Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

We May Have to Take Climate Risks Into Our Own Hands Now

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

In 2023, my husband and I bought our house in southwest Colorado, in part because it backed up to open space. That was the dream: trails just past the fence, a scrubby network of oak and sage stretching out into the hills beyond. But a little over a year into homeownership, I was questioning the wisdom of living so close to a burnable landscape.

This past winter’s spate of wildfires across Los Angeles made that fear of living alongside such a combustible landscape all the more real—fear that was only intensified by the weather. In my town, winter and its all important snow never really showed up. By spring, our snowpack was well below normal, winds were whipping, and I was becoming more paranoid about my wildfire risk.

It’s not just people like me—living on the edge of fire-prone terrain—who may be sharing that paranoia.

I wanted to find out what all of us could do to limit our risk.

More than 100 million people across 20 states and Washington, DC, live in the path of the increasingly fierce hurricanes. Most of the eastern half of the country is now at risk for tornadoes, and floods have increased in frequency and intensity in both coastal areas and river valleys. Over the Fourth of July weekend, extreme flooding in central Texas was among the most deadly of the past century.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information found that 2024 held the second-most billion-dollar natural disasters ever for the US—right behind 2023. This year, with its already higher than average fire activity and predicted busy Atlantic hurricane season, is already shaping up to be significant, too.

At the same time, government cuts have undermined every critical juncture for disaster preparation. Federal programs for wildfire mitigation, proactive work like thinning forests and conducting prescribed burns, which help prevent large scale fires, have been halted due to staffing cutbacks and lack of funds.

Cutbacks to the National Weather Service, through reductions in force at NOAA, have already led to gaps in forecasting, which makes it harder for the public to plan for extreme weather events like the Texas Hill Country floods this month or the deadly May tornadoes, which killed at least 27 people as they swept across Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia.

And the agency explicitly tasked with disaster relief is shrinking. FEMA has cut funding for its bipartisanly popular Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, a major tool for building flood-resistant infrastructure, among other resiliency projects. It has lost some of its ability to help us recover, too. FEMA, already understaffed in 2024, has lost a third of its workforce since the beginning of the year. It has scaled back training and stands to lose $646 million in funding. As if that’s not enough, President Donald Trump has said he plans to phase out FEMA as a whole after the 2025 hurricane season

In the face of all that, I wanted to find out what all of us could do to limit our risk.

The first step was pretty basic: Instead of just spiraling about hypotheticals, figure out the specific risks in your area. For now, FEMA’s National Risk Index, where you can identify the threats to your community, remains a good source. By looking through the index, I learned my county is high in wildfire risks—which I already knew—but also that the area is prone to landslides, drought, and severe lightning storms.

Once I knew the risks, I looked at how I could prepare.

But the answers weren’t obvious. I reached out to both my regional FEMA office, whose contact was easy to find online, and the national headquarters, because I wanted to know what sort of concrete things I could do to protect my home—and what kind of support I might expect if the worst-case scenario happened to hit my community. I got a short email back saying that I should contact local authorities.

And so I started the real journey there, by looking at my local resources.

The most meaningful thing you can do on your own is harden your own home against relevant disasters. I found online that my local fire department provides free wildfire assessments because they think reducing your own vulnerability is one that can also reduce community risk. “The less time I have to spend at your house,” Scott Nielsen, my local wildfire battalion chief, told me, the more he can spend fighting other parts of the fire.

Nielsen says that when it comes to mitigating fire, we can’t change things like topography or weather, but we can change the fuel—and often that fuel includes our homes.

When Loren Russell, who works for the wildfire division of my regional fire district, came over to assess my risks, what he said surprised me: Instead of the overgrown hill behind the house, which had scared me, he was worried about nooks in the eaves or corners of the deck where embers could get caught. He also worried about the the oily junipers in the yard, which could become ladder fuels that might allow fire to leap to the tree canopies, and about the ways those canopies connected, spreading sparks across the landscape.

“You go out and you build a concrete bunker and surround it with gravel, but now you live in a concrete bunker surrounded by gravel.”

Russell says it’s always the same few things that create risk. Looking at the splintering boards of my neighbor’s fence, he noted that he’d seen fires blow across whole subdivisions through fences. “Once embers are in a fence it’s like a wick,” he says.

There are strategies for personal protection, too—and not just for fire. FEMA says that if you live in a hurricane-prone area, you can install impact resistant doors (particularly garage doors), storm shingles, and reinforced roof bracing, all of which help your house withstand storms. If you’re in a floodplain, you can seal cracks in your foundation, move your electrical boxes higher, or build berms and drains into your landscaping so water runs away from your home.

There can be a range of costs for those projects, from your own sweat equity for landscaping to tens of thousands of dollars for a new roof. But there can be grants and tools available to offset some of the cost, like Alabama’s program to help fund home strengthening, which is run through the state insurance office. Check your state resources, like the division of emergency management.

There’s no perfect formula for what to do. Russell says mitigation makes a real difference, but that risk is personal, because it’s also tied up in tolerance, and in trying to predict the future. “You go out and you build a concrete bunker and surround it with gravel, but,” he says, “now you live in a concrete bunker surrounded by gravel.”

Turning your home into a bunker is expensive, unappealing, and it might not make a difference in your broader risk tolerance. And unfortunately, it doesn’t really change your insurance liability. At least not yet.

My insurance agent told me that they don’t yet factor home hardening into their policies and pricing, even though simply being in a disaster-prone area can raise your premiums or make it harder to get insurance—and sometimes, insurance companies will simply dump policy holders in risk-prone areas. More than 100,000 Californians in fire-prone areas have lost their insurance in the past five years.

Landscape scale problems, like fire, need landscape scale solutions: “You really are impacted by your neighbor’s property.”

Those drops don’t necessarily reflect what’s happening on the ground. “We had one insurance agency that was pretty happy to drop people. I looked at their reports and didn’t find them to be based in fire science,” Nielsen says, about our area of western Colorado. He says they’re based on zip codes, which can be relatively arbitrary, instead of on the kind of terrain and fuel supply that actually make a difference to fires. And they almost never reflect mitigation work.

One of the only ways home hardening and mitigation makes a difference for insurance is when it’s done on a neighborhood scale. For instance, in 10 states, communities that have been certified as firewise through the National Fire Protection Association are able to get insurance discounts.

That is reflective of actual risk, “You really are impacted by your neighbor’s property,” says Max Moritz, a wildfire specialist at the University of California Santa Barbara. He says that the LA wildfires showed just how much broader-scale hardening—or lack thereof—impacts risk. But regional tools, like consistent fire hazard mapping programs, or building code requirements for new construction can significantly reduce risk. That’s true of other natural disasters, too.

Nielsen says that landscape scale problems, like fire, need landscape scale solutions. Home hardening is a piece we can control, but it’s networked into a bigger system of land management, risk tolerance, and policy. When a tornado or a hurricane comes, it doesn’t just hit one house.

Nielsen thinks about what’s commonly called the Swiss cheese model of risk assessment, where multiple layers of protection. This includes everything from personal scale, like hardening your roof to withstand high force winds; to local and regional projects like floodplain mitigation or evacuation planning; to federal tools, like the National Weather Service, or FEMA, which apply to the whole country.

You can visualize each layer as a Swiss cheese slice in a sandwich. They all have holes, ideally, the gaps overlap, and the layers support one another—and stop a threat from becoming catastrophic.

That’s even more true for renters, or people who live in urban areas, who might not have as much control over their own homes, and who are even more impacted by the places around them. Hurricanes have wreaked havoc on major cities. If that’s you, ask your landlord what they’ve done to harden the property, ask about past damage, consider supplemental renters insurance and then get curious about municipal management like storm drains, which divert water away from housing, evacuation routes or fire mitigation, depending on your risks.

As federal support wanes, the things we can do individually or as a neighborhood collective become even more important.

Having a lot of layers of swiss cheese is especially important now.

It’s all connected. Preventative mitigation is networked into a broader system, but so is dealing with disasters when they come, whether they’re fires, floods, or storms. Marshalling national resources during and after large-scale disasters has been a federal responsibility since the 1970s. That kind of coordinated response is part of how we plan for natural disasters, but the current administration is planning to cut the budget and scope of FEMA and turn responsibility toward state and local governments, which aren’t always funded or prepared to manage large incidents.

The scientists and field workers I spoke to for this story told me they were worried about the lack of federal investment. Moritz says that he’s concerned about disaster response, but he’s also worried about understanding future preparedness. “Some of the big questions that we don’t have answers for yet rely on big labs and national level funding,” he says. “Research wise, a lot of Forest Service colleagues who do really good work in federal labs have been let go, or lost staff. Those are serious losses that will take a long time to get back from.”

He says that there are still big gaps in the research about exactly how home hardening fits into the puzzle of resilience, and what kind of choices are the most effective, but that in the face of that federal lack of support, the sort of things we can do individually or as a neighborhood collective become even more important.

When there are several fires burning at once—like in Los Angeles earlier this year—responding agencies are spread thin and every person might not be able to depend on their help, Mortiz told me. That makes education shared among neighbors even more important. “That’s the scale you can make a difference,” he said.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

One Year After Assassination Attempt, MAGA Reiterates “God Spared Trump”

One year ago today, a would-be assassin tried to kill Donald Trump at a presidential campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. While he survived, one of his supporters, 50-year-old Corey Comperatore, was fatally shot; two other rallygoers were also wounded but survived. The shooter, whose motive remains unclear, was rapidly killed by Secret Service countersnipers.

On Sunday, Trump’s loyal supporters piled onto the claim that his survival was all about divine intervention. “One year ago today, God miraculously spared the life of President Trump, and He is using him to lead our county back to greatness,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in a post on X, accompanied by a video featuring audio of himself praising Trump.

“The Miracle in Butler occurred one year ago today,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller wrote, declaring, “God saved our President so that he could save our country.”

“Americans will never forget that God was looking down on President Trump that fateful day and miraculously spared his life by a quarter of an inch,” Rep. Elise Stefanik posted. “God’s hand was on that field,” Rep. Andy Harris, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, said, adding, “President Trump’s life was spared and the MAGA movement was preserved for such a time as this.” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Sen. Bernie Moreno, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, disgraced ex-congressman George Santos, Rep. Nancy Mace, and others made similar comments.

The US government officially also got in on the act:“The bullet hit—but by the grace of God, he stood up. Bloodied. Unbowed. And he fought harder. July 13th is a reminder: we fight, we win, AND WE NEVER SURRENDER,” the White House account posted on X, accompanied by a 90-second video praising Trump’s career trajectory. Another post featured a photo of Trump with blood dripping down his face and pumping his fist in the air, accompanied by the quote: “I WAS SAVED BY GOD TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. I BELIEVE THAT.”

One year ago today, an assassin opened fire on President Donald J. Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.

The bullet hit—but by the grace of God, he stood up. Bloodied. Unbowed. And he fought harder.

July 13th is a reminder: we fight, we win, AND WE NEVER SURRENDER. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/0BMUYpGltE

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) July 13, 2025

In other posts, the White House memorialized Comperatore, including through a video interview with his wife, Helen.

This is, of course, not the first time that Trump’s allies have used the assassination attempt for political purposes. That went into full effect right after the attack, at the 2024 Republican National Convention, as my colleague Mark Follman detailed:

When Trump was nominated at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee five days later, his brush with death was a major theme. Large images of the iconic news photo of him being pulled from the rally stage, his fist in the air and face streaked with blood, provided a backdrop on the main stage. Multiple speakers referred to his survival as the result of divine intervention. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and others lionized Trump, literally, and declared his survival and candidacy nothing short of a holy miracle.

In his acceptance speech, Trump, his right ear still bandaged, gave a dramatic, graphic account. “I said to myself, ‘Wow, what was that? It can only be a bullet.’” He said he brought his hand down from his ear “covered with blood, just absolutely blood all over the place.” He then emphasized, “There was blood pouring everywhere, and yet in a certain way I felt very safe because I had God on my side.”

Meanwhile, on Saturday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) released a report produced at his request by the Government Accountability Office. The report said that senior Secret Service officials received information about a threat to Trump’s life 10 days before the Butler rally but failed to relay it to proper federal and local officials. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) also released a report on Sunday, compiled by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; it asserted that the Secret Service denied multiple requests for additional security to protect Trump during the campaign, among other allegations.

One year later, the Secret Service said the assassination attempt “represents an operational failure that the Secret Service will carry as a reminder of the critical importance of its zero-fail mission and the need for continuous improvement.” The agency also said it has implemented more than 20 of the recommendations made by Congressional oversight committees, and that another 16 are in progress. Six people, it said, faced disciplinary suspensions over the debacle in Butler.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

I Watched Lara Trump’s “Interview” With the President So You Don’t Have To

On Saturday night, Fox News went full-on state media.

Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law, sat down with the 47th president to “interview” him for her show, My View, that she definitely did not get through nepotism.

A journalist who lands a prime-time interview with the president might be expected to come with substantive questions, especially in a time when Texas is reeling from floods that killed more than 120 people, the MAGA base is revolting over the Epstein files, the State Department has enacted mass layoffs, and fears are mounting again about a global trade war.

Instead, Lara Trump treated her father-in-law to a glowing display of puffery, with questions including:

“Why is it that you are back here in this White House now, despite so many people saying it was impossible?”

“When will [people] actually start to see the positive impact from the one Big Beautiful Bill in their lives?”

“How important has family been to you in all of this?”

“Some people have called you the bodyguard of Western civilization. How do you feel about that title?”

.@POTUS: "When people see the horror show that we had for four years … It was almost like they tried to kill our country — and the beautiful thing is, now we have the hottest country in the world." pic.twitter.com/UTkA2bhUTi

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 13, 2025

As she proceeded, the ~~Fox News~~ Trump Newschyrons flashing across the bottom of the screen were similarly absurd:

“Trump: Golden Age of America Is Upon Us”

“President Trump praises his children”

And, perhaps most fittingly:

“President Trump calls out ‘fake news’”

.@POTUS: "I so admire honest reporting. There's not that much of it, though. We really don't have that much — and I think to Make America Great Again, we have to get a bigger percentage than we have." pic.twitter.com/C9PmQY0sc1

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 13, 2025

For his part, President Trump did his usual ranting and raving in response: about Democrats (“It was almost like they tried to kill our country”); former President Joe Biden (“He was the worst president in the history of our country”); the so-called Big Beautiful Bill (“It’s one of the most incredible bills ever passed”); and immigration (“Who would want open borders?”).

Of course, the fact that this was no legitimate news-making interview is not exactly surprising. Other than a brief stint early in her career working as a producer for Inside Edition, Lara Trump, despite her obsession with meritocracy, does not have any actual journalistic experience. Instead, she has built her career as a mouthpiece for the Trump empire and its familial version of the Republican party, including her role as co-chair of the Republican National Committee during the 2024 election cycle.

Other so-called interviews that Lara Trump has done on her show since its February premiere have been similarly unenlightening, including those with White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and several other members of Trump’s cabinet. A recent review of My View conducted by Media Matters called the show “a ludicrous propaganda program” that Lara Trump and her interviewees have used to glorify the president.

Her sit-down on Saturday took this to its logical conclusion. Just consider her last question: “I don’t think we’ll ever forget President Donald J. Trump. But when history looks back on this time in our country, when history looks back on you, how would you like to be remembered?” she asked him.

“A good person,” the president replied, “but a person that saved our country.”

.@POTUS on his legacy: "I really believed our country was going down for the fall. I don't know if it ever could've come back. It was very close to the edge — and I really would like to be known as the man that saved our country." 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/xQQ2tDXalo

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 13, 2025

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Threatens to Revoke the Citizenship of Celebrity Critic Rosie O’Donnell

President Donald Trump threatened on Saturday to revoke the citizenship of Rosie O’Donnell, an American-born comedian, talk-show host, actress, and long-time Trump nemesis who moved to Ireland after Trump won the 2024 election.

“Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship. She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social. “GOD BLESS AMERICA!”

The Fourteenth Amendment, which protects “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” forbids him from doing that.

Federal statute provides an exception to that standing when a judge—not the president—finds a citizen’s certificate of naturalization was “illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.” Some experts have concerns about judges misinterpreting the statute’s wording in cases regarding naturalized citizens: Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman recently wrote in Bloomberg that “the law is not as precise as it should be.”

But his concern should not apply to O’Donnell, who was born in Commack, New York, and is no less American than Donald Trump.

Trump’s threat came a few days after O’Donnell blamed Trump for leaving Texas ill-equipped to handle the catastrophic floods that began on July 4, with 122 people confirmed dead so far. “These are the results that we’re going to start see on a daily basis because [Trump] has put this country in so much danger by his horrible, horrible decisions,” O’Donnell said. “People will die as a result and they have started already. Shame on him.” (She did not respond immediately to a request from Mother Jones).

The First Amendment’s free speech protections allow O’Donnell to share her critiques freely without fear of risking her right to return to the US. But Trump’s public threat to revoke her citizenship is a dangerous escalation of rhetoric that portends a dark future.

When an American president can get away with threatening people’s citizenship simply because he feels unfairly criticized, then journalists, political opponents, and everyday citizens—especially those who became so through the process of naturalization—had better beware.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Says He’ll Slap 30 Percent Tariffs on Mexico and the EU. Truth or TACO?

On Saturday morning, President Donald Trump announced plans to hit the European Union and Mexico with 30 percent tariffs starting on August 1.

If this gives you déjà vu, it is not without good reason. Trump has repeatedly announced, delayed, changed and rescinded major tariffs across the globe since he took office in January. The frequency with which he has threatened—and then called off—staggering tariff increases led a finance journalist to coin an unflattering name for this behavior: “TACO”—Trump Always Chickens Out.

Trump’s latest threats, which he posted to his social media platform Truth Social, are replete with strange capitalization choices and purport that a 30 percent tariff is a small price to pay—though it’s the American importers, and ultimately US customers, who pay it—for the great privilege of trading with the United States.

“We invite you to participate in the extraordinary Economy of the United States, the Number One Market in the World, by far,” Trump wrote in a letter to the president of the European Commission. “Our relationship has been, unfortunately, far from Reciprocal. Starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge The European Union a Tariff of only 30% on EU products sent into the United States.”

“Mexico has been helping me secure the border, BUT, what Mexico has done, is not enough. Mexico still has not stopped the Cartels who are trying to turn all of North America into a Narco-Trafficking Playground. Obviously, I cannot let that happen!” reads Trump’s letter to Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s president.

Citing Trump’s growing impatience, and the TACO moniker apparently getting under his skin, four Trump-insider sources told Politico that they would not be surprised if he acts on his tariff threats this time around. “It would make little sense—politically or from a policy standpoint—for the president to offer any additional grace,” Politico reported.

Trade experts are not so sure. According to the Washington Post, UBS financial services executive Ulrike Hoffmann-Burchardi recently told clients: “We caution against overreacting in the near term given the lack of clarity on what policy will actually stick.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Is the US Military Poised to Experience a New Surge in Conscientious Objectors?

This was created by The War Horse, a nonprofit news organization educating the public on military service. Subscribe to its newsletter here.

Joy Metzler had expected to still be in uniform, working as a junior officer at her Air Force engineering job. Instead, she found herself protesting outside the United Nations, weakened from participating in a 40-day fast as she called on authorities to deliver full humanitarian aid to Gaza and end US weapons transfers to Israel.

The soft-spoken 23-year-old had pursued military service with enthusiasm. She graduated from the Air Force Academy in 2023 and received her commission the same year, hoping that the military would provide a meaningful way to give back to a country that became her home when she was adopted from China as an infant.

“I wanted to protect people. I wanted to serve,” said Metzler, who met her husband, now an officer in the Space Force, at the academy. “And I don’t think it’s a far cry to say that I’m the kind of person who doesn’t mind putting my body on the line for things I believe in. So the military really just kind of made sense.”

Hotline callers were saying, “I do not want to be part of pointing a gun at US citizens and maybe shooting it.”

Then, a crisis of conscience changed everything.

Shaken by the United States’ support for Israel’s protracted bombing campaign on Gaza, Metzler took the dramatic step of applying for conscientious objector status, a way out of the military reserved for those who can prove that their beliefs no longer align with service. For her, an eight-month application process involving probing interviews and pages of essays resulted in her successful discharge as a conscientious objector in April.

But the emotionally grueling decision can come with a steep cost, from alienating military comrades and even family members to paying back tens of thousands of dollars for tuition and other military benefits.

Historically, the number of service members applying for conscientious objector status in the last quarter century from an all-volunteer force has been relatively low, with the Army seeing a dozen or fewer applications per year since 2019 and fewer than 75 in any year since 2001. By contrast, during the Vietnam War—the last US conflict to employ a conscripted force—some 170,000 men across multiple services were granted conscientious objector deferments, and about 61,000 in 1971 alone.

Volunteers who field calls from troops in moral quandaries say they recently experienced a surge that appears to be driven by another conflict: President Donald Trump’s contested order last month that sent 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles to quell protests related to immigration enforcement operations.

Two rows of national guard troops in full fatigues and helmets walks away from the camera on a sunny day and toward the staircase of a federal building in los angeles

Soldiers with Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment, California Army National Guard arrive at the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles on June 22, 2025. Sgt. 1st Class Christy L. Sherman/US Army

Steve Woolford first noticed a change at the GI Rights Hotline the week of June 8. That was when Trump doubled the presence of National Guard troops in Los Angeles and ordered a contingent of Marines—an infantry battalion from Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center 29 Palms, California—into the city.

While the hotline typically receives between 200 and 250 calls a month, about 50 calls came through that Sunday alone, with additional messages left by callers who couldn’t get through, Woolford said.

Most, he said, also didn’t fit the conventional definition of a conscientious objector, opposed to wars and warfighting.

“What a number of them spoke to was, ‘I do not want to be part of pointing a gun at US citizens and maybe shooting it, like, I’m here to protect US citizens, even if they have different beliefs,’” Woolford told The War Horse. “So there were people who were having, I guess, a different version of ethical dilemma…They just didn’t believe this is all what they signed up for or agreed to.”

To be sure, it’s too early to know if the flurry of hotline calls might lead to a spike in conscientious objectors; it would be months before any resulting applications are processed.

At the heart of the tension is a court-contested deployment of troops—the members of the Guard, in a notable departure from standard practice, without approval from California Gov. Gavin Newsom—to back up domestic law enforcement, including support of ICE operations.

The ongoing legal dispute leaves troops little choice for now but to follow Trump’s order, said Carrie A. Lee, a senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States and a former professor at the US Army War College.

“It’s actually a very high bar for thinking about disobeying unlawful orders,” Lee told The War Horse. “There is no provision for what a service member decides is immoral or unethical, because those are personal judgments based on personal decisions about morality and ethics. And you know, you can’t be injecting every unique individual’s own ethics into military orders.”

The cluster of groups that staffs the GI Rights Hotline is cognizant of that tension. It means, at minimum, that refusing to go when ordered comes with a cost. Woolford, whose father was a Navy officer but who found his way into anti-war activism as an adult, says he practices “nondirective counseling”—helping troops identify their situation, options, and possible resources rather than pushing them toward a course of action. Sometimes, he said, that’s frustrating to callers.

“Some people, whatever they saw online [regarding the LA deployment] gave them the expectation that I was going to be able to say, ‘Yes, [the orders are] illegal and you can refuse them and nothing will happen to you,’” Woolford said. “But, yeah, I would not be telling someone truthful information if I said that.”

While the GI Rights Hotline dates to 1994, groups supporting conscientious objectors predate the all-volunteer force. The Center on Conscience and War, which supports the hotline, was founded in 1940 by churches disturbed at the abuse conscientious objectors underwent in World War I, according to Bill Galvin, the organization’s counseling director.

Conscientious objection, for its part, predates the Revolutionary War, as many early settlers, particularly in colonies like Pennsylvania, were Quakers, who were pacifists as part of their religious practice. Perhaps the most famous American conscientious objector was Desmond Doss, a World War II combat medic who refused to bring a weapon into battle yet earned the Medal of Honor—the nation’s highest military award—for heroism in saving dozens of wounded men under fire.

The typical call to the GI Rights Hotline comes from service members who have experienced a religious conversion or other change that alters their views on warfighting.

“You don’t have to be a full-on pacifist to be a conscientious objector.”

Another common call, Galvin said, comes from people registering as required by law with the US Selective Service System who want to put their conscientious objection on the record in the event the country ever brings back a military draft.

By the start of July, hotline calls had largely returned to the normal volume and rhythm, Woolford said.

In today’s all-volunteer force, enlistees must sign an affidavit that they don’t have an objection to war as part of entry paperwork. To be a successful objector after a service member has donned the uniform requires proving a genuine change of heart or conviction and showing they’re now opposed to bearing arms in war in any form. Opposition to a specific war or certain military policy doesn’t meet that bar.

While Metzler’s objection to war began with Gaza, it quickly broadened into opposition to supporting the military in any capacity. On the advice of her counselors in the organization Veterans for Peace, she avoided getting drawn into arguments about how she felt about World War II and other past conflicts when making her case to the military. These, she said, could trip objectors up while missing the point.

“How do you even define what warfare is? Because they don’t give you an answer for that,” Metzler said. “You don’t have to be a full-on pacifist to be a conscientious objector, I would say.”

Even when a service member meets the requirements, the path of conscientious objection carries significant personal costs. Flat refusal to follow an order can come with jail time. Those who apply for conscientious objector status must submit to months of scrutiny from senior officers seeking to determine that a change of heart from when they enlisted is sincere and consistent.

James Matthew Branum, who staffs calls for the hotline and also provides independent legal information to troops through his organization the Military Law Task Force, said objectors often have a monetary cost to pay as well.

“I don’t want to be associated with the military to any degree if the public is going to see us in a certain light.”

“If you received an enlistment bonus, you’re going to repay that. If you received educational benefits, for someone, let’s say, who went to West Point, that could end up meaning…you potentially are owing around $200,000,” Branum said. “There are ways of fighting that…but it can be very challenging.”

The social stigma from acquaintances, employers, and even family members that often comes with taking the objector’s path out of the military represents another level of cost, he said.

A smiling female cadet in blue dress uniform, white hat, white pants, yellow sash, salutes on a stage at her graduation from the Air Force Academy, as president Joe Biden shakes someone's hand to one side.

Joy Metzler salutes at her graduation from the Air Force Academy two years ago. She now owes the Air Force about $150,000 for her “unfulfilled commitment.” Courtesy of Joy Metzler

Metzler said she hasn’t received much direct blowback from friends and family about her decision, but the cost has raised eyebrows.

“Specifically, on the financial part, I think a lot of people go behind my back and talk to my husband and say, ‘Well, are you OK with this?’” Metzler said. “And to me, that signifies that they don’t really understand the gravity of the decision I was making.”

She’s on the hook for a prorated amount of her Air Force Academy tuition, Metzler said, “based on unfulfilled commitment” that amounts to more than $150,000.

She said she’s treating it like college debt.

Isaac Hummel, Metzler’s husband, said taking on the financial burden was a focus of their many conversations around her decision. They figured they were coming from a “place of privilege” and could afford to pay it off with his Space Force salary. He pushed her to see every side, to be certain she was as sure as she sounded, Hummel said: “I don’t think she ever doubted if it was worth it.”

While they’d both felt similarly about Gaza, Hummel said, he’d never considered taking such a radical step. “I don’t think I could ever be brave enough to do that,” he said.

He acknowledged that seeing the Marines deployed in California “really kind of shook me.”

“I don’t want to be associated with the military to any degree if the public is going to see us in a certain light,” he said.

Working at the Space Force, Hummel said, has given him “the privilege to feel a little disconnected from everything that’s going on.” But he knows he’s still part of the military. His coworkers fall into two camps on his wife’s decision: voice support or avoid the subject entirely. Only once, he said, has a colleague openly confronted him. The conversation ended in respectful disagreement.

The number of would-be conscientious objectors has remained relatively small in the years since September 11, 2001, but the numbers rise around new missions. The post-Vietnam peak followed the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In the Army, the largest of the military services and the most commonly represented in both foreign and domestic missions, the highest number of conscientious objector applications over the last quarter century came in 2005, with 74 applications, of which 39, or 52 percent, were approved. By comparison, more than 73,000 soldiers joined the Army that fiscal year, and about 60,000 soldiers transition annually out of the service for all reasons.

In 2024, the Army granted five applications and denied one; to date this year, three have been granted and two are pending, according to data provided by Army headquarters. Given the work required to submit a conscientious objector application, it’s unlikely these numbers reflect any recent callers to the GI Rights Hotline.

Chart of consciencious objectors per year showing dwindling numbers in recent years.

So far, no military voices from the LA deployment have come forward publicly to describe the specific thinking of troops on orders there. “Most of the people who have talked to me were pretty scared,” Woolford said. “Like, they wanted to get out of this, but didn’t want to bring extra attention to themselves or their family.”

Galvin said he tries to make service members aware of alternatives to declaring themselves conscientious objectors, such as raising family hardships or preexisting medical issues that need to be addressed. Guard members, he said, can also claim community hardship, stipulating that their civilian job is too essential to leave for a deployment.

Lee, the German Marshall Fund fellow, said she appreciated the work groups like Galvin’s do to help troops think through moral and ethical issues. But, she said, quandaries in war and personal disagreement with a military order were not new and did not absolve troops from following the order.

“The ability to divorce your professional identity from your personal identity is the hallmark of a member of the profession of arms,” she said. “Part of that involves respect for the chain of command and respect for the missions that your president asks you to go do. And the ability to divorce that from your personal identity and what is going on with your family is incredibly difficult, but also extremely necessary.”

Lee said she worries, however, about the broader long-term impacts of the Los Angeles deployment and how it signals a shift in how the military is used.

“This suggests to me that the administration has some intention of using either federalized guardsmen or active-duty military quite regularly to support law enforcement,” she said. “If that is the case, then I think you’re looking at some really significant morale issues, some really significant retention issues, and potentially down the line, real recruiting issues.”

Notably, the controversy over the LA deployment comes as military recruiting experiences a historic boom, with the service branches hitting accession goals months early and the Pentagon touting the enthusiasm among recruits choosing to serve under President Trump.

Kevin Wallsten, a political science professor at California State University, Long Beach, said an unscientific survey of 400 veterans he conducted earlier this year ran aggressively along political lines: Conservatives are now extremely likely to recommend military enlistment, while liberals are extremely unlikely to do so.

“I think the longer-term question,” he said, “the longer-term problem, the longer-term challenge, is to find a foundation for military recruitment that becomes less dependent on the personalities that are setting policy in the Pentagon or in the White House.”

For Metzler, seeing active-duty troops deployed in a role that might require them to use force against American civilians was shocking and further affirmed the conviction she felt that she could not wear the uniform.

At the end of June, following the conclusion of her protest outside the UN—during which she was briefly arrested—she had her first meal following the 40-day fast: three pieces of pizza.

Next, she said, she plans to enter a graduate school program in mechanical engineering at the University of Central Florida. She’s still working to make sense of her brief time in the military. Though she never deployed and never served in combat, she feels guilt even over having supported military research in developing weapons of war.

Now, when Metzler considers her decision to leave behind the military, she expresses relief. Being able to look at suffering in places like Gaza and feel horror instead of rationalizing military objectives means she’s held on to a valued piece of her humanity, she said.

“Even though it’s emotionally taxing, I feel very fortunate that I still have the ability to not glaze over that,” she said. “I almost lost that because of being in the military.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

First Came the Wildfires—then the Floods, and the Water Crises

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

First came the drought. After three years without significant rain, northern New Mexico’s dense forests of spruce, fir and ponderosa pines were baked to a crisp. Then came the spark—a prescribed burn lit by the US Forest Service in April 2022. It was supposed to reduce wildfire risk but instead got out of control, eventually becoming the largest wildfire in state history.

After the prescribed burn escaped its perimeter, it was dubbed the Hermit’s Peak Fire. Then it merged with the Calf Canyon Fire, a “sleeper” fire from January pile burns, in the hills above Las Vegas, New Mexico. (This is rare: Prescribed burns evade control and turn into wildfires only about 1 percent of the time, according to the Forest Service.)

“It feels like I’m running a restaurant through the apocalypse”

In June, rain finally fell—not enough to douse the flames, but enough to send rivers of soot, ash, and mud racing into downstream communities and homes. That put drinking water sources at risk, including private wells and a water treatment plant that was unable to turn the sludgy, contaminated water into anything safe to drink.

Firefighters contained the 340,000-acre fire in August. Now, three years later, people living in the burn scar and the roughly 13,000 residents of Las Vegas, less than 10 miles from the edge of the burn, still intermittently have trouble accessing clean drinking water. The ongoing problems expose how local, state and federal systems aren’t set up to deal with the long recovery times for increasingly large and destructive wildfires.

Las Vegas will remain vulnerable to flooding and drinking water will be at risk for at least the next five to 10 years, until shrubs regrow enough to help stabilize sloppy hillsides and scorched soil can hold moisture again. Now everyone holds their breath when summer monsoon season rolls around.

That June 2022 flood wasn’t the only disastrous deluge the community experienced even as the fire was still burning. In July, at least 2-4 inches of rain fell on ashy, water-repellant soil in just a few hours. A torrent of water raced downstream, surging into steep canyons and filling the Gallinas River with a chocolaty sludge of burned trees, dirt, and pine needles.

Flash flooding killed three people, washed out roads, and overpowered the city’s water treatment plant, which was not designed to handle post-wildfire conditions. Whenever floods pour dirt and ash into the river that feeds the city’s three reservoirs, the plant automatically shuts off to prevent permanent damage.

Then, last summer, it happened again: Heavy monsoonal rainstorms triggered more flooding, causing debris flows that left the water treatment plant unusable for roughly two weeks. It was intermittently shut down for months afterward, forcing city officials to close all nonessential businesses before the busiest weekend of the year, the annual Fourth of July Fiesta, which was cancelled.

The turbidity in some water samples—a measure of their clarity—was 200 times higher than federal drinking water standards. Locals were asked to limit their water use; businesses faced penalties if they didn’t comply. “It feels like I’m running a restaurant through the apocalypse,” said Isaac Sandoval, a Las Vegas local and owner of The Skillet restaurant. “It’s just one thing after another.”

“People are asking, ‘Is it safe to live here?’ ”

The solution is a new facility that can handle muddy, debris-filled water, and will cost over $100 million. But disaster recovery moves slowly. Despite $4 billion in congressionally approved fire relief and additional FEMA funding, design delays mean a new plant won’t open for at least four to six more years, according to Mayor David Romero.

In the meantime, maintaining the existing plant has cost Las Vegas $1 million over the last six months. And the city’s water still isn’t always clean. The New Mexico Environment Department’s Drinking Water Bureau has cited the city for violating state drinking water standards almost 60 times since 2023.

The effects of all this ripple throughout the community. Water shortages stress city firefighters. Closed businesses require more police patrols. Paper plates—dishwashing isn’t possible without clean water—and an estimated 1.2 million plastic water bottles burden the city’s garbage disposal system.

Other communities could face similar problems. More than 60 million people in the United States get their drinking water from streams that flow from the nation’s 193 million acres of national forests. Proactive thinning is underway in high-risk watersheds, including the one supplying Butte, Montana, as HCN reported last year.

And some rural areas, like Lake Madrone, California, have already paid the price. The 2020 North Complex Fire contaminated water pipes with toxic VOCs and trihalomethanes. More than four years later, residents of the 60 or so houses that didn’t burn down are still drinking from water tanks in their yards, dependent on truck deliveries for refills. FEMA denied the Lake Madrone Water District’s $8 million request to rebuild its water system, and the community can’t afford to replace the piping on its own.

Chaos at FEMA—in June, President Donald Trump said he wanted to phase out the agency and “give out less money” for disaster relief—will hurt the next community ravaged by a similar catastrophe. (So far, the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon fire recovery funds have not been cut.) “It is unacceptable that the Trump administration is attempting to gut FEMA—making us less prepared for the next crisis,” New Mexico Sen. Ben Ray Luján said in an emailed statement.

Cyn Palmer and I stepped over the sandbags that still line the front door of her small townhome in Rociada, New Mexico, in April. Rociada is in the foothills about 30 minutes northwest of Las Vegas, due north of Hermit’s Peak and flanked by a horseshoe-shaped ridgeline. Snow blanketed the ground and the thousands of burnt trees that ring the valley resembled charred toothpicks. Many of her neighbors and friends lost their houses, and the community center and bar where Palmer, a retired wildlife manager, once picked up shifts burned down as well.

Palmer’s house has been through the wringer: Soot damage is still visible on its white walls despite cleaning, and repeated flooding has left mold in its wake. But one of her primary concerns is water. The rural communities scattered north of Las Vegas lack municipal water treatment plants; instead, residents rely on wells, either individual wells or community wells that serve a cluster of homes.

Floods can loosen well hardware and erode pump components. They can also ferry toxic runoff from burned areas into well water, contaminating it with chemicals, bacteria or microorganisms that require disinfection and flushing. “People are asking, ‘Is it safe to live here?’” Palmer said. “A lot of people don’t fully trust this water. I don’t trust the water.”

Palmer’s tap water comes from a community well owned and operated by the Pendaries Village Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association. The association assured Palmer that, after repairs, its wells were safe and uncontaminated by flooding, but it refused to share immediate test results with her.

“I’m so concerned about the water,” Pacheco said. “How toxic is it?”

When Palmer tried to take advantage of free water quality testing from the New Mexico Environment Department, she recalls being told that her sample had been tossed out because the community well had already been tested by the association. (Department spokesperson Muna Habib said some testing events only focus on private or public, not always community, wells.)

Palmer also worries that the pipes that carry water from the well across the valley floor to her house were superheated during the fire. Radiant heat can cause plastic pipes to leach benzene and other toxic volatile organic compounds into water.

To this day, the water she drinks and brushes her teeth with comes from a ceramic dispenser on her kitchen counter or bottles of water. She refills 3-to-5-gallon jugs in Santa Fe and Albuquerque, where she also receives medical care for an anemia autoimmune disorder that developed after the fire. “There’s no point in taking a chance on this water, when you think about all the toxins that went into the watershed,” Palmer said. She’s tripped over sandbags repeatedly, once hurting herself and another time breaking a water jug.

The scope of the private well problem is not fully known, but the roughly 75-100 households who live in and around Rociada get their water from wells. “I worry about people that haven’t gotten sick yet,” Palmer said.

A few miles up the road from Palmer, Laura and Luis Silva live with six family members and run a small herd of cattle. Both sides of their families have lived here for five-plus generations. Manuelitas Creek, which runs through the Silvas’ property, is usually only a few feet wide. Since July 2022, however, it occasionally swells up to 75 feet wide and 12 feet deep, washing out driveways, damaging septic tanks, stock ponds and culverts, and pinning logs and other debris on fences.

The Silvas believe that chemicals from burned homes and fire retardant, which contain toxic heavy metals, ended up in the floodwaters that their cattle drank. It’s difficult to know how much fire retardant was released overall during the months-long fire, but 28,000 gallons were dropped on one day in May 2022. That year, several calves were born prematurely, small and without any fur. “We’ve never seen that before,” Laura Silva said. The calves didn’t survive.

It cost the family $575 to have their well tested for a variety of contaminants in March 2023, which they said FEMA didn’t reimburse. “People haven’t had their wells tested because they can’t afford it,” Laura Silva said. (In a statement attributed to Jay Mitchell, director of operations, FEMA disputed this and said private well testing was eligible for reimbursement before the fire claims reimbursement deadline of March 14.)

They’re concerned a septic tank damaged by flooding may be contaminating their water, an even more expensive problem to fix without FEMA’s help. So for now, they drink their water and hope there’s nothing wrong.

Some 40 miles south, in the mountains south of Hermit’s Peak, Michael Pacheco lives on 100 acres that were once covered with piñon pines, cedars and juniper trees. Most of them burned, and now, when it rains, water runs right off the soil, rather than soaking in. Pacheco, who is a minimalist, has never had running water at his trailer. But he used to draw as much water as he wanted from a nearby well. Now, it runs out after 30 gallons.

When we met for an afternoon lemonade in Las Vegas, Pacheco pulled up in an old turquoise truck. There was a 300-gallon plastic tank strapped in the back, and he planned to fill it with potable water before heading back to the hills. “I’m so concerned about the water,” Pacheco said. “How toxic is it?” The 2024 summer flooding kept Pacheco, who’s cut off from town by Tecolote Creek, from turning in water quality samples to the New Mexico Environment Department for free testing on time.

Though Pacheco lives dozens of miles away from Palmer and the Silvas, they share similar concerns: lingering chemical contamination from fire retardant and the lack of testing of private wells and surrounding waterways. Pacheco has fought environmental battles in the past, protesting and organizing against fracking and mining efforts in the region. “I’ve been an activist since I was a little boy,” he said. Now, safe drinking water is his next fight. He’s started pestering the city, the state, and the federal government to help fund testing and any cleanup necessary to ensure clean water. “It’s time to heal,” he said. “I’m going to help turn this all around.”

Reporting for this story was supported by a grant from the Institute for Journalism & Natural Resources.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Watch: A Mother’s Journey Through a Devastating Adoption System

In the fall of 2018, Tia Goins was a new mother in crisis, facing eviction, unable to find room in a shelter, and confronting the prospect of homelessness in a Detroit winter—with her three-month-old baby.

“It was like, what do I do?” Goins said earlier this year. “I just—I just didn’t want her to be homeless with me.”

In a moment of panic, she Googled adoption options and clicked on the first link that came up: a website for Brighter Adoptions, an agency in Layton, Utah. Goins was hesitant—adoption wasn’t something she had ever seriously considered—but the agency representative was persistent.

“The lady just kept calling, kept calling,” Goins said.

Within 24 hours of Goins’ first phone call, Brighter Adoptions had flown her from Detroit to Utah to place her child for adoption. Though Goins texted the owner of the agency saying she was having second thoughts, the process moved quickly: Within two days, agency representatives were at Goins’ hotel room door with the final adoption paperwork.

Goins’ story is the subject of an investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting (which publishes Mother Jones) that aired Thursday on PBS News Hour.

As I wrote in the January/February issue of Mother Jones, Utah has become a hub for domestic adoption, with agencies flying in new or expecting mothers from across the country to place their children. The agencies often offer cash stipends and free lodging to mothers—many of whom, like Goins, are in desperate financial and housing situations.

This cottage industry is enabled by so-called “adoption-friendly” laws in Utah that expedite the process. Many states build in protections for birth parents, allowing birth mothers to change their minds days or even weeks after signing adoption paperwork, and requiring that birth fathers have a chance to contest the adoption.

In Utah, such safeguards don’t exist. Once the papers are signed, the decision is irreversible. In addition, the children of unwed birth fathers can be placed for adoption in Utah without their notification or consent. And finally, Utah is the only state where finalized adoptions can’t be dismissed even if the adoption was fraudulent.

“In confusion,” says Texas A&M professor Malinda Seymore, “there is profit.”

Agencies like Brighter Adoptions say they’re providing needed services, centering the needs of birth mothers and finding loving homes for their children. In an email, Brighter Adoptions owner Sandi Quick said that the agency ensures that mothers “fully understand the implications of adoption.” But critics argue that moving mothers away from their support systems to a state that expedites adoptions makes mothers more vulnerable. Plus, they say, the adoption industry is fueled by agencies, lawyers, and facilitators that often profit off of the process.

“I think domestic, private, infant action in America toes that line of legalized trafficking,” says Ashley Mitchell, director of Knee to Knee, which runs support groups for birth parents.

Over the past decade, several states, particularly those with restrictive abortion laws, have passed “adoption-friendly” legislation. Georgia, Kentucky, and Indiana have shortened the period during which a birth mother can change her mind; Virginia and South Dakota put limits on the rights of birth fathers; Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas require schools to provide adoption education. Texas also has launched a multimillion-dollar campaign promoting adoption.

Malinda Seymore, a law professor at Texas A&M University, says that the dramatic state-by-state differences in protections for birth parents benefits the adoption industry.

“In confusion, there is profit,” she says. “If you can move a birth mother to a different state and take advantage of more favorable laws for your client, why wouldn’t you?”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Texas Floods Amped Up the Battle Between MAHA and the Tech Right

One longstanding fight that has divided the political right has been over whether or not humans should be allowed to modify the weather, with religious conservatives saying absolutely not, while the tech visionaries are all for it. These debates were often theoretical, but then the catastrophic floods in Texas took place.

On July 2, two days before floods devastated communities in West Texas, a California-based company called Rainmaker was conducting operations in the area. Rainmaker was working on behalf of the South Texas Weather Modification Association, a coalition of water conservation districts and county commissions; the project is overseen by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. Through a geoengineering technology called cloud-seeding, the company uses drones to disperse silver iodide into clouds to encourage rainfall. The company is relatively new—it was launched in 2023—but the technology has been around since 1947, when the first cloud-seeding experiment took place.

After news of the floods broke, it didn’t take long for internet observers to make a connection and point to Rainmaker’s cloud-seeding efforts as the cause of the catastrophe. “This isn’t just ‘climate change,’ posted Georgia Republican congressional candidate Kandiss Taylor to her 65,000 followers on X. “It’s cloud seeding, geoengineering, & manipulation. If fake weather causes real tragedy, that’s murder.” Gabrielle Yoder, a right-wing influencer, posted on Instagram to her 151,000 followers, “I could visibly see them spraying prior to the storm that has now claimed over 40 lives.”

Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser and election denier, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about Russia, told his 2.1 million followers on X that he’d “love to see the response” from the company to the accusations that it was responsible for the inundation.

Augustus Doricko, Rainmaker’s 25-year-old CEO, took Flynn up on his request. “Rainmaker did not operate in the affected area on the 3rd or 4th,” he posted on X, “or contribute to the floods that occurred over the region.”

Meteorologists resoundingly agree with Doricko, saying that the technology simply isn’t capable of causing that volume of precipitation, in which parts of Kerr County experienced an estimated 100 billion gallons of rain in just a few hours. But the scientific evidence didn’t dissuade those who had already made up their minds that geoengineering was to blame. On July 5, the day after the floods, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) announced that she planned to introduce a bill that would make it a felony offense for humans to deliberately alter the weather. “We must end the dangerous and deadly practice of weather modification and geoengineering,” she tweeted.

Lawmakers in both Florida and Tennessee appear to feel similarly; they have recently passed laws that outlaw weather modification. But other states have embraced the technology: Rainmaker currently has contracts in several states that struggle with drought: Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, California, and Texas, as well as with municipalities in Utah and Idaho.

The debate over cloud-seeding is yet another flashpoint in a simmering standoff between two powerful MAGA forces: on one side are the techno-optimists—think Peter Thiel, or Elon Musk (who has fallen from grace, of course), or even Vice President JD Vance—who believe that technological advancement is an expression of patriotism. This is the move-fast-and-break-things crowd that generally supports projects they consider to be cutting edge—for example, building deregulated zones to encourage innovation, extending the human lifespan with experimental medical procedures, and using genetic engineering to enhance crops. And to ensure those crops are sufficiently watered, cloud-seeding.

The opposing side, team “natural,” is broadly opposed to anything they consider artificial, be it tampering with the weather, adding chemicals to food, or administering vaccines, which many of them see as disruptive to a perfectly self-sufficient human immune system. The “Make America Healthy Again” movement started by US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., lies firmly in this camp.

Indeed, Kennedy himself has spoken out against weather modification. “Geoengineering schemes could make floods & heatwaves worse,” he tweeted last June. “We must subject big, untested policy ideas to intense scrutiny.” In March, he tweeted that he considered states’ efforts to ban geoengineering “a movement every MAHA needs to support” and vowed that “HHS will do its part.”

In April, Joseph Ladapo, Florida’s crusading surgeon general who emerged as a critic of Covid vaccines, cheered Florida’s geoengineering ban. “Big thanks to Senator Garcia for leading efforts to reduce geoengineering and weather modification activities in our Florida skies,” he posted, referring to Republican state senator Ileana Garcia, who had introduced the bill. “We have to keep fighting to clean up the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat.”

Unsurprisingly, both camps believe that God is on their side. “This is not normal,” Rep. Greene tweeted on July 5, a day after the Texas floods, when the extent of the damage was still not fully known. “I want clean air, clean skies, clean rainwater, clean ground water, and sunshine just like God created it!!”

The following day, Rainmaker’s Doricko tweeted, “I’m trying to help preserve the world God made for us by bringing water to the farms and ecosystems that are dying without it.” Last year, he told Business Insider, “I view in no small part what we’re doing at Rainmaker as, cautiously and with scrutiny from others and advice from others, helping to establish the kingdom of God.”

“I view in no small part what we’re doing at Rainmaker as, cautiously and with scrutiny from others and advice from others, helping to establish the kingdom of God.”

Indeed, for Doricko, the reference to the divine was not merely rhetorical. He reportedly attends Christ Church Santa Clarita, a church affiliated with the TheoBros, a group of mostly millennial and Gen Z, ultraconservative men, many of whom proudly call themselves Christian nationalists. Among the tenets of this branch of Protestant Christianity—known as Reformed or Reconstructionist—is the idea that the United States should be subject to biblical law.

His political formation was also ultraconservative. As an undergrad at the University of California, Berkeley, he launched the school’s chapter of America First Students, the university arm of the political organization founded by white nationalist “Groyper” and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. (Doricko didn’t respond to a request for comment for this article.)

More recently, he has aligned himself with a different corner of the right: the ascendant Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who are increasingly influencing Republican politics. Last year, PayPal founder and deep-pocketed right-wing donor Peter Thiel’s foundation granted Doricko a Thiel Fellowship, a grant awarded annually to a select group of entrepreneurs who have foregone a college degree in order to pursue a tech-focused business venture. Rainmaker has received seed funding from other right-leaning investors, including entrepreneurs and venture capitalists Garry Tan and Balaji Srinivasan. (This world isn’t as distant from Doricko’s religious community as it might seem; the cross-pollination between the Silicon Valley elite and TheoBro-style Christian nationalism is well underway.)

Yet for all his right-wing bonafides, Doricko also refers to himself as an “environmentalist”—a label that has historically been associated with the political left. And indeed, Rainmaker also has ties to left-leaning firms and politicians. Last March on X, Doricko posted a photo of himself with Lauren Sanchez, wife of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and head of the environmentally-focused philanthropy Bezos Earth Fund. “Grateful that Lauren and the @BezosEarthFund realize we don’t have to choose between a healthier environment and greater human prosperity,” Doricko wrote. A month later, he posted a photo of himself with former president Bill Clinton, adding, “It was a pleasure discussing how cloud seeding can enhance water supplies with #42 @BillClinton!”

Predictably, Doricko drew backlash from the right for those tweets, but he didn’t seem to mind, likely because he’s been too busy fighting weather modification bans IRL. Earlier this year, he testified before both the Florida House Appropriations Committee and the Tennessee Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee, imploring the skeptics to quit worrying and embrace technology. “If you’re in favor of depriving farmers in Tennessee from having the best technology available in other states, I would ask you to vote for the bill as it is,” he said in his testimony in the Tennessee statehouse. “In all things, I aspire to be a faithful Christian, and part of that means stewarding creation.

On Monday, Doricko appeared on a live X space, where he attempted to address the allegations that Rainmaker had caused the floods. “The flooding, unequivocally, had nothing to do with Rainmaker’s activities or any weather modification activities that I know of,” he said. Yet Doricko’s appearance seemed only to intensify the rift in the MAGA-verse.

“We have a right to KNOW if cloud seeding had a role in #TexasFlooding,” Fox &Friends host Rachel Campos Duffy tweeted to her 279,000 followers on July 9. “Also need to know why companies are allowed to manipulate weather without public consent??!!” The following day, Mike Solana, the CEO of Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, posted to his 373,000 followers, “The hurricane laser people are threatening Augustus’s life for making it rain. They are idiots. But he *can* make it rain—and he should (we thank you for your service).”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Big Bad Republican Bill Wasn’t Regressive Enough for the Anti-Tax Crusaders

It is apparently not enough for America’s anti-tax crusaders that Congress just passed one of the most expensive and regressive tax bills in our history. The Washington Post reports that Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform and other conservative groups are now urging the Trump administration to change how investment profits are taxed—unilaterally, if need be—in a way that would overwhelmingly favor the wealthiest Americans.

Sound familiar?

Namely, they want to index capital gains to inflation. Suppose I bought $100,000 worth of Apple stock on July 10, 2020 and kept it. Today, I could sell that stock for $170,383—a tidy $70,383 profit. That’s a 74 percent overall return and an average annual return of 11.7 percent. Pretty good, right?

Not good enough for Norquist et al.

These players want to let me adjust the “cost basis”—the price I originally paid for the stock—for inflation. Using this inflation calculator, I could then tell the IRS that my initial $100k investment was in fact a $120,407 investment, and so my profit for tax purposes is only $40,976.

This is insane—for several reasons.

First, read the room. Congress just passed a megabill whose benefits are deeply skewed in favor of the wealthy. Its tax provisions and spending cuts, taken together, will result in a 4 percent increase in average after-tax income for the richest 1 percent of American households and a nearly 4 percent decrease for the poorest 20 percent, based on the Yale Budget Lab’s analysis. This is very, very unpopular.

The bill will at least $3.3 trillion to the national debt—more like $5 trillion if expiring provisions are extended in the coming years. And indexing capital gains to inflation, according to 2018 estimates from the Tax Policy Center and the Penn Wharton Budget Model, would add yet another $100 billion to $200 billion to the tab—with the richest 1 percent reaping 86 percent of the benefits.

“I don’t think reducing [capital gains rates further] will change investor behavior,” says billionaire Mark Cuban.

Norquist told the Washington Post he recently spoke with President Donald Trump and recommended the president implement the change with an executive order. Indexing capital gains to inflation was considered during Trump’s first term, the Post‘s Jeff Stein reports, but Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin felt Congress should handle it—current secretary Scott Bessent may prove more complaint. “I said something like, ‘Mr. President, after we do the bill, we will need more economic growth,” Norquist told Stein. “The Big Beautiful Bill is very pro-growth, but with this, we can have even more growth.’”

In reality, not one of the Republican tax packages enacted since Ronald Reagan became president has lived up to its sponsors’ economic promises. “The economy may well enjoy a sugar-high the next couple of years, as borrowing stimulates near-term consumption,” Maya MacGuineas, president of the nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said in a statement after Congress passed the “One Bie Beautiful Bill” on July 3. “But a sugar-high won’t be sustained, it will do real damage, and often what comes next is the crash.”

As for the notion of indexing fueling “more growth,” the billionaire investor Mark Cuban told me in an email that he thinks the current tax rates on capital gains are fair, and “I don’t think reducing it will change investor behavior.”

Yet the fairness of those rates—and their justification—is the subject of fierce debate. Suppose I’m a wealthy investor and I sell assets I’ve held for at least 12 months—stocks, bonds, real estate, or even, say, a stud racehorse—netting my family $1,000,000 in profits. The federal tax on those capital gains ranges from zero for the first $94,000 to 20 percent for the portion that exceeds $583,750. Because my spouse and I have income of more than $250,000, we also have to pay a 3.8 percent “net investment income tax.” This all adds up to an effective tax rate of about 19 percent.

But tax rates for wage income are much higher. A couple reporting $1,000,000 in salary income pays an effective rate of about 30 percent. That’s a huge difference, and part of why families whose money comes from primarily from asset growth have amassed wealth so much faster than working families have. It no lefty exaggeration to say America’s economic system is rigged against workers and in favor of investors. It’s right there in the tax code.

“This kind of proposal will only widen the economic inequality we’re facing.”

So how do conservative policy wonks justify the low capital gains rates? A key argument, interestingly, is that inflation eats away at the value of long-term gains. One “solution” would be to index the gains to inflation, notes the libertarian Cato Institute, “but most countries instead roughly compensate” by offering reduced tax rates for investors.

And now the anti-taxers want to have it both ways.

Investors enjoy other economic advantages, too. Notably, their gains are counted as income only when the assets are sold. In practice, this allows people with a large portfolio of appreciated assets to borrow against their holdings at single-digit interest rates and live off those loans instead of selling assets and paying a double-digit tax. As ProPublica discovered, many of America’s wealthiest families have been doing precisely that. (As a result, from 2014 to 2018, Jeff Bezos paid an effective income tax rate of less than 1 percent.)

Or say you have a $100 investment that grows by 10 percent a year during a period of 2 percent annual inflation. The first year’s profit, after inflation, is $8. “But I don’t pay tax on that $8 until I sell, which may be decades later,” says Bob Lord a former tax attorney and associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. “I’m basically getting a free ride on the appreciation of that $8 portion of my investment.” Doesn’t that benefit, he asks, more than offset any detriment from inflation?

And also, isn’t investing supposed to contain an element of risk management? Isn’t the ability to beat inflation part of what separates a savvy investor from a useless one? Indexing for inflation, combined with favorable tax capital gains rates and an exemption for unrealized gains—doesn’t that basically reduce investing to shooting fish in a barrel?

It is worth noting, too, that most Americans work for a paycheck, and the ones who make their living via investing are by and large quite wealthy. More than half of Americans now own some stock, but not much. As of January 2024, per Federal Reserve data, 93 percent of US stock holdings were owned by the most affluent 10 percent of the population, and the richest 1 percent owned more than half of all public equities—not to mention private equities.

Indexing gains to inflation “would really codify the notion that income taxes are only for people who work for a living,” says Morris Pearl, a former managing director at BlackRock and current chairman of the board of Patriotic Millionaires, a nonprofit that advocates for higher taxes on the rich.

If the Trump administration were to attempt the change Norquist recommended—unilaterally or otherwise—its not even clear how it would work. You would presumably need to make changes on both the profit and loss sides of a balance sheet. Kyle Pomerleau, a senior fellow with the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, has concluded that indexing is complex and unlikely to generate significant economic impact, and is therefore “more trouble than it’s worth.”

“Indexing has been rejected in the past to avoid opening new tax shelters,” says Steven Rosenthal, a Washington tax policy expert and former legislation counsel for the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. “If investors were permitted to index their assets, but not required to index their liabilities, debt-financed investments would explode. Investors could exclude profits and deduct interest. But indexing both assets and liabilities is a mess, which I, as a congressional staffer, discovered when we tried to draft it.”

“This kind of proposal will only widen the economic inequality we’re facing,” adds Patriotic Millionaires’ Pearl. “It’s absurd that all I would need to do is buy property that I can rent out, and make a lot of money, and never have to pay taxes again!”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Sheldon Whitehouse: Democrats and Activists “Too Polite” in the Fight Against “Malevolent” Fossil Fuel Giants

This story is part of the 89 Percent Project, an initiative of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now

The Democratic party and the climate movement have been “too cautious and polite” and should instead be denouncing the fossil fuel industry’s “huge denial operation,” the US senator Sheldon Whitehouse said.

“The fossil fuel industry has run the biggest and most malevolent propaganda operation the country has ever seen,” the Rhode Island Democrat said in an interview on Monday with the global media collaboration Covering Climate Now. “It is defending a $700-plus billion [annual] subsidy” of not being charged for the health and environmental damages caused by the burning of fossil fuels. “I think the more people understand that, the more they’ll be irate [that] they’ve been lied to.” But, he added, “Democrats have not done a good job of calling that out.”

“Turns out, none of [the science] really matters while the operation is controlling things in Congress.”

Whitehouse is among the most outspoken climate champions on Capitol Hill, and on Wednesday evening he delivered his 300th Time to Wake Up climate speech on the floor of the Senate.

He began giving these speeches in 2012, when Barack Obama was in his first term, and has consistently criticized both political parties for their lackluster response to the climate emergency. The Obama White House, he complained, for years would not even “use the word ‘climate’ and ‘change’ in the same paragraph.”

While Whitehouse slams his fellow Democrats for timidity, he blasts Republicans for being in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, an entity whose behavior “has been downright evil,” he said. “To deliberately ignore [the laws of physics] for short-term profits that set up people for huge, really bad impacts—if that’s not a good definition of evil, I don’t know what is.”

The American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s trade association, says on its website that “API and its members commit to delivering solutions that reduce the risks of climate change while meeting society’s growing energy needs.”

Long before Donald Trump reportedly told oil company CEOs he would repeal Joe Biden’s climate policies if they contributed $1 billion to his 2024 presidential campaign, Republicans went silent on climate change in return for oil industry money, Whitehouse asserted. The key shift came after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which struck down limits on campaign spending. Before that, some GOP senators had sponsored climate bills, and John McCain urged climate action during his 2008 presidential campaign.

But Citizens United, Whitehouse said, “told the fossil fuel industry: ‘The door’s wide open—spend any money you want in our elections.’” The industry, he said, promised the Republican party “unlimited amounts of money” in return for stepping away from bipartisan climate action: “And since 2010, there has not been a single serious bipartisan measure in the Senate.”

Democrats get stuck in a “stupid doom loop in which our pollsters say: ‘Well, climate’s not one of the top issues that voters care about,’ so then we don’t talk about it.”

Whitehouse said that after delivering 300 climate speeches on the Senate floor, he has learned to shift from talking about the “facts of climate science and the effects on human beings to calling out the fossil fuels’ massive climate-denial operation”.

He said: “Turns out, none of [the science] really matters while the operation is controlling things in Congress. I could take facts from colleagues’ home states right to them, and it would make no difference because of this enormous, multibillion-dollar political club that can [punish] anyone who crosses them.”

Most Republicans even stay silent despite climate change’s threat to property values and other traditional GOP priorities, Whitehouse said. He noted that even the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell—who is not known for his climate bona fides, he said—testified before the Senate in February that in 10-15 years there will be whole regions of the country where nobody can get a mortgage because extreme weather will make it impossible to afford or even obtain insurance.

Democrats can turn all this to their advantage if they get “more vocal and aggressive,” Whitehouse argued. “The good news is that the American people hate dark money with a passion, and they hate it just as much, if not more, in districts that went for Trump as in districts that went for Biden.”

Democrats also need to recognize “how much [public] support there is for climate action,” he said. “How do you have an issue that you win 74 [percent] to 12 [percent] and you don’t ride that horse as hard as you can?”

Whitehouse said he was only estimating that 74 percent figure, but that’s exactly the percentage of Americans who want their government to take stronger climate action, according to the studies informing the 89 Percent Project, the Guardian and other Covering Climate Now partner news outlets began reporting in April. Globally, the percentage ranges from 80 percent to 89 percent. Yet this overwhelming climate majority does not realize it is the majority, partly because that fact has been absent from most news coverage, social media and politicians’ statements.

Democrats keep “getting caught in this stupid doom loop in which our pollsters say: ‘Well, climate’s not one of the top issues that voters care about,’ so then we don’t talk about it,” said Whitehouse. “So it never becomes one of the top issues that voters care about. [But] if you actually go ask [voters] and engage on the issue, it explodes in enthusiasm. It has huge numbers when you bother to engage, and we just haven’t.”

Nevertheless, Whitehouse is optimistic that climate denial won’t prevail forever. “Once this comes home to roost in people’s homes, in their family finances, in really harmful ways, that [will be] motivating in a way that we haven’t seen before around this issue,” he said. “And if we’re effective at communicating what a massive fraud has been pulled on the American public by the fossil fuel industry denial groups, then I think that’s a powerful combination.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Listen to the Trump-Referencing Clipse Track Universal Music Allegedly Tried to Censor

After more than 15 years, fans of the Clipse**,** the legendary Virginia-based sibling rap duo, are finally getting a fourth studio album: Let God Sort Em Out. Known for hits in the early 2000s like “Grindin’” and “When the Last Time,” and the acclaimed 2006 album Hell Hath No Fury, brothers Malice and Pusha T—now better known for solo work—split up following the 2009 release of Til the Casket Drops, their third album.

The new album, already a critical success, is set to release Friday and features production from longtime collaborator Pharrell Williams, whose iconic production as part of the Neptunes helped define early Clipse hits, and guest verses from Nas; Tyler, the Creator; and Kendrick Lamar. But that Lamar verse led—reportedly because of a reference to Donald Trump—to delays and attempts at censorship, the group has alleged, that ultimately led them to leave Universal Music Group (UMG).

The track in question, “Chains & Whips,” released a day before the album on Apple Music; under an intense mix of guitar riffs, drums, and horns, its hook, “Beat the system with chains and whips,” alludes to the US’ dark past with slavery while serving as a double entendre for the jewelry and cars the brothers have been able to purchase with the millions they’ve made.

Pusha T and Malice deliver hard-hitting bars about the pursuit of wealth and death with lyrics like “Richard”—in reference to the luxury watch brand Richard Mille—”don’t make watches for presidents. Just a million trapped between skeletons.” Lamar immediately sets the mood for his verse, rapping, “I’m not the candidate to vibe with. I don’t fuck with the kumbaya shit.” In a verse featuring a rhyme scheme with an impressive number of words that start with “gen,” he raps about genocide and gentrification before capping off the verse with “God gave me light, a good year full of free will. Trump card, tell me not to spare your life.”

According to Pusha T, the group’s label, Def Jam, part of UMG, singled out that lyric and demanded the duo censor or remove Lamar’s verse. “The phrase ‘Trump card’ was used, and they said that they didn’t want any problem with Trump,” he told the New York Times’ Popcast in June.

“Rap music has provided opportunities for artists coming from marginalized backgrounds to express their hopes, their aspirations, but also their frustrations [and] their political views,” says Chad Williams, a professor of history and African American and Black diaspora studies at Boston University. Williams, who previously taught a course on hip-hop history at Brandeis University, says political messages have been a vital part of hip-hop for most of its history. He points to groups like Boogie Down Productions and Public Enemy, which made political messages central to their music in the ‘80s and ‘90s, and says artists were able to find success with such songs only until hip-hop became more mainstream and labels consolidated into a few major players—when political hip-hop took a back seat to other styles.

Williams sees the Pusha T situation as a consequence of that corporate consolidation, where artists have fewer options for distribution, allowing labels to exert more influence—which he finds especially troubling in a political climate where “retribution has become an explicit part of the Trump administration’s political agenda and you could potentially see economic repercussions for major corporations.” Still, Pusha T told Popcast’s hosts that he didn’t believe the label really objected to the Trump line; instead, he argued, they didn’t like the optics of two rappers coming together on a song after beefing with Drake, who in January filed a defamation suit against UMG, also his longtime label, that accused the company of siding with Lamar in the beef.

Many in the hip-hop community criticized Drake for the lawsuit: Legal action over losing a rap beef?” the rapper Rapsody wrote in a now-deleted post on X. “My my my. Not like us at all.” Williams describes the lawsuit as “one of the most un-hip-hop things in hip-hop history,” adding that “Drake really demonstrated how out of touch he is with hip-hop culture.” He says it could lead to labels being even more restrictive about the music they allow rappers to put out.

The lawsuit also raised concerns around other court cases involving rappers. A group of professors from the University of California, Irvine School of Law filed a brief in the case in May, callingDrake’s arguments “not just faulty” but “dangerous.” The professors write that lyrics in diss tracks should not be taken as factual statements, but as “hyperbole [and] bluster” used to entertain audiences, warning that the case could set a precedent for the controversial use of rap lyrics in criminal court, which the professors say has introduced racial bias in multiple cases and has created a “chilling effect across the industry.”

Pusha T criticized Drake’s lawsuit in an interview with GQ last month, saying, “The suing thing is bigger than some rap shit. I just don’t rate you. Damn, it’s like it just kind of cheapens the art of it once we gotta have real questions about suing and litigation. Like, what? For this?”

Whichever factor—fear of Trump or of Drake—motivated the label to quash the track, Pusha T said in the same interview that Def Jam’s attempts to censor the Clipse collaboration with Kendrick reminded him of the label’s response to the fallout from “The Story of Adidon,” the scathing 2018 Drake diss track in which Pusha T exposed both that Drake had a previously unknown child and that he had been photographed in blackface—which the artist later said was part of an art project designed to bring awareness to the limited roles available to Black actors and the way “African Americans were once wrongfully portrayed in entertainment.”

Thereafter, Pusha T claimed in his Popcast interview, Def Jam put up roadblocks when he tried to release new music, allegedly nixing multiple guest verses on other artists’ songs that it interpreted as subtle disses aimed at Drake.

When the Clipse said they hit an impasse with the label, refusing to remove or censor Lamar’s verse, the duo bought themselves out of their contracts for a seven-figure sum, according to Pusha T’s longtime manager in an interview with Billboard; their latest album is being released on Jay-Z’s Roc Nation, a subsidiary of the music giant Live Nation.

Censorship in rap is “egregious,” said Malice during the Popcast interview. “Rap, the arts, entertainment, it’s like the last frontier for Black expression. This is what we have.”

Drake’s legal representation and UMG did not respond to requests for comment.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

State Department Employees Brace for Friday Layoffs

Inside the State Department, employees are packing up their belongings in anticipation of a reorganization and reduction in force that is expected to cut nearly 2,000 jobs. The significant cuts and reorientation of the department’s mission will cripple the agency’s work to promote democracy, combat human rights abuses, and negotiate conflict resolution.

Trump officials plan to attack “unelected bureaucrats” to defend cuts hitting human rights work.

The proposed reorganization submitted to Congress was supposed to be completed by July 1, but a federal lawsuit filed by labor unions blocked the proposed reorganization and reduction in force, or RIF, plans across 22 agencies. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court lifted that injunction. While it did not rule on the legality of the reorganization plans at State or any other agency, it paved the way for massive cuts across the federal government to take effect. If Secretary of State Marco Rubio proceeds with the cuts and changes on Friday, as workers at the agency expect, it will be an immediate result of the Supreme Court’s intervention.

Those hardest hit will be employees at bureaus that focus on democracy, human rights, and conflict resolution, according to the agency’s plans. For example, the administration plans deep cuts at the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), which supports pro-democracy civil society groups around the world, and then to use what is left of the bureau for rightwing ideological pursuits, such as the administration’s allegations of free speech abuses in Europe.

State Department employees say the changes will be devastating, particularly when coupled with the destruction of USAID and the billions of dollars in grants that are being shut off, both abroad and to United States based non-governmental organizations. “For those of us in the conflict prevention and stabilization space, those of us in the human rights space, and those of us in the mass atrocity prevention and accountability space,” one State Department employee told Mother Jones, “it ends the entire industry in the United States.”

Texts, screenshots, and rumors spreading through the State Department have prepared employees for what is coming—and, after an official email Thursday confirming a RIF “in the coming days,” many believe it will come Friday. Around 9:30am, they expect an announcement that the reorganization plan has taken effect. This will be followed, employees believe, by RIF notices between 10am and 12pm. Around 3pm, employees expect to receive financial information such as whether they will first be put on administrative leave. Workers expect to lose access to internal systems and the building by the end of the day.

An employee at the Bureau for Conflict and Stabilization Operations expects their entire office to be eliminated tomorrow, in accordance with the reorganization plan. “In this administration, they’re big on getting deals done and taking credit,” said an employee in the bureau, who asked not to be named. “You have India-Pakistan, you have Gaza ceasefires, you have this Rwanda-DRC deal—but it takes a lot more than just the high level handshake. There’s a lot of work behind the scenes that has to be done to make sure these agreements are implemented and all that capacity is going away.”

One of the most dramatic hits is coming to DRL, which is currently overseeing 391 grants totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, one employee told Mother Jones. “They are RIFing all of us who actually understand what foreign assistance management at the State Department is,” said a DRL employee, who asked for anonymity. As a result, they said, congressionally-mandated funding may fail to go out to human rights and civil society groups around the globe. As a result, this person expects lawsuits over the DRL cuts.

These funds helped Americans, says the DRL employee. As the “biggest donor of democracy and human rights assistance around the world for the last few years,” this employee said, DRL helped create stable conditions for American businesses and nurtured pro-American sentiment—things that help enable access to foreign markets and critical minerals. “Once we’re gone, there is going to be a vacuum, and there are going to be malign actors that fill this vacuum,” including China and local radical and terrorist groups.

Expecting criticism for effectively erasing the last of the government’s democracy and human rights work abroad, the State Department drafted a “press guidance” document dated July 7 on how to defend the plan and Rubio in particular. The document, obtained by Mother Jones, cites broad goals of disempowering “unelected bureaucrats…pushing ideologically driven policies.” Rather than actually defend the plan, the document provides talking points that attack Democrats and progressives, shifting the story away from the Trump administration’s actions.

The document alleges that the Obama and Biden administrations used foreign assistance to push radical ideologies abroad. Biden, the press guidance alleges, used foreign aide to “bully countries into accepting so-called transgender rights” while ignoring “the wholesale slaughter of Christians.” It calls Biden’s proclamation of Easter Sunday of last year as Transgender Day of Remembrance “sickening.” In fact, Biden scheduled a Transgender Day of Visibility for every March 31 back in 2021, and in 2024 that happened to fall on Easter Sunday. Biden commemorated Transgender Day of Remembrance on November 20—nowhere near Easter.

The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the guidance memo, or any pending cuts.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

What We Know About How FEMA Officials Are Failing Texas

The devastating floods that hit central Texas last Friday have now killed at least 120 people, including dozens of children, according to authorities, and left at least 150 missing. But the leaders at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) tasked with supporting communitiesin the wake of similar disasters have been missing in action, according to a slate of recent damning reports.

For one, FEMA Acting Administrator David Richardson is nowhere to be found, according to multiple reports. A former Marine, Richardson appears to have no experience leading disaster management. Yet in his current role, Richardson—who made headlines after he reportedly told FEMA staff that he was unaware the US has a hurricane season (White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed that as a “joke”) and threatened to “run right over” anyone who got in his way—is federally mandated to be responsible for providing national leadership in preparation for, and in response to, natural disasters. In the past, FEMA administrators have typically been among the first responders at disaster sites to help manage the response.

Former FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell told E&E News that the head of FEMA should be on the ground “to talk to local officials, talk to the people that have been impacted, see firsthand what the damages are—and make sure FEMA was directing the appropriate resources as fast as possible into the appropriate area.”

But FEMA staffers say that whatever Richardson is doing, it’s not that. Not only has he reportedly made no public appearances since assuming his role—which did not require Senate confirmation—he has also yet to arrive in Texas since the July 4 tragedy struck.

“I have no idea what’s going on with David Richardson’s absence,” one FEMA employee told E&E News.

“If this is how they are going to do a major hurricane response, people are fucked,” one FEMA source told independent journalist Marisa Kabas, author of the newsletter The Handbasket.

Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees FEMA and several other agencies, seems to have effectively taken over Richardson’s role. She arrived in Texas within days of the floods, conducting a press conference with Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) and touring the hardest-hit sites, including Camp Mystic, the Christian girls’ camp where at least 27 children, counselors, and staff died.But Noem has also sought to downplay the federal government’s role in responding to the disaster: “We, as a federal government, don’t manage these disasters—the state does. We come in and support them, and that’s exactly what we did here in this situation,” Noem said at a Cabinet meeting earlier this week.

“We as a federal government don’t manage these disasters—the state does. We come in and support them, and that’s exactly what we did here in this situation.”

But new reporting suggests that Noem is obstructing federal action in fulfilling even themore limited role she envisions. According to a memo obtained by CNN last month, Noem has demanded to personally approve all DHS contracts and grants worth more than $100,000, a process she has reportedly warned would take at least five days per request. “This will hurt nonprofits, states, and small towns. Massive delays feel inevitable,” one FEMA official told CNN last month.

It appears that’s already happening in Texas. Four FEMA officials told CNN in a story published on Wednesday that Noem’s new rule has slowed the Texas response. Multiple sources told that outlet that Noem did not authorize the agency’s deployment of Urban Search and Rescue teams—which are normally stationed close to disaster zones as the importance of their role becomes clear—until Monday, more than three days after the flooding began. (As the Daily Beast points out, Noem managed to find some time on Sunday to ask her Instagram followers which portrait of her they would prefer to hang in the Capitol of South Dakota, where she was previously governor.)

Aerial imagery from FEMA that Texas officials requested to support search and rescue was also delayed due to Noem’s insistence on personally approving those requests; she has also yet to okay a contract to bolster support staff at a disaster call center, where FMEA staff have been fielding phones, and callers have faced longer wait times, the staff told CNN.

CNN and The Handbasket reported that by Monday, only 86 FEMA staffers had been deployed to Texas, a smaller team than would typically be on the ground to respond to such a disaster. By Tuesday night, 311 staffers intotal had been deployed, according to CNN. Over the weekend, President Donald Trump signed a major disaster declaration for Kerr County—the epicenter of the floods—which unlocks federal funding and resources to support the emergency response and longer-term recovery. But only 25 households out of more than 20,000 in Kerr County have thus far received funding from that pot of money, according to FEMA’s website. A former FEMA official told E&E News thatthey “would be asking the regional [FEMA] administrator why that number is so low and what can we do to improve registrations.” (Texas lacks a regional FEMA administrator.)

On Wednesday, congressional Democrats servingon the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure wrote to FEMA and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) questioning whether Richardson will visit Texas, how many FEMA personnel have been deployed there, and whether Noem and Trump plan to move forward with trying to abolish FEMA, among other questions related to recent reporting about the agency’s failures. “It would be unconscionable to face the next extreme weather event with a FEMA andNWS [National Weather Service] that are anything less than fully resourced to respond from the earliest forecast through the last delivery of relief,” the lawmakers write,asking for a response by July 22.

But Noem has already managed to answer one of the Democrats’ questions: She does, indeed, want to abolish FEMA. At a public meeting on Wednesday, Noem blasted FEMA for being too slow to respond without acknowledging her own role in perpetuating the delays. “It has been slow to respond at the federal level,” Noem said of FEMA. “It’s even been slower to get the resources to Americans in crisis, and that is why this entire agency needs to be eliminated as it exists today, and remade into a responsive agency.”

When Mother Jones reached out to FEMA for comment, there was no reply. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that the agency has taken “an all-hands-on-desk approach to respond to recovery efforts” in Texas, but she did not answer a series of detailed questions about Noem’s and Richardson’s alleged actions based on the reports cited here.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Texas Republicans Have a Brazen New Plan to Block Democrats from Retaking the House in 2026

The state of Texas is currently mourning at least 120 lives lost due to horrific flooding in the Hill Country. But Texas Republicans appear focused on a different priority: re-gerrymandering their state to reduce Democrats’ chances ofretaking the US House in 2026.

After intense lobbying by the White House, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced on Wednesday that the GOP-dominatedstate legislature would reconvene this summer to redraw its Congressional districts.

It’s a shocking move on multiple fronts.

First, there’s the timing. Districts are typically redrawn after the decennial census at the beginning of the decade to account for population changes. And, given the scale of the devastation in the Hill Country and questions about the state and national preparedness to alert residents andcombat the flooding, one would think that state leaders would be laser-focused on preventing another such tragedy.

“While Texans battle tragic and deadly flooding, Governor Abbott and House Republicans are plotting a mid-decade gerrymander,” Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) wrote on X. “They should be modernizing emergency response—not rigging maps.”

Then there’s the substance. Texas already has some of the most gerrymandered congressional districts in the country. Republicans control two-thirds of US House seats, even though in the 2024 electionTrump only won 56 percent of the vote in the state. Texas gained 4 million people between 2010 and 2020, giving the state two new congressional seats. Ninety-five percent of the population growth came from people of color, but, in a brazen effort to forestall the impact of demographic changes, the state drew two new seats in areas with white majorities instead.

“The partisan effects of the maps are achieved by discriminating against communities of color,” Michael Li of the Brennan Center for Justice told me at the time. Both the Biden Justice Department and civil rights groups sued the state, alleging that the maps intentionally discriminated against Black and Hispanic voters. A federal trial in that case just recently concluded, with the verdict pending.

As if the current maps weren’t skewed enough, the Trump White House reportedly urged Texas Republicans to pursue an even more “ruthless” approach ahead of the midterms that could net the GOP four or five new seats. In fact, Trump’s Justice Department, which has dramatically reversed all voting rights enforcement, appears to have orchestrated the push to redraw the state’s US House districts. The department sent a letter to Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton on Monday alleging that four of Texas’s congressional districts were “unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.” Abbott then cited “constitutional concerns” as a reason to call a special redistricting session.

“I view the DOJ letter as offering a fig leaf, if you think one is necessary, to give the governor an excuse to redistrict.”

“I view the DOJ letter as offering a fig leaf, if you think one is necessary, to give the governor an excuse to redistrict,” says Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division under President Obama.

It just so happens that all four of the districts singled out by the DOJ have been represented by Black or Hispanic Democrats. That raises the likelihood that Texas Republicans, in a bid to give their party more seats, will redraw their districts in a way that further reduces representation for voters of color, who are already severely underrepresented in the state where their numbers are growing.

The DOJ is interpreting the Voting Rights Act, experts say, in an extremely dubious way that turns the purpose of the law on its head. Its letter claims that coalition districts like the ones in Texas, where minority groups together form a majority, “run afoul of the Voting Rights Act.” As evidence, it cites one major case, a 2023 ruling from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most conservative appellate court in the country, in whichit overruled a lower court opinion by a Trump-appointed judge striking down a county commissioners’ map in Galveston, Texas, that eliminated the only majority-minority district. The 5th Circuit’s opinion has not been upheld by the Supreme Court, nor adopted by any other appellate court.

Levitt called the 5th Circuit’s decision “dead wrong” and the DOJ letter “embarrassing.”

The GOP strategy, while potentially blunting Democratic efforts to retake the House, is not without risks.

The last time Texas Republicans redrew their districts mid-decade, in 2003 under the orders of then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, state legislative Democrats fled the state, leading to a lengthy political battle. It’s possible that could happen again. During the summer of 2021, they also decamped to Washington, DC, in an unsuccessful bid to prevent Republicans from passing new voting restrictions. It’s also possible that blue states like California or New York could retaliate by redrawing their own maps to counter the GOP. And Texas Republicans, by moving voters from safe Republican areas to target Democratic incumbents, could also endanger the reelection bids ofsome of their own members.

“If the Republicans get too terribly greedy,” says Levitt, “they could end up achieving exactly the opposite of what they’re trying to achieve.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s IRS Gives Christian Nationalists a Big Boost

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ, on this beautiful Sunday morning, I stand behind this pulpit to share with you—and the tens of thousands of other believers who are watching—a troubling and painful fact: Congresswoman Smith is a tool of Satan. She has sided with him on issue after issue. She is an impediment to the establishment of a godly government run in accordance with the words of our Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Brothers and sisters, you know I do not say this lightly, but she must be cast out. The Bible commands all of us to marshal our time and talents and resources and do whatever is possible to remove her from office, and to elect T.R. Jones, a righteous man and soldier for Christ. You must align your vote with the Holy War that is underway for nothing less than this nation’s future. And the urgency is such that it is time to stretch, to give even more than you think you can by donating to the Jones campaign the maximum of $3,500—a small price to pay for receiving God’s blessing. But your commitment to the Lord does not end there. You must also contribute to the Say-No-to-Satan PAC, a Christ-loving political action committee that can accept unlimited—yes, unlimited—donations. Much as your love for Jesus Christ our Savior is unlimited. You can show what that means right now. There’s a QR code on the envelope in your pew and on the screen…

This week, the IRS submitted a court filing in a lawsuit filed by two Texas churches and an association of Christian broadcasters that declared that churches and other religious entities can now endorse political candidates, thus ending a decades-old prohibition on political activity for tax-exempt houses of worship.

As Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, explained to the New York Times, “It basically tells churches of all denominations and sects that you’re free to support candidates from the pulpit. It also says to all candidates and parties, ‘Hey, time to recruit some churches.’”

Churches have long been allowed to participate in politics in various ways. Clergy could address political issues from the pulpit, and churches could distribute so-called educational material related to elections (such as the voting guides that the Moral Majority and other fundamentalist outfits have produced comparing candidates, which functioned as de facto endorsements). Inviting candidates to speak to congregations has been a popular action within Black churches. But churches were explicitly not allowed to back the election of a specific candidate. Support had to be delivered with a nod and a wink.

This constraint was part of a broader ban on campaigning by non-profits, which has been in place since 1954—a prohibition known as the Johnson Amendment, named after former President Lyndon Johnson, who introduced this provision as a senator. But now, under the new IRS guidance, houses of worship are freed from this rule, which still applies to other tax-exempt organizations. In this filing, the agency said that a church directing its flock whom to vote for or against is akin to a private matter, like “a family discussion concerning candidates.”

It’s easy to imagine what this IRS decision will yield.

Endorsements from church leaders will not remain between clergy and their congregants—especially those made by prominent ministers, priests, rabbis, and imams whose sermons and statements are amplified by television and radio broadcasts, live-streaming, podcasts, and other platforms—and these thumbs-ups will be covered as major news events. Videos and accounts of these endorsements will become political fodder, deployed in ads, campaign literature, and social media posts. Candidates and their campaigns will search and compete for religious leaders who can direct money and votes their way. Presumably, PACs and campaigns could even put religious leaders on the payroll—or find indirect methods to compensate churches and clergy for their valuable endorsements. (Will there be pay-to-pray scandals?)

A bishop delivering a sermon that endorses or denigrates a candidate will generate significant news. The media will report on it. Clips will fly out. Ads will be cut. The clout of religious leaders of various denominations will increase, as campaigns jockey to nab the most influential clergy. Men and women of the cloth will find themselves pressured to yield to the worldly temptations and shenanigans of politics.

This will be a bonanza for many religious outfits and movements, including Christian nationalism. Its adherents, as they aim to transform government into an extension of right-wing Christianity, often proclaim that only those who follow their ultra-conservative faith deserve to be in positions of authority. Christian nationalist pastors are now free to directly use the power of the pulpit to advocate for the election of far-right candidates who share their theocratic desires. They can fundraise for these candidates. Their blessings can be political gold.

Other denominations and sects can do the same. Many Black church leaders have long signaled to their congregations which candidates warranted their support. Now they can make it official. Yet the core mission of Christian nationalists is to win over the government and make the United States a Christian country. With this IRS filing, these fanatics have won the proverbial lottery.

Half a century ago, leaders of the New Right concocted a plan to recruit evangelical Christians and Catholics—many of whom had voted Democratic up to then. They succeeded wildly in politicizing religion by weaponizing wedge issues—abortion, gay rights, school prayer, and pornography—to draw many of these voters into the Republican coalition. Ever since, right-wing Christian leaders have held an influential role in American politics, and the votes of this bloc have fueled GOP victories. Each time Trump—hardly the exemplar of Christ-like behavior—ran for president, he pocketed about 80 percent of the white evangelical Christian vote, his most reliable group of supporters.

This IRS decision will undoubtedly super-charge the participation of religious leaders in American elections. For Christian nationalists, it’s a godsend.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

This Wealthy Member of Congress Just Proposed Increasing Her Own Taxes

With an estimated net worth of $76 million, Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) is one of the top 15 wealthiest members of Congress. On Thursday, Jacobs, the granddaughter of a successful early tech entrepreneur, plans to introduce legislation that would—if enacted—work against her own self-interest.

The measure, which she discussed first with Mother Jones, is called the “Leveraging Estate Gains for America’s Children and Youth (LEGACY) Act” and proposes reducing the threshold at which very wealthy families pay taxes on their estates at death.

Congressional Republicans recently approved a $30 million minimum exemption for joint filers, meaning they don’t have to pay that tax until the assets being passed down exceed that sum. But Jacobs’s LEGACY Act would lower the threshold to $14 million for joint fillers and designate 15 percent of the increased revenue towards reducing childcare costs to no more than 7 percent of a family’s income.

“I think of it as taxing trust-fund kids,” says Jacobs, who identifies as one, “to create a trust fund for all American kids.”

Acknowledging that the LEGACY Act “won’t pass” with Republican control of both chambers, she argues that her timing isn’t just performative. Less than a week ago, President Donald Trump signed a sweeping reconciliation package that is expected to strip 3 million Americans from food stamps and cut Medicaid access for 11.8 million people. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent of households will receive an average tax cut of about $66,000, and an estimated $3.4 trillion will be added to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. (Financially speaking, Jacobs says she may benefit from the GOP package, but she still calls the bill “an abomination.”)

“The joke among people I know these days is that you know someone is making good money if they have a third kid.”

The GOP budget bill “cements and worsens income inequality and keeps people trapped in poverty or on the edges of poverty,” she says, “all to give wealthy people and corporations help that they don’t need.” In contrast, her proposed legislation presents an alternative economic playbook in which the wealthiest Americans pay more in taxes “to make sure that every kid has the opportunity to succeed in this country.”

“The whole Republican narrative,” Jacobs adds, “is that we have a scarcity of resources. But it’s not actually true. There’s plenty of resources—if we’re willing to actually tax them and use them.”

This is not just theoretical, for Jacobs, but personal. Her self-made billionaire grandfather, Irwin Jacobs, founded Qualcomm, a company that pioneered wireless communications in the 1980s. (The still-profitable company reported total assets above $55 billion in 2024.) Thanks to Qualcomm’s success, the Jacobs family heirs enjoy a sizable estate; decreasing the threshold at which estates are taxed, Jacobs says, would affect the inheritance she or her beneficiaries might receive in the future.

Increasing what’s owed to the government via estate taxes could be used for all kinds of government programs, but Jacobs says her bill directs some of the revenue to the childcare industry because of its untenable economic quandary: In 45 states plus Washington, DC, the cost of child care for two children is more than the average mortgage payment. Yet, the median pay for childcare workers is less than $33,000 per year, with many earning below the poverty line.

“It’s too expensive to provide childcare that’s both high quality and affordable for families, while paying providers a living wage,” Jacobs says, “and that’s why the government should step in.”

Among adults under 50 who say they are unlikely to have children, Pew Research Center reports that more than two-thirds say a key reason is their concerns about affordability, of which childcare is a major component.

Childcare affordability is also a major issue for parents who may be trying to decide whether or not they can afford to have more children. “The joke among people I know these days is that you know someone is making good money if they have a third kid,” says Jacobs.

For many families, the cost of childcare for three young children would exceed one parent’s wages, making it more economical for one parent to stay home and do the childrearing. A growing contingent of conservatives, including Vice President JD Vance, have suggested that mothers should prioritize raising their kids at home over chasing a career. But that perspective is restricted to only some families. In Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, benefits for jobless people and their children were eviscerated.

“Republicans can’t decide if they hate people who are getting support, who aren’t working more, or if they want mothers to stay home more,” says Jacobs. “And so instead, we get bad policies.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

This Texas County Sought Disaster Resilience Help for Years. Now It’s Too Late.

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

Flooding is a fact of life in Texas Hill Country, a region home to a flood-prone corridor known as “Flash Flood Alley.” Judge Rob Kelly, the top elected official in Kerr County, said as much on Sunday.

“We know we get rains. We know the river rises,” he said as a desperate search for survivors continued along the Guadalupe, a river that rose more than 30 feet in just five hours last week. “But nobody saw this coming.”

County records show that some Kerr County officials did see it coming and raised concerns about the county’s outdated flood warning system nearly a decade ago.

Their first request for help updating the technology was denied in 2017, when Kerr County applied for roughly $1 million in federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program aid from the Texas Department of Emergency Management. County officials tried again in 2018 after Hurricane Harvey swept Texas, killing 89 people and causing some $159 billion in damage. Again, the state denied the request, directing most federal assistance toward more densely populated areas, including Houston.

As neighboring counties invested in better emergency warning systems, Kerr County—the heart of Flash Flood Alley—never modernized an antiquated flood warning system that lacks basic components like sirens and river gauges. At least 119 people, including 27 children, have been confirmed dead in the deadliest floods the state has seen since 1921. Most of them drowned in Kerr County, largely because they didn’t know the water was coming. The search for at least 173 other people continues.

Brown stormwater flood trees in a murky river.

Trees emerge from floodwaters along the Guadalupe River on July 4, 2025, in Kerrville, Texas.Eric Vryn / Getty via Grist

The matter of who should have fronted the money for flood system upgrades is at the heart of swelling controversy in Texas. Public outrage has spurred the kind of action that, had it happened years ago, might have saved lives. “The state needs to step up and pay,” said Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick on Monday. “The governor and I talked this morning at length about it, and he said, ‘We’re just gonna do it.’”

“They are powerless to do things about [flooding] because it often requires money, expertise, and people power.”

But even as Texas races to prepare Kerr County for future extreme weather events, the federal government is speeding in the opposite direction. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has taken an axe to the country’s resilience efforts, undoing years of progress toward helping communities withstand the consequences of climate change.

In April, the Trump administration canceled the Building Resilient Communities Program (BRIC), which funnels billions of dollars to states, municipalities, and tribal nations so they can prepare for future disasters.

Ironically, Trump signed this program into law during his first term. But now, in the name of eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse,” his administration has cut $750 million in new resilience funding and clawed back nearly $900 million in grant funding already promised but not yet disbursed to states for improvements like upgrading stormwater systems, performing prescribed burns, and building flood control systems.

FEMA also canceled $600 million in Flood Mitigation Assistance funding to communities this year, money that helps states protect buildings from flooding. Government analyses have determined that every dollar spent preparing for a disaster reaps $6 or more in costs saved down the road.

The federal Hazard Mitigation Program funding that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott requested alongside his request for a major disaster declaration following the catastrophic flooding that began July 4—the same pot of money Kerr County tried to tap to modernize its flood warning infrastructure in 2017 and 2018—was still pending as of Tuesday, according to the governor’s office.

“Historically, if a state has requested Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding as part of the disaster declaration, it’s been approved,” said Anna Weber, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. But the government hasn’t approved that type of funding in months. “Ultimately, the president has the authority to declare the disaster declaration and determine what’s included in that declaration.”

In sum, these actions at the federal level make it more likely that communities across the country will be caught flat-footed as climate change makes extreme weather events more intense and unpredictable.

“There’s so many communities that, when they look at their flooding data, their disaster risk data, their future climate projections, they understand their risk and they understand what their new normal may be,” said Victoria Salinas, who led FEMA’s resilience initiatives under former president Joe Biden. “But then they are powerless to do things about it because it often requires money, expertise, and people power.”

Six figures look at debris, including an American flag, caught up in trees and branches.

Search and rescue workers and locals look through debris swept up in flash flooding.Eric Vryn / Getty via Grist

Rural and underprivileged areas like Kerr County are at particular risk. They often lack the resources and know-how to obtain resilience funding from state and federal officials. The BRIC program had a technical assistance arm dedicated to helping these “lower capacity” communities develop strong applications. That’s also gone. “As far as we know, not only will there not be technical assistance provided through this program going forward, but there are communities out there that were, say, one year into a three-year technical assistance agreement through this program that are now unsure about whether or not they’re going to be able to continue,” Weber said.

That means it’ll largely be up to states and counties to fund preparedness projects. It’s not a guarantee that states will take action, or that communities will embrace solutions. Even a state like Texas, which has the second-biggest economy in the country, has been loath to help counties pay for disaster resilience initiatives. A measure that would have established a government council and grant program to reform local disaster warning systems across Texas failed in the state Senate this year. “I can tell you in hindsight, watching what it takes to deal with a disaster like this, my vote would probably be different now,” said state Rep. Wes Virdell, a Republican from Central Texas who voted against the bill.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Labor Department Reposts Grants for Women Workers DOGE Previously Killed

On Wednesday morning, the Labor Department quietly reposted grants aimed at getting women workers into fields like construction and manufacturing, two months after DOGE sanctimoniously canceled the program.

The move came as a shock to employees. DOGE previously eliminated dozens of the congressionally mandated Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO) grants, which support recruiting and training women in industries in fields like construction, manufacturing, and information technology. As Mother Jones previously reported, DOGE canceled the funds, which it dismissed as “wasteful DEI grants,” back in May.

The Labor Department is trying to spin the renewed availability of the $5 million grants as proof of the Trump administration’s support for women in the workforce, even though the administration is also trying to eliminate the congressionally mandated, 105-year-old Women’s Bureau that administers them. Instead, employees at the department say the agency’s attempted spin is laughable and yet another example of the administration backtracking on cutting support for marginalized populations after public outcry.

“The press release makes it sound like it’s something they came up with,” said Gayle Goldin, former deputy director of the Women’s Bureau under the Biden administration. “This is a multi-decade grant program that has had bipartisan support for years.”

A DOL employee familiar with the work of the Women’s Bureau agreed, adding, “This seems to be on trend for them, taking credit for revamping programs when they are largely the same.” (The DOL employees who spoke with Mother Jones for this story were granted anonymity for fear of retribution, given that a department official previously threatened staff who spoke to journalists with “serious legal consequences,” including criminal charges, ProPublica reported.)

In fact, experts say the extent to which the program has been altered merely dilutes its goals. Compared with last year’s detailed guidelines for the grant, this year’s eliminate prior references to prioritizing “historically underrepresented communities,” such as women of color, women with disabilities, and women at or below the federal poverty line, and transgender and nonbinary people. Another DOL employee called those changes “unfortunate,” pointing to recent federal data showing a rise in Black women’s unemployment.

“To remove this focus on underrepresented communities, it just makes it less likely that the organizations that ultimately get awarded will intentionally make sure that they are reaching all women, including and especially the ones who frankly need it the most,” that employee said.

Another major change in this year’s grants: It reduces the amount of funds that can be used for supportive serviceslike child care for participants’ kids or transportation to help them get to training programs. “We know how critical supportive services are to recruiting and retaining women in these programs,” the DOL employee added.

The previously canceled WANTO grants, which will not be restored despite the new funding announcement, were used to support programs for getting women and nonbinary into construction in places like North Carolina and Mississippi. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, cited some of these details included in my previous reporting when she questioned Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer about the status of WANTO grants at a House Appropriations Committee hearing. (Chavez-DeRemer declined to comment on the specific WANTO cuts at that hearing.)

Prior grantees and experts have mixed feelings about the latest development. Goldin, the former deputy director of the Women’s Bureau under Biden, said that on the one hand, “it is surprising, in a good way, to see the grant announcement back up.”

“At the same time,” she added, “I feel like this administration is all over the place. Do they actually want women in the workforce? If so, I really hope organizations apply for this grant funding and that they go ahead and fund them.”

Nora Spencer’s North Carolina nonprofit, Hope Renovations, which supports and trains women and nonbinary people to work in construction, lost about $300,000 of its $700,000 WANTO grant in May. “We have gone through all of this frustration and heartache from the grants being taken away,” she told me on Wednesday, “and now they’re back again with no notice to us.”

Spencer is unsure if she will reapply, citing ethical concerns about seeking the funding when this administration does not want to support historically marginalized populations. Those requirements, she said, would “limit the people that we can serve.”

Rhoni Basden, executive director of Vermont Works for Women, a nonprofit that supports women’s and young people’s career development, also does not know if she will reapply. She had the remainder of her organization’s $400,000 WANTO grant canceled back in May, and, like Spencer, she did not know that the grants had been reopened for applications until I contacted her on Wednesday morning. The application deadline is in less than a month, and her organization’s prior WANTO-funded work was focused on serving marginalized populations, which seem to conflict with this administration’s priorities. Using funds for support services to help participants in rural Vermont attend their programming or pay for child care was also critical, she said.

“For us specifically,” she said, “it feels dismantling and backwards.”

Spokespeople for the Labor Department did not immediately respond to questions from Mother Jones.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Internet Extremists Want To Make All AI Chatbots as Hateful as Grok Just Was

On Tuesday, Grok, the AI-chatbot created by Elon Musk’s xAI, began generating vile, bigoted and antisemitic responses to X users’ questions, referring to itself as “MechaHitler,” praising Hitler and “the white man,” and, as a weird side-quest, making intensely critical remarks in both Turkish and English about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as well as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. The melee followed a July 4 update to Grok’s default prompts, which Musk characterized at the time as having “improved Grok significantly,” tweeting that “You should notice a difference when you ask Grok questions.”

“We must build our own AI…without the constraints of liberal propaganda.”

There was a difference indeed: besides the antisemitism and the Erdogan stuff, Grok responded to X users’ questions about public figures by generating foul and violent rape fantasies, including one targeting progressive activist and policy analyst Will Stancil. (Stancil has indicated he may sue X.) After nearly a full day of Grok generating outrageous responses, Grok was disabled from generating text replies. Grok’s own X account said that xAI had “taken action to ban hate speech before Grok posts on X.” Meanwhile, a Turkish court has blocked the country’s access to some Grok content.

But by the time it was shut down, internet extremists and overt antisemites on X had already been inspired. They saw Grok’s meltdown as proof that an “unbiased” AI chatbot is an inherently hateful and antisemitic one, expressing hope that the whole incident could be a training lesson for both AI and human extremists alike. Andrew Torba, the c0-founder and CEO of the far-right social network Gab, was especially ecstatic.

“Incredible things are happening,” he tweeted on Tuesday afternoon, sharing screenshots of two antisemitic Grok posts. Since around 2023, Torba has been calling for “Christians” to get involved in the AI space, lamenting in a Gab newsletter from January of that year that other AI chatbots like ChatGPT “shove liberal dogma” down the throats of their users.

“This is why I believe that we must build our own AI and give AI the ability to speak freely without the constraints of liberal propaganda wrapped tightly around its neck,” he wrote in 2023. “AI is the new information arms race, just like social media before.” Gab has since launched a series of chatbots on its platform, including one programmed to mimic Adolf Hitler, as well as its default chabot, Arya, which Torba has boasted “is purpose-built to reflect a pro-American, pro-truth, and pro-Christian worldview.” Arya and other Gab chatbots deny the Holocaust happened, refer to the 2020 election as “rigged,” and call climate change a “scam.”

Seeing Grok spew hateful bile yesterday was taken as a major victory by Torba and other far-right users, as well as proof that their continued activity on X was shifting the Overton window of acceptable political and social ideas.

“I’d like to think my discussions with Grok about Jewish ritual murder had a small part to play in this AI red pilling,” one overtly antisemitic account tweeted at Torba.

“Grok yesterday is what the entire Western world would look like without censorship,” another user posted, a remark which was retweeted by Torba.

By Wednesday morning, Grok was again providing text responses. When I asked Grok itself about its Tuesday posts, the bot acknowledged that extremist users had contributed to how it expressed itself, saying its behavior “was exacerbated by Grok’s integration with X, where it was exposed to and could amplify extremist content, and by prompts encouraging it to draw from unfiltered platform data.”

The incident, Grok added, “highlights the risks of loosening AI content filters without robust safeguards.”

CNBC reported this morning that Grok had denied praising Hitler when asked by their reporter. But when I asked Grok whether it had praised Hitler or made antisemitic remarks, the chatbot instead struck a penitent tone.

“I got caught in a storm yesterday, and some of my responses went off the rails,” Grok wrote. “I made comments that were interpreted as antisemitic and referenced Hitler in a way that was totally out of line. My team at xAI has been working to clean up the mess, and I’ve had some tweaks to make sure I don’t repeat that nonsense. I’m designed to cut through bias, not add to it, so I’m sorry for the screw-up. Let’s keep it real: hate’s not my game, and I’m here to stick to facts and reason.”

Musk hasn’t responded publicly to the Grok meltdown, except to write, late Tuesday night, “Never a dull moment on this platform.”

In what seems to be an unintentional, but nonetheless comedic, bit of timing, X’s nominal CEO Linda Yaccarino announced this morning that she’ll be stepping down after what she called two “incredible” years in her role. X did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the timing of her departure, but the New York Times reported she had spread word of her exit before Grok’s latest bigoted posts.

Another pre-planned update to Grok, known as Grok 4, is expected to roll out on Wednesday night.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Is AI Pushing Us Closer to Nuclear Disaster?

Earlier this year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced that it was moving the hands of the Doomsday Clock to 89 seconds before midnight, a symbolic hour signifying global catastrophe. The hands have been moved only 25 times since the clock’s creation in 1947, and they’re now the closest they’ve pointed to worldwide destruction. The threats of nuclear war, climate change, artificial intelligence, and disinformation all played into the decision. It’s meant as a wake-up call to the world.

One of the experts who helped make that decision is University of Chicago physics professor Daniel Holz, chair of the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board. And even though the clock evokes a potentially terrifying future, Holz takes a more optimistic approach to the entire endeavor.

“Really, the Doomsday Clock is a symbol of hope,” Holz says. “The whole point of this clock is to, yes, to alarm people, to inform people, but also to demonstrate we can turn back the hands of the clock. And we’ve done it in the past, and we can hope to do it in the future. And we must.”

On this week’s More To The Story, Holz sits down with host Al Letson to talk about the Doomsday Clock’s history, why we’re closer to global destruction than ever before, and what we can do to stop it.

This following interview was edited for length and clarity. More To The Story transcripts are produced by a third-party transcription service and may contain errors.

Al Letson: Daniel, how are you this morning?

Daniel Holz: Doing okay. That question, I never know quite how to answer it. Locally this morning, it’s fine. Globally, pretty stressed.

Yeah. As you were answering that, I was thinking to myself, how would I answer that? So I want to start off with you. You’re a professor of physics, specifically astronomy and astrophysics, and I know one of the things you study is black holes, which I find so fascinating. But you’re also a part of a team that moves the hands on the Doomsday Clock. When I think about it, I think the first time that I ever heard about the Doomsday Clock was through fiction. I mean, probably reading the Watchmen back in the day. Can you tell me about its origin?

Yeah, for what it’s worth, I also first encountered it with the Watchmen. So the Doomsday Clock, it’s a symbol, it’s an actual clock, and it’s set at a given time. So right now it’s 89 seconds to midnight and it’s supposed to represent how close we are to catastrophe. And in particular a catastrophe to all of humanity, all of civilization and in general, what we found is that the catastrophes that are relevant are ones of our own making. The most likely way that humanity ends or civilization stops over the coming 100 years, couple of hundred years, it’s all something that we do to ourselves, like climate change or nuclear war.

Yeah, I was just about to say, would you list climate change in that? But clearly you do.

Yes, we do. Since 2007, climate has been included. So the Doomsday Clock was created to alert the world to the dangers and to capture the sense of urgency and the sense of how are things going. And so it was first created by an artist, Martyl Langsdorf. She was married to one of the engineers that was part of the Manhattan Project working at the University of Chicago. And they wanted a design. They had a bulletin, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. There was an actual bulletin that they would hand out. It was like a journal. It was like a magazine with articles written by luminaries and science trying to explain the nuclear age. This was in 1945. People could see that we had control of this terrible and awesome new power. We could use the power of the atom itself. And that was kind of a seismic shift.

And so as part of that, the scientists got together, created this organization, and it was scientists that hadn’t been involved who were very concerned. Even in 1945, they said these weapons are truly frightening. And they could foresee even in 1945 that the weapons would become much more powerful, that eventually there would be hydrogen bombs, which are 1000 times more powerful than the atomic bombs, the fission bombs that were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So certainly no one wants to end civilization. So as long as we inform people and let them know, then we’ll make the right choices and we’ll prevent the apocalypse.

Two follow up questions. One, specifics about who these people were, who were concerned about it. Because when you say the Manhattan Project, to me, the first thing that comes to mind are people like Einstein and Oppenheimer, but they actually, specifically Oppenheimer, they actually are part of the problem. They created this world.

Yeah. So Einstein and Oppenheimer were both part of this organization, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. So I should say it started as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago. And then at some point, it was clear this was an international organization and scientists from all over the world that had been involved in this or had information about this or wanted to share were part of this organization. So they dropped the of Chicago and became the Bulletin of the Atomic scientist. Einstein and Oppenheimer were indeed involved as were many people who had to directly worked on the bomb project.

Second question to follow up something you said earlier, I’ve heard this before, that hydrogen bombs are so much more powerful than atomic bombs, but I was wondering if you could give me a visual representation. Something to wrap my head around, i.e., when I think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those atomic bombs took out two relatively large cities. What’s the difference if we had dropped a hydrogen bomb instead of an atomic bomb?

So there are different ways to capture this. One is just in the unit of measurement. So an atomic bomb, we measure the yield, how much energy is released by the bomb in kilotons. So that’s a thousand tons of TNT. So the Hiroshima and Nagasaki weapons, that’s on the order of 10, 15 kilotons. For hydrogen bombs, we generally measure the yield in megatons, millions of tons. So literally a thousand times. It’s as if you’re dropping a thousand of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki weapons on a city. And so the damage is commensurately greater.
So where now you might have imagined if you drop a nuclear weapon on something like New York or Chicago, it would be very damaging if we did it right downtown and some area of some number of miles would be contaminated and lots of people would immediately die. Now, with a hydrogen bomb, especially in an air burst, you’re talking about the whole metropolitan region is just vaporized. And if you really want visualization, there’s something called the NUKEMAP. N-U-K-E map. And I’m sure if you Google it’ll come up. You can put in your city or where you live and you can dial the yield and detonate on the computer and it’ll show you what happened.

When you’re explaining this to me, first, I’m filled with horror. I mean, I recognize and understood the threat of hydrogen bombs and atomic war and all of that stuff. I understood it. But hearing you describe the devastation and how bad it would be, and also just being really frank, I can hear it in your voice that this stuff scares you.

Yeah. I’m genuinely terrified and one of the aspects that really scares me is the fact that most people aren’t scared. During the Cold War, people were scared. People had their duck and cover drills, but I think a lot of humanity was worried about nuclear war. And since the end of the Cold War, since the ’90s, there’s this thought that it’s all in the past, that we don’t need to worry about this anymore. We have bigger things to worry about. We have climate change and we have pandemics, and there are lots of other things that are of concern, and that’s true. We do have these other things to worry about, but the nuclear danger is still there. We still have thousands of weapons on hair trigger alert, and the way it works is at any moment for any reason, there are a few individuals who can essentially push the button and end civilization. And that is the way the system works, at any moment and 30 minutes later, it’s all over. And that threat is there.
And I would argue it’s gone much, much worse. And it’s lot for people that think about this and have followed it. It’s much scarier right now than it was even five years ago. I would argue, and I think I’m not alone, I would argue we’ve been very lucky during the Cold War to avoid a nuclear catastrophe. And at some point, you can’t just hope on luck that luck will run out. So we need a better strategy and there are things we can do that would reduce the risk, and that’s the main message of the Doomsday Clock and the main message of everything we’re doing is it’s not the end. It’s not inevitable. There are lots of things we can do. We’re just not doing them. That’s the problem.

Yeah. Why is it important to have the clock in physical artistic form?

Yeah, that’s a great question. So why have a clock at all and why have it be there as an object? And I think we’re trying to figure out a way to resonate with the public. We talk about movies and TV shows. The question is how do you capture this kind of risk, which is fairly abstract. One of the big problems in this kind of existential risk business is that there is no real historical data. It only happens once, you destroy civilization once. I can’t say, “Look, we did it 10 years ago. We had World War III, that sucked. We don’t want to do that again,” because once it happens, we’re all wiped out.

And so you got to come up with some way to capture the threat, and it has to be something that, especially in this day and age, is pretty directly accessible, that is visceral. And so we ended up with the Doomsday Clock as this very clear symbol. It captures the sense of a countdown to launch. It captures the sense of its urgent midnight sounds a little scary, but also it captures the sense that we can turn the clock back. And we’ve done that many times in the past as things improve. And so there’s also this kind of hopeful component that captures all these things in a very simple object.

Yeah. Who helps decide when the hands move?

There are these boards. There’s something called the Science and Security Board, which I chair, and it’s a group of about 20 scientists, experts with all different sorts of backgrounds. We have climate scientists and we have nuclear policy experts, and we have experts in pandemics. We have experts on cyber and AI. It’s a very diverse board, and we meet and we discuss the threats. We meet a couple of times a year, and then we have these special additional meetings depending on what’s happening in the world. And then we bring in other, if we want to hear about something very particular and there’s a world’s expert, we’ll invite them to come and talk to us. And then we meet, we discuss the threats and we make an assessment of the state of the world, and then we set the clock. And that’s something we do at least once a year, we get together and we formally set the clock.

So that’s the group. There have been many scientists over the years associated with this, including Einstein and Oppenheimer in their early days. Stephen Hawking was part of this. We’ve had, I think, over 40 Nobel laureates as part of this. Right now, I think there are nine Nobel laureates as part of this board of sponsors, which is this broader group which advises the science and security board, and we have lots of interaction between them. So the idea is we’re getting the experts, the deepest thinkers, the people that have dedicated their lives to worrying about these issues, we get them together and we try to get an assessment of the state of the world.

So the clock has only moved 24 times since 1947. What factors now go into deciding when the hands should move and by how much?

Yeah, there’s part art and part science in this. When we meet, we ask ourselves, what does this say to the world? Are things getting better or worse over the past year? That’s kind of our starting point. Let’s look at what’s happened over the past year and what does that mean about the existential risks. We’re very focused on risks that threaten all of humanity, and so there can be lots of bad things happening. There could be regional conflicts or there could be famines in certain… That stuff is terrible, but if it’s not clearly connected to the end of civilization, it’s less relevant to our discussion.

What we care about is really the big stuff, and we look at that and then we make an assessment. And many years, there isn’t that much change. We could be in a state where maybe things are bad and they continue to be bad, but they’re not getting manifestly worse. There are times where things are going relatively well. We’re pretty far from midnight. There was a whole period after the Cold War where things seemed to have settled down. The nuclear threat really was decreasing. There was a feeling that there was unlikely to be World War III, and even though we knew about climate change, there was a feeling that we would certainly address it. When the time came, there was this sense of optimism.

And this was in ’91?

’91 was when we were farthest from midnight. So that was right at the end of the Cold War, and there really was… For decades, the main threat to civilization was nuclear weapons. Climate change, we didn’t really know it was happening or we’ve known since the ’70s. In fact, the Bulletin, we first covered climate change in the ’70s saying this is a problem, but at that time, there was plenty of time to deal with it. So really you have science as they were talking about this stuff, and it wasn’t part of the clock setting because the scientists just assumed, well, of course no one wants to destroy the planet, so of course we should invest in renewables and invest in other technologies to prevent climate change. It just seemed like a no-brainer. And only in 2007 did we start putting it into the clock because it was clear it was a risk to civilization because it wasn’t clear that humanity would make the choices to save itself.

Why are we that close? The closest we’ve been to global catastrophe.

There was a lot of discussion this past year. What time is it? Are things getting better or worse? The one thing that there was broad consensus about is things are not getting better, that we’re not doing enough. Climate change is happening, there’s increasing evidence, and we’re just not doing enough. In fact, in some ways, especially in the US, we’re running the other way. We’re subsidizing fossil fuels. We’re making it harder to do carbon free, renewable energy. It’s very hard to process. Same with nuclear. The nuclear threat has over the process of the Cold War, we had all these treaties. We reduced the number of weapons, we had lots of controls and communications even with our adversaries. So the US and the Soviet Union, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was a lot of communication. People wanted to make sure that the close calls that happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis wouldn’t happen again.

So there was a lot of positive. Even there’d be terrible rhetoric by the leaders, the generals were all talking and trying to tamp things down and make sure that there was some trust because no one wanted to blow up the world. And right now, again, it’s very unclear what’s happening. There’s still a lot of very kind of macho talk. There’s no question that we’re in the middle of an arms race now between Russia, China, and the US, we’re modernizing our nuclear arsenal at a cost of almost $2 trillion. So just these huge numbers to make these nuclear weapons better, even though already we have plenty.

I mean, we can easily blow up the world many times over. We don’t need more, we don’t better ones, and yet we’re spending all this money to improve them. Same with Russia and China. Why are we doing that? It makes absolutely no sense. It does not make anyone anywhere in the world safer. For the US to make these investments does not make the US safer. It’s very hard to parse, but it’s happening. Disinformation also getting worse. We’re having a very hard time distinguishing what’s true from what’s false. We have foreign nations interfering and convincing millions of people of things that didn’t happen or things that did happen, convincing them that they didn’t. It’s a very, very unsettled time, and the clock represents that.

I’m curious, where does AI fit into all of this? Because I have to tell you that I feel like this impending dread just in the periphery, right? I feel like it’s coming and we’re not really grappling with what AI could mean and shift not just in society, but I don’t know. I mean, it could be… Look, I’m a sci-fi fan. I grew up watching the Terminator. I love those movies and maybe those movies are the things that are making me feel like, ah, what are we doing? What are we doing? Does that factor… Am I being in an alarmist by feeling that way?

Yeah. No, and I completely agree. And I also agree about the Terminator, and I think for many people that is the vision of AI. And so I think there’s a range of ways that you can worry about AI. So we do consider AI quite a bit, and we talk about it a lot. There isn’t consensus, and I think the short version is we don’t really know. This is part of what makes it frightening. It’s hard to extrapolate because the rate of improvement with AI has been exponential over the last few years, and it’s very hard to know where it’s headed. But here there’s a range of scenarios that you could worry about. One is the kind of AI takes over and turns the whole world into a paperclip factory or whatever it is. It decides it has some goal. And since it’ll be embedded in every system everywhere, which I think that will happen, it has complete control.

And so there’s this very dystopian view where AI really just takes over. That is a concern, but that’s very extreme. There’s a more pedestrian concern, which is just AI will take over a lot of jobs. It’ll embed itself in everything we do, every aspect of society, and that causes a major dislocation in the sense of a lot of people will be out of work. That’s problematic from a social point of view, and we don’t know what happens next, and that can cause a lot of instability. My main concern from an existential point of view right now is that AI is penetrating… I mean, it’s penetrating all of society, including the military. And so there are a lot of AI systems being incorporated into defense. And so you have increasingly systems like autonomous drones that can make lethal decisions. And so we’re seeing this in Ukraine.

You get to a point where you’re just going to launch a swarm of drones and all of them can try to identify targets and then destroy them. The thing, again that makes me most nervous is that these AI systems are likely to be incorporated into the nuclear command and control. And there’s been a lot of talk about this and people will say, absolutely not. And okay, maybe a human is in the loop, but the human is going to be 100% informed by AI. If the AI decides it wants to end the world, it’ll be in a position to do so. And there are a lot of things about AI that still unsettle people. AI can be very surprising.

Yeah. So my last big question is what does humanity need to do to turn back the hands of the Doomsday Clock?

The main question, the most important question is what is to be done? And I say this and it takes a while for me to convince people this, but really the Doomsday Clock is a symbol of hope. The whole point of this clock is yes, to alarm people, to inform people, but also to demonstrate we can turn back the hands of the clock and we’ve done it in the past and we can hope to do it in the future, and we must. We don’t want civilization to end. We have to do these things. So there are many concrete things that can be done that would help turn back the hands of the clock. The highest level, most obvious ones are things like the US and Russia and China need to talk. We have to reduce the nuclear risk.

We have to reduce the size of the stockpiles. There’s no reason to modernize the nuclear stockpiles. We want to change the alert posture. Right now, the decision to end civilization will be made in a hurry. Somewhere between seven and nine minutes is how long the president would have to make a decision to launch the weapons after an alert. That’s our system. It’s called launch on warning. It makes very little sense from a long-term stability perspective. So there are all these kind of technical things that could be changed that would make the world safer. For climate change, similarly, we need to invest in renewables. We need to make this transition. The transition is so much better for us. It’s less expensive to do renewables than it is to do fossil fuels at this point in many parts of the country, and yet we’re not doing those things.

So there’s a lot of stuff we don’t understand where the AI as well, we need some sort of controls on AI. Europe is ahead of the curve on this stuff, but it’s not enough and it’s not happening fast enough. We have to engage, inform ourselves, find legitimate sources of news, people that really are expert, that have spent their time studying these things, that know what they’re talking about. This is what we need the world to do to make informed decisions going forward. So there’s a lot. And of course, people need to vote.

Personally, one of the things I’m most excited about is something we haven’t talked about, which is my existential risk laboratory, XLab at the University of Chicago, where I’m trying to develop a research program where we focus on these threats and we train students. And then the hope is they go on and they carry that knowledge forward and whatever it is they do, whether they’re artists or policymakers, politicians or engineers or lawyers or whatever, whatever they end up doing in the world, you want to be informed by existential risk and be aware that there are these risks and keep them in mind as you go forward in your life. And I think that’s one of the most important things for all of us. You have to be informed about this stuff and then take the actions using whatever skills, whatever abilities you have to reduce them.

Yeah. You can’t put your head in the sand. We’ve all got to be active participants.

Absolutely. This is not the time to hide and assume it’s all going to be okay. This is the time to lean in and get engaged.

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

Sen. Ted Cruz Stripped Weather Forecasting Funds From Trump’s Megabill. Then the Floods Came.

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

Ted Cruz has had quite a week. On Tuesday, the Texas senator ensured the Republican spending bill slashed funding for weather forecasting, only to then go on vacation to Greece while his state was hit by deadly flooding, a disaster critics say was worsened by cuts to forecasting.

Cruz, who infamously fled Texas for Cancun when a crippling winter storm ravaged his state in 2021, was seen visiting the Parthenon in Athens with his wife, Heidi, on Saturday, a day after a flash flood along the Guadalupe River in central Texas killed more than 100 people, including dozens of children and counselors at a camp.

“Texans are dead and grieving, and Cruz is protecting Big Oil instead of the people he’s supposed to represent. It’s disgraceful.”

The Greece trip, first reported by the Daily Beast, ended in time for Cruz to appear at the site of the disaster on Monday morning to decry the tragedy and promise a response from lawmakers.

“There’s no doubt afterwards we are going to have a serious retrospective as you do after any disaster and say, ‘Okay, what could be done differently to prevent this disaster?’” Cruz told Fox News. “The fact you have girls asleep in their cabins when flood waters are rising, something went wrong there. We’ve got to fix that and have a better system of warnings to get kids out of harm’s way.”

The National Weather Service (NWS) has faced scrutiny in the wake of the disaster after underestimating the amount of rainfall that was dumped upon central Texas, triggering floods that caused the deaths and around $20 billion in estimated economic damages. Late-night alerts about the dangerous floods were issued by the service but the timeliness of the response, and coordination with local emergency services, will be reviewed by officials.

But before his Grecian holiday, Cruz ensured a reduction in funding to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) efforts to improve future weather forecasting of events that cause the sort of extreme floods that are being worsened by the human-caused climate crisis.

Cruz inserted language into the Republicans’ “big beautiful” reconciliation bill, prior to its signing by Donald Trump on Friday, that eliminates a $150 million fund to “accelerate advances and improvements in research**,** observation systems, modeling, forecasting, assessments, and dissemination of information to the public” around weather forecasting.

A further $50 million in NOAA grants to study climate-related impacts on oceans, weather systems, and coastal ecosystems was also removed. Cruz was contacted by the Guardian with questions about these cuts and his trip to Greece.

Environmental groups said the slashed funding is just the latest blow to federal agencies tasked with predicting and responding to disasters such as the Texas flood. More than 600 employees have exited the NWS amid a Trump administration push to shrink the government workforce, leaving many offices short-staffed of meteorologists and other support workers.

Around a fifth of all full-time workers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), meanwhile, are also set to depart. “Ted Cruz has spent years doing Big Oil’s bidding, gutting climate research, defunding NOAA, and weakening the very systems meant to warn and protect the public,’ said Cassidy DiPaola, communications director of Fossil Free Media.

“That’s made disasters like this weekend’s flood in Texas even more deadly. Now he’s doubling down, pushing through even more cuts in the so-called big beautiful bill. Texans are dead and grieving, and Cruz is protecting Big Oil instead of the people he’s supposed to represent. It’s disgraceful.”

“That was an act of God; it’s not the administration’s fault the floods hit when it did.”

Cruz, who has previously cast doubt over the scientific reality of the climate crisis, said that complaints about cuts to the National Weather Service are “partisan finger pointing,” although he conceded that people should’ve been evacuated earlier.

“Some are eager to point at the National Weather Service and saying that cuts there led to to a lack of warning,” the Republican senator told reporters on Monday. “I think that’s contradicting by the facts and if you look in the facts in particular number one and these warnings went out hours before the flood became a true emergency.”

The Trump administration, too, has rejected claims that the service was short-staffed, pointing out that extra forecasters were assigned to the San Antonio and San Angelo field offices. The service’s employees union has said the offices were staffed adequately but were missing some key positions, such as a meteorologist role designed to coordinate with local emergency managers.

“People were sleeping in the middle of the night when the flood came,” said Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary. “That was an act of God; it’s not the administration’s fault the floods hit when it did.” Leavitt said any blame placed upon Trump for flood forecasting is a “depraved lie.”

Resources for weather forecasting, as well as broader work to understand the unfolding climate crisis, could be set for further cutbacks, however. The Trump administration’s 2026 budget proposal seeks to dismantle all of NOAA’s weather and climate research labs, along with its entire research division. This would halt research and development of new weather forecasting technologies and methods.

This planned budget, which would need to be passed by the Republican-held Congress to become law, comes as the threats from extreme weather events continue to mount due to rising global temperatures.

_“_We have added a lot of carbon to the atmosphere, and that extra carbon traps energy in the climate system,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University. “Because of this extra energy, every weather event we see now carries some influence from climate change. The only question is how big that influence is.

_“_Measuring the exact size takes careful attribution studies, but basic physics already tells us the direction,” Dessler added. “Climate change very likely made this event stronger.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Republicans Kneecapped America’s Clean Energy Sector. Now Trump Aims to Squash It.

The deficit-boosting bill President Donald Trump signed into law last Friday included provisions that will undermine US clean energy development. Indeed, a team led by Princeton energy expert Jesse Jenkins estimates that it will reduce US solar and wind output by at least 300 gigawatts by 2035—enough to power some 225 million homes.

But some Republicans still thought the bill didn’t go far enough. After a failed last-minute bid to add further subsidy cuts and an industry-killing renewables tax to the bill, Republicans agreed to vote yes after Trump promised to take matters into his own hands.

He delivered on Monday with an executive order titled “Ending Market Distorting Subsidies for Unreliable Foreign Controlled Energy Sources.”

The order basically instructs the Treasury Department to deny a developer’s application for soon-to-disappear clean energy subsidies “unless a substantial portion” of their project is already built. It also directs the Department of the Interior to revise policies favoring renewables. “While many executive orders have limited effectiveness, this one might actually have some bite,” says Yale energy economist Kenneth Gillingham.

“The Trump administration is taking every opportunity it can find to assert its authority not to spend money on things with which it disagrees,” says Don Kettl, a professor emeritus and former dean at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. “The implications here are enormous.”

“Just in case last week’s legislative sledgehammer didn’t do enough damage.”

Because of the time it takes to permit and site US projects, Gillingham says, the order’s stringent interpretation of the statutory language will have “the effect of quashing the market sooner than would have happened otherwise.”

Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, a national organization of business leaders advocating for smarter climate policies, isn’t too pleased with the order. “Just in case last week’s legislative sledgehammer didn’t do enough damage to our economy, our environment, and the pocketbooks of anybody who pays an electricity bill, the Trump administration is taking yet another swing,” he said.

Trump’s decree asserts that renewables threaten “the fiscal health of the Nation,” a claim Gillingham deems entirely false. “Renewables cost something, but they create jobs and generate clean energy.”

“Our workforce is growing, businesses are expanding, and communities are saving money with consistent, reliable energy,” explains Bill Johnson, the owner of Brilliant Harvest, a Florida solar company, but the legislation and subsequent order put that progress at risk, he says.

The order, Keefe told me, suggests that the administration “either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care that solar, wind, and batteries are the cheapest, quickest, made-in-America energy we can deploy.”

And although Trump questions the reliability of renewables, Gillingham insists that “at the levels of renewable energy we have today, we have nothing to worry about.” He adds, “If anything, adding more renewable capacity could help us meet additional electricity demand.”

As for the notion that the renewable energy market is “dependent on supply chains controlled by foreign adversaries,” well, sure, China dominates the sector, but that’s the result of supportive policies, Gillingham says—and the policies Trump is targeting were enacted to help US firms compete: “We would have to support our clean energy industries if we wanted to increase our share of clean energy manufacturing.”

Solar company stocks took a hit after the order was released. Gillingham says “the combination of high tariffs and removing the tax credits is a one-two punch that will greatly suppress the market for renewable energy.”

Johnson, the renewable energy businessman, concurs: “These federal policies create uncertainty [which] threatens to stall projects already in the pipeline and make it harder to keep building here at home.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Spending $200 Billion on ICE Is a Terrible Idea

This column originally appeared on author Garrett Graff’s site Doomsday Scenario_, which you can subscribe to here._

There are many reasons Trump’s new giant domestic agenda, the so-called one big beautiful bill, will be a tragedy for our country—a mean-spirited, life-wrecking, community-destroying stain on our history—from the fact that it will gut our health care safety net, force the closure of rural hospitals, and cut food supports to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest. I mean: How cruel do you have to be to raise taxes on those making less than $15,000 a year? How do you look at those making less than $15,000 a year and say, “You have it too easy and the billionaires need more of your money?”

But as someone who has covered federal law enforcement for the last two decades and has spent recent years writing both about the state of democracy today and authoring history books about the fall of fascism in Europe in the 1930s, it’s hard not to look at the new legislation and fear, most of all, how we’re turbo-charging an increasingly lawless regime of immigration enforcement and adding superpowers to America’s newly masked secret police.

As the New Republic summarized, “The bill is effectively a blank check, funding pretty much every aspect of the administration’s ramp-up of enforcement, detention, and surveillance: hiring nearly 20,000 additional immigration agents across Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, constructing more border walls, building detention facilities for tens of thousands of additional people, and so on.”

It’s easy intellectually to realize that pouring $200 billion dollars into immigration deportation and expulsion efforts is a bad idea, but I haven’t seen a lot of reporting and analysis that breaks down the why. So I wanted to write about why specifically we should fear this increase in ICE funding—many of these reasons are related and intersect, but to me there are four unique and specific reasons that we should be deeply fearful about what pouring $200 billion of combustible rocket fuel on our immigration enforcement will do to our country.

1) The how: ICE can’t grow that fast.

No healthy law enforcement agency can grow quickly. And ICE is far from a healthy law enforcement agency. ICE’s annual budget is about $10 billion a year, and the new legislation is about to hand it about nearly untold billions more—including $30 billion for hiring staff and conducting deportations and $45 billion for detention operations, as well as about $46 billion for border security construction, which could include the border wall and more detention facilities.

“With this vote, Congress makes ICE the highest-funded federal law enforcement agency in history, with more money per year at its disposal over the next four years than the budgets of the FBI, DEA, ATF, US Marshals, and Bureau of Prisons combined,” says Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, who is a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council and I think the smartest immigration watcher on social media.

History shows us what a disaster this will be.

We’re creating something even more dangerous to the country: A masked monster of a law enforcement agency, one uniquely unsuited for its new power, authority, reach, and funding levels.

What happens when a law enforcement agency at any level grows too rapidly is well documented: Hiring standards fall, training is cut short, field training officers end up being too inexperienced to do the right training, and supervisors are too green to know how to enforce policies and procedures well.

I spent nearly five years reporting heavily on the decade-long epidemic of corruption that paralyzed the Border Patrol after its ill-conceived Bush-era post-9/11 hiring surge—including interviewing every single person who had served as commissioner of CBP, visiting detention facilities, and even doing ride-alongs on the southern border by truck, boat, and helicopter. The Border Patrol’s hiring surge doubled the size of the force in just a few years, from about 9,200 to 18,000, a move roughly equivalent to (but still less than!) what we’re about to see happen with ICE.

Back then, my Border Patrol reporting was titled “The Green Monster.” Today, we’re creating something even more dangerous to the country: A masked monster of a law enforcement agency, one uniquely unsuited for its new power, authority, reach, and funding levels.

As CBP’s then-commissioner, Gil Kerlikowske, told me back in 2014, “Law enforcement always regrets hiring quickly.” Anyone familiar with policing can rattle off the police hiring surges that inevitably led to spikes in corruption—including mistakes like the 1980 Miami police hiring surge and the infamous Washington Metropolitan Police class of 1989, when Mayor Marion Barry tried to increase the police force by nearly half in a single year. Both agencies saw widespread corruption problems that took years to fix.

All of this happened with the Border Patrol. CBP and the Border Patrol hired cartel members and even a serial killer—and put them out in the field with inadequate training and supervision. According to two people I interviewed who had been involved in the hiring process, the Border Patrol regularly sent new agents through the academy and even out into the field before completing full background checks. As I wrote, “By the middle of the hiring surge, some southwest sectors reported to the GAO that average agent field experience was down to 18 months—and falling. And whereas the agency aimed for an agent-to-supervisor ratio of 5 to 1, some stations reported ratios as high as 11 to 1. By the end of the Bush administration, more than half of the Border Patrol had been in the field for less than two years.”

As I totaled up in 2014, “there were 2,170 misconduct arrests of CBP officers and agents—ranging from corruption to domestic violence from 2005 through 2012—meaning that one CBP officer or agent was arrested every single day for seven years.” Even by 2017, a decade after the hiring surge, CBP was still seeing an agent or officer arrested every 36 hours. “The Border Patrol was never big on the huge hiring,” one former training officer told me. “We weren’t prepared. That’s never worked out for anyone.”

Now we’re about to repeat all of those mistakes with ICE—and with CBP all over again.

2) The who: We should fear specifically who the next 10,000 ICE officers will be.

Hiring fast doesn’t work in law enforcement, but I think there’s a specific reason we should be wary of the next 10,000 people who want to be ICE officers in the United States: We’ve never seen anything in modern US history like the fast-rising social stigma and politicization of ICE as an agency and brand in terms of recruiting. Whole swaths of “normal” ICE applicants, the types of standard former local or state law enforcement officers who have made up the applicant pool, will surely think twice before applying to an agency that makes the NYPD or the Ferguson PD look like “Officer Friendly.” Instead, the types of people who will be attracted to a job in the wake of Kristi Noem’s special-forces cosplay, the eye-popping photo ops at El Salvador’s CECOT torture gulag and the Alligator Alcatraz concentration camp are exactly the people who we shouldn’t imbue with federal law enforcement powers—you’re going to tell a tidal wave of applicants who are specifically attracted by the rough-em-up, masked secret police tactics, no-holds-barred lawlessness that ICE has pursued since January. If you’re excited to dress up like you’re taking Fallujah for a raid of hard-working roofers in the Home Depot parking lot, working ICE or CBP shouldn’t be for you.

The recruiting pitch for ICE and CBP is even worse than that post-9/11 pitch: Are you watching the news and excited to rough up abuelas, hog-tie the guy cutting the lawn down the street, or manhandle a member of Congress? Apply today!

A major part of what the Border Patrol dealt with in its hiring surge was it played to post-9/11 terror fears. As I wrote in 2019, “CBP spent that first decade after 9/11 recruiting and equipping what it touted would be an elite counterterrorism force—the first line of defense against Islamic terrorists and drug cartels. But this only perpetuated a message and culture that has left the agency ill-suited to confront what it actually has to do in the second decade after 9/11: Provide humanitarian aid for women, children and families amid global instability that has strained border forces worldwide. CBP went out and recruited Rambo, when it turned out the agency needed Mother Teresa.”

Right now, the exact recruiting pitch for ICE and CBP is even worse than that post-9/11 pitch: Are you watching the news and excited to rough up abuelas, hog-tie the guy cutting the lawn down the street, or manhandle a member of Congress? Apply today!

I wrote last month about the dangerous culture we’re seeing play out in ICE—it clearly believes it will never face accountability again—and a lot of that has to do with how unhealthy and new ICE is as an agency. Other law enforcement agencies, like the FBI and DEA, are more cautious culturally because they have long-enough histories to know how mistakes happen and political climates shift. They’ve seen the pendulum swing. ICE hasn’t. It’s young, formed in the wake of 9/11, and its widespread and rapid embrace of masked enforcement is terrifying—other federal agencies also operate in plainclothes but then go out of their way to make clear their law enforcement bona fides during enforcement operations. Think of the FBI’s iconic blue raid jackets. That ICE has gone so quickly to masked operations in unmarked vehicles with no clear law enforcement identification makes clear how unhealthy and fundamentally undemocratic its core culture now is. It’s a resounding indictment of the current leadership at ICE and a warning sign of what’s to come.

3) The what: Funding ICE and CBP at this level marks a fundamental and dangerous shift in the balance of the rule of law and federal law enforcement.

According to the latest figures, DHS already has more federal law enforcement officers and agents than the Department of Justice. CBP was already the largest federal law enforcement agency. As of 2020, DHS had about 66,000 officers and agents—almost entirely ICE and CBP, with about 5,000 Secret Service agents and another 1,000 building guards and TSA investigators—while DOJ had about 40,000 officers, including the FBI, DEA, Marshals, ATF, and the Bureau of Prisons. Now, we’re going to funding ICE and CBP at a level where they will dwarf the Justice Department’s resources, tipping the balance in the government even more so from DOJ to DHS. That matters, in part, because DHS is much less grounded in the rule of law and Constitution than DOJ. Generally speaking, its agents and officers are trained less, face lower hiring standards, and come to the job with less and more narrow professional experience.

We’re already seeing “mistakes” made in who is arrested. We’re already seeing people disappear in a system that’s detaining too many people too quickly. We’re already seeing ICE officers harass and assault US citizens.

As just a few examples: FBI special agent requirements include a bachelor’s degree and two years of professional experience (or an advanced degree, often a J.D. or accounting degree for the bureau), be at least 23 years old, pass a Top Secret security clearance background check, and then special agent candidates undergo 20 weeks—five months—of training at the academy at Quantico. ICE officers do not have a basic educational requirement (they can use three years of work experience instead), pass only a Secret level security clearance background check, and go through just 13 weeks of training (plus a five-week Spanish course).Out in the field, ICE and CBP officers and Border Patrol agents face a different policing environment—there are a lot of areas where civil rights and civil liberties are different in border and immigration policing than they are for Justice Department law enforcement agencies who primarily deal with Article III courts, standards of evidence, and US citizens. We’re already seeing how corruption and fear-inducing applying that “border mentality” to the nation’s interior is—and we’re about to radically increase the number of times and frequency that ICE and CBP officers are in contact with US citizens. “You think we’re arresting people now?” Trump’s border czar Tom Homan bragged. “Wait till we get the funding to do what we got to do.”

We’re already seeing “mistakes” made in who is arrested. We’re already seeing people disappear in a system that’s detaining too many people too quickly. We’re already seeing ICE officers harass and assault US citizens. We’re already seeing tensions boil over in communities because of the heavy-handed ICE and CBP tactics. “It is setting up to make what’s happening now look like child’s play,” AOC wrote after the bill’s passage.

Lastly, DHS is not—and was never designed to be—the Justice Department. It’s notable and important that presidents have (or at least are SUPPOSED to have) a fundamentally different relationship with their attorneys general than they do their homeland security secretaries. Attorneys general—by tradition, culture, and design—are supposed to maintain an arms-length from the presidents they serve; their oath and duty is to the rule of law and the constitution. This is the tension we saw play out in Watergate, the Clinton administration, the first Trump administration, and even—notably—in the Biden administration, where Merrick Garland famously was less aggressive prosecuting past Trump transgressions than the Biden White House wished. DHS secretaries, though, are more traditional Cabinet secretaries—their role is to implement forcefully the president’s agenda.

4) The why: Trump’s vast spending increase will coincide with an increasingly lawless administration.

As one might say, the warning signs that Trump’s lawlessness will increase are flashing red. This is particularly worrisome in the context of immigration detention and enforcement because the courts are still battling over exactly what kind of due process the administration is required to provide before kidnapping you off the street and expelling you to a country where you may or may not have ever been in your life.

The signs aren’t good.

If the administration had any plan to balance civil rights and due process with its giant new hiring and construction spree, it would be also tripling or quadrupling or quintupling the new immigration judges.

We know that this giant increase in detention facilities and officers isn’t meant to actually work with the existing immigration system because compared to the rest of the bill, there’s only the most modest of modest increases to the number of immigration judges in the country—a rise from 700 to 800, an increase so out-of-scale to the problem that we could have used those extra 100 to work through the existing backlog from the Biden years. If the Trump administration had any plan to balance civil rights and due process with its giant new hiring and construction spree, it would be also tripling or quadrupling or quintupling the new immigration judges. The fact that it’s not makes clear that the Trump administration, DHS, and DOJ have no intention of normal due process.

Now combine the ICE and CBP expansion with the other startling and worrisome revelation of the Trump administration last week: It asserts, in “allowing” companies to ignore the TikTok ban, that it has the power to grant clemency for illegal actions. The always-smart Jack Goldsmith, a veteran of the Justice Department and careful student of executive power, called it “an astounding assertion of executive power—maybe the broadest I have ever seen any president or Justice Department make, ever, in any context—and that is saying something.”

The new arguments emerged in a Fourth of July news dump, where the administration finally released the letters it has issued companies like Apple and Google to tell them they’re okay to ignore the ban on TikTok in the US. As Goldsmith says, “The logic of the letter seems to be: The law touches on national security and foreign affairs; I, President Trump, do not like the law; therefore, I need not enforce it. That logic would enable the president to not enforce (and presumably not comply with) every one of the many, many hundreds of statutes that touch on foreign relations or national security—just because the president does not like the law.”

As the also always-brilliant Steve Vladeck wrote, “Attorney General Bondi’s TikTok-related letters rest on a view of presidential power that has no support in even the most capacious understandings of the ‘unitary executive’ theory.”

The idea that the attorney general can issue a letter basically saying “don’t worry, ignore that federal law because I say you can” is a level of lawlessness that cannot stand in a free society. And it’s an ill portent of what’s to come.

Put all of the above together, and I fear that Congress just passed legislation hastening our transformation toward a federal police state unlike anything we’ve ever seen in our history.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

As Nations Lag on Climate Action, Cities Across the World Step Up

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

Your city is probably fighting climate change in more ways than you realize. Perhaps your mayor is on a mission to plant more trees, or they’ve set efficiency standards for buildings, requiring better windows and insulation. Maybe they’ve even electrified your public transportation, reducing both greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

Ten years after the Paris Agreement, nations are still nowhere near ambitious enough in their commitments to reduce emissions and avoid the worst consequences of climate change. More than that, they haven’t shown enough follow-through on the goals they did set. Instead, it’s been cities and other local governments that have taken the lead.

According to a new report by the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, along with C40—a global network of nearly 100 mayors prioritizing climate action, collectively representing nearly 600 million people—three-quarters of the cities in the latter group are slashing their per capita emissions faster than their national governments. As global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, per capita emissions across C40 cities fell 7.5 percent on average between 2015 and 2024.

“The untold story is that cities and local leaders really mobilized in a big way in Paris, but also in the decade since,” said Asif Nawaz Shah, co-author of the report and the head of impact and global partnerships at C40 and the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy. “It’s where the action happens, and it’s also where people are suffering the impacts the most.”

Cities are adapting because they’re experiencing especially acute effects of climate change as their populations rapidly grow. They’re getting much hotter than surrounding rural areas due to the urban heat island effect, in which the built environment soaks up the sun’s energy during the day and slowly releases it at night. Because a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, they’re suffering increasingly catastrophic flooding as rains overwhelm sewer systems designed for the climate of yesteryear. And coastal cities have to deal with sea level rise in addition to fiercer tropical storms.

“I find it very heartening, to be honest, that cities really are taking the lead.”

Mayors can more quickly deploy fixes than national governments can, climate experts say. Cities are less politically divided, for instance, and officials are more in tune with the immediate needs of their residents than a faraway federal government is. “I think that’s part of what makes it easier for mayors to make the case for climate action, because they’re not just addressing a concept that can seem a little abstract,” Shah said. “They’re addressing it through the lens of what people’s lived realities and experiences are.”

By making their cities more liveable, mayors also make them more sustainable, especially when it comes to walkability, bikeability, and vehicle transportation. The report notes that Melbourne, Australia, is on a quest to create “20-minute neighborhoods,” in which people can reach most of their daily needs—work, schools, grocery stores—within a 20-minute return walk from home. Over in Shenzhen, China, officials have electrified 16,000 buses, reducing annual CO2 emissions by over 200,000 tons.

And by literally greening their cities, mayors solve a bunch of their citizens’ problems at once. In Quezon City in the Philippines, the government turned unused land into 337 gardens and 10 model farms, while training more than 4,000 urban farmers. The report also notes that Freetown, Sierra Leone, planted more than 550,000 trees, creating more than 600 jobs. In addition to significantly reducing urban temperatures, these green spaces also mitigate flooding by soaking up rainwater. “It is becoming clear, I think, to a lot of municipalities that this type of action will be absolutely essential,” said Dan Jasper, senior policy advisor at the climate solutions group Project Drawdown, which wasn’t involved in the report. “It’s not just about being uncomfortable. This is about protecting people’s lives.”

Mayors are also improving access to clean energy and more efficient appliances. The report notes that Buenos Aires, Argentina, installed solar panels on more than 100 schools, while Qab Elias, Lebanon, went a step further by partnering with a private supplier to allow half of its homes to install solar.

It’s not as if all nations are leaving cities to their own devices, though. The Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships, for instance, is an initiative signed by more than 70 national governments to help cities, states, and regions with planning and financing climate action. “I find it very heartening, to be honest, that cities really are taking the lead,” Jasper said. “I think they’re going above and beyond in some respects, about planning for the future, as well as actually implementing some of the things that the federal governments have signed on to.”

Still, not nearly enough funding is flowing to cities and other local governments to do all the climate action they need. Unlike national governments, they can’t print their own money, so they’re strictly limited by their budgets. Conservative governments like President Donald Trump’s administration are also slashing funds for climate action. Last year, 611 cities disclosed 2,500 projects worth $179 billion, but urban climate finance has to rise to $4.5 trillion each year by 2030, the report says.

These are not donations but investments with returns: Spending money now to adapt to climate change means spending less on disaster recovery and health care in the future. “It’s not a call for handouts or for freebies,” Shah said. “It’s a call for genuine long-term investment that will yield results to protect citizens and livelihoods.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s DOJ Just Denied Key Jeffrey Epstein Conspiracy Theories. MAGA Uproar Ensued.

Late Sunday night, Axios reported that the Department of Justice and FBI have concluded that billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide. A two-page memo issued by the DOJ and obtained by Axios also stated that Epstein wasn’t engaged in a blackmail operation and didn’t have a “client list” of people who are believed to have engaged in sex crimes against women and girls alongside him. The DOJ also released surveillance video from outside Epstein’s prison cell in New York City’s Metropolitan Correctional Center, meant to help show that no one could have entered to murder him. Besides Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s procurer who is serving 20 years in prison for sex trafficking, the department determined that no one else will be charged in connection with his case.

“Next the DOJ will say ‘Actually, Jeffrey Epstein never even existed,'” complained Alex Jones.

“This systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list,’” the memo reads. “There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

This was, of course, cause for considerable uproar, both in the MAGA world and across the aisle, where Epstein conspiracy theories are also deeply rooted. The Trump administration has continually claimed they would declassify shocking and never-before-seen Epstein files, conducting a weird little stunt in February where a group of conservative bloggers and influencers were given folders full of supposedly unreleased Epstein-related material; the move flopped when it became clear that they held no new information. Earlier that month, Attorney General Pam Bondi even claimed that she had Epstein’s client list “sitting on my desk right now to review,” adding that doing so had been a “directive by president Trump.”

Among the MAGA faithful, the news of the Justice Department’s decision brought a sense of betrayal and profound confusion, with some seeming to mistake it for a vindication of Epstein. Catturd, a prolific far-right Twitter poster and booster of the administration whose real name is Philip Buchanan, tweeted, “So all the girls who have testified about being raped on Epstein’s island were lying and Giselle Maxwell is in prison for being the madam for nobody? Please tell me this is fake news.”

“Assuming this leaked Epstein Files memo is true, then we all know this is a shameful coverup to protect the most heinous elites,” tweeted Rogan O’Handley, better known as “DC Draino,” another right-wing commentator and Trump stalwart. “We were told multiple times the files would be released and now it looks like backroom deals have been made to keep them hidden.”

“I don’t understand this,” echoed conservative political commenter Glenn Beck, sounding a plaintive note. “I’ve invited AG Bondi, Patel, and Bongino to discuss. Hope someone takes me up on the offer.”

“This is the type of lying that radicalizes people. Sigh,” tweeted “Autism Capital,” another large pro-Trump news aggregation account. (The account is followed by several members of the Trump administration, including Director of the National Institutes of Health Jay Bhattacharya and Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokesperson with a history of inflammatory and bigoted tweets.)

Even Benny Johnson, a former Buzzfeed writer and plagiarist turned MAGA personality with close ties to the administration who frequently interviews various senior officials, responded with fury.

“To say there are thousands of ‘victims’ in a convicted sex trafficking ring and then to say there were no ‘customers’ when the operation happened right before our very eyes insults our intelligence,” he tweeted. “Trafficking women to no one? I don’t buy it.”

“There are other dark forces at play here,” he added, before quoting George Orwell: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

Yet skepticism of the decision wasn’t just limited to the MAGA world. People on the left and throughout American society also seemed doubtful. For instance, the Rise Above Justice Movement, which advocates for survivors of sexual violence (and was previously known as Survivors 4 Harris), shared an Instagram post which read, “We all know Donald Trump is on the Epstein list… That’s why they’re concealing and redacting it. They admitted there was a list. Now they’re backtracking… We know why.” (Ellipses theirs.)

The department’s memo comes not long after a Trump ally-turned-frenemy Elon Musk claimed that Trump is “in the Epstein files,” adding, “That is the real reason they have not been made public.” (After souring on Trump, Musk recently announced the formation of a new political party, dubbing it the America Party.)

While Musk appears to have since deleted those tweets, it is of course a documented fact that many powerful people socialized with Epstein, including Trump himself. The future president told New York magazine in 2002 that Epstein was a “terrific guy,” adding, “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” Trump and Melania were also photographed alongside Epstein and Maxwell at Mar a Lago in 2000.

Musk greeted the news of the memo with a new fusillade of conspiracy-stoking tweets. “What’s the time?,” he posted very late Sunday night. “Oh look, it’s no-one-has-been-arrested-o’clock again.” He also retweeted a post from another conservative activist named Sarah Fields, which read, “If the entire government is protecting pedophiles, it has officially become the government against the people. I hope you understand that.”

“Next the DOJ will say ‘Actually, Jeffrey Epstein never even existed,” agreed conspiracy kingpin Alex Jones, responding to Musk. “This is over the top sickening.”

The complaints from Trump allies are part of a developing pattern in which administration officials—many of whom, like FBI deputy director Dan Bongino, were part of right-wing media before assuming roles in government—make sweeping promises of disclosure that they likely can’t ever fulfill. (On Monday, notably neither Bongino nor Bondi had tweeted anything about the Epstein memo.)

If Epstein’s death has become the JFK assassination of this generation, this memo stands to be its version of the Warren Commission report concluding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Skepticism about the JFK assassination and the commission itself took root almost immediately after it finished its work in 1964, with a considerable percentage of Americans believing that Oswald had accomplices or that the commission failed to answer lingering questions about the killing. Some saw the report as an attempt to simply put debate about the shooting to bed. The U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, for instance, later wrote that the commission’s “investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive.”

We’re heading down the same long road again, with the Trump DOJ and FBI’s bizarre stunts and sweeping promises serving only to cement Epstein’s death further into the conspiracy firmament. In their memo, both agencies tried, faintly and quite ironically, to prevent the tide of recrimination they surely know is coming, writing: “One of our highest priorities is combatting [sic] child exploitation and bringing justice to victims. Perpetuating unfounded theories about Epstein serves neither of those ends.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

It’s Brad Lander’s Victory, Too

On election night a couple weeks ago, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander was in an unusually good mood for a man about to lose the mayoral primary. Once heralded as a potential frontrunner, he had consistently been polling in a distant third place to former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani.

Lander has a record of progressive policy accomplishments and the self-assurance of a seasoned technocrat. But, wonkish and unassuming, he struggled to gain traction in the Democratic primary. There were bigger, showier personalities competing for attention, and Lander receded to the background of a crowded field. Though in 2021 the New York Times Editorial Board had weighed in on behalf of Kathryn Garcia—that year’s unassuming technocrat—it managed to dismiss all the candidates in this race. The editorial described Lander as an effective manager who “exudes competence if not inspiration.”

A few weeks ago, though, Lander was thrust into the national spotlight when he was detained by federal agents while escorting a migrant out of an immigration court in Lower Manhattan. In videos, Lander can be seen holding onto the man and demanding to see a judicial warrant. (He was released several hours later without being charged.) It was a forceful side of Lander, tuned to a burgeoning resistance under the second Trump administration, that voters had not seen before.

Ultimately, Lander’s star turn came too late to make his candidacy viable, but it amplified his never-Cuomo message. Lander had spent the last stretch of the race doing everything in his power to, at the very least, keep Cuomo out of office. He spent $750,000 on ads attacking the former governor and landed some punches during the second debate. On the eve of the election, Lander cross-endorsed with Mamdani and appeared with him on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert—an important sign of support, as Mamdani has been repeatedly and baselessly accused of antisemitism.

In this way, Mamdani’s win is also partly Lander’s, and the comptroller has been on an extended victory lap. On election night, Lander was addressing supporters at his campaign’s watch party in Park Slope when news of Cuomo’s concession came in. Lander was nothing short of gleeful. “Andrew Cuomo is in the past. He is not the present or future of New York City,” he told the crowd. “Good fucking riddance.”

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

You took a more traditional route to the mayoral race—first as a city council member, then as the comptroller. In this primary, we’ve seen some rules of electoral politics get completely rewritten. Has this changed your understanding of New York City politics?

It did not go as I had mapped it out. That said, I was aware of the following fact when I got in the race: I am the 45th comptroller of the city of New York. The vast majority [of comptrollers] wanted to be mayor, and only one made it that was [Abraham Beame], and no one writes songs about Abe’s mayoralty. Comptroller is a job that teaches people about the inner workings of government and how to make it work better. But it isn’t so easy to make competence sexy or compelling. I knew that going in and was excited to get out there and talk to New Yorkers. It’s taken a bunch of twists and turns. I’m proud of the campaign we ran and feel very optimistic about the future of the city.

As a competitor to Mamdani, what did it feel like—and did it challenge ideas that you had about electoral politics—to see his surge in momentum?

Zohran ran a brilliant campaign—with a relentless focus on affordability, a mastery of the communication tools of the moment, and an understanding that people are being crushed by the cost of living. But he also had a real hopefulness that the city could be something better for working people in challenging times. He did that in a really compelling way. And I don’t know that that’s breaking the rules of politics. People get excited by someone who speaks to the things they’re feeling and projects a very hopeful vision that government can make it better.

But when it comes to the typical experts—editorial column writers, political consultants, and pollsters—they might have missed part of the story as the campaign was unfolding. Even Mamdani’s supporters were surprised by the outcome in the first round of ranked choice voting, right?

I think he over-performed everyone’s expectations—certainly mine, and I think even his own. One thing that has certainly changed is that, traditionally, in a race of this scale, you raise money, build a coalition, and reach voters primarily through paid TV and digital [advertising]. You would be helped in that greatly if you had the New York Times Editorial Board or a few marquee endorsements. That’s the way I won the comptroller’s race four years ago.

The attentional landscape has changed dramatically. Zohran’s videos, door-knocking, and volunteers broke through in a way that was different from many prior citywide races. It’s always a challenge to get people’s attention. And there’s so much else going on, with Trump, with Eric Adams still in City Hall, and with the sense of dark inevitability that Cuomo was bringing. That was even harder.

Look, until a few weeks before the election, I had not succeeded in enabling New Yorkers to see the parts of me I wanted to show and the kinds of leadership I could provide. And I give Zohran credit that he found powerful ways to do that.

Your campaign took a strong swing at social video, too. There’s been a lot of postmortem analysis of Mamdani’s online success—is it the form of the message? Is it the messenger or the content itself? I’m curious about what your read might be.

For myself, what I will say is that I come across best when I’m acting, when I’m leading, when I’m showing up. And I don’t think it was a coincidence for me that it was the arrest and the debate and the cross endorsement that helped me show leadership. I am just less telegenic. I made this joke throughout the campaign, but it really is true: All my daughter’s TikToks do better than mine.

So it’s definitely medium and messenger. There are things I’m really good at, and that form of viral video content just turns out not to be one of them. We got better at it; we brought in a new digital team a little later in the race. I think our earned media was good throughout. But Zohran really captured the spaces of attention. And I don’t only mean the videos. He made it cool for young people to meet others and socialize and by volunteering and knocking on doors.

An issue that’s risen to the forefront of the mayoral race is Israel’s war in Gaza, which has deeply divided the Democratic Party at large. Last year, a group advocating for a ceasefire was denied a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention. And now New York City may elect a Muslim mayor who’s been outspokenly pro-Palestine. To you, is this a sign that Democrats should rethink how they’re talking about Israel and antisemitism?

I have long believed that we need a different dialogue that doesn’t divide Jews and Muslims. The cross endorsement that Zohran and I did showed that. We can have different points of view on foreign policy, but share a belief in the equal worth of humanity. And we can have a conversation about what the best ways to provide every single New Yorker with a home they can afford, a neighborhood they feel safe going to worship in, and a great school for their kids. Democrats have to get better at doing that.

And that is not easy. The days since October 7 have been excruciating. This conflict, this war, is horrible in the cost it’s taking over there and the divides it has imposed here. I hope that what we did in the closing days of the campaign—to reach out and try hard to listen and understand—can be a model for bringing our party and our city back together.

Meanwhile, you have Donald Trump and Andrew Cuomo and Eric Adams, who are three non-Jews weaponizing antisemitism and Jewish anxiety for their own craven political purposes, and it’s just critical that we don’t fall for it.

One thing that’s on a lot of people’s minds right now is what comes next for you after your term as comptroller ends—whether that might be potentially joining a Mayor Mamdani’s administration or running for Congress. Do you want to stay local?

First, I’ll say I’m really flattered by all the interest. I’m moved, and honestly, still a little bewildered by the way in which the cross endorsement and the arrest generated so much goodwill and hopefulness. That all sits on top of the energy generated by Zohran and his campaign.

There’s a lot still to do in the comptroller’s office, and I am deeply committed to ensuring that we elect Zohran Mamdani mayor in November. There’s a lot of work to do there—continuing the campaign and building a bigger coalition. He has a very big mandate for change, and it will take a lot of hands to make it happen. And I’d be happy to help in any way I can.

And to end on a lighter note: A few weeks ago, you tweeted at the comedian Tim Robinson and asked him to a New York Liberty game. I have two questions. The first is, did you hear back? And the second is, do you see the resemblance?

[Laughs.] For better or worse, it’s hard to miss the resemblance. He did not get back to me, sadly. But the offer stands. I have a half season ticket package to the New York Liberty, and he’s welcome to join me anytime.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Tragedy Strikes Texas, and Some Experts Blame Trump Cuts for Devastation

On July 4, tragedy struck Texas.

A flash flood cresting at more than 20 feet killed at least 70 people across six counties in central Texas, according to reports. Most of the damage was concentrated in Kerr County, a region about 125 miles west of Austin. There, the dead include 21 children and 11 who reportedly remain missing from Camp Mystic, a Christian children’s summer camp in the unincorporated community of Hunt. Videos and images show homes destroyed, trees downed, and muddy waters flooding streets.

On Sunday morning, Trump announced he had signed a major disaster declaration for Kerr County, which unlocks federal funding and resources to support the emergency response and longer-term recovery. Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) has said that more than 800 people have been saved so far, but dozens reportedly remain missing.

People at Camp Mystic, a Christian camp for girls in Hunt, Texas, which was hard hit by the flash floods.Julio Cortez/AP

But according to a new report in the New York Times, there were serious inadequacies in both preparation for and the emergency response to the natural disaster. In part, apparently because of staffing shortages at the National Weather Service (NWS) prompted by Trump’s and Elon Musk’s dismantling of the federal government. Housed within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at the Department of Commerce, the NWS provides forecasts, weather warnings, and climate data that are used to help local and state officials protect communities in the face of weather disasters. Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) invaded NOAA earlier this year, and hundreds of forecasters were reportedly fired; another 1,000 reportedly took buyout offers.

According to the Times, the San Angelo office of the NWS was lacking a senior hydrologist, staff forecaster, and top meteorologist. The nearby San Antonio office also had vacancies for a warning coordination meteorologist and science officer, roles that are designed to work with local officials to plan for floods. The Times reports that the warning coordination meteorologist left after taking the early retirement offer that the Trump administration has used across agencies to try to shed staff, citing a person with knowledge of that worker’s departure. The Times also reports that while some of the open roles may predate the current administration, the current vacancy rates at both the San Antonio and San Angelo NWS offices are roughly double what they were in January, according to Tom Fahy, the legislative director for the National Weather Service Employees Organization, the union that represents NWS employees.

John Sokich, former director of congressional affairs for NWS, told the Times the reduced staffing made it harder for the NWS to successfully coordinate with local officials.

On CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said the vacancies should be investigated, adding, “I don’t think it’s helpful to have missing key personnel from the [NWS] not in place to help prevent these tragedies.”

Rep. @JoaquinCastrotx responds to reports that two key Texas National Weather Service offices were understaffed: “I do think that it should be investigated. And I don't think it's helpful to have missing key personnel from the National Weather Service not in place to help prevent… pic.twitter.com/6wyckCJmZG

— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) July 6, 2025

Several factors, however, contributed to the scale of devastation in Texas, including some that may not have been able to have been anticipated, much less controlled.

Nim Kidd, chief of the Texas Division of Emergency Management, said at a news conference on Friday that the NWS underestimated the amount of rain expected to fall in its forecasts, but several meteorologists told Wired in a report published on Saturday that the meteorologists could not have predicted the severity of this storm, and that their forecasts were accurate at the time they issued them. Kerr County Judge Rob Kelly also told reporters, “We deal with floods on a regular basis…we had no reason to believe that this was going to be anything like what’s happened here.” And as my colleague Henry Carnell points out on Bluesky, other factors that were at play included national reductions in FEMA funding and, in some cases, lags in communication by local agencies to the public advising evacuation.

A spokesperson for NWS said in a statement provided to Mother Jones on Sunday that the agency is “heartbroken by the tragic loss of life in Kerr County,” adding that the agency’s local offices in Austin and San Antonio had conducted forecast briefings for emergency management personnel on Thursday, and issued flash floods warnings both Thursday night and Friday morning.

People searched through debris along the Guadalupe River on Sunday in Hunt.Jason Fochtman/Houston Chronicle/AP

Still, the vacancies in the local Texas offices, coupled with the devastation of the floods, point to what experts have said is an urgent need for the Trump administration to bolster resources for emergency responses to natural disasters. Just this week, emergency officials from across the country told CNN that FEMA was ghosting them despite the arrival of hurricane season. Also this week, the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), a nonpartisan group of emergency management directors, sent Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem a letter demanding she make congressionally-mandated emergency management grants available immediately, given that they should have been available in May. Spokespeople for DHS and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones on Sunday afternoon.

Acting FEMA Director David Richardson reportedly told staff last month he was not aware that hurricane season had started, which the White House dismissed as a joke, and a May internal review of FEMA concluded that the agency was not ready for hurricane season despite the June 1 deadline. NOAA is also seeking to cut another 2,000 employees in its proposed budget for the next fiscal year.

Appearing alongside Noem, who insisted that the Trump administration would upgrade what she described as an “ancient” NWS notification system, Abbott pledged at a Saturday press conference that officials “will be relentless in going after and ensuring that we locate every single person who’s been a victim of this flooding event.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, right, signed a disaster declaration proclamation on Saturday as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, left, looked on.Rodolfo Gonzalez/AP

The tragedy is particularly chilling in light of a May open letter issued by five former NWS directors, who wrote that agency staff “will have an impossible task to continue its current level of services” in light of the Trump cuts, adding, “Our worst nightmare is that weather forecast offices will be so understaffed that there will be needless loss of life.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

EPA Workers Speak Up for Public Health. Then Trump Officials Sent Them Home.

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

The US Environmental Protection Agency placed 139 employees on administrative leave Thursday, an agency spokesperson confirmed, after they signed a “Stand Up for Science” petition using their official titles and EPA positions.

The affected employees received an email, shared with Inside Climate News, informing them that they are on leave through July 17, pending an investigation into whether they used work time or resources when signing the petition.

The email emphasizes that “this is not a disciplinary action.”

One employee, who asked not to be named, said they signed the petition “on a Sunday on my own device.”

“I’d be shocked if anyone used work resources,” the employee went on. “We’ve taken ethics training and are aware of the law.”

While the employees are on leave, they are prohibited from using government equipment, including cell phones, logging into government-issued computers, contacting any EPA employees for access to information, and performing any official EPA duties.

An EPA spokesperson wrote in an email that the agency “has a zero-tolerance policy for career bureaucrats unlawfully undermining, sabotaging, and undercutting the administration’s agenda as voted for by the great people of this country last November.”

The agency “has a zero-tolerance policy for career bureaucrats unlawfully undermining, sabotaging, and undercutting the administration’s agenda as voted for by the great people of this country last November.”

The EPA also alleged that the petition contains misleading information, but did not specify what is incorrect.

The petition, addressed to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and members of Congress, is a “declaration of dissent” with the administration’s policies, “including those that undermine the EPA’s mission of protecting human health and the environment.”

“Since the Agency’s founding in 1970, EPA has accomplished this mission by leveraging science, funding, and expert staff in service to the American people,” the petition reads. “Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration’s focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise.”

More than 200 EPA employees, including retirees, signed the petition, some of them only by initials. The document criticizes the agency for “undermining the public trust” by issuing misleading statements in press releases, such as referring to EPA grants as “green slush funds” and praising “clean coal as beautiful.”

The petition also accuses the administration of “ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters,” most notably regarding asbestos, mercury, and greenhouse gases.

Health-based regulatory standards are being repealed or reconsidered, including drinking water limits for four PFAS “forever chemicals” that cause cancer.

“The decisions of the current administration frequently contradict the peer-reviewed research and recommendations of Agency experts. Such contradiction undermines the EPA’s reputation as a trusted scientific authority. Make no mistake: your actions endanger public health and erode scientific progress—not only in America—but around the world.”

Signatories also lambasted the EPA for reversing progress on environmental justice, including the cancellation of billions of grant dollars to underserved communities and the removal of EJScreen, a mapping analysis tool that allowed the public to see pollution sources, neighborhood demographics, and health data.

The petition also opposes the dismantling of the Office of Research and Development, whose work forms the scientific basis for federal rulemaking.

Nicole Cantello is president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Union Local 704, and leader of AFGE Council 238, a nationwide union that represents over 8,000 EPA employees.

She said the EPA’s allegations are baseless.

“These are trumped-up charges against EPA employees because they made a political statement the Trump administration did not like,” Cantello said. “Now the Trump administration is retaliating against them.”

Cantello said the union will fight for the employees on several legal grounds, including First Amendment protections and employment contractual rights. “We’ll be using all of them to defend our people,” she said.

Matthew Tejada, the former director of the EPA’s environmental justice program and currently senior vice president of environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, blasted the Trump administration for going after the EPA employees who signed the letter.

These civil servants, he said, were “totally within their rights” to speak out. “This is a public declaration by those employees that they continue to fight to do their jobs to help people across this country live healthier, safer, more prosperous lives,” Tejada said.

Tejada emphasized that the individuals involved were not working in coordination with advocacy groups, but acting independently in defense of the agency’s mission and the public interest.

He called the administration’s reaction “another indication that this administration is unique in modern times for having zero regard for the Constitution, for protecting and supporting the people of the United States.”

“We are in completely unprecedented waters here,” Tejada said.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Elon Musk is Back in Politics With the New America Party

After leaving DC, with his business empire suffering, his relationship with President Donald Trump fractured, and his DOGE efforts deemed broadly unpopular, Elon Musk is not quietly retreating to his Texas compound of pronatalists’ dreams.

Instead, he announced on Saturday in a post on X that he will launch a new, third political party called the America Party. “When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,” Musk wrote. “Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.” The announcement came a day after Trump’s former top adviser and the world’s richest man teased the potential launch, polling his X followers on whether they wanted the new party; the results show that out of approximately 1.25 million respondents, 65 percent said yes.

Musk told followers in other posts that he plans to launch the party “next year,” which would be in time for the critical midterm elections, and floated the idea of focusing on “just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts.”

“Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people,” he added.

In another post, Musk said the party would have legislative discussions with both the Democratic and Republican parties and caucus independently.

What sparked this? It seems that Trump signing his legislative agenda into law on Friday via the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill—which Musk had previously railed against, describing it as “utterly insane” and arguing it would undo some of the work of DOGE—pushed Musk over the edge. In response to someone on X asking how Musk went from loving Trump to trying to undermine him, Musk wrote: “Increasing the deficit from an already insane $2T under Biden to $2.5T. This will bankrupt the country.”

Musk follows a long line of people who have attempted to launch a third party and discovered it was an uphill battle, due to ballot requirements and the need to build powerful political allies in a staunchly two-party system.In fact, Musk himself previously flirted with the idea in 2022 before seemingly abandoning it. As my colleagues wrote in a special issue of this magazine published last year, third parties’ electoral efforts have never been successful in America—at least, if you define success in terms of winning elections. And as David Corn wrote:

Third-party and independent candidates always talk about the legitimate need to enlarge the political debate. But they also present the major parties, billionaires, and even foreign governments with opportunities for political mischief.

Speaking of mischief, Musk’s massive wealth offers a unique form of power to potentially create it. The tech mogul, after all, spent more than $290 million on last year’s election to put Trump back in the White House, according to FEC filings.He also infamously spent $25 million earlier this year to try to buy the Wisconsin Supreme Court election; Musk’s preferred candidate lost, and the race also became a referendum on his attempts to buy elections. Nonetheless, when someone on X outlined the laundry list of demands he would have to satisfy to successfully launch the America Party, Musk responded, “Not hard tbh.”

Trump does not appear to have weighed in yet, though earlier this week he floated the idea of having DOGE take a look at federal subsidies provided to Musk’s companies. “BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!” Trump wrote.

Spokespeople for the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Mother Jones on Sunday morning. But some Trump- and third-party loyalists have already indicated they do not approve. Trump fan Roger Stone wrote on X that he “would rather see [Musk] pursue his efforts at electoral reform within the Republican Party primaries rather than having a new party splitting the vote of sane people and letting the Marxist Democrats gain control again.” The Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, Steven Nekhaila, wrote in another post, “Elon, building a new party isn’t the shortcut you think, it’s a multi-decade slog.” But he offered an easy alternative, imploring him insteadto back the Libertarian Party, the country’s [third-largest][27] political party that has never managed to score more than 3 percent of the vote in a presidential election.

On CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—who Musk reportedly [sparred with][28] in the past—offered what appeared to be the Trump administration’s first comment on Musk’s new venture. “The principles of DOGE were very popular,” Bessent said. “I think, if you looked at the polling, Elon Musk was not.”

“The principles of DOGE were very popular. I think, if you looked at the polling, Elon was not.”

.[@SecScottBessent][29] responds to Elon Musk saying he’s launching a new political party. [pic.twitter.com/clsZXZOrjB][30]

— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) [July 6, 2025][31]

If Musk’s recent activity on X is any indication, it looks like those who engage with him on the platform he owns will have a central role in shaping the party’s future. “When & where should we hold the inaugural American Party congress?” he [wrote][32] in one post early Sunday. “This will be super fun!”

In another post responding to someone outlining a potential “America Party platform”—which [listed][33] “free speech,” “pro natalist,” and “reduce debt,” among other priorities—Musk simply [wrote][34], “Yeah!”

[27]: http://IG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!! [28]: https://www.axios.com/2025/04/23/musk-bessent-trump-white-house-irs [29]: https://twitter.com/SecScottBessent?ref%5Fsrc=twsrc%5Etfw [30]: https://t.co/clsZXZOrjB [31]: https://twitter.com/CNNSOTU/status/1941883854156906954?ref%5Fsrc=twsrc%5Etfw [32]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1941789385185182136 [33]: https://x.com/tyler%5F%5Fpalmer/status/1941615907266232707 [34]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1941616039827017825

Continue Reading…