Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

Inside Alabama’s Threats to Prosecute Abortion Helpers

In August 2022, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall made a guest appearance on a local conservative talk radio show. It was two months after the US Supreme Court had overturned R_oe v. Wade_, and abortion was now illegal in Alabama. And Marshall addressed rumors that he planned to prosecute anyone helping people get abortions out of state.

“If someone was promoting themselves out as a funder of abortion out of state,” Marshall explained to the host, “then that is potentially criminally actionable for us.”

This particular threat launched an epic legal battle with implications for some of the most basic American rights: the right to travel, the right to free speech, the right to give and receive help.

This week on Reveal, reporter Nina Martin spends time with abortion rights groups in Alabama, following how they’ve adapted to one of the nation’s strictest anti-abortion policies—and evolved their definition of help.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Purslane Sex and the City

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

Steps from a public bathroom, across a narrow street from a home goods store in Tokyo, Japan, a tangle of delicate reddish stems fringed with rubbery emerald leaves pokes from a crack in the pavement. Smaller than a discarded Big Mac box, the plant sprawls close to the ground, appearing entirely unremarkable. Put more plainly: Common purslane looks like a weed.

Purslane is so inconspicuous that when Tomohiro Fujita, a biologist at Japan’s National Institute for Environmental Studies in Ibaraki, started studying it in August 2021, he had trouble picking it out in the bustling cityscape. “There were several times when I walked around Tokyo for an entire day without finding a single individual,” he wrote by email. But once he learned to recognize the plant, he found it in all kinds of places. Growing in a lush, tree-ringed quad outside a cafeteria at Rikkyo University, for instance. Or eking out a modest living near a city bus lot not far from Sugamo Station.

Common purslane, known to scientists as Portulaca oleracea, is not just big in Japan. By some counts, it’s the eighth most widely distributed plant in the world. As happy growing in gardens as along roads or parking lots, it has been documented everywhere from Mexico City to Tanzania’s Serengeti National Park to Midway Atoll in the North Pacific Ocean.

“Plants that depend on pollinators to reproduce have to evolve in a very short time to survive.”

No one seems to agree on where purslane got its start—scientists have speculated that it came from India, North Africa, or Australia—but it’s moved around the world for millennia. It came to the Americas well before Columbus; Indigenous people in present-day Ontario were harvesting the plant as early as 1350. In some places, the plant probably hitched a ride with migrating animals or oblivious humans; in others, it traveled first class, brought along for its many medicinal and culinary uses.

Fujita and his colleagues’ recent study helps explain how common purslane continues to find purchase in our increasingly anthropogenic world. Fujita collected seeds from purslane plants at 10 urban sites in Tokyo—including the one near the public bathroom—and from rice paddies and fields at 10 sites outside the city. After growing those seeds into mature plants in a greenhouse, he observed something surprising: the purslane grown from urban seeds was much less likely to open its flowers and bloom than the rural plants. Or, as Fujita and his co-authors poetically phrased it, “the flower does not open in the city.”

Although plants have multiple ways to do the deed, flowers are the decorative boudoirs where fertilization happens. Some common purslane individuals cross-pollinate by swapping pollen with each other. On hot, sunny days, these plants explode with small yellow flowers that open just long enough to let insects carry pollen between plants. Other purslane plants, however, self-pollinate by fertilizing within their own tightly curled buds, which never unfurl to become flowers.

Flowering is so ephemeral that Fujita didn’t spot purslane with open flowers at any of the collection sites either in Tokyo or outside the city. But his team observed the plants’ offspring as they flowered in the greenhouse. While environmental conditions trigger or suppress flowering in most species, a purslane plant’s specific genes dictate whether it opens its flowers for pollination or takes care of business itself. And Fujita found that the vast majority of urban plant offspring—95 percent—never flowered, compared with roughly 76 percent of individuals from rural areas.

The fact that so many more plants in Tokyo carry the genes for closed flowers shows that the urban population is evolving to almost exclusively self-pollinate, Fujita says. Closed buds take less energy to grow, mature earlier than open flowers, and produce bigger seeds, which often develop into seedlings with larger root systems for reaching scant moisture. In dryer, hotter urban environments that tend to have fewer pollinators, these benefits may help purslane survive.

With some 70 percent of the Earth’s surface now altered by human development, the study offers a peek into one way that plants are adapting to urbanization. In a 2022 review, Fernanda Bered, a geneticist at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre, Brazil, found that, globally, urban plant communities are less diverse than those in surrounding areas and tend to feature more introduced and hardy species.

Bered and her coauthors also identified other ways plants respond to urbanization. City plants often grow faster, flower earlier and longer, and make smaller seeds than their rural counterparts. Some plants respond to industrialized environments by growing more slowly in soils laden with heavy metals. And plants exposed to polluted air produce less chlorophyll A, a key pigment for absorbing light, meaning they make less energy and oxygen.

Purslane isn’t the only urban plant turning to solo reproduction. In industrial sites near the port of Antwerp, Belgium, where pollinating hoverflies are rare, common centaury (Centaurium erythraea) produce smaller flowers that are more likely to self-pollinate. In Osaka, Japan, Asiatic dayflowers (Commelina communis) in more urban areas grow reproductive parts that are physically closer together, making self-pollination easier. Bered points out that such strategies give plants a leg up in places where fragmented habitat has made nearby cross-pollinating plants scarce, or where there’s a shortage of pollinators.

“It’s difficult for pollinators like birds, bats, and insects to live in the cities,” Bered says. “Plants that depend on pollinators to reproduce have to evolve in a very short time to survive.”

But “selfing,” as it’s called, can have drawbacks, too. Populations that self-pollinate for generations will likely have less genetic diversity than plants that cross-pollinate, Fujita explains. And lower genetic diversity could make it harder for future generations of urban purslane to weather stressors, particularly as cities become warmer.

For now, though, common purslane is doing just fine: The succulent thrives in full sun and warm temperatures, and its waxy leaves retain precious moisture in paved-over spots like near that Tokyo bathroom. In cities around the world, the plant is winding its way along the cracks between sidewalk pavers, reaching for water and soaking up sun.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s Killing of Energy Star Program Will Cost Families a Bundle

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

The federal Energy Star program is among the most successful government initiatives in modern history. Its signature blue label is now nearly as recognizable as the Nike swoosh or a Coca-Cola can, and appliances bearing it save American consumers some $40 billion annually in energy costs, or about $350 for every taxpayer dollar that goes in.

This week, however, President Donald Trump’s administration moved to kill it, the Washington Post first reported. Grist also reviewed a US EPA document obtained by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that shows the program is slated to be “eliminated.”

“Energy Star has saved American families and businesses more than half a trillion dollars in energy costs,” said Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the ranking member of the committee, in a statement. “By eliminating this program, [Trump] will force Americans to buy appliances that cost more to run and waste more energy.”

“It’s an odd thing that you would jettison a voluntary public-private partnership that costs a rounding error in EPA’s budget and affords consumers billions of dollars of value.”

Launched in 1992, during George H.W. Bush’s presidency, Energy Star sets efficiency specifications for products ranging from dishwashers to entire homes. Those standards are beyond government-mandated minimums, and Energy Star’s website says the goal is to provide “simple, credible, and unbiased information” people can use to make better decisions.

While Energy Star certification is voluntary, most major manufacturers participate. According to the government, around 9 in 10 households recognize the Energy Star label. Depending on the year, as many as 80 percent say the label “very much” or “somewhat” influenced their purchases. Overall, consumers have bought more than 300 million appliances with the Energy Star label and the program has cumulatively helped avoid 4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

“Energy Star remains one of our most effective bipartisan tools for ensuring energy reliability, affordability, and American competitiveness,” said Paula Glover, president of the nonprofit coalition Alliance to Save Energy. She noted the broader economic impact of the program as well, including creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing, retail, real estate, and energy services industries. “Shutting it down is a risk to those jobs.”

For years, though, Trump has complained about efficiency benchmarks for appliances. Lower-flow showerheads, he said, make showers “five times longer.” LED light bulbs make him look orange. People are flushing efficient toilets ”10 times, 15 times” and, with dishwashers, “the electric bill is 10 times more than the water.” These claims are, by and large, inaccurate.

Veracity aside, Trump’s efforts play into a larger culture war against appliance standards—one that the White House has continued to aggressively wage since his second term began.

In February, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced it was delaying efficiency regulation of appliances ranging from central air conditioners and freezers to washing machines and dryers. In March, it said it was withdrawing four efficiency standards that the Biden administration had proposed and was pushing back the implementation date of others. Last month, Trump issued an executive order titled, in all caps, “MAINTAINING ACCEPTABLE WATER PRESSURE IN SHOWERHEADS.”

The Energy Star rollback would likely be the most visible attack yet on appliance efficiency, and it even has manufacturers worried. Last month, more than 1,000 companies, cities, and groups wrote a letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin urging him to support the program.

“This would be a very big deal,” said the representative of one manufacturer, who asked not to be named given the sensitivity of the potential closure. Energy Star, they explained, helps companies market and move higher volumes of high-efficiency products. “It’s an odd thing that you would jettison a voluntary public-private partnership that costs a rounding error in EPA’s budget and affords consumers billions of dollars of value.”

Beyond eliminating staff, the EPA’s exact plans and timeline for any Energy Star rollback remain unclear. The agency did not respond directly to questions about the program’s future but in an emailed statement told Grist the “EPA is delivering organizational improvements to the personnel structure that will directly benefit the American people.”

Losing Energy Star could have a range of ripple effects. In addition to making selecting products more confusing for consumers, it could hinder people’s ability to qualify for federal, state, or utility incentives that are tied to the certification. There is, for example, a federal tax incentive for building Energy Star homes. Appliance rebates are also often linked to the designation.

“How are those programs now going to know which kinds of appliances they want to give a rebate to or a tax incentive for?” asked Glover. States or utilities could conceivably fill that void with their own standards, creating a patchwork of regulation and incentives. “Having Energy Star that gives a federal standard makes far more sense. It’s certainly easier for consumers to understand what their options are.”

These are among the many details that would have to be worked out if the Trump administration proceeds with its plan.

“I don’t think they expected this kind of pushback,” said Steve Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, about the media attention that the latest change has garnered. “This is getting a lot of publicity.”

The move could also face legal challenges, he said, pointing to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as one possible roadblock for the administration. It directs the EPA and DOE to, among other things, “promote Energy Star-compliant technologies as the preferred technologies in the marketplace” and “preserve the integrity of the Energy Star label.”

Another possibility is that the DOE takes over as Energy Star’s primary administrator. But as with other aspects of the president’s ambitious agenda, it could take time to sort out real-world impact.

If Energy Star is ultimately eliminated, Nadel said the labels would eventually go away—as would potentially billions in consumer savings. But, he added, “Nothing is done yet.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s DOJ Stripped Lifeline Legal Services From the Most Vulnerable Detained Immigrants

On April 3, a Justice Department contracting officer sent the Acacia Center for Justice a “notice of termination for convenience.” The email instructed the nonprofit to discontinue several federally funded programs described as“no longer needed.” Among them was the little-knownNational Qualified Representative Program (NQRP),which appoints government-paid counsel to detained immigrants deemed unfit to represent themselves in court due to serious mental health needs or cognitive disabilities.

The termination notice put the organization and its dozens of legal partners on high alert. As the federal government’s main contractor for this $35-million program since 2022, the Acacia Center for Justice has relied on federal dollars to refer anywhere between 300 to 400cases a year to a network of about 35 direct services providers that includes other nonprofits, small private law firms, and solo practitioners.

The following day, the Washington, DC-based group received another letter, this one rescinding the previous order “until further notice.” As they tried to make sense of the confounding messages, within the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review—charged with managing the US immigration courts system— agency officials were discussing how to reduce the scope of the NQRP and “end representation funded by EOIR,” according to internal emails obtained through litigation. The downsizing, they anticipated, should “allow for representatives to withdraw” from ongoing cases and “facilitate finding other representation.”

The planned defunding wasthe latest in a series of cuts by the Trump administration to legal aid forimmigrants. In practice, it would all but eliminate the only available mechanism for immigration courts to designate counsel to people with mental health needs in detention centers across the United States.

Finally,on April 25, the Justice Department dealt the final blow, notifying the Acacia Center for Justice of its decision to cancel the discretionarynationwide initiative that immigrant rights advocates, attorneys, and former immigration judges say is a lifeline for hundreds, if not thousands, of detained people in immigration proceedings. With the exception of detainees in Arizona, California, and Washington—where court-ordered government-appointed counsel provisions remain in place—advocates anticipate these especially vulnerable immigrantswill go unidentified and unrepresented, left to face potential deportation without a fighting chance.

“What I fear the most is that they are going to languish in detention with no end in sight,” said Lisa Okamoto, program director for the NQRP at the Acacia Center for Justice, “or without understanding what they are facing.” Without federal funding, immigration attorneys are unlikely to take on these highly complex cases since most detainees, many of whom are held in remote detention centers where pro bono assistance is hard to come by, can’t afford legal representation. (The EOIR declined to comment on the termination of the program.)

“What I fear the most is that they are going to languish in detention without no end in sight, or without understanding what they are facing.”

“To think of those people behind bars without anybody telling them where they are or why they are there or what might happen to them…” she said, pausing as her voice became emotional. “And then the serious risk of them being put on a plane and possibly evensent to a country they have no ties to.”

The nationwide government-appointed counsel program was created in 2013 in responseto a first-of-its-kind class action lawsuit and settlement order in Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder that established the right to legal representation for immigrant detainees in Arizona, California, and Washington, who have been deemed “incompetent” by an immigration judge to properly defend themselves.

One of the named plaintiffs in the case was José Antonio Franco-Gonzalez, a 29-year-old Mexican man with an intellectual disability. A psychological report had found that his cognitive functions resembled those of a toddler. An immigration judge requested a psychiatric evaluation of Franco-Gonzalez, which concluded that he had no idea what kind of court he was appearing in and it would be “impossible for him to stand trial.”

The judge agreed that Franco-Gonzalez’s case couldn’t move forward without legal representation and decided to put it on hold. But Franco-Gonzalez remained in the custody of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), without another day in court. Talia Inlender, then a young lawyer giving “know-your- rights” presentations to immigrant detainees at the Santa Ana City Jail, had learned about his case from an ICE officer. When she met him in late 2009, he had been detained for almost five years. Franco-Gonzalez couldn’t sign his own name to join Inlender’s workshop.

Even today, Inlender, now the deputy director of UCLA School of Law’s Center for Immigration Law and Policy, still remembers her first encounter with Franco-Gonzalez. She said his skin looked almost translucent from the lengthy confinement period and he was practically nonverbal. He didn’t know his birthday or age. And, he had little understanding of his situation other than wanting to be reunited with his family members, many of whom were US citizens and lawful permanent residents.

In early 2010, Inlender’s organization at the time, Public Counsel, and the ACLU sued on behalf of Franco-Gonzalez and another detainee, both of whom were “effectively lost” in the system. Franco-Gonzalez was released from detention three days later. (He went on to become a naturalized US citizen.)“But we knew he wasn’t the only one suffering in immigration detention solely as a result of a mental disability,” Inlender said. Around that time, Human Rights Watch published a report titled “Deportation By Default” noting that people with mental illnesses made up an estimated 15 percent of the detained immigrant population.

So they expanded the case to a class action lawsuit to cover detainees whose conditions—including schizophrenia, severe depression, and dissociative identity disorder—might prevent them from having a fair day in court.In Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder, the courts found that detained immigrants with mental disabilities facing deportation were entitled to counsel as a reasonable accommodation based on the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In fact, that was the “only means” by which someone not competent for self-representation could exercise their rights.

On April 23, 2013, a federal district judge in California issued a permanent injunction requiring the government to appoint a qualified representative to those immigrants and to grant a bond hearing to detainees who had been in custody for six months or more. The permanent injunction only applied to the three states covered by the lawsuit. But just the day before that injunction, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security announced a policy to “enhance procedural protections,” including processes for mental health screenings and competency hearings, throughout the country.

Today, that nationwide program is being gutted. “I know firsthand the difference it makes to have a fair hearing with a lawyer by your side,” Inlender said. “I think it’s just a devastating blow to due process and to all of the individual people and families that are going to be deeply impacted by the termination.”

Amelia Wilson, a law professor and director of the immigration justice clinic at Pace University who served as the NQRP’s program manager from 2016 to 2018, described the program as a “massive seismic change.” Wilson had been involved in deportation defense work on behalf of immigrants with mental health issues for years. Prior to 2013, she said, it was a “hodgepodge system.” She used to get “clandestine calls from immigration judges” alerting her to unrepresented immigrants on their dockets who needed assistance. Sometimes the information about a potential client came from a DHS attorney or guards in detention centers. “I would take cases that would just appear before me,” she said. “But there was no referral system.”

The rollout of the nationwide policy program was imperfect, Wilson said. But it was an opportunity to offer life-saving legal services, in a formalized way, to more people who otherwise would have been unlikely to receive them. By the time she left, the program had been implemented in 25 locations outside of the original Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction and, as of 2024, more than 2,500 immigrants had been given legal counsel through it.

“We could fund not just the attorney but also social workers, experts, post-release planning so if the person was going to be released on bond or if they won their case, it wasn’t just like, here, open the doors, goodbye, good luck,” Wilson said. Most immigration judges were receptive to, if not enthusiastic about, the initiative. “It was a major shift for the population it was meant to serve—by far the most vulnerable of any immigrant group I can think of.”

“It was a major shift for the population it was meant to serve—by far the most vulnerable of any immigrant group I can think of.”

Detained immigrants in removal proceedings, especially those who are unrepresented, already face an uphill battle. Unlike inthe criminal justice system where someone is considered innocent until proven guilty, immigrants seeking relief bear the burden to prove their case. To be found credible, they usually have to recount past events in detail. For people with dementia, for example, or experiencing memory issues due to traumatic brain injury, that alone can present an obstacle.

Gregory Pleasants, a lawyer who worked in the creation of the government-appointed counsel program, said immigrants with mental health needs were often detained indefinitely and subject to solitary confinement. As a result, their conditions only worsened. “Predictably,” Pleasants said, “people who are detained with mental illness just got deported without being heard by a system that is primarily designed to deny detain and deport.”

Pleasants recalled a former client with schizophrenia who had a recurring delusion about something he called a “re-existence plan.” Eventually, after spending time with the man and his family, Pleasants was able to gather information helpful to the case, and the client was allowed to stay in the United States. “No trial can be fair that leaves a person with mental illness alone before a court, especially one as draconian as the immigration system,” Pleasants said. “Without a lawyer, people don’t have a prayer. They don’t have a chance in hell.”

What theNQRP did was build an infrastructure of skilled lawyers, paralegals, and social workers equipped to provide meaningful and trauma-informed detention and deportation defense. For Pleasants, it represented a “brief gleaming moment” of promise that due process could be realized in the immigration system. The dismantling of the program means “that promise is slipping out of our hands,” he added, “and that’s a grievous loss.”

On May 5, nine legal service providers filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s partial termination ofthe government-paid counsel program. The organizations argue they are faced with an “untenable choice” between having to withdraw representation from some of the roughly 100 affected NQRPcases or continuing the work without payment. Alternatively, they might have to move funds from other critical services and risk staff layoffs.

“We are not talking about a huge amount of money, especially relative to some of the other programs,” said Evan Benz, a senior attorney with the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, the only subcontractor providing legal services under the program across Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and North and South Carolina. “But these resources make all the difference in these individuals’ lives because without this program there’s no realistic way that they would ever have a competent and qualified attorney to represent them in their case.”

Laura Lunn, the director of advocacy and litigation at Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network in Colorado, has represented somewhere between 20 and 30 NQRP clients in her nine years as a qualified representative. Often, she explained, these types of cases are more time and resource-intensive because of the added challenges of obtaining testimony, collecting evidence, and doing cross-examination. Lawyers may need to rely more heavily on forensic psychology and country condition expert reports, both of which incur expenses.

Some of Lunn’s clients have experiencedaudio and visual hallucinations that prevent them from knowing what’s real and what’s not. These symptoms are further exacerbated by prolonged detention. “Imagine trying to synthesize an immigration case while dealing with those types of external stimuli,” Lunn said. Without legal counsel, people will lose in court not because they lack a strong case, but because they simply can’t present the information needed to an immigration judge.

In some instances, someone’s claim to stay in the United States is based on their disability and how it could make them susceptible to harm or even persecution if they are deported back to their home country. Lately, Lunn has been thinking a lot about one of her clients from South Sudan, a survivor of the civil war who became an orphan as a child. As a result of severe PTSD, he heard voices of people threatening to kill him. Ultimately, he was allowed to stay in the United States. “If he had been flown back there,” Lunn said, “I have no doubt in my mind that he would have been targeted and he would have been killed.”

That man is just one of many people Lunn and her organization have helped over the years. She chokes up thinking about those immigrants whose needs may prompt an immigration judge to determine they should be appointed counsel, only for there not to be anyone available to ensure they have a shot at a reasonably fair process. And she wonders: How much longer can they keep assisting their current clients? The Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network, which had anticipated more than $310,000 in funding through the NQRP for 2025, has 15 clients whose legal counsel falls underthe now-stricken program.

“People have survived so much in their lives to get to the place where a court appoints a qualified representative for them,” Lunn said. “It’s just heartbreaking to think about them being alone again.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Ed Martin’s Derailed Nomination Shows Donald Trump’s Power Is Waning

In late March, Ed Martin, then the embattled acting US Attorney for DC, showed up at a community meeting at a police station to tout his efforts to combat crime in the district.

Martin politely fielded questions from attendees, even answering one from a man who, citing Martin’s widely condemned description of his office as “President Trumps’ [sic] lawyers,” asked: “How do we as residents trust that you are going to have our back and not be a personal lawyer for the President of the United States, who is a felon and a racist?”

Martin’s Democrats-did-it-first rationalization for this is not just his. It is the lie justifying Trump’s broader effort to weaponize the Justice Department and turn the entire federal government into an instrument of his personal interest.

Martin responded by citing Matthew Graves, who had occupied his position under President Biden. “My predecessor” also “worked for the guy elected president, for his polices, for his vision,” Martin said. “And that was his preference. There is nothing wrong with that.”

“The president ran on an agenda,” Martin added. “The agenda includes major policy initiatives that a prosecutor has a role in. And I certainly, as you know, don’t shy away from being public about those.”

As far as I know, that is the most that Martin, whose nomination Trump pulled Thursday due to opposition by GOP senators, has said publicly in defense of his wildly controversial tenure.

It was a dishonest downplaying of his effort to make the country’s largest prosecutorial office into an instrument of MAGA retribution, but also telling.

As US attorney, Martin fired, demoted, and investigated January 6 prosecutors, threatened to prosecute congressional Democrats for hyperbolic political statements, suggested his office would investigate DOGE critics and former prosecutors faulted by Trump, and harassed medical journals, Wikipedia and Georgetown’s law school with threats to punish them over their speech.

Martin’s remarks at the community meeting justified these actions as merely the GOP-version of what Democratic prosecutors did under Biden. I don’t know if Martin really believes that, but it’s not true.

US Attorneys do pursue the policies of presidents who pick them, but within legal and normative limits set by the Constitution, Congress, and longstanding practice. No US attorney, until Martin, volunteered to use his office against critics of government policies, including those who “acted simply unethically” and “chase them to the end of the Earth to hold them accountable.” No other US Attorney has reportedly attempted to present a grand jury with evidence for a criminal case against the Minority Leader of the US Senate based on five-year-old criticism of the Supreme Court. Nor has a US Attorney personally attempted to use criminal investigative power to seize money from environmental groups awarded contracts by the past administration without having any evidence of a crime.

Martin’s Democrats-did-it-first rationalization for debasing his office is not just his. It is the lie justifying Trump’s broader effort to weaponize the Justice Department and turn the entire federal government into an instrument of his personal interest.

Martin, though only an acting US Attorney, got a torrent of negative press coverage in part because he loudly volunteered himself as the leader of Trump’s crusade to use the DOJ against his political enemies. As we wrote in a March: “In a new administration defined by a mixture of malevolence and ineptitude, Martin has emerged as an avatar: a typo-spewing henchman of the moment, eager to help Trump transform the Justice Department into a political tool—and unable to shut up about it.”

The evident defeat of Martin’s nomination is a loss, though by no means a death knell, for proponents of the unitary executive theory’s claim that Justice Department prosecutors are the president’s lawyers, and have always been.

With Martin, Trump tried to force GOP senators to confirm an unqualified bumbler and extremist just because he is Trump’s “favorite US Attorney.” That didn’t work. That makes Martin’s derailed nomination a defeat for Trump too.

Trump backed off the nomination after Senate Republicans said they lacked the votes to confirm him. The fatal blow came from Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a judiciary committee member who said he would oppose Martin due to his support for January 6 rioters. In January, after initially appearing to oppose Pete Hegseth’s nomination as defense secretary, Tillis, who is up for reelection next year, buckled amid heavy pressure from Trump and supported the former Fox News host’s confirmation. Though Martin sought a lesser post, Tillis’ opposition may signal that Trump’s plummeting poll numbers are diminishing his power.

The rejection of Martin’s nomiation is also a sign of the limits of Trump’s effort to rewrite the history of January 6 and the lies that led to it. Martin, as Mother Jones has detailed, was a 2020 election truther who was deeply involved in the Stop the Steal organizing. In the aftermath of January 6, he claimed “antifa” was behind the attack, called it a “hoax,” referred to January 6 attackers as “patriots” and said the marauders who were prosecuted should receive “reparations.” Martin has never renounced those claims. As US attorney, he has continued to promote a conspiracy theory suggesting that the FBI helped plan January 6. He even railed against January 6 prosecutions while appearing, in his official capacity, at a March fundraiser attended by convicted seditionists and an alleged Nazi sympathizer who Martin later tried to distance himself from.

Installing Martin as the head of the office that prosecuted 1,600 people for the attack was a deliberate provocation to anyone, including Republican senators, who rejects Trump’s effort to redefine a deadly attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power as a “day of love.” Ed Martin is a minor figure. But his defeat is a significant sign that Trump’s power to make the government accept his lies is ebbing.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Is the New Pope MAGA or Woke? Depends Who You Ask.

The Conclave has spoken, and President Donald Trump will not be the next pope. Instead, that designation will go toRobert Francis Prevost, who will be known as Pope Leo XIV, the Vatican announced on Thursday.

Leo, who is 69 years old and was born in Chicago, will be the first American pope following the April 21 death of Pope Francis—and everyone wants to claim it as a win for their side of the political aisle. To some on the right, Leo’s selection is a boon for Trump’s “America-first” administration. To other Republicans, he is not pro-Trump enough, based on a series of seemingly critical posts on his X account. The left, on the other hand, is eating those up.

Trump called Leo’s selection “a Great Honor for our Country” in a Truth Social post congratulating him. Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk claimed that voting records show Leo is a strong Republican who has consistently voted conservatively. Some of his prior comments appear to make him indistinguishable from the MAGA crowd: The New York Times previously reported that in 2012, Leo spoke out against what he called “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children.” And as a bishop in Peru, he railed against what he called “the promotion of gender ideology” in schools, which he alleged “seeks to create genders that don’t exist.”

But Trump opponents quickly pointed to Leo’s X account as evidence that the new pope may be a member of the resistance. Leo’s most recent repost shared comments from Evelio Menjivar, an auxiliary bishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, who criticized the Trump administration’s seemingly illegal deportations to El Salvador.

Leo also posted two links this year that criticized Vice President JD Vance following Vance’s attempt to use an ancient Catholic concept to justify the administration’s mass deportations of immigrants, which Francis blasted as incorrect. “JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others,” read the headline of one article Leo posted. Ten days later, Leo shared another articlerecounting Vance’s and Francis’ different interpretations of the doctrine. Nonetheless, Vance congratulated him on his selection as pope on Thursday.

In May 2020, at the height of protests following the police murder of George Floyd, Leo wrote: “We need to hear more from leaders in the Church, to reject racism and seek justice.” And during Trump’s first term, Leo shared posts decrying Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric and the violence in Charlottesville, where Trump said there were “very fine people on both sides”; supporting Dreamers; urging Trump to take action on climate change; and criticizing Trump’s Muslim ban.

Some political strategists and advocates on the left pointed to these posts as evidence that the pope shared their politics. Some of Trump’s most ardent supporters, on the other hand, were triggered. Conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer called him “anti-Trump, anti-MAGA, pro-open Borders, and a total Marxist like Pope Francis” in a post on X.

“Catholics don’t have anything good to look forward to,” she added. “Just another Marxist puppet in the Vatican.”

After far-right activist and Pizzagate conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec dug up Leo’s prior X posts, he wrote, “God Save the Church,” and, “The Pope is not infallible on political matters.”

The truth is that only time will tell where Leo falls on the ideological spectrum. As his own record suggests, he will more than likely not be a faithful adherent to either side of the political aisle. Pope Francis was not either. While he supported immigrants and Palestinians under Israeli bombardment and tepidly welcomed gay people into the church, he was firmly anti-abortion, reportedly used an anti-gay slur, and claimed “gender theory…does not recognize the order of creation.”

Like Francis, wecan expect Leo to be fully loyal only to the man upstairs.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s New Surgeon General Pick Wants to “Raise the Vibration of Humanity”

On Wednesday, following controversy about inconsistencies in her résumé, President Trump withdrew his nomination of Dr. Janette Nesheiwat to become surgeon general, and gave the nod to alternative medicine practitioner and author Dr. Casey Means.

“Her academic achievements, together with her life’s work, are absolutely outstanding,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “Dr. Casey Means has the potential to be one of the finest Surgeon Generals in United States History.”

Her academic achievements include dropping out of a medical residency in otolaryngology because, she says, she was frustrated that the discipline did not focus on “root causes.” Means’ medical license is inactive, according to Oregon medical board records.

Means’ medical opining has occasionally veered in a New Age direction.

Her life’s work includes co-founding Levels, a business that sells glucose monitors, co-writing the book Good Energy: The Surprising Connection Between Metabolism and Limitless Health, and promoting an eight-day online course on metabolic health.

Means has promoted the idea that the national epidemic of chronic disease is attributable to diet and lifestyle choices, an argument that largely echoes the talking points of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. That’s no coincidence: both Means and her brother Calley, who describes himself as a lobbyist and evangelist for healthy food, played a central role in advising Kennedy’s presidential campaign. Calley Means, who now works with Kennedy as a White House health advisor, is said to be assisting with the creation of a “Make America Healthy Again” commission, set to focus on chronic disease and preventable illnesses in children—meaning ones influenced by lifestyle factors like diabetes, rather than vaccine-preventable illnesses like measles. Last September, at a four-hour Senate roundtable hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) that was meant to welcome Kennedy’s MAHA movement to the GOP fold, the senator hailed Casey “the person who is the catalyst for this event.”

In her writing and speaking gigs, Casey Means highlights the importance of metabolic health, an enthusiasm for many alternative health practitioners. Like many of them, she assigns a mystically important role to the gut: In Good Energy, Means states that “conditions like depression and schizophrenia” are “tied to poor gut bacteria,” adding that “researchers can identify a person with depression or schizophrenia just by analyzing their gut bacteria composition.” (The study Means appears to be citing specifically says that more research is needed to determine whether there’s a causal link between schizophrenia and the gut microbiome.) She’s also hailed raw dairy, writing how she wants “to be free to form a relationship with a local farmer, understand his integrity, look him in the eyes, pet his cow, and then decide if I feel safe to drink the milk from his farm.”

But Means’ medical opining has occasionally veered in a more New Age direction. She has claimed that “the universe” speaks to her and that people can “manifest” what they want by writing it down. “Perhaps the body is simply the material ‘radio receiver’ through which we can ‘tune in’ to the divine,” she wrote in an October 2024 newsletter. “We will get instructions (through human inspiration and reason) for what we need to do to raise the vibration of humanity and create a sustainable future… The future of medicine will be about light. I don’t exactly know how yet.”

“Humans are out of alignment with the Earth and depleting its life force,” she wrote the next month. “And human bodies are now exhibiting signs of blocking the flow of energy through them. This is insulin resistance. We are the Earth.”

Means’ track record of statements about medicine and health that aren’t backed by science are troubling to Jonathan Jarry, a science communicator at McGill University’s Office for Science and Society. He noted that Means’ treatment modality of choice, functional medicine, is not a recognized medical specialty, and that it often involves unnecessary tests and unproven supplement regimens. Functional medicine is “using a veneer of medicine to sell supplements in the hope that these fix a patient’s health problems,” he said. “It is not evidence based.” Jarry was “appalled, yet not surprised in the slightest” about her nomination, which, he said, “shows a continuing disregard for expertise and an embrace of make believe.”

It’s not just people in the scientific community who are displeased with Means’ nomination. Despite seemingly crowd-pleasing views on topics like life forces and raw milk, some of Kennedy’s allies in the anti-vaccine and alternative health worlds have intimated that they see the Means siblings as sinister functionaries of Big Pharma, Big Food, or something much worse. Some of those people greeted Means’ nomination with outrage and dark suspicion, with many claiming Dr. Kelly Victory, a health influencer and ivermectin fan, was Kennedy’s preferred choice.

“I was promised that if I supported RFK Jr…. neither of these siblings would be working… (and that people much more qualified would be).”

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, the founder of the anti-vaccine group Americans for Health Freedom, tweeted that Victory had told her she was being chosen for the position last week, but that she ultimately “was passed over because of her outspoken stance against the mRNA shots. Clearly RFK has no power.” Several other major anti-vaccine figures also tweeted their anger that Victory hadn’t been chosen, including Steve Kirsch, a wealthy Silicon Valley figure turned anti-vaccine crusader. “As surgeon general, @DrKellyVictory would have advocated to pull the mRNA shots from the market immediately,” he tweeted. “Probably why she was not selected. Trump does not want those shots to be pulled.”

Kennedy’s former running mate Nicole Shanahan also expressed immediate displeasure, tweeting that Means’ nomination was “very strange,” as she hinted at a longtime distrust of the Means siblings.

“Doesn’t make any sense,” she wrote. “I was promised that if I supported RFK Jr. in his Senate confirmation that neither of these siblings would be working under HHS or in an appointment (and that people much more qualified would be). I don’t know if RFK very clearly lied to me, or what is going on. It has been clear in recent conversations that he is reporting to someone regularly who is controlling his decisions (and it isn’t President Trump). With regards to the siblings, there is something very artificial and aggressive about them, almost like they were bred and raised Manchurian assets.”

Shanahan didn’t respond to a request for comment about whose “Manchurian assets” she believes the Means siblings to be.

Shanahan’s tweet was, in turn, a quote tweet of Dr. Suzanne Humphries, an osteopathic physician who’s been critical of vaccines. (Humphries appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast last month to promote those views.) Humphries, too, was critical of Means as a choice, tweeting, “I can’t help but think this is a very carefully groomed and selected person. Just about no clinical experience. Talks a great game about everything but vaccines. Feels all wrong. Why? There were so many better choices.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Brain Rot Cabinet

Last week, baffling many and delighting a few, HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declared during a Trump administration cabinet meeting that he’s engaged in a hunt for what he said were 300,000 missing children trafficked by the Biden administration.

“We have ended HHS’s role as the principal vector in this country for child trafficking,” Kennedy declared. “During the Biden administration, HHS became a collaborator in child trafficking for sex and for slavery, and we have ended that. We’re very aggressively going out and trying to find these 300,000 children that were lost by the Biden administration.”

“For people who aren’t steeped in these theories, it sounds like the ravings of a madman.”

To even remotely understand what Kennedy is talking about requires one’s brain to be thoroughly bathed in the corrosive acid of the right-wing internet, where it’s taken on faith that the Biden administration either allowed hundreds of thousands of children to be trafficked or perhaps actively participated in that trafficking themselves.

Kennedy’s comments are an excellent demonstration of how, in the Trump era, public statements by administration figures and their congressional backers are heavily influenced by the far-right and conspiratorial internet—sometimes in addled, confused, or strangely remixed forms. Why is Attorney General Pam Bondi promising to release an “Epstein client list” that probably isn’t real?Why is Kennedy also claiming that vaccines are made from “fetus debris,” which is a lie, and promising to fight chemtrails, which don’t exist, but which he recently claimed DARPA is spraying into the sky? Why is Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) claiming he wants a Congressional hearing into “what actually happened” on September 11, as he claimed a “controlled demolition” brought down building 7? Why are Donald Trump and Elon Musk reviving a 1970s conspiracy theory which claims that the gold inside Fort Knox might be gone? Why was a government website where Americans could once order free Covid tests has been transformed into a webpage promoting an extremely longwinded version of the still-unproven lab leak theory? Why is Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) declaring there were “two shooters” involved in the JFK assassination, before hosting a hearing that in no way proved that?

Rumors, conspiracy theories, memes, jokes, contextless claims and thinly-sourced allegations all now find their way at lightning speed to the White House and to other senior Republican officials, where they’re immediately spat back out in statements and public appearances. These statements make it incredibly clear how deeply online and profoundly conspiracy-brained the modern GOPis—and how much taxpayer-funded time the Trump administration plans to spend pursuing ideas that range from ludicrous to already debunked.

Kennedy, who has previously admitted that he falls for online misinformation “all the time,” and his bald claim that HHS engaged in the trafficking of children caused uproar and confusion, even among the conservative faithful. “If true, this would be a really really big deal,” tweeted collegiate swimmer turned conservative activist Riley Gaines. “Arrest and prosecute!!!!” “HOLY SHLIT,” tweeted Chaya Raichik of the far-right Libs of TikTok.

The way that the claim about 300,000 missing children made it out of Kennedy’s mouth helps to demonstrate how conspiracy theories function in the current, fever-dream version of the GOP. The claim has a long and increasingly convoluted pedigree in right-wing and conspiratorial spaces: versions circulated during the Biden administration, when a self-proclaimed HHS whistleblower named Tara Rhodas claimed the agency routinely released unaccompanied migrant children into the care of people affiliated with gangs like MS-13. Rhodas suspected that these sponsors would then traffic the children.

The claims are a pastiche of true and unproven: in one 2021 case highly publicized by Republican lawmakers, two children were sent to a home where their sponsors had suspected MS-13 ties. Other migrant children—in cases Republican lawmakers have been less excited to discuss—were sent to places where they were labor trafficked, forced to work in slaughterhouses, farms, and factories.

While the Biden administration may have helped create this situation by pressuring caseworkers to move children out of shelters and release them to sponsors as quickly as possible, Kennedy’s more QAnon-ish claim—that 300,000 children have simply vanished into thin air—seems to have its roots in a August 2024 report from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General. That report found the government “could not monitor the location and status” of all unaccompanied minors known to be in the country, including some 291,000 who ICE had never made steps to remove, and another 32,000 who did not appear for court dates. The report did not state that any of the children had been trafficked. As an expert at the Acacia Center for Justice’s Unaccompanied Children Program explained to CBS, this isn’t a problem of “missing kids” but one of “missing paperwork.”

It’s a very long walk from those facts to claiming that the children are “missing,” let alone being sex trafficked. But by in October 2024, JD Vance claimed during a debate with Governor Tim Walz that 300,000 children were missing. Trump gave a lurid version of the line in a December Time interview. “We have 325,000 children here during Democrats—and this was done by Democrats—who are right now slaves, sex slaves or dead,” he said. “What I will be doing will be trying to find where they are and get them back to their parents.” That month, incoming Trump border czar Tom Homan suggested that the “missing” youth had been trafficked and pledged to track them down in an interview with the Washington Post where, with no apparent sense of irony or contradiction, he also discussed how the administration would bring back the family separation policy Trump deployed during his first term.

To even remotely understand what Kennedy is talking about requires one’s brain to be thoroughly bathed in corrosive acid .

But while most people who heard about Kennedy’s claim greeted it with bafflement, reflexive outrage, or, rarely, demands for further proof, according to author and journalist Mike Rothschild, the QAnon community celebrated.

“Kennedy’s comments at the Trump cabinet meeting/praise-a-thon are a great example of a conspiracy theory that makes little sense outside the right wing influencer bubble, but a cause for celebration inside it,” Rothschild, who has written a book about QAnon and another on antisemitic conspiracy theories, explains.

Whether he knows it or not, Rothschild adds, “Kennedy is pushing hardcore QAnon-style moral panic to an audience of devotees who are desperate for Trump to finally sweep away the bad guys and deliver on the promises Q made years ago,” namely to uncover sex trafficking being conducted by high-level Democratic politicians.

“For people who aren’t steeped in these theories, it sounds like the ravings of a madman,” Rothschild adds. But Q and its ilk are so mainstream on the right now that it’s finding a large and receptive audience.”

Embracing conspiracy theories has worked incredibly well for the current GOP and Trump administration, a way to keep their base captivated and profitably enraged. In one ongoing example, a February attempt to release Epstein names and flight logs to a group of conservative influencers quickly turned into a mess once it became clear the files weren’t new at all. Nonetheless, Attorney General Bondi has continued to insist new information on the case is forthcoming, claiming this week that the FBI is combing through “tens of thousands of videos of Epstein with children.” While Rep. Luna’s first JFK hearing did not produce the second gunman she’s said she’s in search of, she has pledged to keep working to provide “needed transparency about federal secrets to the American people,” including about the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

And while Kennedy’s son Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has provided no further information about the 300,000 children he claims are missing, there’s no question that their speculative existence will be mentioned again, whenever it might be politically profitable to do so.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

FEMA Will No Longer Go Door-to-Door to Assist Disaster Victims

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

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making significant changes to how it will respond to disasters on the ground this season, including ending federal door-to-door canvassing of survivors in disaster areas, WIRED has learned.

A memo reviewed by WIRED, dated May 2 and addressed to regional FEMA leaders from Cameron Hamilton, a senior official performing the duties of the administrator, instructs program offices to “take steps to implement” five “key reforms” for the upcoming hurricane and wildfire season.

Under the first reform, titled “Prioritize Survivor Assistance at Fixed Facilities,” the memo states that “FEMA will discontinue unaccompanied FEMA door-to-door canvassing to focus survivor outreach and assistance registration capabilities in more targeted venues, improving access to those in need, and increasing collaboration with [state, local, tribal, and territorial] partners and nonprofit service providers.”

“Going door-to-door, especially in critically hit areas, to share information is very important…Getting rid of it completely is really going to hamper some things.”

FEMA has for years deployed staff to travel door-to-door in disaster areas, interacting directly with survivors in their homes to give an overview of FEMA aid application processes and help them register for federal aid. This group of workers is part of a larger cadre often called FEMA’s “boots on the ground” in disaster areas.

Ending door-to-door canvassing, one FEMA worker says, will “severely hamper our ability to reach vulnerable people.” The assistance provided by workers going door-to-door, they say, “has usually focused on the most impacted and the most vulnerable communities where there may be people who are elderly or with disabilities or lack of transportation and are unable to reach Disaster Recovery Centers.” This person spoke to WIRED on the condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to speak to the press.

“Door-to-door canvassing is another example of a wasteful and ineffective FEMA program,” Geoff Harbaugh, FEMA’s associate administrator for the Office of External Affairs tells WIRED in an email. “Under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Noem, FEMA is changing how it operates and reforming its policies to better support disaster survivors and the American people. President Trump’s recent executive orders empower states to effectively respond to natural disasters and provide resources at the community level.”

Todd DeVoe, the emergency management coordinator for the city of Inglewood, California, and the second vice president at the International Association of Emergency Managers, says that in his years of working in disaster management he has seen how many survivors don’t get information about recovery or resources without door-to-door outreach—despite emergency managers using strategies like direct mailers and radio and newspaper ads.

“Going door-to-door, especially in critically hit areas, to share information is very important,” he says. “There’s a need for it. Can it be done more efficiently? Probably, but getting rid of it completely is really going to hamper some things.”

FEMA’s door-to-door canvassing became a political flash point last year during Hurricane Milton, when an agency whistleblower alerted the conservative news site The Daily Wire that one official had told workers in Florida to avoid approaching homes with Trump yard signs. Former FEMA administrator Deanne Criswell told the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability during a hearing last year that the incident was isolated to one employee who had since been fired. The employee, in turn, claimed that she acted on orders from a superior and that the issue was a pattern of “hostile encounters” with survivors who had Trump yard signs.

Republicans on the Oversight committee alleged that they had received information indicating “widespread discrimination against individuals displaying Trump campaign signs on their property” throughout FEMA. In March, the agency fired three more employees following an internal investigation into the issue.

The Office of Professional Responsibility “investigation found no evidence that this was a systemic problem, nor that it was directed by agency or field leadership,” Hamilton wrote in a letter sent to Oversight chair James Comer.

The canvassing controversy made it into the White House’s 2026 budget, released Friday, which decries “woke FEMA grant programs” and proposes cutting $646 million from “non-disaster” FEMA programs.

“FEMA discriminated against Americans who voted for the President in the wake of recent hurricanes, skipping over their homes when providing aid. This activity will no longer be tolerated,” the budget document states. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

There is no mention in the FEMA memo of the investigation or recent controversy and no reasoning provided for ending the door-to-door canvassing process. FEMA has deployed door-to-door canvassing in states with federal disaster declarations approved under the Trump administration: An agency press release from March mentions teams going door-to-door in West Virginia following February’s severe storms.

The memo comes at a turbulent time for the agency as it prepares for disaster season. In late April, CNN reported that FEMA stood to lose around 20 percent of its staff in buyouts as part of cuts related to Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency. Last week, Politico reported that the administration had stopped approving allocations for a crucial hazard-mitigation program just a few weeks after news broke that the agency would end one of the federal government’s biggest climate-adaptation programs.

Some of the other reforms in the memo include directives for the agency to “emphasize assistance available from other partners” over federal aid, as well as to emphasize efforts to rely on local- and state-run recovery centers rather than federally run ones, “reducing the need to establish FEMA Disaster Recovery Centers and optimizing support for state and locally led recovery efforts.” The memo emphasizes that the agency intends to “respect the primacy of states, territories, and Tribal Nations in disaster response.”

“Our role is to support our partners, not replace them,” the memo states. “FEMA does not act alone.”

DeVoe says that like many of the responsibilities being shifted from FEMA to local response, the task of surveying survivors door-to-door will now fall to local and state responders. These groups may be hard-pressed to find the budget and manpower, especially as federal programs and grants keep getting cut.

“California, New York, Massachusetts, Florida, Washington, Oregon, Florida, Texas—they’re going to be OK,” he says. “It’s going to be those smaller states—are they going to be OK?”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

DOGE Killed Dozens of Grants That Supported Women Workers

President Donald Trump has repeatedlypromised to support women, grow jobs, and revive American manufacturing in his second term. But a recent round of cuts by Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) appears to undermine all three of those supposed priorities.

On Tuesday, the Department of Labor (DOL) terminated more than two dozen grants to increase women’s representation in trades like construction, manufacturing, and information technology, and to fund programs to prevent and respond to gender-based violence and workplace harassment. The grants were administered by the Women’s Bureau, an office created by congressional mandate in 1920 to support women’s employment.

This article, the first to report on the grant cancellations, is based on communications with four current and former Labor Department employees familiar with the work of the Women’s Bureau, and five of the affected grantees, some of whom also provided copies of termination notices. Experts and advocates say the cancellations will undermine women’s safe participation in the workforce at a time when Trump has promised “a boom like no other” and “millions and millions of new jobs.” They also threaten to reverse the progress women have made in the trades: Research conducted by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR)—a Washington, DC, think tank that researches women’s employment—has found, for example, that the number of women working in construction grew by nearly 30 percent from 2018 to 2023. (Spokespeople for DOL, the Women’s Bureau, and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.)

“A lot of these programs have been designed to help women get into the pipeline of some of these male-dominated jobs, and make those jobs safer places for women to be,” said Kate Bahn, chief economist and senior vice president of research at IWPR. “Any administration [would] value programs that help overcome these barriers…This is clearly not doing that.”

DOGE sees it differently. In a Tuesday night post on X, the office bragged about cutting millions “in wasteful DEI grants” at DOL, including cuts to “gender equity awareness training.”

But DOGE’s cuts may not be legal: The two-year grants are mandated by a bipartisan act of Congress passed in 1991 that aimed to get more women into apprenticeships and nontraditional careers, and required the Labor Department to make support and training grants to that end.

The most significant Women’s Bureau cancellations affected the congressionally mandated, two-year Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO) grants, which support recruiting and training women in industries where they constitute less than 25 percent of workers, including construction, manufacturing, and information technology. Grantees from the past two years received notices on Tuesday that their funding was immediately being terminated. Four of the termination notices reviewed by Mother Jones state that the programs do not support the department’s “priorities for its grant funding, including with regard to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.” (Trump, of course, signed an executive order on his first day in office seeking to purge DEI programs across the federal government.)

Last year, the Women’s Bureau awarded $6 million in WANTO funding to nine organizations, the department’s largest-ever award; the year before that, it awarded $5 million to seven groups. The only grant not canceled on Tuesday, according to DOL sources, was one given to Chicago Women in Trades, which is suing the administration for its anti-DEI executive orders.

Nora Spencer, founder and CEO of Hope Renovations, a North Carolina nonprofit that supports and trains women to work in construction, was in a workforce development meeting on Tuesday when the Labor Department notified her that her organization was losing about $300,000 of a $700,000 grant, which it used to support job training for 76 participants, including recent high school graduates and people in their 50s and 60s, with tools and materials, instructors’ salaries, and internship stipends—and about half of which it was still counting on reimbursement for. The internship program will now have to be shuttered, Spencer said, and she may be compelled to make changes to the way the organization is staffed.

The termination notice justified the cancellation by quoting Spencer’s grant application, in which she wrote that Hope Renovations sought “to increase the number of women…in construction.”

“It was so blatantly sexist,” Spencer told me. “It stung to see that from my own government.”

The cancellation did not make economic sense to Spencer, either: The construction industry, she pointed out, is already expected to take a hit from Trump’s tariffs and mass deportations, given the role that immigrants play in the field, as my colleague Isabela Dias has written. Plus, research has shown that the industry will need to hire more than half a million new skilled workers per year to keep up with demand, especially in light of its aging workforce: More than 40 percent of the current construction workforce is projected to retire by 2031, according to the National Center for Construction Education and Research.

“To be losing a development program at a time that’s really critical to bringing on workers, it’s insulting to the industry,” Spencer said. “I’ve worked with builders who are like, ‘I don’t care what gender you are, I need to know if you can swing a hammer or if you can pull wire.'”

Vermont Works for Women, a nonprofit that supports women’s and young people’s career development, is also losing the nearly $400,000 WANTO grant it received last year. That grant helped fund training for about 55 women and nonbinary people per year for careers in construction and renewable energy, and to launch a new pre-apprenticeship program in the semiconductor and advanced manufacturing industries, according to its executive director Rhoni Basden. That program, which was going to kick off this fall, is now on indefinite pause. The news, she said, came as “an absolute shock.”

“It completely dismantles [the] only progress that has been made within these industries,” Basden said, adding that half of Vermont’s population consists of working-age women. “This is a prime program to help fill multiple gaps that our state is experiencing.”

Moore Community House, a nonprofit in Mississippi, lost more than $700,000 in funding for its Women in Construction program, which has already trained nearly 200 people and was counting on $250,000 in further reimbursement. Branden Forshee, the organization’s CEO, pointed out that Mississippi has some of the country’s highest poverty rates for women and children. “Workforce training programs like this one are so important in this area,” Forshee said, “and taking funding from that, again, it directly contradicts [Trump’s] goal” of creating jobs.

A Labor Department employee described the WANTO program as “definitely life-changing for a lot of women,” saying the funding “gives [women] a career path they might not have had before.” Another DOL employee said the DOGE cuts would mean that fewer women “are going to be exposed to these different career paths” or “have the opportunity to get careers in these industries that have family-sustaining wages.”

A separate set of Biden-era Women’s Bureau grants known as FARE—Fostering Access, Rights, and Equity—that focused on preventing and addressing gender-based violence and harassment in the workplace were simultaneously canceled, DOL sources said. Last year, that program awarded $1.4 million in grants to four community organizations, according to an archived version of its webpage.

The Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence used a FARE grant to create a toolkit to help employers identify signs of domestic violence, said the coalition’sCEO, Meghan Scanlon. The organization was also about to begin creating a more in-depth training program on the topic for employers, staff, and supervisors, which will no longer proceed, she said.

While it’s not unusual for new administrations to create new programs, it is unusual for officials to claw back funding that a previous administration already promised to pay out, Labor Department sources said. And the cancellations are especially ironic in light of Trump’s campaign-trail promise to “PROTECT WOMEN AT A LEVEL NEVER SEEN BEFORE.”

“He’s literally taking away the enforcement mechanisms for protections,” Bahn, of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, said, calling the move “absurd.” (As I have reported, the Trump administration also reneged on that promise by gutting the CDC’s Division of Reproductive Health and cancelling grants for programs supporting crime victims.)

A pair of smaller DOL grants—one focused on projects to get women and people of color into infrastructure jobs, and another to reduce gender and racial disparities in state paid leave programs—were also canceled, according to the same departmental sources.

Spencer, who runs the formerly Women’s Bureau–funded construction program in North Carolina, expects DOGE’s latest cuts to come back to haunt the Trump administration.

“We live in an industry that is very much filled with people who voted for Trump, and I think there’s a lot of feeling right now in [the] industry that they’re just overlooking people who voted them in,” Spencer said. “I think things like this are just going to exacerbate that.”

Update, May 7: This article has been updated to distinguish outstanding and total grant amounts provided to North Carolina nonprofit Hope Renovations.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

24-Hour Vigil to Save Medicaid Takes Over National Mall

At a 24-hour vigil to protect Medicaid on the National Mall in Washington, DC, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) was to the point: to protect democracy, Medicaid has to be protected, too.

The vigil, which kicked off Wednesday at 1 p.m. ET, is hosted by the advocacy group Caring Across Generations and will be livestreamed until it ends Thursday; beyond Raskin, the event featured speakers including Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) alongside disability advocates and Medicaid users, in response to a series of White House attacks and cuts on health services spearheaded by President Donald Trump, his advisor Elon Musk, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

“Sometimes,” Raskin said, “people say to me, ‘Well, is it more important to go and fight for democracy and judicial independence and the right to vote, or is it more important to go and fight for Medicaid and Social Security?’ That’s a false choice. It’s all the same.” The United States, Raskin said, needs to represent everyone—not just people like Trump and Musk.

Since February, Republicans in Congress, at Trump’s prompting, have been pushing a federal budget that would entail up to $88 billion in annual cuts to Medicaid’s $600 billion budget, which supports some 72 million users. While President Trump has repeatedly promised not to cut Medicaid directly, the budget proposals before Congress won’t be possible without drastic cuts to the social safety net.

“What they’re doing with the budget is to destroy community,” Pelosi said. “Community has a word—unity—in it, and that is what we have to be: completely unified in our fight for Medicaid, for Medicare, for Social Security, for SNAP.”

“We will be out here as long as it takes!” Maria Town of @aapd-disability.bsky.social highlights that Medicaid allowed her to have physical therapy and her mom to have respite care.

[image or embed]

— Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) (@autisticadvocacy.org) May 7, 2025 at 10:53 AM

For disabled people who rely on Medicaid, those cuts would almost certainly mean a reduction of services, including funding for home care workers—if it doesn’t lead to their being kicked off the service altogether. Raskin cited one Maryland constituent who had shared with him that Medicaid was what made it possible for him to live independently and work.

“This is a matter of life and death for millions of people across the country,” Raskin said. “So the question is, what kind of America are we going to be? Are we going to be in America for dictators and plutocrats and theocrats and autocrats, or are we going to be an America for all the people?”

The vigil, Raskin said, helped to demonstrate that Americans were “not going to allow” Donald Trump to sign a widely harmful budget into law.

“It is through American democracy that we’ve created Medicaid, that we’ve created Social Security, that we’ve created Medicare,” Raskin said. “We are not going to allow them to tear it down.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

A Holocaust Tale for Today

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

Imagine a situation in which the threat of fascism is so pressing that you consider sending your children to another country. That’s what happened decades ago for the family of Julian Borger, the world affairs editor of the Guardian. Borger has long been a keen observer of wars, global crises, and international relations. His work is an essential read for anyone looking to make sense of our mad world. But with a new book, Borger has cast his gaze back to the 1930s and a piece of family history he stumbled across only recently.

After Hitler annexed Austria in the Anschluss of March 1938, Borger’s grandparents and his father, Robert, then 11 years old, as well as all the families of the Jewish community of Vienna, became targets of the vicious antisemitic campaign waged by the Nazis and their Austrian allies. Soon after the Germans’ arrival, as the Borgers were being forced to give up their radio shop and subjected to hate, humiliation, and violence, they managed to find a way to send their only son to the United Kingdom. And, as Jews were being sent to labor camps, they, too, escaped Vienna.

This is quite the moment to be writing about Nazi authoritarianism and the Holocaust.

That’s as much of the story as Julian knew. No details. His father never talked about what happened. But not long ago, through an odd coincidence, Julian discovered that his grandparents had taken out a three-line ad in the Manchester Guardian—the previous name of the newspaper where he works—looking for a Brit who would take in his son. He started poking about and discovered that other Viennese Jewish families had done the same and that scores of Viennese children had found refuge from the Nazis because British citizens responded to these pleas. The result of his subsequent investigation is a wonderful book that is both a personal memoir of hidden history and a gripping account of the fates of these Jewish children, including his dad: I Seek a Kind Person: My Father, Seven Children, and the Adverts That Helped Them Escape the Holocaust. This is quite the moment to be writing about Nazi authoritarianism and the Holocaust. Julian was kind enough to talk with me about the book and what insights about today he’s gained from digging into the past.

How did you first uncover this unknown past about your father?

It was the archivist at the Guardian who found it. In late 2020, at the end of the first Trump term, I was talking to an American immigration lawyer. She was trying to stop the deportation of West Africans, in particular Cameroonians, to their home country, where, in the midst of civil war, they were likely to be killed or tortured. She made a remark about how we keep reliving the same traumas, generation on generation. And she mentioned how her dad had escaped from Vienna in the late 1930s, and she said it had something to do with the Manchester Guardian, the original name of the newspaper. It reminded me that in our family lore the Manchester Guardian had something to do with my dad coming out of Vienna.

This gave me the idea of asking our archivist. Because the Guardian was coming up to its 200th anniversary, I thought it might make for an interesting story. I mentioned to him there was something about my father. The next day, he wrote back and said, “Is this it?” Attached to the email was an advert I’d never seen before. I had thought that maybe there had been an article in the paper about Brits taking in Viennese children. I had no idea there had been an ad with such a personal plea.

Courtesy Julian Borger and the Guardian archives

The wording of it was straightforward but emotional: “I Seek a kind person who will educate my intelligent Boy, aged 11. Viennese of good family.”

When did it appear?

On August 3, 1938. This was five months after the Anschluss, and the lives of Jews in Vienna were becoming more precarious with every passing day. They had lost their jobs, their livelihoods. My father, like other Vienna Jews, was removed from his school and put into a separate Jewish school. I only learned much later some of the things that happened to my family in those months, because this was something we never talked about. This advert opened the door to the buried history of my family.

“Children could leave without having to pay the various exit taxes the Nazis demanded. Parents had to decide to send their children away, not knowing if they’d be able to join them.”

What happened with the advertisement your grandfather placed? Were there many responses?

My father was lucky that my grandfather did this early. These adverts began to appear late July 1938. A couple of Welsh school teachers in Caernarfon, Wales, who were looking for ways to help saw it. They could see what was happening in Central Europe. They wanted to make a difference and help in any way they could. They started corresponding with my grandparents. They even traveled down to the Home Office in London to make sure the paperwork was speeded up. At the time, you could get a child out of Austria if or she had a sponsor in a destination country willing to look after them and pay for their education. It was much harder for adults. So Jewish parents in Vienna had to make this decision. Do we all stay together, or do we at least try to save our children?

How long did the process take?

The advert was published in August, and in October, he was traveling to the UK. At this point, the Nazis were focused on getting Jews out. This was before the final solution. Children could leave without having to pay the various exit taxes the Nazis demanded. Parents had to decide to send their children away, not knowing if they’d be able to join them.

After you saw the ad, you realized there was an untold story here not just about your family. What did you do next?

After first experiencing the surprise of seeing my grandparents pleading for the life of my father, I realized he was not alone. In that block of adverts, there are five other kids. So I searched the archives and found 80 children advertised this way in the Manchester Guardian. It seemed obvious to me, as a journalist, that I had to find out what happened to all of them. That is the starting point of the book.

Of those 80, how many did you track down?

Mostly all of them. I was able to find out what happened to them. But when it came to locating those for whom there was someone who could talk about them, that was a smaller number. Within that group, there were seven who left very full accounts of what had happened to them, mostly in memoirs written for their families. There was one survivor of the children from these adverts still alive, in her 90s, and living in Connecticut. I came across her late in the project, after I had despaired of finding anyone still alive. I mainly talked to the children of these people. In each case, I would send them the advert. And in all but one case, they’d never seen or heard of the advertisement.

What happened to your father’s parents?

They both survived. His mother got out of Vienna with a visa for domestic work. There was a shortage of maids at that time in Britain. She was able to travel out of Vienna with my father. But her visa did not allow her to have a child with her in Britain. So she could not look after him or stay with him. Then, with the help of his foster parents, they were able at the last moment in 1939 to obtain a visa as an agricultural laborer for my grandfather. That part of the family all survived. Others did not.

But did they all unite at some point?

They never lived together again as a family. My father stayed with his foster parents in Wales until he went to university.

The book starts with a dark day in 1983 when you’re in your 20s, come home, and learn your father, a lecturer in psychology at Brunel University, has just committed suicide. Is there a connection between that and the story you’re telling in this book?

His foster mother definitely thought so. When my father took his life, it was my job to ring round people, and the person I left until last was his foster mother. Her immediate reaction was to say he was Hitler’s last victim: “They got to him in the end.” This came as a complete shock to me. It was something we just didn’t talk about. We didn’t talk about the past. In the note he left, he didn’t mention any of this. But she was quite adamant about it.

Much later, when I was researching this book, I realized why she seemed so certain. That’s because she was the last person he went to see before taking his own life. Tragically, she was away that weekend. He hung around the house for a little bit and then disappeared. When I called her, she knew that he’d come looking for her and that she’d been away. She felt he was trying to revisit that part of him, the boy who turned up as an 11-year-old refugee on her doorstep, and wanted to reconnect with that part of his life. At the time that didn’t mean much to me or our family because it was a piece of his life we didn’t talk about. It took on greater significance nearly 40 years later when I found the advert and began investigating my father’s early years.

“We could now remember people who had died under the Nazis who had been completely blotted out of our family history. We grew up thinking that as a family we survived scot-free. But it turned out there had been people who had perished in our family.”

The British are famous for being reserved when it comes to their emotional lives. Did you ever have any inkling of how your father’s experiences as a young boy—living in Nazified Austria and escaping—affected him?

There’s the British stiff upper lip. He definitely wanted to see himself as British. But I also found this attitude was widespread among these refugees. At least half of them did not mention the past and the adverts to their families until quite late in life, when they came under heavy pressure to talk about it. I also found this among the survivors from the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The vast majority did not want to burden the next generation. It was a conscious decision: The trauma stops with me, and the next generation shouldn’t know. I believe that was his approach, and that was why he rebuffed any attempt to talk about his past. I once tried to do a school project on the Anschluss, thinking he’d help me. But he was very standoffish and did not want to get involved.

You’re best known as a foreign correspondent for the Guardian covering crises and foreign affairs around the globe. What was it like to write a memoir?

It goes against the grain in news-oriented journalism to write in the first-person singular. It was counterintuitive for me and felt self-indulgent. But the driving force behind writing the book was chronicling the extraordinary stories of these seven survivors. And the price for doing that was to tell this very painful story of our family that we had tried to block out. That ended up a blessing, because I found out a lot that had been hidden from our family that we could be proud of. We could now remember people who had died under the Nazis who had been completely blotted out of our family history. We grew up thinking that as a family we survived scot-free. But it turned out there had been people who had perished in our family. They just were not mentioned; their pictures were not on our walls. I’m grateful the book pushed me in a direction so that they now will be remembered. I went to visit their graves in Vienna—for those who had graves. On each it says, “unvergessen.” Unforgotten. That was a promise not kept. This book was a way of redeeming that promise.

You say some of these stories of these children are remarkable. Give me one.

Can I give you three? One is a guy called George Mandler, who lived very close to my dad in Vienna and was just a bit older. He came to Britain. But many Jewish refugees there in 1940 thought Britain was going to fall. Most of the kids in this book ended up getting on boats and going to the US. He did that and later signed up with the US Army and became one of the Ritchie Boys, an organization of refugees—many Jewish from Central Europe—who were trained to be intelligence officers and sent back to the front lines to interrogate German prisoners and conduct counterintelligence operations. (They were trained at Camp Ritchie in Maryland.) Mandler helped to chase the remnants of the SS through the forest of post-war Germany. He and two other Ritchie Boys came across an SS hideout in the middle of the woods in Germany and discovered a trove of Nazi cash. They decided to divide the loot among themselves as a kind of restitution and never told anyone else—until he wrote about it in a memoir for his family.

There was one girl who ended up in the Shanghai ghetto, a forgotten episode of the Holocaust. After Pearl Harbor, the Japanese took control of the international settlement in Shanghai and didn’t know what to do with the Jews. After Japan and Germany became allies, the SS showed up and advised the Japanese to put all the Jews on an ocean liner and torpedo it. That was too much for the Japanese, and, as kind of a compromise, they rounded up the Jews, placed them in a ghetto, and significantly worsened conditions. But the majority of these Jews survived. This woman, Gertrude Langer, in a long interview about Shanghai, gave a fantastic description of what that was like and also described pre-war Shanghai, a town essentially run by two Iraqi Jewish families and like a little Vienna. This was a whole episode of Jewish history I knew little about.

The third one is a boy named Fred Schwarz, who didn’t get as far as Britain. He got stuck in Netherlands, in a Nazi transit camp called Westerbork, and then was transferred to the Theresienstadt concentration camp. He and his brother survived all of it, and he described their harrowing experiences in intimate details in a book he published in Dutch called Trains on a Dead Track. It’s one of the most extraordinary accounts of survival I’ve ever read. It’s so intimately and precisely remembered, and he recounts these extraordinary scenes at the end of the war, when the camp inmates and their SS guards were both desperately trying to flee the Red Army and reach the American forces.

Working on this book, no doubt, caused you to think more about the Holocaust than we are generally accustomed to doing. But as a journalist, you’ve covered many horrors and genocidal actions. Did working on this book change how you see the Holocaust?

No matter how black or dark an idea we have of the Holocaust, it’s still impossibly tainted, because all our accounts of the Holocaust are from people who survived it. This book contains the tales of survivors, but I’m very aware these are the stories of a small minority who got away. The great unknown is all the stories of the people who did not survive. Maybe that is so overwhelming and too difficult for us to absorb. We learn our history of the Holocaust out of the mouths of people who survived.

The dead don’t speak.

Yes, the dead don’t speak.

There’s a tendency to make comparisons between what is happening now in the United States and what occurred in Germany and Austria in the 1930s. I believe we should learn from history but also be cautious in drawing parallels. After spending so much time researching what happened in Vienna, which was a liberal and cosmopolitan city where Jews had become well established in the highest reaches of society, do you see anything from that period relevant for Americans today?

Several things. One is that among these well-established Jewish families was a conviction that it couldn’t possibly happen here. The Nazis could come in, but it couldn’t last too long, because we are too civilized, and Vienna is too civilized. In that situation, it was the pessimists who survived and the optimists who were killed. Similarly, it was the wealthy Jews who were killed. They had more to lose by leaving, so they stayed.

“This is a reminder of how fragile are the things that we take for granted in terms of civilization and how quickly it can change—and how there are, without doubt, among us people who would enthusiastically take part in atrocities against their neighbors.”

The second thing I found notable was the overnight transformation of the Viennese people. The people who my family, my father, my grandparents saw as schoolmates, neighbors, and friends turned on them overnight when the Nazis arrived. When my grandfather was on his hands and knees with the other Jews being forced to clean the sidewalks, he was spat on and jeered by the people in his district. Many of them he knew. This is a reminder of how fragile are the things that we take for granted in terms of civilization and how quickly it can change—and how there are, without doubt, among us people who would enthusiastically take part in atrocities against their neighbors. There are potential psychopaths among us. What matters is how permissive the environment is. That’s a lesson we learned in Vienna, but also in Yugoslavia and in Rwanda—how fragile is this idea of civilized society.

One of the biggest surprises of the book for me was learning that my great aunt, who was a very diminutive and rather eccentric woman who dressed like it was still the 1930s and who was a terrible hypochondriac and neurotic—a figure of some derision within our family—was a hero of the French Resistance. She was a communist who went to Paris and then to the south of France and became part of a German-speaking network within the resistance that was used to infiltrate German camps, bases, and office. Her son, who was like a brother to my father, was sent to Austria to report on factories and if necessary, sabotage or foment unrest. But the Gestapo learned the identities of the members of his network and came for him. He ended up being taken back to Vienna and tortured to death by the Gestapo.

Our family didn’t know any of this history. My great aunt knew but she didn’t tell anyone. After the war, she went back to Vienna. Her husband and her son were dead, and she lived out the rest of her days a sad figure, existing rather than living. As incurious children, we would visit her and have no idea of her history and what she had been through. That’s a powerful lesson. You just don’t know about people.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

North Carolina GOP Judge Finally Concedes After Six-Month Effort to Steal Election Fails

Six months after the November election, Republican state supreme court candidate Jefferson Griffin finally conceded to Democratic Justice Allison Riggs on Wednesday after his unprecedented effort to throw out thousands of votes and overturn Riggs’ win was rejected by a federal court.

Two recounts affirmed Riggs’ 734-vote margin of victory after the election, but Griffin, an appeals court judge, refused to concede and challenged the eligibility of more than 65,000 voters. He presented no evidence of illegal voting, but two GOP-dominated courts in North Carolina—the state of appeals and state supreme court—green-lit his scheme to throw out enough votes to potentially reverse Riggs’ win.

On Monday, however, federal district court Judge Richard Myers, who was appointed by Donald Trump, overruled the state courts in North Carolina and ordered the state board of election to certify Riggs’ election. “You establish the rules before the game,” he wrote. “You don’t change them after the game is done.”

Riggs celebrated the ruling in a statement: “After millions of dollars spent, more than 68,000 voters at risk of losing their votes, thousands of volunteers mobilized, hundreds of legal documents filed, and immeasurable damage done to our democracy, I’m glad the will of the voters was finally heard, six months and two days after Election Day. It’s been my honor to lead this fight–even though it should never have happened.”

“This is a righteous victory for democracy and a clear defeat of political gamesmanship,” added DNC Chair Ken Martin. “For 200 days, Republicans in North Carolina sought to overturn the will of the people, hijack a state Supreme Court seat, and systematically undermine basic faith in our elections.”

Even though he was ultimately unsuccessful, Griffin’s six-month effort to overturn the election did tremendous damage to the democratic process.

Riggs’ victory maintains the 5–2 Republican majority on the state supreme court. But it gives Democrats a shot at retaking the court before the critical 2030 redistricting cycle, when the court could oversee new legislative maps. That’s one reason the race was so hotly contested. “We’ve knocked over the first domino that we need to for Democrats to take back the North Carolina Supreme Court in 2028,” Riggs told me after the election.

Even though Griffin was ultimately unsuccessful, his six-month effort to overturn the election did a tremendous amount of damage to the democratic process. He got much further than Trump didin 2020, convincing two state courts in North Carolina to throw out thousands of otherwise lawful votes after two recounts had affirmed Riggs’ victory and every other election from November had been certified. That will go a long way toward making election subversion the norm rather than the exception, especially in states, like North Carolina, where Republicans control the top courts and election boards.

Democratic State Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls called Griffin’s attempt to steal the election “a bloodless coup.” Voting rights activists referred to it as “a nonviolent version of January 6.” Just like Trump’s effort to overturn the election inspired election deniers to seize positions of power across the country, what played out in North Carolina could embolden other losing candidates to go to extreme lengths to contest future elections.

“His effort to change the rules after an election is unprecedented,” Riggs wrote in one legal brief. “And if Judge Griffin succeeds, the implications are staggering. Rather than suing before an election to challenge rules they do not believe are valid, candidates will have an incentive to say nothing and wait to see if they win. Then if they lose, they will drag out elections through litigation for months, seeking to throw out votes until they win. Never again will North Carolina voters walk out of the voting booths knowing that their votes will count, and the court system will be flooded with lawsuits after every election seeking to challenge votes all over the State.”

Sadly, that dangerous precedent may now have been set even though Griffin ultimately lost. Republicans are getting closer and closer to achieving their ultimate goal of toppling democracy altogether.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Aviation Industry “Failing Dramatically” on Climate, Insiders Say

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

The aviation industry is “failing dramatically” in its efforts to tackle its role in the climate crisis, according to a newly formed group of aviation professionals.

They say they are torn between their passion for flying and their concern for the planet and are calling for a fundamental transition of the industry, including controlling flight numbers.

The group, Call Aviation to Action, says the industry is overly optimistic about emissions-cutting technology and trapped in a business model that demands ever-growing flight numbers. The lack of significant climate action from the industry risks it being destroyed, the group says, as heavy regulation from outside will become necessary as the climate crisis intensifies.

Karel Bockstael, a co-founder of the group, and a vice president of sustainability at KLM Royal Dutch Airlines until 2022, said: “We see the good that aviation can do but we also see that we must reinvent our industry to restore its positive contribution to the world.”

Due to their international nature, carbon dioxide emissions from aviation are excluded from the national plans that countries submit to the UN’s climate body. Instead, the UN’s aviation body, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), is tasked with tackling the planet-heating gases.

“As a commercial pilot, I’m trained to recognize risks and act, and the climate crisis is one we can’t ignore.”

Bockstael said: “My view is ICAO have been failing dramatically on that responsibility, because the only thing it came up with after eight years of discussion is the Corsia scheme, which is nothing more than carbon offsets for the growth of aviation above a certain threshold, exporting your problem to another industry.” The scheme has been criticized as “unambitious and problematic” and has yet to require any airline to use a carbon credit.

He said: “If we do not act, by 2050 aviation emissions will be about a quarter of all human-caused emissions—that will be really a very shameful position.

“We love the magic of flying but we foresee it being destroyed. That’s what we want to prevent. We hope our initiative will help a really big group of aviation professionals to speak up, because we think they’re the silent majority. We need to break the silence and encourage our industry leaders to become part of this transition.”

The Guardian has previously been contacted by numerous aviation professionals concerned about the climate crisis but who felt unable to speak publicly.

The group said it had already signed up dozens of professionals before its launch on Tuesday, including engineers and airport and airline executives.

A spokesperson for ICAO said: “ICAO is committed to developing technically robust aviation standards and guidance material that can be implemented worldwide to drive progress towards the net zero carbon emissions goals that governments have set. As a politically neutral standard-setting body, we do not comment on the positions or activities of specific external parties.”

Tom Reynolds, an airline pilot and member of Safe Landing, a global group of climate-concerned aviation workers, said: “As a commercial pilot, I’m trained to recognise risks and act, and the climate crisis is one we can’t ignore. But I believe we’re on the cusp of a new jet age. With bold leadership, investment and the right policies, we can build an aviation industry that celebrates and preserves the beauty of flying for generations to come.”

Flying causes more CO2 emissions than any other form of transport per mile and is dominated by rich passengers, with 1 percent of the world’s population responsible for 50 percent of aviation emissions. The industry’s climate plans are rated “critically insufficient” by Climate Action Tracker.

ICAO forecasts a doubling of passenger numbers by 2042, and the industry argues that more efficient aircraft, sustainable fuels and Corsia can control CO2 emissions. The ICAO has been accused of having been captured by the industry, the Guardian reported in February.

Independent experts say the feasible scale of measures to cut aviation emissions is extremely unlikely to compensate for such a doubling in traffic, with, for example, fuel-efficiency improvements now stalling. The CEO of Qatar Airways called the airline industry’s emissions goals a “PR exercise” in 2023.

Bockstael said: “The absolute impact of aviation is still on a pathway up despite all the longer-term aspirations of ICAO [of net zero by 2050].”

The Call Aviation to Action group said the industry should set targets for absolute emissions cuts in line with science-based CO2 budgets and stop “lobbying against climate policies.” The industry should also acknowledge that managing global demand for flights in a fair way is part of the solution, it said.

Bockstael said the cost of emissions-cutting technologies would increase the price of flying but that additional measures, such as flight or carbon taxes, could be needed to keep passenger numbers at sustainable levels. Such constraints on demand must be fair, he said, offering equitable access to flying in developing countries and addressing heavy frequent flyers in rich nations.

Finlay Asher, an aerospace engineer and member of Safe Landing, said: “As an engineer, what really excites me is that the Call Aviation to Action proposals would lead to a new golden age of innovation. Our industry is in need of an upgrade: new aircraft designs, new forms of zero-carbon power and new airport layouts to support these. The research, development and operation of this new air transport system will not only create more jobs but also make flying greener, cleaner, quieter and more accessible to society.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Nikole Hannah-Jones: Trump Is Erasing Black History

President Donald Trump’s second term has swung a wrecking ball at diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and programs throughout the country. Few writers seem better suited to explain this unique moment in America than Nikole Hannah-Jones.

A New York Times journalist and Howard University professor, Hannah-Jones has spent years studying and shaping compelling—and at times controversial—narratives about American history. In 2019, she created The 1619 Project, a series of stories and essays that placed the first slave ship that arrived in Virginia at the center of the US’ origin story. Today, the Trump administration is pushing against that kind of historical reframing while dismantling federal policies designed to address structural racism. Hannah-Jones says she’s been stunned by the speed of Trump’s first few months.

“We haven’t seen the federal government weaponized against civil rights in this way” since the turn of the century, Hannah-Jones says. “We’ve not lived in this America before. And we are experiencing something that, if you study history, it’s not unpredictable, yet it’s still shocking that we’re here.”

On this week’s episode of More To The Story, host Al Letson talks to Hannah-Jones about the rollback of DEI and civil rights programs across the country, the ongoing battle to reframe American history, and whether this will lead to another moment of rebirth for Black Americans.

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Is Eager to Defund Harvard, Yet Publicly Subsidized Hate Groups Get a Pass

One particularly surreal aspect of Donald Trump threatening the tax-exempt status of Harvard, one of the nation’s oldest and foremost educational institutions—and excluding it from federal research funding for refusing to heed the administration’s oversight demands—is the fact that even some of the nation’s most hateful and antidemocratic entities qualify as tax-exempt charities. As I explain in my book, Jackpot:

A 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation is broadly defined as an organization with religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes. There are charities dedicated to “fostering appreciation” for camellias and “promoting the medium of American mime.” (The latter, last I checked, had more than $6 million in assets.) In 2017, according to one investigative outlet, the National Christian Foundation—one of the largest faith-based donor- advised funds—distributed more than $19 million of its donors’ money to tax-exempt charities that were anti-LGBTQ, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant.

Among the NCF’s leading recipients is Alliance Defending Freedom, a network of Christian lawyers that the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated a hate group for its antigay activities. The Alliance collects tens of millions in tax-exempt donations each year. It has expressed support for foreign laws criminalizing sodomy, represented business owners in court who refuse to serve LGBTQ customers, opposed transgender troops, and even disputed that the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a young gay man, in Laramie, Wyoming, was a hate crime.

I bring this all up because acting US Attorney Ed Martin, Trump’s ill-fated pick for permanent US Attorney for the Washington,DC, district, apparently had a cozy relationship with the white nationalist group VDare. According to a 2024 report from Media Matters, Martin has called himself a “big admirer” of the nonprofit group. (His nomination appears doomed, albeit for unrelated reasons.) Media Matters wrote:

Martin also repeatedly hosted VDare leader and white nationalist Peter Brimelow on his now-defunct radio program The Ed Martin Movement. During an episode that aired on November 29, 2018, Martin praised Brimelow as “a guy worth listening to” and told him, “I’m always glad to give you a voice, you’re always welcome here.”

VDare, which suspended its activities last July, was an active tax-exempt charity during Trump’s first term. In 2018, too, the Trump administration reinstated the tax-exempt status of white nationalist Richard Spencer‘s National Policy Institute, which had its status revoked automatically for failing to file mandatory 990 tax returns for three years running.

It is telling that a president who never questioned the tax-exempt status of white nationalist groups is now suggesting his IRS might take a hard look at Harvard’s.

Of course, even that simple suggestion would seem to violate federal law, which states explicitly (emphasis mine): “It shall be unlawful for any applicable person”—the president, vice president, any of their staffers, or any cabinet member—”to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer.” (The law was passed post-Watergate to ensure that no administration could weaponize the IRS as President Richard Nixon sought to do.)

Even if Harvard has some issues to work out related to alleged antisemitism, US taxpayers continue to subsidize nonprofits that exist largely to stoke anti-immigrant and religious hatred. If we are compelled to support these kinds of groups in the name of “education,” we’d best be compelled to also support legitimate institutions of higher learning. As I wrote in the book:

Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who slaughtered those Black parishioners in Charleston, wrote that he was motivated by “black on white” crime propaganda he discovered on the website of the nonprofit Council of Conservative Citizens, one of whose former board members, a self-described “race realist” named Jared Taylor, runs the like-minded New Century Foundation, another tax-exempt nonprofit. VDare Foundation, a vehemently anti-immigrant journalism nonprofit, has collected more than $5 million over the past decade. Its website features headlines such as “Milwaukee Shooting: Six Out of Eleven Mass Shootings in 86% White Wisconsin Are by Minorities or Immigrants” and “NYPD Releases Pic of Suspect in Tessa Majors Killing. Guess What? He’s Black.”

Taylor’s New Century Foundation also appears to be inactive these days, and an entirely unrelated nonprofit exists under the same name. When I reached Taylor by phone circa 2020, he told me he disagreed with Roof’s motive of starting a race war (“that’s immoral”), but said “his grievances were understandable.” Taylor also disputed the Southern Poverty Law Center’s characterization of the Council of Conservative Citizens and New Century as white nationalists, saying, “I call myself a ‘race realist’ and a “white advocate.’ ”

Alas, our current, Orwellian, administration—with its nasty scapegoating of immigrants and clumsy attempts to erase the historical contributions of women, LGBTQ people, and nonwhites from the public commons under the guise of eliminating “DEI”—has proved itself a “white advocate” at the expense of just about everyone else.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

RFK Jr. May Have Inspired Acting US Attorney’s Harassment of Medical Journals

Ed Martin, the acting US Attorney for Washington, DC, had recently been peppering medical journals with “vaguely threatening” letters accusing them of acting as “partisans” in scientific debates.

Those missives are just one genre within a barrage of communiques Martin has sent to perceived Trump foes—congressional Democrats, special counsel Jack Smith, a former Mueller prosecutor, nonprofits and Georgetown law—since taking office in January, part of a clumsy effort to turn the nation’s largest prosecutorial office into an organ of his boss’s retribution.

But the letters Martin addressed to prominent publications, including the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and JAMA, and lesser-known journals such as CHEST, published by the American College of Chest Physicians, have been among the weirdest.

The US Attorney in DC has no evident authority over the tax status of medical journals published in other jurisdictions. Martin, who has no prosecutorial experience, let alone a scientific background, also seems to lack any understanding of, or interest in, how peer-reviewed journals work. His letters ask whether the publication in question accepts submissions from scientists with “competing viewpoints,” and inquire about how they “handle allegations that authors of works in your journals may have misled their readers.”

The letters fail to acknowledge the strong First Amendment protections scientific journals enjoy against the government telling them what to print.

But the reason for Martin’s bizarre campaign against medical publications became clearer Monday night, when Trump, in a social media post attempting to resuscitate Martin’s declining hopes of Senate confirmation, said Health and Human Services secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. believed Martin’s confirmation “is IMPERATIVE in terms of doing all that has to be done to SAVE LIVES and to, MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN.”

Martin also had a little-noticed meeting with Kennedy on March 18 at HHS.

Thank you @USAEdMartin for our great discussion today on ways we can work together to MAHA. https://t.co/SixDTx5Vu0

— Secretary Kennedy (@SecKennedy) March 19, 2025

Martin began writing to the medical journals the following month. “It has been brought to my attention that more and more journals and publication…are conceding that they are partisans in various scientific debates,” he wrote to CHEST, before asking about the inclusion of competing viewpoints. Martin also questioned the journals about the influence the National Institutes of Health exerts over “the development of submitted articles.”

These lines of questioning track views expressed by Kennedy. As the New York Times recently noted, Kennedy attacked NEJM on a podcast last year as an example of a journal that had taken part in “lying to the public” and “retracting the real science.” Kennedy, then a presidential candidate, said he planned to use federal criminal and civil statutes against the journals. “I’m going to litigate against you under the racketeering laws, under the general tort laws,” he said. “I’m going to find a way to sue you unless you come up with a plan right now to show how you’re going to start publishing real science.”

HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon declined to comment on whether Martin targeted the journals at Kennedy’s direction. But Nixon cited the March 18 meeting where the men agreed to work together.

Kennedy’s apparent role in Martin’s missives is an ominous development for science publishers. Martin’s odds of confirmation declined on Tuesday, when Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), a member of the Judiciary committee, announced his opposition. If not confirmed, Martin will have to leave office on May 20, after which Jeb Boasberg, the chief judge of the DC District Court, whom the Trump White House also has attacked, would be charged with picking an interim attorney to serve until the Senate confirms a presidential nominee.

But a Kennedy campaign against scientific journals and other institutions will likely carry on in some form. Though Martin’s nomination may be dead, MAHA will live at least a bit longer.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump-Appointed Judge Blocks GOP Plot to Steal North Carolina Election

The unprecedented GOP attempt to overturn a Democratic victory in a North Carolina State Supreme Court race suffered a major setback Monday night at the hands of a stalwart conservative judge who was appointed by Donald Trump.

In a lengthy ruling,federal district court Judge Richard Myers rejected the effort by Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin to throw out thousands of votes. Myers ordered the state board of election to certify Democrat Allison Riggs’ 734-vote victory.

On April 11, six months after the election, the Republican-dominated state supreme court—still short-handed from the contested election**—**had green-lit Griffin’s attempt to invalidate enough ballots from overseas and military voters to potentially reverse Riggs’ victory. Democratic Justice Anita Earls called that decision “a bloodless coup.”

“It’s hard to envision a more ‘severe restriction’ than retroactive invalidation of one’s vote.”

On Monday,Myers overruled the state Supreme Court’s decision. “This case concerns whether the federal Constitution permits a state to alter the rules of an election after the fact and apply those changes retroactively to only a select group of voters, and in so doing treat those voters differently than other similarly situated individuals,” he wrote. “This case is also about whether a state may redefine its class of eligible voters but offer no process to those who may have been misclassified as ineligible. To this court, the answer to each of those questions is ‘no.’”

Myers found that the state court decisions agreeing with Griffin’s legal challenges would violate “the equal protection and substantive due process rights of overseas military and civilian voters.” He prominently cited Bush v. Gore, the landmark 2000 case in which the US Supreme Court found that a manual recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated voters’ rights to equal protection under the law because it only applied to three large, Democratic-leaning counties.

“Today, we won,” Riggs said in a statement. “I’m proud to continue upholding the Constitution and the rule of law as North Carolina’s Supreme Court Justice.”

After two recounts had affirmed Riggs’ victory, Griffin initially challenged 60,000 ballots cast by early and mail-in voters who had allegedly submitted incomplete voter registration forms, even though all of them showed ID when they voted. But Griffin didn’t identify a single instance of someone who had voted illegally, and his list including example after example of lawful voters who had been wrongly challenged—including Riggs’ own parents.

The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected that aspect of Griffin’s challenge, but itallowed him to selectively target the ballots of military and overseas voters from heavily Democratic counties who did not show ID when they voted from abroad because it was not required at the time, according to rules codified by the state election board before November. Griffin asked the court to throw out more than 5,000 ballots cast by voters in six Democratic-leaning counties, which he said would result in his victory.

Myers found that this scheme violated those voters’ equal protection and due process rights. “As a consequence, overseas military and civilian voters who cast a ballot in Guilford County are required to undertake additional efforts in order to have their votes counted,” he wrote. “Their neighbors in Randolph, Alamance, and Rockingham Counties need not. That disparate treatment between similarly situated voters, based solely on their casting of ballots in ‘different counties,’ amounts to ‘a constitutional violation’ of the Equal Protection Clause.” He also wrote that “retroactive invalidation of overseas military and civilian voters’ ballots violates their substantive due process rights.”

Griffin additionally challenged close to 300ballots cast by US citizens living abroad whose parents had established residency in North Carolina. The state Supreme Court ordered those ballots thrown out with no opportunity for the voters to prove their eligibility, even though the law granting voting rights to those so-called “never residents” was unanimously passed by the North Carolina legislature in 2011 and at least 30 people on the list had voted in North Carolina before. “The court finds that post-election ballot disqualification for individuals erroneously designated as Never Residents constitutes a substantial burden on the right to vote,” Myers wrote.

The 68-page opinion—authored by a conservative federal judge—represented an emphatic defeat for Griffin. “It’s hard to envision a more ‘severe restriction’ than retroactive invalidation of one’s vote,” Myers wrote.He called Griffin’s post-election challenge “an attempt to change the rules of the game after it had been played” and added that the“court cannot countenance that strategy.”

Myers gave Griffin a week to appeal the order before the state board certified the result. Election law expert Rick Hasen predicted that further appeals would be rejected, including by the US Supreme Court, given the strength of the due process and equal protection arguments.

Riggs’ victory would maintain the 5-2 Republican majority on the state Supreme Court. But it would give Democrats a shot at retaking the court before the critical 2030 redistricting cycle, when the court could oversee new legislative maps. That’s one reason the race was so hotly contested. “We’ve knocked over the first domino that we need to for Democrats to take back the North Carolina Supreme Court in 2028,” Riggs told me after the election.

But even if Griffin ultimately loses, which now appears likely, his monthslong effort to steal the election sets an extremely dangerous precedent. He got much further than Trump didin 2020, convincing two state courts in North Carolina to throw out thousands of otherwise lawful votes after two recounts had affirmed Riggs’ victory and every other election from November had been certified. That will go a long way toward making election subversion the norm rather than the exception, especially in states where Republicans control state courts.

It shouldn’t be considered a major victory for democracy when an election result is certified six months after the contest has concluded. But that’s where things stand in Trump’s America.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Why is Everybody Hating on Richie Rich?

For kids like me, who grew up in the 1960s and ’70s, comics were a big deal. Our media landscape otherwise consisted mainly of books and records, commercial radio, and, in my family’s case, a small black-and-white TV with a coat hanger antenna that got four staticky channels. So we periodically raided our piggy banks and headed to the Stop-N-Go for candy and comics. My favorite was Richie Rich.

Richie was wildly popular, a brave and generous little fellow with unfathomably wealthy parents. He’s 9 or 10 years old in the comics, with a signature outfit consisting of white booties, blue shorts, a black jacket, and a white shirt with a big red bowtie. (He’s a teenager, with outfits less Little Lord Fauntleroy, in the 1980s cartoon series—ditto the 1994 Macaulay Culkin movie.)

Swimming pools filled with cash, monogrammed ships and planes. All part of the Riches’ over-the-top aesthetic.NBCUniversal

Had someone compared you to Richie back in the day, you might have thanked them. After all, he used his vast wealth for good. But Richie’s reputation has fallen upon hard times. “We all knew Trump was richie rich scumbag,” one Bluesky user wrote in March. Another posted, in reference to the Virginia governor and Trump sycophant Glenn Youngkin: “‘Richie Rich’ Youngkin (R), thinks poor people should just fucking stay poor.” A third circulated a parody comic book cover, “Richie Reich,” featuring a dour Musk/Richie hybrid doing the Nazi salute. It got more than 1,100 likes.

“Richie is so misunderstood,” laments 30-year-old news producer Jonny Harvey, whose late grandfather, Leon, along with brothers Alfred and Robert, churned out hundreds of issues of Richie Rich on their family-friendly Harvey Comics imprint from 1960 through 1982—with an encore from 1986 to 1989, when the company was sold—in addition to titles like Little Audrey and Casper the Friendly Ghost.

Richie would not appreciate being associated with Elon Musk.Gretchen Kent

“I think people believe he’s this spoiled rich kid,” says Harvey, who is working on a documentary about the late family business. “Because of the blond hair, because he was the son of a multimillionaire, people make that [Trump] comparison. And there couldn’t be anything further from that.”

Something clearly has shifted in our culture that we would so defame this icon of upper-crust benevolence. As a journalist who covers inequality and the author of a book, Jackpot, about the American wealth fantasy run amok, I decided it was time to revisit Richie to try to understand how economic changes since his heyday might account for the transformation. As it turns out, there are important lessons here for grownups, even if you’ve never heard of “the poor little rich boy.”

The Richie comics, in retrospect, are wildly incongruous. Richie’s family (much like Trump’s) is comically ostentatious. His mom is a jewel-laden socialite, his dad some sort of industrialist. They have swimming pools filled with cash, piles of gleaming gemstones, safes swollen to bursting, and driveways paved with gold bars—not to mention monogrammed ships and planes and swank mansions. The “help” includes butler Cadbury, robot maid Irona, and Bascomb, a chauffeur who shuttles Richie around in a stretch limo. Their dog, Dollar, has dollar signs for spots.

It’s all quite over the top, and that’s part of the appeal. Billionaire and former Dallas Mavericks majority owner Mark Cuban, raised in a middle-class Pittsburgh family, “loved, loved, loved Richie Rich,” he told me via email. “Watching the cartoon was like driving around wealthy neighborhoods, dreaming of one day being able to afford one of the palatial homes I never thought I would ever even walk inside.”

Yet Richie is no snob. His endless money is leavened by courage, loyalty, and sheer goodness. Despite his vast fortune, he steers clear of the trust-fund kids, opting instead to share his adventures with public school pals. Richie’s besties, Freckles and Pee-Wee Friendly, basically live in a shack. “It was so funny,” says Angelo DeCesare, who wrote and drew Richie for Harvey Comics from 1978 to 1980. “It looked like this beat-up old thing with boards. They really made them poor!” Gloria Glad, Richie’s sweetheart, is the proverbial middle-class girl next door.

“Reggie was a jerk. The idea was to be more like Richie..” says former Harvey Comics artist Angelo DeCesare. “Reggie was presented as the guy who always got his comeuppance.”NBCUniversal

Plots typically involved Richie using his limitless resources to bail out a friend, help solve somebody’s problem, or foil the bad guys forever scheming to steal his family’s wealth. In a paper, York University marketing professor Russell Belk summarized one 1966 story like this: “To keep his girlfriend Gloria’s father from being transferred out of town, Richie Rich buys a hot dog factory for $500,000 and has her father made general manager. The man Richie outbids for the plant is his father, who was buying it as a gift for Richie’s next birthday.”

The Harvey neighborhood crew includes a Black kid—quite the rarity in mainstream comics back then, though race is never referenced: Tiny’s distinguishing trait is his diminutive stature. “It was a way of showing that we’re all part of the same neighborhood, that we all have the same aspirations…that we all can have fun together,” Kathy Jackson, a professor of media at Virginia Wesleyan University, told Jonny Harvey in an interview for his film. “Certainly, in the 1960s, in the age of civil rights, that had important ramifications.”

Most of Harvey’s founders, artists, and writers were first- or second-generation Jewish immigrants, more than a little familiar with ethnic bigotry. Their mission was to sell comics by creating stories that appealed to kids, encouraged them to read, and imparted good values along the way.

Richie would be appalled by the thought that “the fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy,” as Elon Musk told Joe Rogan in February. He would never, as Musk did on X, brag about a weekend spent “feeding USAID into a wood chipper.” Nor would he terrorize federal workers or seek Medicaid reductions to facilitate tax cuts for his family. He wouldn’t slash research funding, either—Richie loves scientists and inventors. He’d be inclined to build them new, cutting-edge labs—and gleaming hospitals for the sick, and cozy abodes for the unhoused.

Because Richie Rich is not an asshole.

He is, alas, entirely fictional. “There was no such person like that in the world, who had that kind of money and would use it in the way Richie did,” DeCesare told me. To longtime Harvey Comics editor Sid Jacobson, “Richie was his idealized fantasy of what he really wished the wealthy would be; they would be kind,” says son Seth Jacobson, 67, who remembers hanging out with his late father’s team at their offices in Manhattan’s old Gulf and Western Building. “My dad was a diehard Democrat,” he recalls. “He wanted taxes to be higher for the rich and the upper middle class. He wanted universal health coverage.”

Some Richie characters were more in sync with the Mar-a-Lago crowd, like Reginald Van Dough, Richie’s greedy, scheming cousin, and Mayda Munny, a snooty social climber who is desperate to woo Richie away from Gloria but inevitably fails because Gloria loves Richie despite his money, not because of it. “Those comics were very moral. That’s what I liked about them,” says DeCesare. “Reggie was a jerk. The idea was to be more like Richie. Be generous, kind, have empathy for your fellow human beings. Reggie was presented as the guy who always got his comeuppance.”

Ideally, children are encouraged to share and tell the truth—and to care about others. As we grow up, some people continue to embrace those values. Others clearly don’t. As for Richie’s parents, the question of what it might take to amass and protect such riches or who may have been exploited in the process is never explored. Did Mr. Rich, like even the “good billionaire” Warren Buffett, have vast holdings in polluting industries or take advantage of obscure (if scandalously legal) tax avoidance strategies? We’ll never know. Richie exists in a realm free of adult politics, unscathed by what one wealthy Silicon Valley denizen described to me as the “blasé weirdness” experienced by the heirs to vast fortunes—think Succession. (“My wife and I are doing our best for that not to happen,” Cuban told me. “I hope my kids are more like Richie.”)

The values Richie embodied, and our notion of noblesse oblige—the duty of society’s richest to behave with honor, generosity, and responsibility toward those with less—have waned in tandem with a staggering rise in wealth inequality. In 1960, if your salary exceeded $60,000, every additional dollar was taxed at a rate ranging from 71 percent to 91 percent. This helped keep our financial differences in check. But the tax cuts signed by President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s chopped the top bracket from 70 percent to 28 percent. Two years after he left office, Congress enabled a type of trust—by accident, the lawyer credited with inventing it told me—that America’s dynasties now use routinely to transfer vast fortunes, often billions of dollars, to offspring without paying a dime of inheritance tax.

Since Richie’s heyday, we’ve also witnessed the rise of the zero-sum mindset embodied by Trump and his minions. Namely, the idea that every transaction has a winner and a loser—and you do not want to lose. This ethos is now standard operating procedure for a subset of the superrich, compelling ultrawealthy parents to bribe and cheat their children’s way into elite colleges, as revealed in the 2019 scandal dubbed Operation Varsity Blues. It also helps explain why more than 84 percent of that year’s incoming college freshmen—whose collective top priority in 1969 was “developing a meaningful philosophy of life”—selected as their new No. 1 goal: “being very well off financially.”

A uniting myth of America for scrappers and strivers and immigrants is that of a land of opportunity, despite the bigotry that has pervaded our laws and culture. (Leon Harvey would have excelled in advertising, grandson Jonny told me, “but Jewish sons of Jewish immigrants mostly could not get the advertising jobs.”) The distribution of wealth in Richie’s day was by no means egalitarian, but it was markedly more so than today. The notion of a child of superrich parents attending public schools and mixing with poor and middle-income kids was less laughable in 1965, when the pay ratio of CEOs to typical workers at the nation’s 350 largest companies was 21 to 1. By 2019, the ratio had soared to 320 to 1.

A real child of billionaires today probably wouldn’t be running around with poor kids like Freckles and Pee-Wee.NBCUniversal/Sally Edelstein archive

Such vast resource differences contribute to what social scientists call “income segregation,” and I like to call “wealth flight.” “The things that people can afford tend to dictate the spaces that they inhabit,” explains Cornell sociologist Kendra Bischoff, who studies the phenomenon in collaboration with Stanford’s Sean Reardon. Rising inequality increases “the spatial separation of people of different incomes,” she told me. When parents opt into private schools, elite sports leagues, and other exclusive activities for their children, “those are the kinds of structural conditions that lead kids to be a lot less likely to hang out with each other,” and that lack of exposure very plausibly “limits their understanding of the world and decreases empathy for people who are different than them.”

There’s that word again—the one that, in the Trumpian mindset, belies weakness. Indeed, there’s good evidence that people of higher socioeconomic status tend to be less empathetic than their lower-status counterparts. “We find that people who are relatively well-off are less likely to orient to others in social environments,” says Paul Piff, a psychologist who studies wealth and behavior at the University of California, Irvine. What’s more, he says, “upper-class individuals show—both explicitly, they talk about it, and physiologically—reduced signs of compassion, less sympathy. They’re less moved by the needs of others.”

Who’s to know if hoarding money makes some people callous or whether less-empathetic people are simply more prone to pursuing materialistic aims? Cuban restated a theory I’ve heard numerous times, that great wealth merely amplifies a person’s character: If you’re a Reginald sans dough, you’ll end up a Reginald Van Dough. But “if you were nice and caring” before you hit the jackpot, you’ll remain a good person—and have more resources to do good. “Where I think people deviate from that is during the grind to make money—to get to having more than you ever dreamed of,” Cuban says. “That grind is filled with uncertainty for all those not born wealthy. That’s where you focus on your company, often to the exclusion of others. Families. Relationships.”

The ramifications of America’s wealth divide have grown clearer as the Trump regime lays waste to agencies and programs that the families of Richie’s friends might have relied upon and seeks to privatize federal services and enact more tax breaks for the wealthiest 0.01 percent—a group who began this year with an average of $938 million in estimated household assets, and whose share of the nation’s overall wealth has more than quadrupled since 1976, even as the middle class’s share has dwindled.

Richie Rich was a good egg, if a Fabergé one. But today, as America’s wealthiest have fallen in line behind the most egregiously materialistic human being ever to occupy the Oval Office, Richie seems like an anachronism. Remember that Gulf and Western Building where Harvey Comics once had its offices? In the mid-1990s it was acquired by a consortium that included a certain New York City real estate developer. Now it’s the Trump International Hotel and Tower.

The irony, as they say, is rich.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Bird Populations Are Declining Across North America

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

Bird populations across North America are falling most quickly in areas where they are most abundant, according to new research, prompting fears of ecological collapse in previously protected areas.

Analysis of nearly 500 bird species across North America has found that three-quarters are declining across their ranges, with two-thirds of the total shrinking significantly.

The study, published in the journal Science, indicates that former strongholds for bird species are no longer safe, particularly in grasslands, drylands, and the Arctic.

Some of the study results suggest that we are “seeing fundamental changes to the environments around us.”

In one of the most ambitious uses of citizen science data so far, scientists at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology used observations from eBird, a popular application used by birdwatchers to record sightings, to model changes between 2007 and 2021. The granularity of the data allowed researchers to track the rate of change in 10-square-mile segments across North America, showing dramatic declines in areas where less than two decades ago bird species had thrived.

“We’ve known for several years that a lot of bird species in North America have been declining. With this study, we were aiming to understand in much finer spatial resolution where birds were declining and where they might be increasing. Rather than having a range-wide trend to see if a species is going up or down, we want to know where it is going up and down,” said Alison Johnston, director of the Centre for Research into Ecological and Environmental Modelling at the University of St Andrews, UK, who led the study.

“The main ecological finding is that the locations where these species were thriving in the past, where the environments were really well suited to birds, are now the places where they are suffering the most,” she said.

The researchers said further studies were needed to explain the reasons behind the changes, many of which were dramatic, with populations falling by more than 10 percent a year in some areas. Global heating and habitat change were put forward as the main theories behind the shifts, but Johnston said they ultimately did not know.

“The way I interpret this result is that it’s indicative of major changes in our world,” she said. “The fact that where birds used to have strongholds, where there used to be a lot of resources, where the environments were really suitable, are now the places where they are declining most, that suggests to me that we are just seeing fundamental changes to the environments around us. The birds are like the canary in the coal mine,” she said.

The research adds to a recent series of studies that have documented severe declines of birds in nature reserves and protected areas.

Despite the worrying overall picture, the researchers found pockets of stability in bird populations in their analysis, such as the Appalachians and western mountains. In addition, 97 percent of all bird species had some pockets where their populations were increasing.

The team at Cornell University has previously developed methods for reliably converting citizen science observations in apps such as eBird into data that can be used to monitor population changes in a single species. The study authors only included results that had passed strict reliability checks.

Amanda Rodewald from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, a professor and co-author on the study, said the methods would allow conservationists to target their efforts.

“It is this kind of small-scale information across broad geographies that has been lacking and it’s exactly what we need to make smart conservation decisions,” she said. “These data products give us a new lens to detect and diagnose population declines and to respond to them in a way that’s strategic, precise and flexible. That’s a gamechanger for conservation.”

Ian Burfield, a global science coordinator with BirdLife, who was not involved in the study, welcomed the research and said it highlighted areas for further investigation.

“North American birds are one of very few taxonomic groups and regions where such data exist to facilitate this approach. This emphasises the vital need for more field data collection, both through formal monitoring schemes and citizen science efforts, in many other parts of the world, especially in the biodiversity-rich tropics,” he said.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

“Designed to Scare People”: Lawyers Warn of Self-Deportation Notices Posted in Immigration Courts

On April 28, lawyer Paul O’Dwyer opened his email inbox to find some good news. A New York City immigration judge had approved the asylum applicationfor one of his clients. But the immigration court email also contained an attachment O’Dwyer hadn’t seen before: a Justice Department notice encouraging immigrants to self-deport.

O’Dwyer was confused. If an immigration judge had just granted his client protection from deportation, why would they send out such a flyer? “It was bizarre,” he said, “and I was surprised to see it simply because it came with an order approving the asylum application. On that front, it just didn’t make sense.”

Titled “Message to Illegal Aliens: A Warning to Self-Deport,” the message is also available in Spanish and lists the supposed benefits of self-deportation and the consequences of being removed by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The first category includes the ability to “leave on your own terms” and keep any money earned in the United States, as well as the possibility of a flight subsidized by the US government. The alternative, the notice warns, could result in “immediate deportation,” daily fines of close to $1,000, and potential jail time.

Immigration lawyers say the Justice Department’s self-deportation notice is misleading.

“It’s troubling to see that the immigration court is injecting itself into the actual removal process and taking a position on that,” O’Dwyer said.

The warning appears to be part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to boost its deportation numbers by making immigrants voluntarily leave, while aiming to discourage future migration to the United States. “Leave now,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a multimillion-dollar ad campaign. “If you don’t, we will find you and we will deport you. You will never return.”

The notice assures immigrantsthat it’s “safe” to self-deport using the CBP Home mobile application, which the Trump administration launched in March. “People in our country illegally can self-deport the easy way,” President Donald Trump said in an official White House video publicizing the app, “or they can get deported the hard way—and that’s not pleasant.” The administration is also offering a $1,000 stipend and travel assistance to incentivize immigrants to use the CBP Home self-deportation feature.

Alarmed by what he described as the notice’s “inflammatory language,” O’Dwyer shared a copy with a group of fellow immigration attorneys. He wasn’t alone in noticing this troubling new trend. Immigration lawyers across the United States—including in Chicago, Cleveland, and San Antonio—have observed this notice to self-deport posted on the walls of immigration courts where they practice or are receiving it as part of communications related to their cases. One attorney in Colorado reported getting it with the denial of an appeal from one of her clients issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which reviews the decisions of immigration judges.

Many lawyers have called the warning misleading and essentially a trap, particularly for immigrants without legal representation. One lawyer in New York said it “reads more like a scare tactic than informed legal guidance.” Kansas City-based Yanky Perelmuter saw the notice inside the courtroom, laid out on a table with other informational pamphlets about how immigrants can report a change of address or find counsel. “You’re offering legal advice,” he said. “They’re saying there’s a benefit to self-deport, but without explaining what are the disadvantages of self-deporting.” It “looks like the judge is endorsing this,” Perelmuter added.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department’s branch running the US immigration courts, was asked about the notice to self-deport and declined to comment.

Denver-based attorney Lisa Guerra recently received the notice alongside information about hearings in the cases of two asylum seekers she’s representing. She also saw it posted on the Denver immigration court’s bulletin board. For one, Guerra explained, the blanket notice makes no distinction between immigrants with final orders of deportation and those who may be eligible for some form of relief such as asylum or cancellation of removal. It also doesn’t mention the right to appeal an immigration judge’s deportation order.

“It’s mostly focused on just getting them to leave and not anything on finishing their process here in the United States. I guess that goes with the theme, right? They don’t really think they’re entitled to due process.”

As a result, unrepresented immigrants with legitimate claims to stay in the United States might be induced to abandon their cases fearing immediate deportation or the threat of financial penalties. “It’s mostly focused on just getting them to leave and not anything on finishing their process here in the United States,” Guerra said. “I guess that goes with the theme, right? They don’t really think they’re entitled to due process.”

Guerra and other lawyers who have seen or received the self-deportation notice have also pointed out that it gives a false impression about the lack of consequences of departing in a “dignified way.” Traditionally, an immigrantlooking to leave the United States of their own accord in order to avoid a final order of deportation—and potentially be exempt from bans on re-entering the country—might petition an immigration judge for a grant of voluntary departure, for which they have to meet certain eligibility requirements and, in some cases, waive any existing applications for relief and pay a bond. (Even a grant of voluntary departure might not protect someone from being barred from returning to the United States for several years after leaving.)

Taking the government’s offer as presented on the Justice Department’s notice, several lawyers fear, could backfire. If an immigrant leaves the United States while in removal proceedings and fails to show up in court, that could trigger a deportation order in absentia from an immigration judge, which in turn carries harsher long-term consequences such as bars on eligibility forseveral forms of immigration benefits.

“I don’t think individuals [representing themselves] would know enough to say, ‘I need to let the court know that I would like to leave on my own accord so that there’s a record of that in my immigration court record,'” Guerra said.

The concept of self-deportation is hardly a new one, Dina Francesca Haynes, executive director of the Yale Law School’s Schell Center for International Human Rights, pointed out, and successful lawsuits have been brought to challenge the practice of Department of Homeland Security agents allegedly coercing immigrants into signing their own removals. But now, she said, “this is a whole app and flyer with a QR code and seemingly posted in courts all over the country.”

Haynes is skeptical that immigrants will turn to the government’s CBP Home app in light of the atmosphere of distrust created by the administration’s immigration enforcement policies. “A lot of this is designed to scare people,” she said, “and it’s unfortunately very effective.”

O’Dwyer shares that sentiment. “I don’t know necessarily that a lot of people are then going to go home and pack their bags and leave the country when they get this,” O’Dwyer said of the notice. “But it certainly is going to discourage people from attending any future immigration appointments.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

No, Elon Musk, Government Should Not Be Run Like a Business.

For years, I’ve heard the familiar refrain: “America should be run like a business.”

First, it came from the young republicans at my small, conservative, undergraduate institution, advocating for Mitt Romney in 2012. More recently, it has become a justification for Elon Musk’s indiscriminate cuts to government spending alongside his team at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In a recent interview on Fox News, Musk claimed that a commercial company would have filed for bankruptcy by now if they were to operate the way that the federal government operates.

So I reached out to Mike Mechanic, a senior editor at Mother Jones, to ask if the government should be run more like a business. His answer was simple: That’s bonkers.

Not only does the government provide services and resources that do not easily map to the business world’s profit/loss framework, the government is, designed to be a corrective force to the excesses of business.

“The government does all sorts of things that you can’t put a number on the outcome,” says Mechanic.

Watch part of my conversation with Mike Mechanic here:

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s Onslaught Hits Staffers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Staff at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the Department of Energy division that guides public and private research and development involving renewable energy and energy efficiency, were blindsided with a round of layoffs on Monday morning.

Three lab sources told Mother Jones the cuts affect several NREL departments, including communications, wind, water, and community energy. Remote and in-person staffers are both affected, as are non-probationary employees—those who have worked at NREL for more than two years.

A current staffer described the firings as “rather haphazard and unorganized.” According to agency sources, even lab managers were not told of the cuts until Monday. The staffer said one colleague they’d spoken with had been fired after first being locked out of a work-issued laptop without explanation.

All three NREL sources said 114 staffers were cut, per their conversations with department leaders and an all-hands meeting where employees were told that the layoffs were due to funding being paused or cancelled. Internal documentation reviewed by Mother Jones confirms this number. (NREL has not responded to a request for comment.)

The cuts come less than a month after NREL staff received an email from their leadership team offering unpaid leave options, and just days after the White House released a budget calling for large cuts to renewable energy.

The lab has more than 3,000 employees, but the sources I spoke with said even modest layoffs will create bottlenecks. NREL “specifically hires to make sure that there is a person assigned to a specific amount of work and complete it,” said one source, and unlike NIH and NSF research, the lab’s work is driven in part by industry partnerships. “You have to hit a certain number of billable hours.”

The employee explains that while their schedules have changed—because so much staff time is now spent “attempting to prove our worth to the administration—the lab’s clients have not. “If I am suddenly the only person on my team, I can’t handle that work,” the employee told me.

“Until January, I loved my job,” they continued. Since Donald Trump took office, proving their worth has felt “like a fool’s errand.”

A NREL researcher told me that any feeling of “security and optimism is gone,” and pointed to a breach of trust between employees and managers. “They have kept us in the dark and insisted things were better than they are,” the researcher says. “It’s a huge loss in terms of talent and brainpower.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Trump Administration Canceled a Program That Reduced SIDS. Enter the Anti-Vaxxers.

After years of progress in reducing the number of babies that succumb to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), the National Institutes of Health has terminated its participation in the Safe to Sleep program, STAT News reported last week. The program encouraged parents to practice a suite of evidence-based safety practices when putting their infants to sleep, including placing them on their backs instead of their stomachs. It has been credited with a 50 percent reduction in SIDS deaths since its inception in 1994. Despite the progress, there is still more to do: In 2022, the last year for which there was data, about 3,700 babies died suddenly and unexpectedly, according to the CDC.

The federal government has not offered any explanation as to why the program was canceled. In an email to Mother Jones, an NIH spokesperson wrote that information from the Safe to Sleep campaign linked to the website, adding that materials “remain available to the public, and we encourage individuals to visit to access these resources. ” The spokesperson then noted, “No final decision has been made regarding the future” of the program.

In light of the NIH’s initial announcement of terminating its program involvement, it’s worth noting that Children’s Health Defense, the anti-vaccine advocacy group that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. used to chair, has long promoted false claims about an association between vaccines and SIDS.

It wasn’t just the group that promoted this misinformation—it was RFK Jr. himself. In 2023, for example, he posted to his 5.5 million followers on X about a statistical analysis study that claimed to find a correlation between number of vaccines given and infant mortality, saying the “new peer-reviewed study found a positive statistical correlation between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccine doses received by babies—confirming findings made by the same researchers a decade ago.” (Both the recent and the older study had severalmethodological flaws, as surgeon and pseudoscience debunker David Gorski wrote in Science-Based Medicine.)

Last year on X, Kennedy claimed that the CDC had suppressed the link between SIDS and a vaccine that prevented diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus. (The vaccine that the letter referred to isn’t used anymore, and multiple studies since then have shown no connection between vaccines and SIDS.) Kennedy’s Department of Health and Human Services oversees the National Institutes of Health, the agency that made the decision to cancel the Safe to Sleep program.

Once news of NIH’s cancellation broke, it didn’t take long for anti-vaccine activists to seize the opportunity to promote SIDS misinformation on social media. On April 30, the same day STAT’s story was published, Children’s Health Defense posted to its 287,000 followers on X, “There is an undeniable link between vaccines and sudden infant death syndrome.” It followed up with a similar post the next day. On May 3, anti-vaccine activist Steve Kirsch suggested to his 599,000 followers that the recent death of a pair of Idaho twins was caused by vaccines. “We’ve seen SIDS cases before,” he wrote. “With twins and no other causes such as CO poisoning, the most likely cause is a vaccine-mediated death.” (The deaths are currently being investigated as a homicide, local news outlets report.) On May 4, an X account called A Midwestern Doctor posted to 248,000 followers “Our government has known for a century that vaccines cause SIDS, but like COVID vaccine injuries, they kept covering it up.”

The agency had made the decision during the first uptick in infant deaths in the three decades that the program has existed; between 2020 and 2022, the last year for which data is available, a recent study found, rates increased by 12 percent. Experts can’t explain the sudden reversal of the decades-long decline; experts list Covid, maternal opioid use, and safe-sleep misinformation on social media as theories, the New York Times reported in January. In the wake of NIH’s decision, nonprofits are scrambling to keep the program going, NPR reported this week.

The cancellation of Safe to Sleep comes at a time when leaders at the highest levels of the Trump administration are calling on Americans to have more babies. The agency’s recent decision has sparked outrage on social media, especially from people for whom SIDS is personal. As one X user put it in a post linking to STAT’s story, “My twin brother died of SIDS in his crib when we were a couple weeks old. Not many Americans at all support [the decision to terminate the program]—I know that much—but in the off chance any do, I’d highly recommend they stay far the hell away from me.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Promised No New Business Deals With Foreign Governments. He Lied.

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

On January 10, 2025, President Trump released an “ethics agreement” detailing how he would handle his personal business interests while in the White House. It is remarkably weak and does not require Trump to divest any of his holdings. Unlike a similar agreement for his first term, it does not prohibit the Trump Organization from striking new deals abroad while Trump is president. Instead, it simply prohibits the Trump Organization from striking deals directly with foreign governments.

Trump’s second-term ethics agreement is such a permissive document that it is challenging to find a way to violate it. But three months into his presidency, Trump has found a way.

Last Thursday, the Trump Organization struck a deal to build a $5.5 billion Trump International Golf Club in Qatar. To develop the project, the Trump Organization is partnering with Dar Global, a Saudi Arabian company, and Qatari Diar, a company owned by the Qatari government. Qatari Diar was established by Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund in 2005. Its stated purpose is to “coordinate the country’s real estate development priorities.”

Eric Trump, who runs the Trump Organization, said that the deal was only with the Saudi company and not Qatari Diar. “We have zero relationship with them,” he insisted in a statement.

That appears to be false.

Other recent presidents, including Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, sought to eliminate even the appearance of financial conflicts.

“We are incredibly proud to expand the Trump brand into Qatar through this exceptional collaboration with Qatari Diar and Dar Global,” Eric Trump said in a press release. “Trump International Golf Club Simaisma and our luxury villa community will reflect our highest standards of quality, prestige, and timeless elegance.”

At the announcement of the deal, the president’s son appeared alongside Abdullah bin Hamad bin Abdullah Al Attiya, a Qatari government official and the Qatari Diar Chairman. As the deal was signed, he posed in front of a backdrop featuring the logos of the Trump Organization, Dar Global, and Qatari Diar.

Separately, the Trump Organization announced it was also partnering with Dar Global to build a new Trump International Hotel & Tower in Dubai. While Dar Global is not formally owned by the Saudi government, it “has close ties to the Saudi government.” The tower, slated to be completed in 2031, will feature the highest rooftop infinity pool in the world.

A rendering of Trump International Hotel & Tower, Dubai.Dar Global

It will also be home to a private club called “The Trump,” which “brings together wellness, business, and the timeless atmosphere of a classic private club.”

Last week, another company owned by the Trump family, the crypto firm World Liberty Financial, announced it would be involved in a transaction involving a foreign government. Zach Witkoff, the co-founder of WLF, announced that MGX, a venture firm owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, would make a $2 billion investment in the crypto exchange Binance, using WLF’s embryonic stable coin, USD1. Stable coins are crypto assets pegged to traditional currency in an effort to avoid the volatility of other tokens.

There is no reason for MGX to finance the transaction with the little-used USD1, rather than cash or a more established stable coin, other than the desire by MGX and Binance to ingratiate themselves with the Trump family. MGX is chaired by Sheikh Tahnoon Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who met with President Trump at the White House in March. Binance has been subject to oversight by the federal government after admitting in 2023 to violating money laundering laws.

The flurry of deals comes just days before Trump is scheduled to travel to the region. In a trip scheduled for May 13-16, Trump will visit Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

The exact financial arrangements, including the direct financial benefit to President Trump, remain opaque. But discussions of trade, military assistance, and other issues are now inextricably entwined with Trump’s private real estate investments. Trump is openly leveraging his position as president to enhance his personal finances.

This is not normal.

Previous Republican and Democratic presidents, including Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, sought to eliminate even the appearance of conflicts. Biden and Obama divested of all assets except for cash and diversified mutual funds. Bush placed his assets into a qualified blind trust, which means investment decisions were made without his knowledge or input. They did not enter into new business ventures while in the White House—much less a new venture directly with foreign governments.

Trump has imposed high tariffs on nearly every country, including 145 percent on China, as part of a strategy to force businesses to invest domestically. “Remember, there are no tariffs if you build your product here,” Trump said Sunday on Meet The Press. “It’s very easy. It’s very simple.” Trump also insisted that American consumers should be willing to pay more for some items, or forgo purchases completely, to support this effort. “I’m just saying [American children] don’t need to have 30 dolls. They can have three,” Trump said. “They don’t need to have 250 pencils. They can have five.”

But Trump’s own company, the Trump Organization, is not investing in projects in the United States. Since his inauguration, the Trump Organization has announced new developments in the UAE, Qatar, India and Vietnam. But none in the United States.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s Slot Machine Spits Out Two New Orders

Much has been written about the cruel, and often unconstitutional, onslaught of executive orders that has come to define President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office. But somewhat lost in the discourse is the brazen stupidity, a stunning randomness with which Trump appears to feed his slot machine of presidential instructions.

“I am directing the Bureau of Prisons, together with the Department of Justice, FBI, and Homeland Security, to reopen a substantially enlarged and rebuilt ALCATRAZ, to house America’s most ruthless and violent Offenders,” Trump announced on social media.

In came the dutiful derision: As manyexplained, Alcatraz, the federal island prison once notorious for its former brutality and elaborate escape attempts, closed in 1963 because it was too costly to manage and has since operated as a tourist attraction. It would therefore take an enormous sum of money to renovate the site to meet current federal standards for prisons after the president simply, by his own admission, pondered it into executive order.

“Just an idea I’ve had,” Trump said on Sunday, responding to a reporter’s question about where the proposal came from. He then muttered a complaint about “radical” immigration judges, before describing Alcatraz as “sad” but a “symbol of law and order.

Minutes later, Trump issued another haphazard executive order on Truth Social. “I am authorizing the Department of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands,” Trump wrote, prompting a slavish Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to respond on X, “We’re on it.”

Of course, the announcement was scant on critical details. Would tariffs apply to US film productions in foreign locations? Even for a single scene filmed abroad? Did a specific movie spark this outrage? With questions and suggestions of illegality once again abounding, the announcement sent media stocks sliding, which in Trump’s second term has become something of our nightmare capitalist barometer of how things are going.

Compared to the blitz of actions that have upended—and in many cases ruined—lives since Trump returned to power, Sunday night’s dueling orders are low stakes. But they neatly capture governance by way of shitposting, the outcome of federal policy left to feral instincts.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Admits He’s Iffy On The Whole Due Process Thing

It has long been evident from his actions that President Donald Trump does not respect the constitutional principle of due process. And now, he has admitted it himself.

In an interview with Meet the Press host Kristen Welker of NBC News that aired on Sunday morning, Trump made clear that he does not concern himself with the pesky details of the Constitution—despite the fact that the Oath of Office he has now taken twice requires him to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”

When Welker pressed Trump on the administration’s refusal to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back from the El Salvador prison they deported him to—despite the Supreme Court’s order that the administration “facilitate” his release from custody and officials’ admission that Abrego Garcia was deported due to an “administrative error”—the president said that the decision is one for El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, to make. (In the Oval Office last month, Bukele said he would not send Abrego Garcia, an undocumented immigrant originally from El Salvador, back to the United States. The U.S. government has alleged, without presenting verifiable evidence, that he is a member of the MS-13 gang.)

Pressing Trump further, Welker said: “Your secretary of state says everyone who’s here, citizens and non citizens, deserve due process. Do you agree?”

“I don’t know,” Trump replied. “I’m not a lawyer.” (His administration’s actions—which include seeking to deport international student protesters who criticized Israel’s war in Gaza and sending a group of Venezuelans to a notorious prison in El Salvador seemingly based on their tattoos—suggest he and his lawyers do not believe in due process.)

When Welker reminded him of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to trial by grand jury and due process, Trump suggested it would be too cumbersome to actually honor in practice. “It might say that,” he replied, referring to the Fifth Amendment, “but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or two million or three million trials.”

WELKER: Your secretary of state says everyone who's here, citizens and non-citizens, deserve due process. Do you agree?

TRUMP: I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.

WELKER: Don't you need to uphold the Constitution?

TRUMP: I don't know pic.twitter.com/xRwDh8sm0X

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 4, 2025

Trump continued to double down, saying the United States is home to “some of the worst, most dangerous people on Earth, and I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it.”

“But even given those numbers that you’re talking about,” Welker continued, “don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States?”

Again, Trump’s answer did not inspire confidence that the president can be trusted to uphold the guiding principles of the country. “I don’t know,” Trump replied. “I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.” He added that his lawyers “have a different interpretation” of the Supreme Court’s ruling from those who believe it requires the administration to try to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States.

In the wide-ranging interview, Trump also attacked Welker for some of her questions (“Why don’t you ask it a different way?” he chided, when she asked about his response to criticisms that he’s taking the country down an authoritarian path); refused to rule out using military force to take Greenland; refused to rule out that his tariffs might cause a recession; and claimed he has been trolling in previously speculating on running for an unconstitutional third term (“This is not something I’m looking to do,” he said).

But his comments regarding due process and the Constitution may be the most telling about how Trump sees his role in upholding—or breaking—the rule of law. As a protester calling for Abrego Garcia’s return told my colleague Isabela Dias on Thursday: “If we break due process in this country, we’re all doomed. Everyone can be put in jail.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Leading Catholics Condemn Trump Meme Depicting Himself as Pope

The White House has dropped a new trolling tactic—and many Catholics are not laughing.

Less than two weeks after the death of Pope Francis, on Friday, the White House reposted on X a seemingly AI-generated meme that Trump shared on Truth Social of himself as the pope. In the eyes of many Catholics, Trump, who was raised Presbyterian and more recently said he’s a non-denominational Christian, has committed a grave act of blasphemy by posting the image.

“There is nothing clever or funny about this image, Mr. President,” the New York State Catholic Conference, a policy and lobbying organization, posted on X. “We just buried our beloved Pope Francis and the cardinals are about to enter a solemn conclave to elect a new successor of St. Peter. Do not mock us.” Dennis Poust, executive director of the Conference, told the New York Times the post was “disrespectful,” adding, “It’s never appropriate to ridicule or mock the papacy.”

When reporters asked about the image, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, replied, “I hope he didn’t have anything to do with that,” referring to the creation of the image. (It was not immediately clear who made the image.) Dolan added, “It wasn’t good.”

Responding to general questions before Mass at his titular church this morning in Rome, Cardinal Dolan spoke about President Trump‘s post on social media dressed as a pope. @thegnewsroom pic.twitter.com/sF1zshVTP3

— Mary Shovlain (@maryshovlain) May 4, 2025

Michael Steele, former Republican National Committee chairman and a devout Catholic, wrote on X that the post “affirms how unserious and incapable he is. At 78 he remains a 10yo child, emotionally scarred and broken while desperate to prove he could be somebody. His problem: he can’t grow up to prove it.”

Anthony Scaramucci, former White House Communications Director during Trump’s first term, who is also Catholic, wrote over the White House’s X post: “You are trolling and trying to trigger all of us. Especially us Catholics. But the arrogance and general stupidity and the disgrace that you represent will blow back on all of you.” Scaramucci followed up Saturday night with another post: “The dope of dopes not a pope.”

Major Catholic organizations including the US Conference for Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities, and Catholic Relief Services did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Mother Jones on Sunday morning. The Vatican also did not immediately respond.

The post came a few days after Trump told reporters at the White House, “I’d like to be pope. That would be my No. 1 choice.” But he appeared to acknowledge he was joking, subsequently saying, “No, I don’t know, I have no preference,” adding, “I must say we have a cardinal that happens to be out of a place called New York who’s very good, so we’ll see what happens,” referring to Dolan.

Trump: "I'd like to be Pope. That would be my number one choice." pic.twitter.com/VHB5VPdoV9

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 29, 2025

As I previously wrote, a quick look at Trump’s biography shows he does not belong amongst the most revered figures of Catholicism, despite Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) claims otherwise: The man supports the death penalty; has (at least) five kids by three different women; and has been found liable for sexual assault, which he also famously bragged about on tape. The Bible explicitly prohibits all of these actions.

Others in Trump’s orbit, though, appeared to further Trump’s idea, or at least dismiss it as a joke. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), wrote on X: “This would truly be a dark horse candidate, but I would ask the papal conclave and Catholic faithful to keep an open mind about this possibility!” Juanita Broaddrick, who accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual assault and supported Trump despite his own history, shared a 40-second long AI-generated video purporting to show Trump as pope. “Trump’s latest Epic troll is making the left insane,” she wrote.

Several X users demanded answers from Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic who met with the pope just a day before his death. “As a general rule, I’m fine with people telling jokes and not fine with people starting stupid wars that kill thousands of my countrymen,” he wrote on X Saturday. A few days prior, Vance also joked about Secretary of State Marco Rubio taking on “pope” as his fifth title.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told some reporters that Trump “has been a staunch champion for Catholics and religious liberty.” The papal conclave to decide the next pope will begin on May 7. Given the requirements—which include being a baptized Catholic and an ordained bishop—you can be sure that Trump will not win this election.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Missing Lynx: How the Rise of Border Walls Has Divided Wildlife Populations

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

The lynxes of the Białowieża forest once freely prowled through 548 square miles of ancient woodland. Then, in 2022, the habitat was abruptly sliced in two. Poland built a 115-mile wall across its border with Belarus to stop refugees and migrants entering the EU. About 15 lynxes were left stranded on the Polish side of the forest, forced into a genetic bottleneck.

The 18-foot-high barrier, which is topped with wire and cameras, also dissects the forest’s population of bison, wolves, and elk. Researchers monitored 10 sites along the border, walking along sections and counting signs of humans and wildlife.

“I could not have foreseen the diversity of impacts that we ended up finding,” says the lead author of the report, Katarzyna Nowak, from thePolish Academy of Sciences’ Mammal Research Institute.

There are now an estimated 74 border walls globally, up from six in 1989, with more in the pipeline.

Humans have been building walls for thousands of years, but the speed and scale with which they are now being constructed has ballooned over recent decades.

With refugee crises in Europe and Asia, and the rise of governments cracking down on immigration, the planet is increasingly crisscrossed with steel barriers, chain-link fencing and razor wire—with significant consequences for wildlife.

There are now an estimated 74 border walls globally, up from just six in 1989, with more in the pipeline. “The hardening of international borders through fortification and militarisation is on the rise,” researchers say in the report on the impacts of the Polish-Belarusian border wall.

In a separate paper published in February, another researcher argues for “ecological peace corridors” to protect wildlife movement amid growing human conflict.

At the same time that borders are strengthened, the need for humans and other animals to migrate is being supercharged by climate breakdown. “It is a worrying future in multiple respects,” says Stuart Butchart, chief scientist at BirdLife International. “This is a worldwide phenomenon that is going to become of increasing importance.”

His research found that border walls obstruct the ranges of more than 700 species of mammals, including leopards, tigers, cheetah, and the critically endangered Saiga antelope. The study identified 20,000 miles of borders fortified with fences and walls, which can cause habitats to fragment and create injuries from entanglement, genetic bottlenecks and blocked migration routes.

The US-Mexico border call crosses the Madrean Sky Islands, home to the greatest diversity of mammals, reptiles, and ants in the United States.

The US-Mexico border wall—which was found to have the most impact of those studied—bisects the ranges of 120 mammals alone. Pygmy owls, which stay close to the ground for safety, do not fly high enough to cross the wall, and populations of pumas and coatis—a raccoon-like animal found across Latin Americahave fallen. Bighorn sheep risk becoming “zombie species” as the populations become too genetically fragmented and unable to move sufficiently to adapt to climate change.

The study of the Polish-Belarusian border showed animals were keeping their distance from the wall because they were scared of it. Despite the fact that it passed through a rich forest habitat, Nowak says: “We had very few signs of animals along the border.”

Thirty-six cameras were up for more than a year and images of lynxes were only found on them twice. Humans were more frequently seen on cameras than wildlife, especially at border sites.

Sound recordings revealed human sounds—such as vehicles, music, dogs, and gunshots—penetrated up to nearly 275 yards into the forest, which is aUnesco world heritage site.

Rubbish lined the border, drawing dogs, cats and other scavengers to the area. “This again creates an unnatural interface, not just between people and wild animals, but also domestic animals,” says Nowak.

Plant surveys suggested invasive species might be able to survive in the “sun-streaked strip in the middle of the forest,” says Nowak, who is worried that the forest could start to split into two.

A bird sits in front of a blue sky surrounded by razors.

A bird sits perched on amid razor wire over the US-Mexico border fence. Such barriers break up habitats, stop migration and injure animals.David Swanson/AFP via Getty Images

Borderland regions such as Białowieża Forest can also be among the continent’s most biodiverse places. The border fence between Slovenia and Croatia has sliced up the Dinaric mountain range, home to some of the most important brown bear and wolf populations in Europe.

The region’s lynx population is threatened with high levels of inbreeding, with researchers warning that the fence “may just be the last push for the population to spiral down the extinction vortex.” The 3,000-mile border between China and Mongolia, which is almost entirely fenced, has blocked the migrations of Asiatic wild ass.

Even if these fences are removed in the future, migratory routes are not easily re-routed. Red deer on the border between the Czech Republic and the former West Germany still do not cross what was the “Iron Curtain” —even though the electric fence that divided the countries was taken down 25 years ago, a study found. The life expectancy of a deer is 15 years, so no deer alive at the time of the study would have ever encountered the barrier.

A 2025 review of the impacts of border walls had four key recommendations to make them less damaging: Leave gaps in the fencing; cut down on light and noise; avoid the concertina razor-wire tops, which many animals die on; and increase cooperation between countries on the borders.

To ease the pressure on wildlife, scientists are pushing for small gaps in fencing to allow species through. The US-Mexico border wall covers more than 700 miles of the almost 2,000-mile long frontier, and crosses the Madrean Sky Islands—patches of woodland that are home to the greatest diversity of mammals, reptiles, and ants in the United States.

A study looked at the 13 small passages for wildlife along 80 miles of continuous border—roughly one every 6 miles—each about the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Researchers collected and analyzed more than 12,000 videos of animals encountering them.

Deer, bears, wolves, and pronghorn sheep were all blocked by the wall, but cameras showed coyotes, wild pig-like peccaries, American badgers, and even some smaller mountain lions were squeezing through.

“We were surprised by how busy the A4 holes ended up being,” says Eamon Harrity, wildlife programme manager at Sky Islands Alliance in Arizona and lead author of the study of the wall along the US-Mexico border.

“We want more of them,” says Harrity. “They need to be, at a minimum, every half a kilometer.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Scientists Deem Trump’s Latest Funding Freeze a “Slow-Moving Apocalypse”

The hits to science, and scientists, keep coming under the Trump administration.

This week, the National Science Foundation (NSF), a government agency that funds research across the country, told staffers that “until further notice,” it will stop payments on grants it has already awarded for studies—and stop awarding new ones.

That’s according to a scoop from the science journal Nature, which got its hands on an internal NSF email. The freeze will be “a slow-moving apocalypse,” an NSF-funded scientist told me, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “In effect, every NSF grant right now is canceled.”

In the past, the agency has funded hundreds of thousands of researchers every year, including technical professionals and students. The NSF did not give a reason for the freeze in its internal email, and it declined Nature‘s request for comment.

The halt to funding is just the latest example of turmoil at the NSF. In February, my colleague Jackie Flynn Mogensen reported that the agency was laying off 10 percent of its employees. In April, it terminated more than 1,000 awards, many supporting work the administration claims is related todiversity, equity, and inclusion, or misinformation and disinformation, as my colleague Henry Carnell reported.

On Friday, the NSF said it was terminating hundreds of additional grants that were “not aligned with agency priorities.” The same day, the White House requested to halve the agency’s $9 billion budget.

Sudip Parikh, who leads the American Association for the Advancement of Science, one of the largest scientific societies in the world, told NPR that he doubted Congress would approve the White House’s request, but that the budget process could take months. Cutting so much of NSF’s funding, he added, would be “a crisis, just a catastrophe for US science.”

Continue Reading…