard is a phenomenal example of the way that politics affects endangered species protection,” Rylander said. “The intent of Congress and the Act to list species based solely on the best scientific and commercial evidence available is continually thwarted by political and policy decisions across administrations.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Is Gutting Efforts to Combat Foreign Election Interference

The Trump Administration is gutting the federal agency in charge of combatting foreign election interference, increasing the likelihood that foreign actors could successfully meddle in US elections.

Bridget Bean, the acting director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, announced on Friday in a memo obtained by WIRED that she was ordering “a review and assessment” of all positions at the agency focused on election security and countering disinformation and misinformation. Bean, a former Trump official at FEMA, said that CISA would “pause all elections security activities” until the review is completed in early March.

The administration has already placed 17 staffers at CISA who work with local election officials to prevent cyber-attacks and other forms of foreign and domestic election interference on administrative leave. Separately, Attorney General Pam Bondi disbanded an FBI task force charged with combatting foreign election interference by the likes of Russia, China and other countries.

Taken together, election security experts warn these moves will put US elections dangerously at risk of foreign interference.

“Every cut made to our election security and foreign malign influence operations is like handing a gift on a silver platter to our foreign adversaries such as Russia, China and Iran,” Kathy Boockvar, the former secretary of state for Pennsylvania and co-chair of the Elections Committee of the National Association of Secretaries of State during the 2020 election, told NPR this week. “It directly strengthens their ability to invade our national security and interfere in our elections, leaving every American citizen more vulnerable.”

CISA coordinates cybersecurity efforts across the US government and helps election administrators secure voting machines from hackers and prevent other threats to US elections while countering the increasing spread of disinformation and misinformation from foreign and domestic actors. In December, it revealed that Chinese hackers were targeting US telecom records and trying to steal information from high-ranking politicians and government officials.

Kentucky Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams told the Associated Press recently that the agency’s work with local election officials was particularly important. “The most value that we’ve got from CISA has been the people that they have on the ground in our state that build direct relationships, not just with us but with the individual county clerks,” he said. “They’re teaching them and helping them check their physical security and their cyber hygiene, and that’s been extremely popular.”

After Russian actors interfered in the 2016 election, Congress passed a bipartisan bill creating CISA in 2018, designating election security as critical infrastructure. Trump signed it despite calling evidence of Russian interference in the election “a hoax.” But he turned on the agency after it combatted his false claims about widespread fraud in the 2020 election. He fired CISA’s first director, Chris Krebs, after he called the 2020 election “the most secure in American history.”

House Republicans subsequently accused CISA of being “the nerve center of the federal government’s domestic surveillance and censorship operations on social media.” The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 report called for gutting the agency, a blueprint the administration appears to be following.

The effort to dismantle the federal government’s role in combatting foreign election interference comes at a time when such threats are increasing. Foreign adversaries are “more active now than they ever have been” in election interference and disinformation efforts, Jen Easterly, CISA’s director under the Biden Administration, warned in advance of the 2024 election.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

How a Black Utopia For Formerly Enslaved People Became a Wealthy White Enclave

The mostly white residents that call Skidaway Island, Georgia home today consider it a paradise: waterfront views, live oaks and marsh grass alongside golf courses, swimming pools, and other amenities.

Rewind to 1865: The island was a thriving Black community, where freedmen farmed, created a system of government, and turned former cotton plantations into a Black American success story. It began when the government gave them land under Field Order No. 15, also known as the 40 acres program. But it wouldn’t last.

Within two years, the government had taken that land back from the freedmen and returned it to the former enslavers.

Over a two-and-a-half-year investigation, journalists at the Center for Public Integrity unearthed records that prove that dozens of freed people had, and lost, titles to tracts at what’s now The Landings. Today, 40 acres in The Landings development are worth at least $20 million.

“You could feel chills to know that they had it and then they just pulled the rug from under them, so to speak,” said Linda Brown, one of the few Black residents at The Landings.

This week on Reveal, with the Center for Public Integrity and in honor of Black History Month, we also show a descendant her ancestor’s title for a plot of land that is now becoming another exclusive gated community. And we look at how buried documents like these Reconstruction-era land titles are part of the long game toward reparations.

🎧 Listen in the player above, or follow Reveal on your favorite podcast app:Apple Podcasts | Spotify | iHeartRadio | Pandora

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Democrats Have a Plan to Counter Trump at the State Level

At a time when Republicans control all levers of power in Washington and national Democrats are struggling to respond to Donald Trump’s increasingly extreme agenda, Democrats at the state legislative level are targeting ten states in an effort to resist Trump and protect key rights and freedoms.

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) announced this week that its top targets for the 2025-2026 election cycle include defending its one-seat majorities in the state Houses of Virginia and Pennsylvania, and both chambers of the legislature in Alaska, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

“Five of our battleground chambers were each decided in the last election cycle by a single seat, directly impacting the lives of 40 million Americans,” the DLCC wrote in a recent strategy memo. “Majorities in many states will likely come down to just a few districts and hundreds of votes.”

Democrats are also hoping to chip away at GOP state legislative majorities in Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire, and North Carolina.

Such races are often overlooked at the national level, but state legislatures have a tremendous amount of power to decide weighty matters on the economy, healthcare, voting laws, abortion rights, gun control, and much more. The complete absence of Democratic power in Washington magnifies the importance of the states; Democratic attorneys general, for example, are leading the way on challenging Trump’s king-like assertion of executive power on issues like immigration and cuts to federal funding.

“As Trump throws one chaos bomb after another, there’s never been a more important time to watch what’s happening in the states,” DLCC President Heather Williams said in a press call on Friday. “State legislatures are the only ballot level with the power to fight back against Project 2025 and the Republicans’ takeover of Washington. This is also the only place where Democrats are in majorities and can pass any kind of proactive agenda.”

Democratic state legislative candidates outperformed the party’s dismal performance at the top of the ticket in 2024. Though Trump won 312 Electoral College votes, Republicans gained only 57 seats out of the roughly 6,000 races on the ballot across the country, according to an analysis by Bolts. While Democrats lost control of legislative chambers in Michigan and Minnesota, they held closely contested chambers like the Pennsylvania House and picked up 14 seats in the Wisconsin legislature after previously gerrymandered maps were struck down, rare bright spots for the party in swing states Trump won.

Still, following the 2024 election, Republicans have one-party control of 23 states compared to 15 for Democrats. Democrats want to not only pick up seats in 2026, but continue making gains through 2030, when new redistricting maps will be drawn following the decennial census.

The unpopularity of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris no doubt hurt Democrats down-ballot in 2024. In 2026, Democrats could benefit from an anti-Trump backlash at the polls, like they did during the first midterm election under Trump in 2018, when the party flipped more than 300 state legislative seats. Some of Trump’s initial actions in his second term, like a freeze on federal grants that states rely on, could be a particularly salient issue for voters. At the same time, local candidates may be better positioned to emphasize bread-and-butter issues like the cost of living that the national party too often ignored in 2024.

“I think by and large Democrats are focused on affordability,” said DLCC political director Jeremy Jansen. “One of the clear lessons learned from the electorate in 2024 is that affordability is a big issue right now. Democrats are doing what they can at the state level to impact the lives of everyday folks and help address issues of affordability and economic opportunity.”

The Republican advantage at the state level had a major impact on the balance of power in Washington. Republicans in North Carolina drew an aggressive gerrymander of U.S House districts in advance of the 2024 election, which allowed the GOP to pick up three new House seats—just enough to maintain control of the chamber and ensure one-party rule in DC, removing any checks and balances to Trump in Congress.

As Williams put it, “The future of the country hinges on the balance of power in the states.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Israel’s Destruction of Gaza Has Created an Environmental Nightmare

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

The natural environment took an unprecedented pounding during the war in Gaza. And as the territory’s inhabitants have returned home since the ceasefire, the extent of the environmental devastation is becoming clear, raising crucial questions about how to reconstruct Gaza in the face of severe and potentially irreversible damage to the environment.

The war has knocked out water supplies and disabled sewage treatment facilities, causing raw effluent to flow across the land, polluting the Mediterranean and underground water reserves essential for irrigating crops. More than two-thirds of Gaza’s farmland, including wells and greenhouses, has been damaged or destroyed by bombardment and military earthworks.

Detailed satellite images taken since the ceasefire began on January 19 show 80 percent of Gaza’s trees lost. In addition, vital wetlands, sand dunes, coastal waters, and the only significant river, the Wadi Gaza, have all suffered extensively. The UN Environment Programme warns that the stripping of trees, shrubs, and crops has so badly damaged the soils of the once-fertile, biodiverse, and well-watered territory that it faces long-term desertification.

Nature is the “silent victim of Israel’s war on Gaza,” says Saeed Bagheri, a lecturer in international law at the University of Reading in the U.K.

Scientist Ahmed Hilles, head of the National Institute for Environment and Development, a leading Palestinian think tank, last week called for an international fact-finding committee “to assess the damage and lay the basis for environmental restoration and long-term recovery.” He said it should “prioritize the rehabilitation of water sources, soil remediation, and the restoration of agricultural lands.”

The Palestinian territory of Gaza extends for 24 miles along the shore of the eastern Mediterranean. Though small, it is a biodiversity hotspot where wildlife from Europe, the Middle East, and Africa meet. It has boasted more than 250 bird species and 100 mammal species, from wild cats and wolves to mongooses and mole rats, according to research conducted over the past two decades by the foremost expert on the territory’s fauna and flora, Abdel Fattah Abd Rabou of the Islamic University of Gaza in Gaza City.

Both wildlife and the human population have been sustained by its abundant underground water reserves. “The shallow sand wells provided an ample supply of the sweet life-giving water,” says Mark Zeitoun, director general of the Geneva Water Hub, which advocates for peace through diplomacy on water. This water, overlain by fertile soils, was why so many Palestinians fled to Gaza after being expelled from their homes by militias following the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

But Gaza’s population has since soared to more than 2 million inhabitants, making it one of the most densely populated places on Earth—it vies with Singapore, but without the high-rises. That has put immense pressure on the underground water. Extraction prior to the war was more than three times greater than recharge from rainfall and seepage from the Wadi Gaza, which had dwindled due to dams upstream in Israel.

As water tables fall, salty seawater has infiltrated the aquifer. By 2023, more than 97 percent of Gaza’s once-sweet underground water was unfit for drinking, according to the World Health Organization. Increasingly, well water has been restricted to irrigating crops. Public water supplies have come largely from seawater desalination plants built with international aid, augmented by water delivered from Israel through three cross-border pipelines.

The UN estimates the war has left more than 40 million tons of rubble that includes human remains, asbestos, and unexploded ordnance.

But since the start of the war on October 7, 2023, public supplies have dramatically diminished. Last October, the Palestine Water Authority reported that 85 percent of water facilities were at least partially out of action. Output from water-supply wells had fallen by more than a half, and desalination plants lacked power, while Israel had reduced deliveries down the pipelines.

A survey found that only 14 percent of households still relied on public supplies. Most were taking water from potentially contaminated open wells or unregulated private tankers. In September, Pedro Arrojo-Agudo, the UN special rapporteur on human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, charged that limiting access to clean water “is clearly employed as a weapon in Gaza against [the] Palestinian civil population.”

Israel denies this. “The IDF does not aim to inflict excessive damage to civilian infrastructure,” an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) spokesperson said, “and strikes exclusively on the grounds of military necessity and in strict accordance with international law.” It cites cases where it says Hamas has stored weapons and launched attacks from such water infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the fate of the once-abundant underground water—the lifeline for both human and natural life—hangs by a thread. With most wells currently out of use for irrigated agriculture, withdrawals from the aquifer may have been reduced. But the war has increased contamination of what water remains.

The threats are various. UNEP warns that Israeli efforts to use seawater to flood the estimated 300 miles of underground tunnels Hamas has dug beneath Gaza could be contaminating the groundwaters beneath. (The IDF has said on social media that it “takes into consideration the soil and water systems in the area” before flooding tunnels.) Meanwhile, sewage treatment has all but ceased, with facilities either destroyed by military action or disabled by lack of power. Even the solar panels installed at some treatment works have reportedly been destroyed.

Raw sewage and wastewater spills across the land and into water courses or the Mediterranean—up to 3.5 million cubic feet every day, according to UNEP. The porous soils in most of Gaza mean sewage discharged onto the land readily seeps into underground water reserves. “The crisis threatens long-term environmental damage as contaminants seep into groundwater,” says the UN Development Programme (UNDP).

The marine environment is also choking in sewage. In 2022 Israeli environmentalist Gidon Bromberg, who heads EcoPeace Middle East, a transnational NGO, persuaded Israeli security authorities to allow Gaza to import cement to build new three sewage treatment plants along the shoreline. The work was completed, and the following summer both Palestinians and Israelis could, for the first time in many years, swim safely from their respective Mediterranean beaches without encountering Gaza’s raw sewage. Fish returned and a Mediterranean monk seal was recorded for the first time ever off Gaza. But by the start of 2024, a few months after the war began, the plants were all out of action and satellite images showed plumes of sewage spewing into the sea.

The destruction of the built environment in Gaza is also a threat to the natural environment. UN agencies estimate the war has created more than 40 million tons of rubble, containing human remains, asbestos and other hazardous materials, and unexploded ordnance. Meanwhile, the collapse of waste collection services has resulted in a proliferation of makeshift dumps—141, according to a UNDP count in October—while open-air waste burning regularly sends black smoke and hazardous pollutants through densely populated areas.

Some international lawyers argue that Israel is guilty of war crimes against the natural environment in Gaza as much as against its people. The Geneva Convention prohibits warfare that may cause “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” All three terms provoke debate about their precise meaning. The IDF said its actions are proportionate and are justified by military needs and within international law. But Bagheri said, “The destruction of the natural environment in Gaza is now very well documented. It is not collateral or incidental, but deliberate.”

Before the conflict, cultivation covered more than a third of Gaza. But by September, the UN Food and Agriculture Organizaton assessed that two-thirds of farmland had been badly damaged. Analyses of satellite imagery by Forensic Architecture, an interdisciplinary group of researchers at Goldsmiths’ College, part of the University of London, dedicated to exposing “state and corporate violence,” found that more than 2,000 farms, greenhouses, and other agricultural sites had been destroyed, “often to be replaced with Israeli military earthworks.”

The IDF said it “does not intentionally harm agricultural land and seeks to mitigate environmental impact,” but that “Hamas often operates from within orchards, fields, and agricultural land”. Yet there are growing concerns that the damage—in particular from the removal of trees—could prove permanent.

Tree loss has been examined in detail by He Yin, a geographer who heads the remote sensing and land science laboratory at Kent State University. He shared with Yale Environment 360 his latest assessment of satellite images.

Before the war, trees covered around a third of the cultivated area, he says. By late September, 67 percent of them had been damaged. But by January 21, two days after the ceasefire came into effect, that figure had risen to 80 percent, with losses exceeding 90 percent in northern Gaza. Prior to the conflict there were some natural trees, says Yin. “But I would say they are pretty much all gone now.”

There are two likely causes of tree loss: displaced residents cutting down trees for firewood, and the Israeli military bombarding and uprooting trees to eliminate cover for Hamas fighters and clear security buffer zones around the edge of Gaza.

With most farms covering less than two acres, “the loss of a single tree can be devastating” for farmers’ future fruit harvests, says Yin. But the environmental implications of tree loss could also prove permanent and devastating for future generations. UNEP says that uprooting by military equipment “has moved, mixed and thinned the topsoil cover over large areas.” This, it says, “will impact future cultivation [and] make the land vulnerable to desertification.”

All this is bad news not just for people, but for wildlife. The space for nature to flourish in Gaza is very limited. Still, long-term research by Abd Rabou found that, despite human population pressures, some species have revived in recent years. After the abandonment of a series of Israeli settlements in the territory in 2005, “dozens of Arabian wolf [sic] and other carnivores crept intermittently through gaps in the border to the east of the Gaza Strip.”

Yin’s images of the area reveal an almost total loss of trees since May, sometimes replaced by bombardment craters.

Animals dug burrows beneath Israel’s security fences to reach domestic livestock and poultry, as well as small prey living in waste dumps and sewage treatment plants.

But there are natural attractions for wildlife too. The Wadi Gaza, which bisects the territory, is an important stopover for migrating water birds, including herons, storks, flamingos, and raptors, as well as home to the Palestine sunbird, the territory’s national bird. The wadi’s attraction continues even though it has suffered badly in recent decades from both upstream water diversions and sewage discharged from refugee camps.

Still, in 2000, the Palestinian Authority made the wadi the territory’s only nature reserve, and in 2022, work began on a $50 million UN project to reduce pollution and restore its ecology.

The start of the war halted that work. And over the past 15 months, the wadi has again become a running sewer and dumping ground. “Top of my concerns for Wadi Gaza are pollution from debris, wastewater, corpses, ammunition, and explosives,” says Nada Majdalani, the Palestine director of EcoPeace Middle East.

Another ill-fated Gazan ecological treasure is Al-Mawasi, a narrow fertile strip of sand dunes near the border with Egypt. Once, Al-Mawasi was thinly populated and rich in wildlife attracted by miniature wetlands that form amid the dunes where the underground water surfaces. Abd Rabou has recorded 135 bird species there, including many Palestine sunbirds, as well as 14 species of mammals and 20 of reptiles.

But early in the war, the IDF designated Al-Mawasi a “safe zone” for people fleeing its bombardment of nearby towns. Hundreds of thousands sought shelter amid the dunes. Then, last July, the IDF began bombing the enclave, in pursuit of Hamas fighters. This redoubled the damage to the fragile ecosystem. Yin’s images of the area reveal an almost total loss of trees since May, sometimes replaced by bombardment craters.

Currently, most information about the state of Gaza’s natural environment comes from such remote sensing imagery. Detailed ground observations are rare. It has been unsafe, and even with a ceasefire, NGOs have other priorities. Meanwhile, academic life has been shattered by the war. Much of the Islamic University of Gaza, including Abd Rabou’s biology department, was destroyed in the first days of the conflict.

With or without a restored campus, it may be a while before peer-reviewed literature on the state of nature in Gaza resumes. When I contacted Abd Rabou by email in January to discuss his work, he sent a swift reply. “Now I am not able to communicate at all,” he wrote, “because five of my children were lost during the Israeli war on Gaza and my house was completely destroyed.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

National Archives Head Resigns as Trump Takes Control of Records

The acting head of the National Archives announced his resignation on Friday, paving the way for Donald Trump to continue his takeover of the government’s records and the agency that serves as custodian of the nation’s history.

Deputy Archivist William Bosanko informed staff in an email Friday that he will step down on Tuesday. Bosanko, who has worked at the agency since 1993, has been the acting head of the National Archives and Records Administration for just a week, after Trump fired Archivist of the United States Colleen Shogan.

Under federal law, a president can fire the archivist but must also “communicate the reasons for any such removal to each House of the Congress.” Trump did not do that. Over a week ago, the Trump White House moved to make Secretary of State Marco Rubio the acting archivist, despite standing law that the deputy archivist assumes those responsibilities if the position is vacant.

Bosanko’s exit is part of a Trump putsch at the agency, which was deeply involved in the case of the top-secret documents Trump removed from the White House when he left office in 2021. According to two sources familiar with the situation, Bosanko was pushed out by Jim Byron, a 31-year old who was recently president of the Richard Nixon Foundation. Byron delivered Bosanko an ultimatum: Resign now or be fired next week.

Reached by phone Friday evening, Byron declined to comment.

Byron has been working out of the Archives’ offices as a political appointee representing the White House. Byron has often described himself as a mentee of Hugh Hewitt, an ardent pro-Trump commentator who preceded Bryon as head of the Nixon Foundation and who now sits on its board. (The Nixon Foundation and the Archives have occasionally been in conflict with each other, which often happens with presidential foundations and the government agency that oversees presidential libraries, according to an Archives source.)

Speculation at the Archives regarding the next head archivist has focused on Hewitt and two other candidates: John Solomon, a far-right journalist known for reporting and promoting false claims about Joe Biden’s connections to Ukraine in 2019, and Ezra Cohen-Watnick, a former senior director of intelligence at the National Security Council in the early days of the Trump administration, who was hired by then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn (before Flynn was fired) and later ousted by H.R. McMaster, Flynn’s successor.

Trump clashed with the National Archives after leaving office in 2021 with a slew of government documents, many highly classified. Trump refused efforts by the Archives to retrieve the material, prompting the Justice Department to subpoena for the missing documents. Trump allegedly then had staffers at his Mar-a-Lago residence hide boxes of classified documents from FBI investigators. And he allegedly ordered an aide to delete security camera footage of boxes being moved in a bid to hide evidence from a grand jury. Trump was also charged with violating the Espionage Act by showing classified material to visitors who lacked security clearances.

Trump, who has maintained without evidence that he declassified all the material he removed from the White House, avoided trial after Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, threw out the case based on the claim that Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges, had not been properly appointed.

This makes the Archives a target for the revenge-a-thon Trump’s administration is mounting.

Under federal law, the chief archivist must “be appointed without regard to political affiliations and solely on the basis of the professional qualifications required to perform the duties and responsibilities of the office.” Trump, though, may have other qualifications in mind. With the archivist appointment, he not only will be able to extract payback; he will be able to control the government agency that helps shape American history.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Administration Moves to Protect Businesses Accused of Anti-Trans Discrimination

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has begun filing motions to dismiss court cases the agency brought against businesses accused of discriminating against transgender and nonbinary employees.

Federal court records show the EEOC filed to dismiss four cases related to gender identity late this week. Multiple EEOC workers, who spoke to Mother Jones on the condition of anonymity, say agency staff have been instructed not to investigate current or future complaints regarding gender identity.

There are at least seven EEOC cases about gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination pending in the federal court system. The EEOC received more than 3,000 charges alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in fiscal year 2023, the most recent year for which data is available.

On Friday, the EEOC asked a judge in the Western District of New York to dismiss a case in which a claimant said they were described as an “it” and called a “transformer” by their manager at a Holiday Inn Express. The employee reported the alleged harassment, but were told by hotel management they weren’t a “good fit” for the housekeeping role, and subsequently received notice that their employment was terminated, the original complaint said. The motion to dismiss indicates “recent Administration policy changes” as reasoning.

The EEOC also sought dismissal on Friday of a lawsuit in which a group of transgender Wendy’s employees claimed they were on the receiving end of “pervasive sexual harassment including repeatedly subjecting the transgender employees to misgendering, graphic sexual comments, unequal access to bathrooms, intrusive questions, and degrading conduct based on gender identity.” Subsequently, some of the transgender employees reported seeing their hours reduced or were terminated.

In a third case—regarding a Lush cosmetics store manager allegedly telling a transgender employee he wanted to have sex with a trans person, and texting a nonbinary employee about sexual acts—the EEOC filed a stipulation to dismiss on Friday. Lush had failed to adequately investigate the harassment, the original EEOC complaint said, causing at least two employees to quit.

On Thursday, the EEOC asked a judge in Alabama to dismiss a discrimination case in which a nonbinary individual alleged they were fired from a Home2 Suites hotelfor not conforming to male gender stereotypes. After seeing the employee with pink nail polish and capri pants, a manager wanted the employee “hidden” due to their appearance, the complaint said. Shortly after, the employee was terminated. The motion cites President Donald Trump’s executive order on “Gender Ideology Extremism” as a basis.

A remaining case, in which a motion to dismiss has not yet been filed, regards a transgender employee at a Culver’s restaurant in Michigan who alleged he was purposely misgendered, dead-named, and asked whether he had undergone gender-reassignment surgery. After the employee reported the harassment, he was fired.

While in alignment with President Donald Trump’s executive order on “gender ideology extremism,” the motions to dismiss are at odds with a recent Supreme Court decision authored by Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee. In the 2020 case, Bostock v. Clayton County, a 6-3 majority concluded that firing an employee based on their sexuality or gender identity was a violation of existing sex-based discrimination protections in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“If someone says, ‘I’m not going to hire you because you’re gay,’ or ‘I’m not going to hire you because you’re a transgender individual’—that’s unlawful now and the Supreme Court held it,” says Brian Wolfman, a Georgetown University Law Center professor who won a sex-based employment discrimination case in front of the Supreme Court last year.

But even if a court eventually overrules Trump’s executive order on “gender ideology,” the individuals who filed EEOC complaints based on claims related to their gender identity may not be able to seek future recourse: Dismissals with prejudice are final judgements. Theoretically, a judge could refuse to grant the motions to dismiss, or personal attorneys for the plaintiffs may be able to intervene and represent clients in the EEOC’s absence. But the former scenario isn’t regularly seen, and the latter is likely unfeasible for vulnerable claimants who lack funds to hire private counsel.

“To go through with what was likely a multi-year investigation, and then to finally feel safe that the EEOC is going to file the case, and vindicate your rights, and then to just get the rug pulled out of you—it’s fucking awful,” says an EEOC staffer who asked to remain anonymous to avoid career repercussions.

The motions to dismiss follow earlier instructions from the commission, now led by Trump-appointed Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, to pause investigations into new and existing complaints based on charges of discrimination involvingsexual orientation and gender identity.

Employees are scared of what the administration will change next at EEOC. “As a federal employee, this has definitely caused me a lot of sleepless nights,” one EEOC staffer says. “I wake up every morning, and think, ‘What the fuck is it gonna be today?'”

“We’re here trying to help people who have been discriminated against and disadvantaged,” affirms another EEOC employee. The new administration’s guidance to dismiss litigations based on a claimant’s transgender status “is discriminatory and directly violates the agency’s core mission.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s White Nationalist Agenda, Explained

The Trump administration doesn’t have a policy plan for America, but it does have an ideology: white nationalism.

That’s what’s driving the barrage of executive orders, shutdowns, and freezes currently wreaking havoc in America. Mother Jones video correspondent Garrison Hayes explains why it’s important to know the difference between white supremacy and white nationalism.

For years, Trump has surrounded himself with right wing ideologues like Stephen Miller, whose penchant for citing white nationalist websites in policy discussion was uncovered during Trump’s first term. Now, America is seeing the impact of the belief in a zero-sum game. “For one group to win, others must lose,” Hayes concludes in an interview with Eric K. Ward, executive vice president of Race Forward, a racial justice non-profit.

“This administration has no solution,”Ward explains. “In the meantime, what they seek to do is distract us,” Ward explains.

Follow @garrisonh and Mother Jones for more coverage on the rise of white nationalism in America.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Kash Patel Failed to Disclose Companies Involved in a Million-Dollar Land Deal

Kash Patel, President Donald Trump’s pick to head the FBI, failed to divulge an important set of corporate ties on the financial disclosure form and questionnaire he was required to fill out as part of his Senate confirmation process.

These connections involve a land purchase he made in Virginia with a friend through a chain of limited liability corporations in which Patel held an interest. Patel’s filings acknowledge his ownership of the property, but the lack of disclosure of these LLCs obscures the partnership he formed when acquiring this undeveloped lot.

Here’s what happened. On November 1, 2021, Patel registered a company called Skeleton Coast in Nevada. That same day another LLC named Dons of Marbury was created in Nevada, with two officers—Patel’s Skeleton Coast and a Virginia-based firm, NextGen Building & Management LLC.

NextGen Building is a real estate development company founded by realtor Jordan Shahin, a friend of Patel who plays with him on an ice hockey team called the Dons that competes in a Washington, DC, league. According to a recent Washington Examiner article on Patel’s hockey hobby, Shahin has “grown close” to Patel in recent years.

Patel and Shahin registered two other LLCs in Nevada on November 1, 2021, according to Nevada state business records: Monarchs of Marbury LLC and Marbury Empires LLC. For each company, two officers were listed: Patel’s Skeleton Coast and Shahin’s NextGen Building.

Several months later, on March 7, 2022, Marbury Empires purchased a 3.64-acre vacant lot in Chantilly, Virginia, for $550,000, according to Loudon County property records. The land abuts a development named Marbury Estates. A year earlier it had been listed for sale for $850,000, according to Zillow. (The sellers were two companies, Bethany LLC and 931 Bonnie Brae LLC. Their owners are not publicly known.)

Eight months after Marbury Empires LLC bought this property, Patel and Shahin changed the officers of this company, removing Skeleton Coast and NextGen Building and replacing them with the Dons of Marbury LLC as the sole officer. This placed a layer of corporate ownership between the companies for which Patel and Shahin were publicly identified as officers and the LLC that purchased the Virginia property.

In April 2023, the undeveloped lot, still owned by Marbury Empires LLC, was listed for sale for $1,095,000—about twice what Patel and Shahin had paid for it. Two months later, it was taken off the market. This past October it was again listed for sale, this time for $1.8 million. As of Friday, the listing remained active.

On the questionnaire that Patel filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee, he disclosed he was a managing member of Skeleton Coast and noted that his equity interest in this LLC was $773,357. He did not disclose his interest in Dons of Marbury, Monarchs of Marbury, or Marbury Empires.

On his financial disclosure form, he likewise recorded his position as an officer of Skeleton Coast, but on this document he said the LLC had no value (contradicting his Senate questionnaire). He did report on this form that he owned undeveloped land in Chantilly worth between $500,001 and $1 million dollars. He did not disclose his ties to any of the Marbury LLCs.

The financial disclosure form Patel filled out required him to report “all positions as an officer, director, trustee, general partner, proprietor, representative, employee, or consultant.” And the Senate questionnaire instructed him to list all “corporations, companies, or other enterprises [and] partnerships…with which you have been affiliated as an officer, director, partner, proprietor, or employee since graduation from college.” Patel appears to have had a controlling or significant interest in the LLC that purchased the Chantilly land through two other LLCs he set up, yet he did not disclose two of these three firms.

Because the rules for financial disclosures can provide wiggle room, it’s unclear if Patel violated any in not revealing the LLCs that he and Shahin used to purchase this land. But for a national security position, it’s important that all significant financial relationships be revealed. And Patel kept these interactions hidden.

Patel and a spokesperson for Patel did not respond to queries about this land deal and the LLCs he did not disclose. Shahin did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

The missing LLCs are not the only problem with Patel’s disclosures. Investigative journalist Roger Sollenberger revealed this week that Patel had failed to acknowledge his financial ties to two companies connected to a specialist in off-shore banking. And Patel did not file his financial disclosure statement until two days after the Senate Judiciary Committee held his confirmation hearing. That meant senators at this session could not ask him about any of the questions his disclosures (or lack thereof) have raised. This includes questions abouta payment from a Kremlin-linked source, Patel’s stake in a Chinese manufacturing firm, and money he received for “consulting” work for Qatar that he has not publicly explained.

On Thursday—after Republicans on the committee voted to approve his nomination and send it to the Senate floor—Senate Democrats sent Patel a list of queries. Several referred to unresolved matters related to his disclosures. One concerned the story first reported by Mother Jones that Patel received $25,000 from a Ukrainian-Russian-American filmmaker who has worked for a propaganda operation funded by Vladimir Putin. None of the questions related to Patel’s partnership with Shahin and the LLCs he did not mention.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Another Lead Prosecutor in Eric Adams’ Corruption Case Resigned. Read His Stunning Letter.

On Friday, Hagan Scotten became the seventh federal prosecutor assigned to New York Mayor Eric Adams’ corruption case to resign, after he refused the Justice Department’s order to dismiss the case.

“I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion,” Scotten wrote in a fiery, letter obtained by the New York Times. “But it was never going to be me.”

Scotten’s departure follows similar acts of extraordinary defiance this week after six senior Justice Department officials refused to comply with Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove’s demand to dismiss the case. That included US Attorney Danielle Sassoon, who wrote an eight-page letter that significantly questioned the government’s standing. Together, the resignations marked the most high-profile repudiation of President Donald Trump’s influence over the Justice Department.

In September 2024, after months of reports of suspicious luxury travel to Turkey, Adams was charged with bribery, wire fraud, conspiracy, and soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals. And for a moment, the indictment appeared to be the end of Adams’ political career. But since the November election, Adams has brazenly cozied up to Trump, who, in turn, publicly signaled that he was considering a pardon for the embattled mayor.

The kowtowing has only continued. On Thursday, after meeting US Border Czar Tom Homan, the New York mayor promised to reopen Rikers Island’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement office.

So will Adams’ case ever secure a prosecutor willing to do the Justice Department’s bidding? According to Reuters, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove pressured the remaining prosecutors to decide amongst themselves who would sign the motion during a meeting on Friday.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

“Elon Musk Is a Walking Conflict of Interest”

_This story was originally published on the author’s substack, Field Notes with Alexander C Kaufman, to which you can subscribe here.

Elon Musk is serving as President Donald Trump’s hatchetman, slashing government spending as part of the administration’s efforts to end federal support for everything from dying babies in warzones and Americans displaced by disasters to US schools and startups working to slash energy bills for rural farmers and grocers.

As the world’s richest man pitches himself as the savior of the American taxpayer, the companies he runs are raking in more federal dollars.

This past Sunday, Tesla finalized a deal to sell 430 megawatts of batteries to Genera, the private company that now operates Puerto Rico’s power plants, for $767 million. The contract, first brokered in October before the election, will be “fully financed with federal funds,” according to a press release.

On Monday, SpaceX netted another $7.5 million supplemental contract with NASA, bringing the total value of that particular deal with Musk’s private rocket firm to $38 million. That’s on top of the more than $4 billion NASA is already paying SpaceX.

“Over and over again, he’s just involved in governmental actions that directly and substantially impact his own financial wellbeing.”

Appearing on television alongside the president in the Oval Office on Tuesday, a defiant Musk dismissed concerns over any conflicts of interest, insisting he had little to do with contracts brokered by the companies where he serves as chief executive.

“You have to look at the individual contract,” Musk told reporters. “First of all, I’m not filing the contract. It’s people at SpaceX…and I like to say if you see any contract where it was awarded to SpaceX and it wasn’t by far the best value for the taxpayer, let me know—because every one of them was.”

On Thursday, the State Department backed away from plans to spend $400 million on armored Tesla vehicles, after the proposal was revealed on social media and reported by the New York Times. The procurement forecast did not specify which Tesla model would be purchased, but the Times speculated the stainless-steel Cybertruck “would be the most suitable vehicle,” despite questions about its safety.

All seven of Musk’s companies—which include X (formerly Twitter), xAI (a rival to OpenAI), Neuralink (a brain implant startup), Starlink (satellite internet service) and the Boring Company (a tunnel drilling firm), in addition to Tesla and SpaceX—have netted a combined $20 billion in US government contracts and subsidies, according to the Financial Times.

“Elon Musk is a walking conflict of interest,” Craig Holman, the government affairs lobbyist at the consumer watchdog Public Citizen, told me by phone on Thursday. “Over and over again, he’s just involved in governmental actions that directly and substantially impact his own financial wellbeing.”

The federal code known as 18 USC 208 “prohibits an executive branch employee from participating personally and substantially in a particular Government matter that will affect his own financial interests, as well as the financial interests of certain individuals with whom he has ties outside the Government,” according to the US Office of Government Ethics.

In theory, that “should” apply to Musk, Holman said. But Trump can easily issue a waiver exempting Musk from complying with the rules as a so-called special government employee.

Lawmakers have considered tightening federal ethics rules on special government employees in the past, but those were “not serious efforts,” Holman said.

“We haven’t seen this type of abuse until now,” he said.

Continue Reading…