Trump’s Homelessness Crackdown Has Been Tried Before. It Didn’t Work.

This week, President Donald Trump announced that his administration will remove homeless encampments from Washington, DC. It came at a press conference in which he declared a public safety emergency in the nation’s capital, despite violent crime numbers hitting a 30-year low. But the announcement also illustrated something else: The way the country approaches homelessness is rapidly changing.

In July, Trump issued an executive order that not only makes it easier for cities and states to eliminate homeless encampments, but also directs authorities to involuntarily commit unhoused people struggling with mental health issues or substance abuse. The policies represent a dramatic shift away from an approach the federal government has used for years called Housing First, an evidence-based program that prioritizes housing over treatment. Sam Tsemberis first developed the Housing First approach in the 1990s. Tsemberis was working as a clinical psychologist in New York City, where he brought people who lived on the streets into hospitals for treatment, often against their will. He soon realized that many of those people ended up back on the streets, seemingly no better off.

Housing First proved more successful than treatment-first models. It soon became the way cities, states, and the federal government approached homelessness, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, which used Housing First to cut veterans’ homelessness in half over the last 15 years.

But the Trump administration is now abandoning the approach, and Tsemberis says that decision could lead to disastrous consequences for the hundreds of thousands of people who are homeless in America. “People will get discharged from the hospital. They will get released from the jail. And they’ll be back out on the street and the thing will be going in a circle again,” Tsemberis says. “The only way to end homelessness is to provide housing.”

On this week’s More To The Story, Tsemberis sits down with host Al Letson to examine the potential effects of Trump’s executive order, how he developed the Housing First approach decades ago, and whether the US has the necessary values to truly tackle poverty and homelessness.

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: Let’s talk a little bit about how you came up with the idea for the Housing First Program. Exactly what is that and when did it originate?

Sam Tsemberis: The Housing First Program is a program that helps people who are homeless and have mental health, and addiction problems, and often health problems as well. The program originated in response to this era of homelessness. We’ve had homelessness in America at an increasing level for the last 40 years, so this has been around, for some of the people that are listening, I imagine, their entire lives. A whole generation has grown up thinking homelessness is part of the landscape, but homelessness really started in the early ’80s, right after the Reagan administration took office and introduced policies that were supply side economics, they were called. They had this idea about trickle-down theory, give tax breaks to the wealthy and to corporations and they will create jobs for the rest of the population and let’s cut government spending because there isn’t a lot of tax revenue because corporations and very wealthy people aren’t paying taxes so you have to reduce the size of government.

One of the things that they did was they were cut out, essentially cut out the public housing program which was housing for people who needed a rent subsidy. That, very soon, right after that, we began to see people on the streets of every major city in America. That was homelessness, that was disaster. Many of the people looked like they had disabilities, mental health issues, the shelters were filled, and there was a struggle in getting people into housing at that time, because in order to get housed, if you had a mental health or addiction problem, you needed to take care of the mental health issue and the addiction issue before you would get housing. Some people were successful in that, but many tried and couldn’t. Mental illness and addiction are relapsing conditions. You can do okay for a while and then you relapse and it’s back to the start, so there was a growing group that wasn’t managing in the existing system of care in the treatment then housing system. That’s a lot of background to say that we needed a different approach, we needed to do something else, and that’s where Housing First came in.

The Trump administration signed an executive order that will make it easier to remove homeless people from the streets and called for ending support for Housing First policies that don’t promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency. What’s the clash between what they’re doing and what you do?

What they’re doing is they are insisting that people go to treatment or else they get arrested and go to jail. It sounds like they’re doing something. Actually, other than the immediate removal of someone from the street to go to a hospital or to a jail, this is a very expensive and completely ineffective approach to homelessness, because people will get discharged from the hospital, they will get released from the jail, and they’ll be back out on the street and the thing will be in a circle again. This is what it was like in the ’80s when Reagan started all of this, and we had that same cycling. The only way to end homelessness is to provide housing. Unless you provide housing, you’re going to have people going in and out of jail, hospital, shelter, jail, hospital, shelter. They’re saying that they believe in treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency. It absolutely flies in the face of what then they are proposing for their policy. There is no recovery in jail. There is no recovery in a hospital. You’ll take care of an immediate illness, but recovery is a long-term process that requires support in the community.

It feels like their idea of recovery and homelessness is not based on reality, is based on the things that they would like to see. All of us would like to see people who are unhoused and who are having mental challenges get the help that they need and become self-sufficient, but that’s not an easy path. The reality of it is that it takes a while for these things to happen and sometimes you may never get the outcome that you want, but if that’s the case, do you just throw people away because they can’t get to that goal that you have set? That is an unrealistic goal.

What I find amazing about the language in the executive order is that they have taken the very language of Housing First and twisted it into making it sound like this is what they want. Housing First is about treatment, and recovery, and self-sufficiency. That’s what living in an apartment by yourself with supports is all about. They have done the same thing with DEI. They’ve taken diversity and inclusion and made it into discrimination. I mean, there’s a sinister quality to this, like the language choice and calling up-down and left-right, and just confusing people with it. There’s a sort of a sinister quality to it. The thing that is to be determined, I would say, is the extent to which this executive order will actually translate into actual policy. This is an executive order. It’s not the budget for Housing and Urban Development, or Health and Human Services, or the Veterans Administration.

I think where the rubber hits the road on these policies will be determined about where the money is allocated. I mean, are they really going to stop funding housing and rent subsidies? What about the thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of people now, that are housed and the government is paying rent for them? Are they going to pull those rents? I doubt that that is going to be welcomed even by this party. Taking such a strong stance specifically against Housing First Program reverses the policy that’s been in place for at least the last 10 or 15 years. The question is, will the funding follow the policy? If it does, it would be quite disastrous.

As someone who was around when Ronald Reagan put these policies in place that helped create the homelessness problem we’re seeing today, the ideas of trickle-down economics, are you now feeling a sense of déjà vu watching what the Trump administration is doing on this issue?

Absolutely, a parallel in policy, although I would say that the first version, there was still a veneer of politeness about the things somehow. This is the gloves off and we got to get these people off our street, they’re a hazard to us. Any trace of compassion about people suffering is really gone from this administration’s policy. There’s a punitive tone to getting people out of the citizens’ ways, get people out of parks, get people off the streets, reclaim the cities, which is understandable from the point of view of we’ve had homelessness for a long time and why haven’t we solved it, because I think there is a solution. I have that same frustration. But from that frustration, this administration is going to punitive measures like arresting people or demanding involuntary treatment for people, basically to move them from the streets into jail or hospital as opposed to something more compassionate like help them get housed. It’s cruel.

Do you think that through the eyes of the administration just going off of their policy stances, that they look at poor people, unhoused people, people with mental disabilities as like it’s a moral failing? I.e. like you did something wrong and so now you have to pay the consequences and it’s not on us to fix it.

Yes, that was the policy. I don’t know if you recall, Reagan used to talk about welfare queens and people taking advantage of the system, and then about homelessness, he’s quoted saying that, “Well, some people are just out there by choice,” and always pointing to individual failings, because if you don’t point to individual failings, you have to acknowledge that we have an out-of-control real estate system, that the rents have been increased, and minimum wage has barely increased at all. You have people falling into homelessness all the time not because they’re not working hard. You have people in shelters that are working one or two jobs and can’t get that first month’s rent and first month’s security together.

Everyone is doing the best they can, but the system is stacked up against you if you are not making enough money, if you are a member of a minority group. In every single state that we count homeless people, in every single state, minorities, Blacks, Latinos, or indigenous people are always overrepresented, so these are structural issues that preclude people getting the good jobs, getting into housing, and then you see the representation on the street and you’re blaming the individual for a game that’s stacked against them.

Yeah. Can you give me a sense of how many people are homeless in the U.S. at any given night?

On the last count for 2025, we had about 775,000 people that were homeless on that one night, but it’s a very narrow window. They count in January so all of the northern states are quite cold. I mean, that’s the minimum number, and these are people who are both in shelters and on the streets.

With this new executive order from President Trump, what do you expect to happen to that number?

I think if you remove the funding from housing and put money into going into hospitals or jails, it’s going to be much more expensive and there are going to be many more people homeless.

Let’s talk about that a little bit as in the expense of it, because on the surface, it would seem that they are creating this new path as a way to save on the budget. It’s in the spirit of DOGE and trimming the government down, but you think it’s going to actually cost the government more in the long run.

Well, it costs, on the low side, about 1,500 to $2,000 a day for a hospital bed. If you put someone in a hospital for a month, you have basically spent… Let’s say a $2,000 day, you’ve spent $60,000 for a month of hospitalization, and then at the end of that month, the person is discharged back out into homelessness. For $60,000, you could pay someone’s rent for three or four years depending on where they’re living. This is not saving anyone any money. It’s costing a fortune for these very expensive acute care services and doing nothing about ending the homelessness. Whereas that investment just skip hospitalizing people, skip arresting people, put them right into housing, you would save a lot more money and you would house and end homelessness for a lot more people.

Talk to me about how you got into this work.

Well, I got into this work out of complete frustration and failure in trying to bring people to the hospital, ironically enough, because I thought that was the right thing to do. I was trained as a psychologist, I saw people on the street that had mental illness, and I would try and persuade them that it’s for their own good to go to Bellevue and get some treatment and things will be better, I naively thought. Some people did go, and other people, we actually had to bring involuntarily to the hospital. I was one of those people that worked in one of these involuntary treatment programs that are being proposed now. What I saw both as an experience, but we were also keeping data on it, is that the majority of people ended up returning to the street and actually being more wary of engaging in treatment because it didn’t go well for them that first time. That’s ultimately what got me to thinking, “Hey, we got to do something else, because what we’re doing is not only not effective but it’s actually alienating people.”

We went to the people themselves that were on the street, was very much a ground up kind of a program developed, and we said, “How can we help you?” They said, “Isn’t it obvious? Isn’t it obvious? We need a place to live?” We began to bring people literally from the streets into apartments, and then we had a team of case managers, social workers, psychiatrists, people with lived experience that would make house calls after the person was housed. We thought, “Okay, we had now at least another alternative for those who couldn’t get clean and sober to get into housing.” People got into housing and then they got well, they got better. 80% of the people assigned to Housing First would be housed and stay housed, and about 40% of the people that needed treatment first and then housed would get housed, so we were onto something, I thought, very, very effective.
We published it and then people began to say, “Maybe there’s something to this. We think it’ll work over here, why don’t we try it over here? Would you be willing to come and show us how to do it?” I think the gradual implementation of the programs with the success that it delivered, it began to be more widely accepted.

Here’s what I’m trying to wrap my head around. A decade ago, this approach was widely celebrated and received bipartisan support. The George W. Bush administration was even the first to make it a centerpiece of their federal approach. When did things start to change? What happened?

It was during the first Trump administration. They appointed somebody in what used to be the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness that the Doge people have actually now eliminated as an agency, but that was sort of the federal agency in charge of setting federal policy. The first Trump administration appointed someone that was anti-Housing first. They were saying, “Housing fourth. First is treatment, sobriety, and then employment, and then housing maybe,” but they weren’t in power long enough to actually do anything about it. Project 2025 did a lot of work in between those two terms, and when they hit the ground running this time, it wasn’t housing fourth, it was housing last, and now we have the executive order that says, “Actually, don’t do Housing First at all.”

Housing First definitely has its critics. Homelessness in the U.S. has been rising, some say that Housing First doesn’t adequately address the underlying mental health and addiction issues that often contribute to homelessness. What do you tell people who say this approach doesn’t work?

Homelessness is rising because of the structural factors that contribute to homelessness. The rents are too high and the salaries and the benefits are too low and there’s a racial discrimination. That’s what contributes to homelessness. We have more people falling into homelessness. Every year that we’ve been counting homelessness with a few rare exceptions, the numbers keep going up. Housing First is a program that works for people who are homeless and have mental health and addiction problems. Everywhere where the program is implemented properly, it solves homelessness for 80 or 90% of the people it’s working with. These programs serve a couple of hundred people.

We don’t have a National Housing First Program, but we have a national homeless count, so because the national homeless count is going up does not mean that the hundreds of Housing First Program serving people are not working. They are absolutely working, but we’ve never taken Housing First to a national scale. We’ve never tried to house 770,000 people. Not all of them would need Housing First anyway. Most of the people who are homeless just need a housing voucher, but we’ve never taken Housing First to scale, so to say that it hasn’t solved homelessness is accurate, but…

But it’s also disingenuous.

Totally disingenuous, because it’s never been scaled up to try and solve homelessness. It only solves pockets of homelessness in the cities where it’s tried.

Yeah. You’ve been working on this for a really long time. How does it feel seeing something you’ve developed get dismantled this way?

I haven’t given up that it’s being dismantled actually. But the attack, the attack, I have to say, is completely new, and it’s just such a disservice to homelessness. The irony of it is that Housing First is probably the most successful program that has been used by the two federal agencies that have actually embraced it. HUD and the Veterans Administration have used Housing First over the last 10 years to house veterans that are homeless, and they have reduced veterans’ homelessness by 56%.

Do you think this executive order is going to threaten those programs?

It appears as a threat to all Housing First Programs, and I don’t know exactly how it’s going to be implemented.

Yeah. What are you doing to try and keep your policies, Housing First, in place? Is there anything you can do?

Well, the thing that I think we can do is sort of the same thing we’ve learned from people that were running DEI programs and other programs that have been pushed out by this administration. We are basically providing people with housing and supports. I think that maybe we get less pushback if we say we’re housing people and we’re providing support services for them. You don’t have to call it Housing First, you don’t have to call it anything. You can call it helping people who are homeless.

Yeah. It’s like figuring out ways around the roadblock by not calling attention to it.

Exactly, exactly.

If the Democrats get back in power, what are the moves that you think that they should be taken? I guess the question is that Ronald Reagan was in office for a set amount of time, and when he got out, we never went back to fixing the policies that clearly weren’t working, so what is the work for the next administration that wants to get this right?

I’m not sure that, as a country, we inhabit or embrace the kinds of values it would actually take to fix poverty in this country. If you recall after Reagan, Clinton came in and did away with welfare so that people who are poor have been beaten up on by both parties, because both parties are somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum between left and right. I mean, we’re way over on the right now. But even if the usual Democrats get back in, I don’t know that they are willing or able to go back to building public housing, guaranteeing healthcare for all, which are the kinds of things we would need to have to begin to deal with the damage that has been done since Reagan and what this administration will also contribute to significantly. We have to move way over to a much more… A society where we believe that every member of our society needs to be taken care of.

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

Continue Reading…

What Is a Far-Right Ideologue Going to Do With the U.S. Institute of Peace?

In February, President Trump included the U.S. Institute of Peace in an executive order targeting federal entities he deemed “unnecessary” and which he planned to cut as much as he legally could. In March, the USIP’s Washington D.C. offices were invaded by armed private security as part of a brute force takeover by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. Amid the subsequent running court battle, the USIP, which once employed over 200 people, has been reduced to a ghost organization, with around four total workers. In court, DOGE and the Trump administration continue to insist they can seize both USIP’s famous headquarters, situated near the National Mall, as well as its finances.

“How can this person be one to lead any peace-building? It just seems absurd.”

In late July, the State Department also announced a new, eyebrow-raising acting president for what’s left of USIP: former academic Darren Beattie, who was fired from the first Trump administration for speaking at a conference heavily attended by white nationalists.

Beattie is also an undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs at the State Department, despite the act that created the USIP seemingly barring him from accepting a salary for both roles. When asked for comment, a State Department spokesperson did not address the issue, but sent an anonymous statement suggesting Beattie’s appointment was in response to USIP having “slipped in its mission over recent decades” and saying he would “advance President Trump’s America First agenda in this new role.”

Beattie’s background and history of racist and extremist remarks has generated concern. He tweeted in 2024 that “competent white men must be in charge if you want anything to work;” another time that year, he floated an inflammatory rhetorical question: “What if America moved on to some national religion other than coddling and excusing inner city black dysfunction, violence, and misbehavior?” He has also advocated for stripping what he called “undesirables” of US citizenship, adding, “ship them out, put them to work extracting rare earth minerals. Peace through strength!”

The USIP was founded in 1984 under President Ronald Reagan as an independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan organization to train people here and abroad in mediation, diplomacy, conflict management, and other peace-building skills. Staffers who were forced out of USIP, as well as an attorney who represents them, say it’s unclear what, precisely, Beattie could even do with today’s skeleton organization.

“Nobody knows if the intention is for this man to come in and reinstate the institute with this America First lens, or he’s there just to dismantle it,” a former USIP staffer who requested anonymity to discuss a sensitive situation said. “How can this person be one to lead any peace-building? It just seems absurd.”

“At the very least, it’s an incredibly peculiar appointment,” dryly observed another former USIP staffer, who also requested anonymity. “I don’t know the motivation. I’m not sure what it positions what’s left of the institute to do.”

Beattie, a former visiting professor at Duke University, has very little experience in anything that could be called “peace-building,” either at home or abroad. After being forced out of his White House job in 2018 in disgrace, he worked for then-Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz before founding Revolver News, a pro-Trump site that has repeatedly advanced conspiracy theories about the January 6 attack; just this April, a Revolver writer described the Capitol attack as a “totally manipulated event, crawling with fed involvement, unanswered questions, and a phony threat to democracy used to justify a slew of political crackdowns and North Korea-style arrests.” In November 2020, the week after Trump faced voters, he appointed Beattie to the U.S. Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad. The Biden administration forced Beattie to resign from the federal board in January 2022 over Revolver’s false claims about January 6.

Revolver, a website founded by Beattie, called January 6 a “totally manipulated event.”

In his time away from government, Beattie became obsessed with attacking research on disinformation, writing in 2022 that the term “disinformation” is “principally a pretext for domestic political censorship,” and tweeting derogatory remarks about Renee DiResta and Joan Donovan, two female disinformation scholars.

In his multiplying roles in the Trump administration, Beattie has largely seemed concerned with attacking disinformation research, and limiting the government’s participation in it. In April, Rubio shuttered the State Department’s Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Hub, a small office that studied, tracked, and countered government-backed disinformation from foreign states like China, Russia, and Iran. According to reporting from MIT Technology Review and the New York Times, Beattie carried out the firings himself.

In April, between two rounds of USIP firings, Beattie tweeted from his official Department of State account that the disinformation industry is “a scam to monitor, demonetize, and censor Americans.” The exact same statement was immediately shared by Twitter accounts for the U.S. Embassy in London, the U.S. Mission to the EU, and the U.S. Embassy in Sofia, Bulgaria. The State Department did not respond a to a request for comment at the time about why the diplomatic accounts shared the statement.

The only indication about how Beattie views the organization he now heads is a tweet that he retweeted on July 25—the day his appointment was announced— from Mike Benz, a far-right activist who’s made his name as a crusader against “online censorship.” In 2023, NBC’s Brandy Zadrozny reported Benz had worked as a pseudonymous alt-right content creator and described himself as a “white identitarian” and railed against “Jewish influence.” (Beattie is Jewish.)

The post Beattie retweeted claimed that the organization he was about to take charge of was responsible for “dirty deeds in everything from drugs to riots to color revolutions”—essentially accusing it of undertaking espionage and regime change abroad.

The claim, says attorney George Foote, who until recently represented USIP for thirty years, and who is acting as outside counsel for former USIP employees, is “absurd” and “total fiction.” Friends of USIP, an organization supporting former staffers, has also denied claims in far-right media that the agency’s officials “funded the Taliban,” bought drugs, or carried guns. This week, Revolver News, the outlet that Beattie founded, described USIP as “a DC institution that has been accused of shady backroom operations, regime-change meddling, and more than a few quiet coups,” adding, “Thankfully, with Darren at the helm, that era may finally be coming to an end.”

This is not the first time that a right-wing ideologue has been appointed to the USIP. In 2003, uproar ensued when a Middle East scholar named Daniel Pipes, described by his critics as an anti-Muslim extremist, was nominated to the organization’s board by George W. Bush. While Democratic Senators launched a filibuster against his nomination, Bush used a recess appointment to install him anyway; he served until 2005.

“The peacemakers are fighting the fight. And we’ll keep doing it.”

But the Pipes appointment, however controversial, was not designed to undo or remake USIP as an organization. Under Trump, Foote says, the stakes are far higher, as the administration has insisted it can “transfer USIP’s assets, including USIP’s real property” elsewhere in the government.

“The principle that we’re fighting for here is one that matters from everything from the Fed down to Meals on Wheels,” he says. “If the government wins this case and can crush USIP—take a private corporation, privately owned building, private donor money, all in the guise of the president being the chief executive—we’ve got a different country.

USIP will put up the toughest possible fight. We’re going to fight this thing ot the end. There are people fighting in a similar way, all to defend this executive whose desire for power we don’t know the limits of. We don’t know where they’ll stop in the reach to control economic and political activity in the country. Not to over blow it, but here the peacemakers are fighting the fight. And we’ll keep doing it.”

Whatever Beattie’s plans for USIP, the reputational damage of his appointment, according to those familiar with the organization, will be hard to recover from.

“The name USIP means something… They’re known around the world for training tens of thousands of UN peacekeepers and others—really good, substantive work,” says Foote. “It would be a travesty of justice and criminal if that name is used as cover as any of the sort of things that Mr. Beattie is known for.”

Continue Reading…

Desperate Towns, Empty Promises: The EV Startup That Left Three Communities Hanging

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

They came with promises of transformation: thousands of jobs, surging salaries, and a foothold in the booming electric vehicle market.

Imola Automotive USA, a Boca Raton, Florida-based startup, pitched officials in small, struggling towns in Georgia, Oklahoma, and Arkansas on a bold vision. The company planned to build six EV plants, create 45,000 jobs—and help these impoverished communities secure a place in America’s green future.

But more than 18 months later, the company hasn’t broken ground on a single site. And its top executive—whose background is in television and athletic shoes, not automotive manufacturing—has gone silent.

A Floodlight investigation did not uncover lost taxpayer money in Fort Valley, Georgia; Langston, Oklahoma; or Pine Bluff, Arkansas, where Imola has sought free land, municipal financing, and other incentives for its shifting proposals.

But an economic development watchdog said the episode illustrates how the frenzy to land electric vehicle jobs can leave economically distressed towns vulnerable to empty promises.

Imola CEO Rodney Henry declined requests for an interview. He responded to Floodlight’s inquiries with a short statement, insisting the company had not given up on its plans, which have included a partnership with an Italian manufacturer of two-seat electric vehicles.

“Our timetable has been modified due to matters outside of our control,” Henry said in a statement. “We are highly focused on bringing our goals into alignment. Due to proprietary considerations as well as NDA (nondisclosure) agreements, we are not at liberty to discuss specifics at this juncture.”

That’s a stark shift from the company’s earlier promises. In a press release issued in January 2024, Henry claimed the company had already secured land in multiple states to build half a dozen plants and create tens of thousands of jobs.

Imola Automotive USA CEO Rodney Henry, left, looked on as Dr. Isaac Crumbly, of Fort Valley State University in Georgia, signed an agreement in 2024 to collaborate on science education and workforce development. It was part of Imola’s plan to develop an electric vehicle plant in Fort Valley. Since then, however, there has been no sign of construction.

Could someone with no experience in car manufacturing really deliver that?

“It’s ludicrous,” said Greg LeRoy, CEO of Good Jobs First, a nonprofit that tracks and analyzes economic development projects.

Building large auto plants, he said, requires “a great deal of capital, a great deal of management skill, a great deal of engineering and marketing chops. And obviously, Tesla developed those, but they didn’t do it overnight, right?”

Langston, Fort Valley, and Pine Bluff weren’t the only towns swept up in the competition to attract electric vehicle plants. Spurred by federal policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, which unlocked billions in private investment and expanded government incentives, local officials across the country scrambled to land high-paying manufacturing jobs and a slice of the booming clean energy economy.

Since the IRA passed in 2022, more than 150 EV plants have been announced in the United States, according to E2, a nonpartisan group of business leaders who advocate for economic development good for the environment.

But that rush may be grinding to a halt. The recently passed “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which rolls back many federal tax credits and incentives for electric vehicles, is already throwing the EV sector into turmoil—threatening to stall or shrink the kinds of ambitious projects towns like Langston, Fort Valley, and Pine Bluff were counting on. E2 reports that plans for 14 EV-related plants have been canceled this year.

In three towns where Imola pledged massive investment, there’s no sign of construction and little more than confusion.

Langston—a town of 1,600 where more than 35 percent of residents live in poverty—never saw Imola’s plans take shape.

A 2023 letter to the city council from former Imola chief operating officer Eric Pettus stated that the company had run into “multiple obstacles,” including trouble acquiring enough land.

“In order for us to continue moving forward on the project, we are requesting that the City of Langston convey to us any and all vacant properties owned by the city,” Pettus wrote.

Langston City Council member Magnus Scott said the company also asked the town to issue municipal bonds to help them build their plant.

But before any land changed hands or bonds were issued, a company representative delivered unexpected news: The deal had been canceled. “I guess maybe they ran into financial problems,” Scott said.

Reached by phone, Pettus, of South Florida, said he’s no longer employed by Imola but instead works as a consultant for the company. Citing a nondisclosure agreement, he declined to discuss Imola’s plans.

Fort Valleygave its backing in early 2024 to Imola’s ambitious plan to build an EV plant that would employ 7,500 workers.

A year later, with no sign of progress on the plant, the company came back to the Georgia town with an entirely different proposal. This time, instead of building an EV plant, they pitched a high-tech lighting system for the town.

One city council member balked.

“You want us to sign an agreement for 99 years before you bring us the car company? It feels like a bait and switch.”

“You want us to sign an agreement for 99 years before you bring us the car company,” said council member Laronda Eason, according to minutes of the March 2025 meeting. “It feels like a bait and switch.”

Eason did not respond to emails and text messages seeking comment on the Imola proposal.

In Pine Bluff, where per capita income last year was just over $21,000, city officials were initially all in. Writing to Henry in August 2024, then-Mayor Shirley Washington said the city of 39,000 stood ready to buy land, build infrastructure, and issue industrial revenue bonds to support Imola’s vision.

“With an anticipated employment base of more than 8,000 jobs,” Washington wrote, “we firmly believe this investment will marshal a pivotal turning point in our community.”

But a year later, the project hasn’t moved. “We never did get off the ground with that,” Washington said in a brief phone interview.

LeRoy said Imola’s pitch fits a troubling pattern.

“It grabs me as an example of how the craze among governors and mayors to get the next big thing has caused some sloppy vetting,” he said of the struggling communities courted by Imola.

Such towns, he said, are “easy prey…They’re desperate.”

Henry, who lives in Florida, touts a background as a longtime TV executive producer and the founder of Protégé, an athletic footwear brand. He claims on his IMDB profile that Protégé donated a million pairs of shoes to African nations.

But despite announcements of partnerships and promises of good-paying jobs, his EV company has yet to show any tangible progress.

Floodlight found the website for Imola—named after the Italian city where Tazzari EVs are made—is no longer accessible without a password. A search of the Tazzari website found no mention of plants in the United States. But a 2024 version of the Imola site mentions the tiny vehicles “coming soon to America.”

In early 2024, Imola Automotive USA and the Tazzari Group—an Italian firm best known for its electric two-seater micro cars—jointly announced plans for a partnership.

The EVs that Tazzari makes in Italy aren’t designed for highway driving. Top speed on the company’s Opensky Sport model is about 56 miles per hour, while maximum speed on the Opensky Limited is about 37 mph, according to the company’s webpage.

Tazzari didn’t respond to email messages from a Floodlight reporter.

These are some of the electric two-seater micro cars made by the Tazzari Group. The Italian firm and Imola Automotive USA jointly announced plans for a partnership in early 2024 as Imola promised to build electric vehicle plants in economically struggling U.S. towns. There’s no sign of progress so far.Tazzari Group’s website

Henry said at that time that the company chose Langston and Fort Valley because of their universities.

“Both of these locations are ideal,” he said in the January 2024 news release, “as their proximity to communities with institutions of higher learning will allow residents and students career opportunities in the fast-growing EV Technology and Innovation Industry.”

Many local officials in Fort Valley, Langston, and Pine Bluff did not respond to interview requests. Few documents were provided in response to Floodlight’s public records requests.

But it’s clear from available records that Imola’s promises stirred hope.

Langston Mayor Michael Boyles called the proposal “transformative” in a January 2024 news release.

But some local leaders soon began to question the details.

Erica Johnson, a real estate agent and former member of Langston’s economic development commission, said parts of the plan didn’t add up. How, for instance, would the company house more than 1,000 workers in such a small town? And how were they going to build such a large plant on land without utilities or water?

Her doubts deepened when she learned that Imola wanted to lock down land agreements without putting up any earnest money.

“My early feeling was, ‘Something is not quite okay with this,’” she said. “But I think the hope for our community kind of outweighed the ability to just take things slow and look at them for where they are and what they are—versus where you hope them to be.”

Eventually, the promise fizzled.

“It was disappointing,” Johnson said. “We could have had our energy and time focused on something that seemed more valid and more substantial.”

Some residents in Fort Valley are still holding out hope.

Mayor Jeffery Lundy said early last year that it was a “priority for my administration to land a company like Imola Automotive USA.” Local officials, he said, were looking forward to the economic boost the plant would bring.

In early 2024, Imola Automotive USA promised that it would build an electric vehicle plant in Fort Valley, Ga., that would employ 7,500 people and pay average wages of $45 an hour. The promises have raised hopes in the economically struggling town, but there’s little indication they will be fulfilled.Michael Rivera/Wikimedia

At the time, Imola claimed it would break ground on a 195-acre site by the third quarter of 2024 and open the plant within 20 months, according to a report in the Macon Telegraph.

During a February 2024 town hall meeting, Imola officials told residents that the plant would pay employees an average of $45 an hour, according to a Facebook post. Commenters buzzed with excitement, with one writing: “Application me !!!!”

Pettus told a local TV station that most jobs would require only a high school diploma.

In early 2024, Fort Valley rezoned land to accommodate the plant, and the city council signed off on the deal. But more than 15 months later, there’s still no sign of construction.

Council members were told that Georgia Power couldn’t provide sufficient power for the EV company, according to minutes of their March 2025 meeting. A spokesman for Georgia Power said that while the utility doesn’t discuss economic development projects, “We’re prepared and ready to meet the energy needs of any new customer.”

Makita Driver, one of the Facebook commenters who’d voiced excitement about the proposed EV plant, said there’s no doubt she would have applied for one of the jobs there, had the facility ever been built.

“The pay rate was really what got my attention,” she said.

As a medical assistant, Driver said she earns far less than what Imola had promised. But she eventually concluded the promises were too good to be true.

“Who really makes that kind of money starting out?” she asked.

In a brief interview with Floodlight on July 11, Mayor Lundy said he’s still in contact with Henry.

“We are patiently waiting for that groundbreaking,” Lundy said.

Continue Reading…

Trump Taps Project 2025 Architect Who Wants to Do Away With the Jobs Report to Run BLS

On Monday night, President Donald Trump announced his new pick to run the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) after firing the previous commissioner and baselessly alleging that recently released poor jobs numbers were “rigged.”

Trump’s pick for the post is EJ Antoni, a conservative economist at the Heritage Foundation and a longtime critic of the BLS who has suggested doing away with the report that so triggered Trump. “Our Economy is booming, and EJ will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST and ACCURATE,” Trump claimed in his Truth Social post announcing he would nominate Antoni for the role.

Economists have called him “completely unqualified,” “an extreme partisan,” and “disastrously terrible.” Stan Veuger, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told Axios that Antoni’s work at the Heritage Foundation “frequently included elementary errors or nonsensical choices that all bias his findings in the same partisan direction.”

A look at Antoni’s public statements, writings, and politics suggest that, if confirmed, he will likely help remake the BLS—a wonky, heretofore nonpartisan agency housed within the Department of Labor (DOL)—in Trump’s image.

Last week, Antoni, who is also a senior fellow for the right-wing Committee to Unleash Prosperity, said on Steve Bannon’s podcast that the next BLS commissioner should “be willing to essentially overhaul the entire thing.”

“We need a redo at at BLS, essentially,” Antoni said. He also told Bannon he thinks a MAGA Republican should be running the agency, alleging that the lack of a Trump supporter in a leadership role is “part of the reason why we continue to have all of these different data problems.”

BANNON: Have we put our own person, a MAGA Republican, into the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

E.J. ANTONI: No, and I think that's part of the reason why we continue to have all of these different data problems. @RealEJAntoni pic.twitter.com/kmvv95z9fD

— Bannon’s WarRoom (@Bannons_WarRoom) August 1, 2025

Also last week, in an interview with Fox News, Antoni suggested instead publishingquarterly data. But the monthly data, focused on estimates of employment and earnings nationwide, offers important information on the state of the economy for economists, policymakers, government officials, and employers. In a post on X the same day, Antoni seemingly contradicted himself, calling for the next BLS commissioner to ensure “consistent delivery of accurate data in a timely manner.”

According to his LinkedIn profile, Antoni received a doctorate in economics from Northern Illinois University in 2020. Since then, he has worked as an economist for a handful of right-wing organizations, including the now-defunct FreedomWorks and the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, where he currently works, has become best known for compiling Project 2025, the more than 900-page guidebook to a second Trump term. Antoni is listed in the document as one of several hundred contributors who the document says “volunteered their time and effort to assist the authors in the development and writing.”

Project 2025 has some questionable ideas for BLS, including collecting and disseminating monthly “family statistics,” including marriage and fertility rates, and having a congressionally-appointed assistant commissioner for family statistics to oversee this data collection and dissemination. (This would, of course, track with the administration’s pronatalist priorities.) The document also suggests the administration should consider merging BLS with other statistical agencies, including the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which collect and share distinct data. Antoni did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones on Tuesday afternoon, including a question on whether he supports Project 2025’s proposals for the agency or would implement them if confirmed.

Like Trump, Antoni has argued that the BLS revision of May and June jobs numbers to show weaker growth was politically motivated to make Trump look bad, even though such revisions are commonplace as BLS gains more precise data over time as employers complete voluntary surveys. Former government officials, including former BLS Commissioner William Beach, who was appointed by Trump in 2019, also said there was no way that Trump’s allegations of “rigged” data were possible.

Trump and Antoni share many other baseless takes. In his other writings for the Heritage Foundation website, Antoni has alleged Biden’s DOL shared unreliable jobs data, even though there is no evidence to support that. He called criticisms of Trump’s tariffs “overblown and unfounded,” even though major banks have said they create a higher likelihood of recession and economists have estimated they will cost the average US household thousands of dollars per year. He praised the work of DOGE, despite the havoc the DOGE bros wreaked across government. And Antoni has claimed immigrants are stealing jobs from American-born workers and that Trump’s mass deportation policies would raise wages and create more jobs, even though experts say they will tank the GDP and decimate industries including agriculture, health care, and construction, as my colleague Isabela Dias previously reported.

The Senate will need to confirm Antoni’s nomination in order for him to formally assume the post. And if he does, he will have his work cut out for him: Several of the agency’s top roles are vacant, and the White House budget seeks to cut its funding by $56 million.

Continue Reading…

Report: Half of Trump’s Judicial Nominees Have Anti-Abortion Records

During his campaign for a second term in office, President Donald Trump claimed that he would leave abortion “to the states” if reelected.

Trump has, in fact, managed to quietly shape the national abortion politics in his second term. According to a new analysis from the Associated Press, roughly half of Trump’s nominees to the federal judiciary thus far have records of being openly anti-abortion or associating with anti-abortion groups.

This is not entirely surprising for anyone who has been paying attention. As my colleague Madison Pauly outlined back in January, packing the federal courts with anti-abortion judges is one of the many insidious measures that reproductive rights advocates warned Trump could take to restrict access to abortion nationwide. But the new analysis from AP reveals the greatest detail to date about the extent of these nominees’ opposition to abortion.

In a statement provided to Mother Jones, Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, called on senators “to defend their constituents’ rights and health care by voting no on the remaining and future anti-abortion nominees.” (Five of Trump’s nominees, including two who the AP found have openly anti-abortion hsitories, have already been confirmed by the Senate.)

At least eight of the 17 nominees Trump has named so far have argued in favor of abortion restrictions or against expanding access, the AP reports.

These nominees include Whitney Hermandorfer, who defended Tennessee’s abortion ban as an attorney representing the state attorney general’s office last year; Jordan Pratt, who argued in support of Florida’s 15-week abortion ban back in 2023, when he was an attorney for the First Liberty Institute, a right-wing Christian legal group; John Guard, who defended the same Florida law as the state’s chief deputy attorney general; and Bill Mercer, a GOP state lawmaker in Montana, who has voted for a variety of anti-abortion bills.

Several of the nominees have also explicitly sought to restrict access to abortion pills, even though more than 100 scientific studies have proven they are safe and effective. Maria Lanahan, who is awaiting confirmation, and Joshua Divine, who has already been sworn in, both, while working in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, co-authored state’s complaint when it intervened in joining a then-pending lawsuit before the Supreme Court asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to rescind its approval of abortion pills.

It may be tempting to dismiss these nominees as a small handful of anti-abortion zealots who appear to share the anti-abortion politics of many others in the Trump administration. But as I previously wrote, nominees who secure one of these lifetime appointments wield immense power:

The significance of these lifetime appointments for the future of reproductive rights becomes apparent when you consider Matthew Kacsmaryk. He’s a Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas who issued an anti-science ruling [in 2023] that paved the way for anti-abortion activists to bring a case to the Supreme Court challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in a medication abortion.

[In 2024], the Supreme Court sent the case on emergency abortion care back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals—a federal court in California with 10 Trump-appointed judges and jurisdiction over more than a dozen district courts in nine states.

As David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University whose scholarly work focuses on abortion access, told me when I wrote that piece last year: “The power of lower court federal judges is immense, because the Supreme Court only deals with such a limited number of cases.”

Reproductive rights advocates said that the nominees’ anti-abortion politics are both unsurprising and deserving of urgent opposition.

“It’s no surprise that Trump is not only continuing to nominate more anti-abortion, anti-democracy extremists, as he did in his first term, but is also ignoring his promise to ‘leave it to the states,’ while lying about a half-baked plan to pay for IVF procedures, a major campaign promise, which has been proven to be nothing more than a hoax to curry favor with single-issue voters,” Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, said in a statement provided to Mother Jones.

“These nominees have, and will always be, about who will remain loyal to Trump while advancing his agenda to ban abortion nationwide,” Timmaraju added.

Continue Reading…

Israel Has Killed Nearly 200 Palestinian Journalists in Gaza

Since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023, the Israeli military has killed nearly 200 Palestinian journalists, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

The latest deaths include six journalists—five for Al Jazeera and one freelancer—who the Israeli military killed on Sunday in Gaza City, according to CPJ. Those killed include correspondents Anas al-Sharif and Mohammed Qreiqeh; camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal, and Moamen Aliwa; and freelance journalist Mohammad al-Khaldi, CPJ says.The journalists were stationed in a tent across from Al-Shifa Medical Complex when they were struck, according to a statement from the news outlet; al-Khaldi, a local freelancer, was struck in a nearby tent, an eyewitness told CPJ.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed in a post on X that it targeted Al-Sharif, 28, alleging that he was a “Hamas terrorist” who “posed as an Al Jazeera journalist”—a claim that Al-Sharif denied when he was alive. The IDF has made similar unsubstantiated claims against other Al Jazeera journalists who the military killed, CPJ notes. Last month, the IDF accused Al-Sharif of being part of Hamas’s military wing since 2013, which Al Jazeera called a “campaign of incitement” and “a dangerous attempt to justify the targeting of its journalists in the field.” Al-Sharif told CPJ at the time, “I live with the feeling that I could be bombed and martyred at any moment,” adding that his family was also in danger.

Palestinians inspect the scene at the journalists’ tent Israel struck on Sunday.Omar Ashtawy/APA/ZUMA

In its statement on Monday, Al Jazeera called Al-Sharif “one of Gaza’s bravest journalists” and said the order to kill him and his colleagues “is a desperate attempt to silence the voices exposing the impending seizure and occupation of Gaza.” A compilation of his reports published by Al Jazeera on Monday shows him reporting from the front lines of the war. In one clip, he accompanied a rescue crew trying to free a man trapped under rubble; in another, he broke down crying, as a passerby told him, “Keep going, you are our voice.” His final report filed with the network was focused on the rise in starvation deaths in Gaza. On Sunday, Al-Sharif reported “intense, concentrated Israeli bombardment” in Gaza City on his X account.

The killings mark a uniquely gruesome period for members of the press covering the war. More than 190 journalists have been killed since the October 2023 start of the war, at least 184 of whom were Palestinians killed by Israel, CPJ says. Dozens were killed within the first month of the war alone. Eleven Al Jazeera journalists and eight freelancers who worked with the news outlet have been among those killed, according to CPJ data.

The journalists killed since the start of the war is more than the number of journalists killed worldwide from 2020 through 2022 combined, according to CPJ. (Gaza’s [government media office][11], [Reporters Without Borders][12], and [Al Jazeera][13] put the amount of journalists killed in Gaza since October 2023 higher, at more than 200.) An April report [published][14] by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs says that, based on the estimates of more than 200 journalists killed, Israel’s war in Gaza has killed more journalists than the U.S. Civil War; the first and second World Wars; the Korean and Vietnam wars; both Yugoslav wars; and the post-9/11 US war in Afghanistan wars combined.

Press freedom groups condemned the latest round of killings and dismissed Israel’s terrorism allegations against Al-Sharif. In a statement, CPJ Regional Director Sara Qudah called the Sunday killings “murder,” adding, “Israel is murdering the messengers.”

“The world needs to see these deadly attacks on journalists inside Gaza, as well as its censorship of journalists in Israel and the West Bank, for what they are: a deliberate and systematic attempt to cover up Israel’s actions,” Qudah added.

Reporters Without Borders [called][12] for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council in response to the killings, pointing to a 2015 [resolution][15] that called on member states to enact protections for journalists reporting in conflicts. “This massacre and Israel’s media blackout strategy, designed to conceal the crimes committed by its army for more than 21 months in the besieged and starving Palestinian enclave, must be stopped immediately,” Thibaut Bruttin, the organization’s director general, said in a statement.

“The world needs to see these deadly attacks on journalists inside Gaza, as well as its censorship of journalists in Israel and the West Bank, for what they are: a deliberate and systematic attempt to cover up Israel’s actions,” Qudah added.

Despite all this, though, American officials have yet to condemn the Sunday killings. Spokespeople for the State Department and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Mother Jones on Monday afternoon.

In a final statement [posted to his X account][16] on Sunday, which Al-Sharif appeared to draft in April and requested be shared if he was killed, the journalist wrote that he “never once hesitated to convey the truth as it is, without distortion or falsification.” He urged support for his family, including his two children and his wife.

“If I die,” he added, “I die steadfast upon my principles.”

[11]: http://Al Jazeera staff journalists killed by Israel in Gaza during the war to 11, in addition to eight journalists who freelanced with the media organization, according to CPJ data. [12]: https://rsf.org/en/gaza-rsf-calls-emergency-un-security-council-meeting-after-targeted-israeli-strike-kills-six-media [13]: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/longform/2024/12/31/know-their-names-the-palestinian-journalists-killed-by-israel-in-gaza [14]: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2025/Turse%5FCosts%20of%20War%5FThe%20Reporting%20Graveyard%204-2-25.pdf [15]: https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s%5Fres%5F2222.pdf [16]: https://x.com/AnasAlSharif0/status/1954670507128914219

Continue Reading…

Texas Bill Would Allow Lawsuits Over Shipping Abortion Pills

This story was produced in partnership with CBS News.

Republican lawmakers in Texas have opened a new front in their efforts to crack down on abortion, this time with a bill that would enable lawsuits targeting the use of medication to terminate pregnancies. Their proposal would also take aim at shield laws in other states that protect manufacturers and the doctors who prescribe abortion pills.

In Texas, it is already illegal to knowingly mail, carry, or deliver abortion-inducing drugs. It is also illegal for a doctor not licensed in the state of Texas to prescribe abortion medication.

Now, in the midst of an already controversial special legislative session, lawmakers have reintroduced a bill that would allow lawsuits to target anyone who manufactures, mails, delivers, prescribes, or distributes abortion pills. The bill would also permit people to file a wrongful death lawsuit if the medication results in harm or death of a fetus or the mother, within a statute of limitations up to six years.

“These are the pills that are being mailed into Texas directly to women, often without instructions, certainly without doctors as before, and without follow-up care after,” the bill’s sponsor, Texas state Sen. Bryan Hughes, a Republican, told the Texas Tribune earlier this year. “This is illegal in Texas, but is taking place, and we’ve thus far not been able to protect women.”

The World Health Organization says the pills—a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol—can be safely prescribed for women to self-administer at home, without the direct supervision of a health care provider, in the first trimester.

Hughes previously sponsored a state law, passed in 2021, banning abortions at six weeks, or when a “fetal heartbeat” is detected.

The new proposal, known as the Women and Child Protection Act, is expected to be heard in committee in the Texas State Senate during Monday’s special session. An earlier version stalled in the House during the most recent legislative session.

The bill also seeks to route any challenges into federal court, and includes language aimed at neutralizing the force of so-called shield laws in other states, designed to protect doctors who prescribe abortion medication from states without bans.

“Texas continues to try to meddle in the provision of safe, legal, and affordable reproductive health care nationwide,” says Julie Kay, the former executive director for the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine. “Telemedicine abortion is a modern and effective way to provide care.”

At the same time, former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell, who led the push for the state’s current abortion restrictions, has announced a lawsuit filed on behalf of a Texas woman who alleges the father of the child she was expecting slipped abortion medication into her hot chocolate, leading her to lose her pregnancy.

Similar to the proposed legislation, this lawsuit targets shield laws in other states meant to protect physicians who provided the abortion pills in the plaintiff’s case. The lawsuit is filed in federal court and names a nonprofit group that the plaintiff claims helped the father obtain medication, Aid Access, which is based in the Netherlands.

According to the civil lawsuit, the father “obtained these drugs from Aid Access, a criminal organization that illegally ships abortion pills into Texas and other jurisdictions where abortion has been outlawed.”

Aid Access and the father have not been criminally charged.

On its website, Aid Access says it has facilitated over 200,000 online abortions to women in the US since 2018. In some cases, the group relies on telemedicine shield laws, such as ones enacted in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, and Washington, to fulfill orders and mail them to recipients in states with bans.

Aid Access founder Dr. Rebecca Gomperts previously told CBS News the service is legal in all the jurisdictions in which it operates.

“Where I work from, it’s legal to prescribe the medications. And so I’ll do that. And the pharmacy that I refer to is allowed to mail the medicines, on a prescription of a doctor, to the women. So (the Texas law) has no impact on what we do,” Gomperts said.

Aid Access and the father have not responded to the filing as of Monday morning.

Jonathan Mitchell declined to comment for this story.

Haley Ott contributed reporting.

Continue Reading…

The National Guard Is Coming to DC

Residents of Washington, DC, where crime rates have consistently fallen, can soon expect to see the National Guard patrolling the streets as a part of President Trump’s claims that violent crime is rampant in the capital. The plan, which Trump celebrated as a liberation, will also reportedly include 120 temporarily reassigned FBI agents to assist with nighttime patrols. “Crime, Savagery, Filth, and Scum will DISAPPEAR. I will, MAKE OUR CAPITAL GREAT AGAIN!” the president said on social media.

The move follows the president’s militarization of Los Angeles, where over 4,000 National Guard members and at least 700 Marines were deployed to crush the largely peaceful demonstrations protesting the administration’s immigration raids. In DC, Trump appears to be motivated to take action because of something slightly odder: an incident involving a government employee known, mostly, as “Big Balls.”

Confused? Here are some basic things to know about DC’s federal takeover—and our president’s penchant for an outsized, exceedingly theatrical police response.

I’m sorry. Who the hell is “Big Balls,” and why are they in the same sentence as the National Guard?

“Big Balls” refers to the singular man, 19-year-old Edward Coristine, a former high-profile DOGE staffer. Though he quit the government once Elon Musk left, it appears as though Coristine was still hanging around DC when he became the victim of an assault and attempted carjacking last week. Police arrested two 15-year-olds who were seen fleeing the scene. The incident sparked a furious response from Trump, who has since seized on the assault to portray DC as a crime-infested hellhole.

This has led to a general crescendo and push for pro-cop measures. In his news conference on Monday, Trump said that he intended to take aim at DC’s crime laws. The US Attorney for DC, Jeanine Pirro, is also calling to reverse laws that allow people to seek reduced sentences if they are under the age of 25.

Wait, but that’s one—yes, violent—crime related to Big Balls. Is DC actually having a broad problem?

Overall crime in DC, including carjackings, has been steadily dropping. In fact, officials cited a 30-year low for violent crime back in January. “Any comparison to a war-torn country is hyperbolic and false,” DC Mayor Muriel Bowser said on Sunday in response to Trump’s characterization.

Interestingly enough, while Trump portrays DC as crime-ridden, the Trump administration is also cutting $20 million in security funding for the nation’s capital.

So, what will Trump’s federal takeover look like?

Trump on Monday compared his plans for DC to his actions at the US-Mexico border. “I’m officially invoking Section 740 of the Home Rule Act,” he said before rattling off several false statistics about carjackings and invoking “drugged-out maniacs” and “caravans of mass youth.” With this crackdown, Trump has explicitly stated his intention to target the city’s homeless population.

Speaking to reporters in the room, Trump framed the deployment as beneficial to them, too. “You don’t want to be raped, shot, and killed,” he said.

“You spit, and we hit,” Trump continued, referring to young people he claimed he witnessed spitting on law enforcement officials.

We already have a preview of what such an intense escalation in police presence will bring to DC. Here’s what happened on Sunday as the FBI started to scatter across the city, according to NPR: “At one intersection, a minor traffic accident between a car and a moped brought at least two dozen agents running, some wearing masks and one carrying a rifle. Local DC Metropolitan police were also on scene.”

Tell me more about Section 740 of the Home Rule Act.

It allows the president to assume authority over the DC Metropolitan Police Department in the case of an emergency. As we saw in LA, at the border, and beyond, Trump has a habit of stretching what qualifies as an “emergency” to fit his political agenda—and to the point of utter meaninglessness.

That sounds terrifying. I feel like I’ve heard Trump complaining about DC for a while.

Yes, the president has long claimed, again, without merit, that there isn’t enough of a police footprint in DC. That it’s gone to hell. That there’s too much graffiti. That it demands a Trumpian takeover.

That takeover is now here. “You’ll have more police and you’ll be so happy,” Trump said on Monday.

Continue Reading…

Trump’s Ruthless Cuts Have Left Our National Parks in “Survival Mode”

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

Across America’s fabled but overstretched national parks, unusual scenes are playing out this summer following budget cuts by Donald Trump’s administration. Archeologists are staffing ticket booths, ecologists are covering visitor centers, and the superintendents of parks are even cleaning the toilets.

The National Park Service (NPS), responsible for maintaining cherished wildernesses and sites of cultural importance from Yellowstone to the Statue of Liberty, has lost a quarter of its permanent staff since Trump took office in January, with the administration seeking to gut the service’s budget by a third.

“I’m cleaning the bathroom on a weekly basis now because there’s no one else to do it,” said one park superintendent

But the administration has also ordered parks to remain open and accessible to the public, meaning the NPS has had to scramble remaining staff into public-facing roles to maintain appearances to the crowds of visitors. This has meant much of the behind-the-scenes work to protect endangered species, battle invasive plants, fix crumbling infrastructure, or plan for the future needs of the US’s trove of natural wonders has been jettisoned.

“It’s nearly impossible to do the leadership role expected of me,” said one superintendent who heads a park in the western US who didn’t want to be named for fear of retribution from the administration.

“I’m doing everything now. That means I regularly have to make sure the doors are open, I have to run the visitor center, I have to clean the bathrooms. I’d say I’m cleaning the bathroom on a weekly basis now because there’s no one else to do it.”

This sort of triage situation is occurring across the 433 sites and 85 million acres—including 63 national parks and an array of battlefields, monuments and cultural sites—that make up the National Park system in the US, multiple current and former NPS staff have told the Guardian, risking long-term degradation of prized parks.

“It’s frustrating to realize you can’t execute your talents to be the best steward of these public resources because we are just trying to keep the parks open. We are just in survival mode,” said the park superintendent, who added that they are considering leaving the NPS; under Trump, more than 100 superintendents have already departed the service.

“For the public, it’s hard to understand. People will say: ‘Why would you mess with national parks? They were doing just fine, they are America’s best idea.’”

In one of his first actions as president, Trump slashed the NPS workforce by 1,000 people, an action known as the “Valentine’s Day massacre” at the agency, as part of a broader effort to shrink the federal workforce. Thousands of others have left the park service since this cull via early retirements or resignations, while some of those who remain have organized as “resistance rangers,” even launching an anonymous podcast.

Doug Burgum, Trump’s secretary of the interior, has said that the agency can be slimmed down while still maintaining services such as campgrounds, bathrooms and visitor centers. “I want more people in the parks, whether they’re driving a snowplow in the wintertime or whether they’re working with [an] interpreter in the summertime or they’re doing trail work,” Burgum told a Senate hearing in June. “I want more of that. I want less overhead.”

But even as staff are pressed into frontline roles, gaps are appearing that critics say can endanger safety. All 13 lifeguard positions are vacant at the Assateague Island national seashore in Maryland and Virginia, according to advocacy group the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), a site where a man drowned last week.

Understaffing encompasses more than 50 vacancies, including senior leadership roles across three national park sites in Boston, the loss of 60 staff from regional NPS offices in Alaska, and the departure of half of all employees from the Big Bend national park in Texas, according to the NPCA.

“It’s a Potemkin village scenario where the public can’t see things falling apart behind the scenes.”

A history center at Yosemite was forced to close after several artifacts were stolen, a symptom of low staffing, according to the association. It said about 4,000 staff have left in total, nearly a quarter of the total NPS workforce, with potential further cuts if the administration pushes ahead with mass firings, called a reduction in force.

“Some parks have lost as much as a third of their staff and it’s difficult or impossible to keep frontline visitor services when that happens,” said John Garder, a senior director at NPCA. Garder said some parks have shortened visitor center hours, with long lines at entrance gates and cuts to tasks that mostly occur out of sight from tourists, such as law enforcement, archeological and ecological work.

“This is not sustainable in the short term and certainly not in the long term as visitors start to notice the lack of maintenance and work on landscapes,” Garder said. “What is important to visitors is healthy ecosystems and cultural landscapes, whereas this administration sees these places more like theme parks than national parks. It’s a Potemkin village scenario where the public can’t see things falling apart behind the scenes.”

One current NPS employee who works at Yosemite said that law enforcement is now so overstretched that “people can wreck the park with no consequence” and that visitors are doing potentially dangerous things such as not properly storing their food. “That’s an issue because we have bears here and we don’t want bears eating people food because they can get aggressive,” the staffer said.

“I worry the park will degrade to the point where safety is a problem. I don’t think visitors notice yet but they will soon,” the staffer added. “We are all doing jobs outside the scope of our roles. People are stepping up to fill the gaps but everyone is on the fast track to burnout.”

The Trump administration has imposed a hiring freeze upon the NPS but has allowed for nearly 8,000 seasonal hires, although barely half of this total has been achieved before the summer peak. Last year, a record 331 million visits were made to national parks—a record—and a new high mark may be reached again in 2025.

“We’ve successfully hired thousands of seasonals and in most parks, staffing is on par with last year,” an NPS spokesperson said. “As in other years, we are working hard to make it another great year for visitors. Our employees are hard-working, experienced problem-solvers and it’s not unusual for them to adapt to changing conditions.”

“It’s not unusual or unique to this year for national park employees to work around obstacles to ensure we provide memorable experiences,” the spokesperson added, when asked about the superintendent cleaning toilets. “Rangers have always worn multiple hats.”

The spokesperson added that lifeguard shortages such as at Assateague “are a nationwide concern even outside of our public lands” and said it was important for people to understand the risks of riptides.

A focus on seasonal roles and public-facing positions threatens to reorient national parks to being mere facades for tourists rather than sustainable, ecologically rich places connected to local communities, some park staff warned.

“Are we such weak, fragile people that we can’t view the full length and breadth of our history?”

“Keeping these iconic places open is an ongoing process of protection, preservation, and maintenance, and it’s scary and chilling to think about that being eliminated along with future planning,” said Marisa, who was an NPS employee of a regional support office until last month and did not want to give her full name. “The push is to keep up this facade for visitors that things are normal but that’s not the case. There’s a targeting of the functions that sustain the agency.”

National parks, widely beloved by the American public and long seen as a rare bastion of bipartisanship in a fractured country, have also been dragged into the culture wars by the Trump administration. Signs have been erected in each of the parks asking visitors to report any materials that are “negative about either past or living Americans or that fail to emphasize the beauty, grandeur, and abundance of landscapes and other natural features.”

The NPS will be reviewing signage from this public feedback and targeting “interpretive materials that disproportionately emphasize negative aspects of US history or historical figures,” an agency spokesperson said.

However, park staff have said many of the responses, sent via a QR code on the signs, suggest the public is reluctant to scrub away uncomfortable truths such as the US’s legacy of slavery or mistreatment of tribal people. “Are we such weak, fragile people that we can’t view the full length and breadth of our history?” reads one of the responses from a visitor to Muir Woods, California, and seen by the Guardian. “Are we so afraid that we have to hide factual history from the telling of our past? Oh, please!!”

Further, albeit milder, pushback is coming from Congress. While the White House’s suggested budget for next year demands a 30 percent cut in NPS funding, a reduction that would decimate many of the agency’s core functions, Republicans in Congress have been more circumspect, drafting proposals that would trim the budget by far less.

“There is deep concern among the public about what’s happening to our national parks,” Garder said. “There is concern in Congress, too, although more needs to be done to restore staffing levels and prevent the selloff of federal land.”

But even if further steep cuts are averted and parks cope with this summer’s crush of visitors, lasting damage may have already been inflicted upon America’s best idea. “This is not a normal situation,” said Kevin Heatley, who resigned as superintendent of Oregon’s Crater Lake national park in June due to staff losses. “This is a paradigm shift that is having repercussions that will last for at least a generation.”

Continue Reading…

No Showers, Sleeping on Concrete Floors: The “Squalid” Conditions for Immigrants in NYC

A new class-action lawsuit filed by a coalition of immigration advocacy groups alleges that undocumented immigrants have been detained in “crowded, squalid, and punitive conditions” in New York City.

The complaint paints a bleak picture of life inside the holding facility, confirming details previously published in articles by Gothamist and the New York Times, which the lawsuit also cites. It says the facility lacks beds, forcing those detained to sleep on the concrete flood—with the lights on—and sometimes next to toilets, or sitting upright due to lack of space. Immigrants detained have also been denied access to showers, medications, and hygiene products. In one case, a stroke survivor had “dangerously high blood pressure” after he did not receive his medication; in another, a woman who had her period was not able to receive any menstrual products and had to wear her blood-soaked clothes for the entire time she was detained.

Donna Lieberman, executive director at the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the facility “an inhumane disaster that has no place in our immigration system” in a statement.

According to the lawsuit, immigrants held at 26 Federal Plaza in lower Manhattan—a building that houses a federal immigration court on one floor and a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) New York field office on another—are being held in conditions contrary to ICE’s own policies.

The complaint alleges that some of the immigrants have been held in the short-term holding facility for as long as a week, even though ICE stipulates they should not be held in such spaces for longer than 12 hours. (Data from the Deportation Data Project shows that in May and June, immigrants were held for an average of 29 hours at the facility, and that 81 people were detained there for four or more days at a time over those two months.)

The lawsuit also notes that immigrants have received only two small meals per day at most, even though ICE says detainees should receive meals at least every six hours, and that those detained have been denied access to communicate freely and confidentially with their attorneys, as stipulated by the First and Fifth amendments of the Constitution.

The legal action comes as 26 Federal Plaza has been under scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers and immigrants’ rights advocates. Law enforcement officials have arrested multiple immigrants at the building after their court hearings. New York City Comptroller and ex-mayoral candidate Brad Lander memorably got arrested there as he tried to escort an immigrant out and was swarmed by ICE. And nine Democratic members of Congress representing New York City repeatedly demanded entry to the ICE facility at 26 Federal Plaza earlier this summer, to no avail.

The lawsuit was filed Friday in the Southern District of New York and names ICE, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, and Acting Director of ICE Todd Lyons among the defendants.

Sergio Alberto Barco Mercado, who was detained in the facility Friday after a scheduled court appearance and has subsequently been denied access to his attorney, is named as the plaintiff, along with everyone else currently detained there. Spokespeople for ICE and New York City Mayor Eric Adams did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“Any claim that there is overcrowding or subprime conditions at ICE facilities are categorically false,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.

Continue Reading…

Dr. Phil Opens Up About His Role In Trump’s Police State

Dr. Phil McGraw, the daytime television psychologist-turned-Trump surrogate, really wants you to believe a ludicrous claim: He is just not that into politics.

“I don’t think I’m qualified to talk about politics,” he told the New York Times, in a new profile published on Sunday.

This is absurd.

As my colleagues Inae Oh and Isabela Dias have written, Dr. Phil has helped the Trump administration sell its mass deportations by making televised content out of their raids. As the Trump administration uses cruelty—and publicizes it—to push for self-deportation, Dr. Phil’s broadcasts are important.

As Isabela documented in January, the daytime host has gone along with ICE raids, in faux-documentary style reports, often parrotting government talking points without investigation. “This truly is a targeted ICE mission,” McGraw tells viewers, “they’re not sweeping neighborhoods like people are trying to imply.” The truth? That day, ICE arrested 1,179 people nationwide, according to NBC News, just half of whom were deemed “criminal arrests.”

A month before the raid, McGraw reportedly brokered a friendly meeting between Homan and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, after which Adams announced he would alter sanctuary city laws; this allowed local law enforcement to work more closely with the federal government on immigration enforcement.

And as my colleague Mark Follman has written, McGraw also lent credence to Trump’s baseless claims that former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris somehow benefited from his attempted assassination in Butler, Pennsylvania, last year. (“I’m not saying they wanted you to get shot,” McGraw said in that interview, “but do you think it was OK with them if you did?”) More recently, McGraw appeared alongside Trump in Texas, in the wake of last month’s tragic floods that killed more than 130 people, including more than two dozen kids and counselors at a summer camp; Trump also appointed McGraw to a (so-called) Religious Liberty Commission.

Despite all this, McGraw refused to tell the Times whether or not he voted for the current president. (“When people ask me about that, I ask them if they’ve listened to what I said,” he said. “Did you?”) McGraw also claimed that, despite his appearance at last fall’s Trump rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City, he would have appeared at a rally with Harris, the Democratic nominee, but that her team stopped following up with him in the midst of discussions. (Harris’s spokespeople told the newspaper they were not aware of any such conversations.)

The main thing that the host’s non-answers shine a light on is how sensitive he seems to be to criticism about his support for Trump’s policies.

This past week, when Bill Maher confronted McGraw about why he joined ICE raids, he claimed that it was “bullshit” that he, or ICE, were responsible for “separating families.”

Bill Maher humiliating Dr. Phil: "Why are you going on these ICE raids? You're a guy who we know for so many years who has been working to put families together, to bring families who are apart and heal them. And now you're going on raids with people who are literally separating… pic.twitter.com/RXwBuBDqcb

— Blue Georgia (@BlueATLGeorgia) August 9, 2025

But the Trump administration has continued to separate families.

And as Alida Garcia, an organizer and former immigration official under Biden, told the Times: “When you are riding along with the government, they are putting you on a publicity tour. He is participating as basically a propaganda machine for ICE.”

Continue Reading…

The Unlikely Coalition Fighting to Keep Energy Star Labels on Your Appliances

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

When the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to eliminate the Energy Star program became public, pushback from environmental groups was expected. The government-funded labeling system helps consumers identify energy-efficient products and practices, saving them $40 billion annually in energy costs. Since its founding in 1992, Energy Star has helped avoid at least 4 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions and has been lauded as one of the most effective decarbonization tools in U.S. history.

But over the last few months, a broad and unexpected coalition of industry groups has come out in support of the program. They range from the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Home Builders to the Spray Foam Coalition, American Bakers Association, and the Pool and Hot Tub Alliance. The American Chemistry Council regularly fights the EPA’s regulation of power plants, and the Pool and Hot Tub Alliance’s previous lobbying efforts have promoted natural gas use in homes. Now, they find themselves aligned with environmental groups like the Sierra Club in defending Energy Star.

It’s an “interesting bedfellows” situation, said Justin Koscher, president of the Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association, which represents manufacturers of a type of rigid insulation used mostly in commercial roofing projects. “It’s not too often you get all of those groups saying the exact same thing on one particular issue.”

The Energy Star program is one of those prime examples of where government gets it right.”

Most Americans recognize Energy Star from the iconic cyan-and-white logo on appliances like light fixtures, computers, and refrigerators, signaling that a third party has certified that the product uses less energy than other comparable options. But entire homes and buildings can also be certified as energy-efficient, and the Energy Star Portfolio Manager helps building managers track energy use.

Residential and commercial buildings combined make up about a third of the country’s total energy use, and nearly a quarter of all commercial buildings in the country use the tool. Energy Star incentivizes energy-efficient building practices, guides appliance choice, and drives demand for products like insulation. Koscher worries that if Energy Star disappears, so might the incentive.

Energy Star Portfolio Manager is also the basis for how cities and counties across the nation measure whether buildings within their borders are complying with local-level energy-efficiency regulations. Almost 50 municipalities—and a few entire states—rely on the program, according to the Energy Star website. If Energy Star is privatized or eliminated, there’s currently no adequate replacement, said Paula Cino of the National Multifamily Housing Council, a group representing apartment building owners, developers, and managers.

Energy Star certification can be good for landlords’ bottom line. One study found that after an office building earns the label, rents in the building go up even as utility costs—an indicator of how much energy the building is using—remain unchanged. That suggests the program may be boosting the market value of already-efficient buildings without necessarily reducing energy use. Since the program is voluntary, its opt-in nature also appeals to organizations that prefer it over stricter, local electrification mandates. In March, Cino’s group sent a letter to Trump administration officials asking to roll back a lengthy slate of building and appliance efficiency standards. But even so, the group sees value in Energy Star’s tools.

“There is still a tremendous need for building owners to be able to understand how their building is using energy, and that is expressly what Energy Star Portfolio Manager provides for the business community,” Cino said.

Support for Energy Star in Congress is bipartisan. In July, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $36 million in funding for the program. The House Appropriations Committee also passed a bill that sets Energy Star’s funding floor for the upcoming year at $32 million. Both are a far cry from the White House’s stated interest in zeroing out funding for Energy Star altogether. But final approval of funding appropriations for the EPA is still months away.

In the meantime, Koscher, the insulation representative, is waiting to see how the future of Energy Star impacts his business. “The Energy Star program is one of those prime examples of where government gets it right,” he said. “We should be looking for more opportunities to create programs like this that deliver a significant return on investment on taxpayer dollars, not doing less of it.”

Continue Reading…

The CDC Shooter Was Obsessed With Vaccine Conspiracy Theories. RFK Jr. Was Predictably Slow to Respond.

The gunman who opened fire on the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday was, according to law enforcement officials and others who knew him, obsessed with a belief that the coronavirus vaccine had harmed him.

Police said the suspect, 30-year-old Patrick Joseph White, launched his attack from inside a CVS drugstore directly across from the CDC’s main entrance in Atlanta. No CDC employees or civilians were injured, but he struck several CDC buildings and killed a DeKalb County Police officer. White was then found dead in the store, where five guns were recovered, according to a report from the Justice Department. It was unclear whether he killed himself or was wounded in an exchange of gunfire with law enforcement.

The CDC has been at the center of a long-running misinformation campaign about the government’s response to the pandemic. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s secretary of health and human services, has been among the loudest voices in that campaign, once describing Covid vaccines as one of the “deadliest” shots ever made, despite strong evidence that they are effective and safe.

One of White’s neighbors, Nancy Hoalst, who lived near him in Kennesaw, Georgia, told the New York Times on Saturday that White’s obsession with the vaccine came on suddenly about a year ago. “He very deeply believed that vaccines had hurt him, and that they were hurting other people,” she said.

On Friday after the shooting, the Trump administration was relatively quiet, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: The White House had not made a comment, and Kennedy had only reposted a social media statement from CDC Director Susan Monarez about the shooting.

“Do they really hate CDC this much?” Dr. John Brooks, the former chief medical officer for the CDC’s emergency responses to COVID-19, told AJC. They hadn’t even offered “thoughts and prayers at this point,” he said.

On Saturday, the AJC notes, Kennedy went on his personal social media account and shared photos of himself holding a big salmon from a fishing trip. Later in the day, following more complaints, his official account on X finally shared a message of support for CDC employees. “We know how deeply unsettling this is, particularly for those working in Atlanta,” the statement says. “The shock and uncertainty that follow incidents like this are real, and they affect us all in different ways. We want everyone to know, you’re not alone. Leadership is in close coordination with CDC teams to ensure support is available on the ground.”

Previously, Kennedy has referred to the CDC as “a cesspool of corruption” and accused CDC employees of trying to hide from the public how he believes vaccines harm children. Earlier this week, he canceled almost $500 million in grants and contracts for work on mRNA vaccines, the technology used for some Covid shots. Check out reporting by my colleagues Kiera Butler and Anna Merlan for more on the health secretary’s long history of anti-vaccine comments.

Continue Reading…

Trump’s Defense Secretary Seems to Admire Men Who Want to Stop Women From Voting

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is a fan of a Christian nationalist pastor who believes women should no longer be allowed to vote.

On Thursday, Hegseth, who oversees the US military, reposted a CNN video on the social media site X about Doug Wilson, co-founder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches. The video notes that Wilson views women as subservient to men and says that in his ideal Christian society, they would not be able to cast ballots.

Hegseth, according to the clip, is one of Wilson’s parishioners. He “very much appreciates many of Mr. Wilson’s writings and teachings,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said Friday when asked about the secretary’s repost.

Another pastor interviewed in the video said he would support repealing the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. A third said he would like for voting to be conducted as “households,” with the man casting the ballot. In the video, Hegseth is shown attending a service at a church affiliated with Wilson.

The defense secretary’s views on women’s political rights have made news in the past. In January, ahead of his confirmation hearing, Hegseth’s ex-sister-in-law filed an affidavit alleging that Hegseth said “women should not have the right to vote” and “should not work.” (The affidavit also alleged Hegseth once “got very drunk” and “repeatedly shouted ‘No means yes!'” An attorney for Hegseth denied the allegations, according to NBC.) During the confirmation hearing, Hegseth was asked about comments he’d made in 2024 stating that women should not be allowed to serve in military combat roles; he walked that stance back and said he would not ban them from fighting if confirmed. (In the CNN video, Pastor Wilson, a veteran, shares that he does not believe women should hold certain leadership positions in the military.)

The defense secretary, of course, is not the only Trump supporter to have suggested that important work like voting is better left to men. In 2024, John McEntee, a senior adviser for Project 2025 and Trump’s former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, shared a video of himself joking that “the 19th might have to go.” “So I guess they misunderstood when we said we wanted mail-only voting. We meant male—M-A-L-E,” he says before smiling. In 2022, CNN reported that a Michigan candidate for the US House who was backed by Trump made comments in the 2000s praising a group that argued women’s suffrage turned the United States into “a totalitarian state.” (A spokesperson for the candidate, John Gibbs, said he did not actually hold those beliefs and had been merely trying “to provoke the left.”)

These “jokes” and casual comments could have serious consequences. In April, the House passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, which would require voters to prove their citizenship with documents like a birth certificate or a US passport. Critics worry the change, if passed by the Senate, would block many married women from voting—because tens of millions of women don’t have birth certificates that match the surnames they adopted from their spouses, and more than half of Americans don’t have a passport. “This voter suppression bill will disenfranchise millions of voters, especially married women,” warned Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota in a social media post in April.

Where does Trump stand on all this? He hasn’t commented on Hegseth’s recent social media activity yet, but he backs the SAVE Act. And when he celebrated the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment’s ratification in 2020, he couldn’t help but sneak in a few patronizing comments, referring to one of the women next to him as “honey” and inviting another to share her views on voting rights—only to qualify the invitation: “Do you have an opinion on it?” he asked Cleta Mitchell, an attorney and former member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. “And if it’s not my opinion,” he joked before she could fully respond, “please don’t say it.”

Continue Reading…

She Ate a Poppy Seed Salad. Child Services Took Her Baby.

Pregnant with her fifth child, Susan Horton had a lot of confidence in her parenting abilities. Then she ate a salad from Costco: an “everything” chopped salad kit with poppy seeds. When she went to the hospital to give birth the next day, she tested positive for opiates. Horton told doctors that it must have been the poppy seeds, but she couldn’t convince them it was true. She was reported to child welfare authorities, and a judge removed Horton’s newborn from her care.

“They had a singular piece of evidence,” Horton said, “and it was wrong.”

Listen to this week’s Reveal in the player above.

Hospitals across the country routinely drug test people coming in to give birth. But the tests many hospitals use are notoriously imprecise, with false positive rates of up to 50 percent for some drugs. People taking over-the-counter cold medicine or prescribed medications can test positive for methamphetamine or opiates.This week on Reveal, our collaboration with The Marshall Project investigates why parents across the country are being reported to child protective services over inaccurate drug test results. Reporter Shoshana Walter digs into the cases of women who were separated from their babies after a pee-in-a-cup drug test triggered a cascade of events they couldn’t control.

Continue Reading…

Trump’s Energy Chief, a Former Fracking CEO, Aims to Tinker With Key Climate Reports

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

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright is facing growing criticism from scientists who say their “worst fears” were realized when Wright revealed that the Trump administration would “update” the US’s premier climate crisis reports.

Wright, a former oil and gas executive, told CNN’s Kaitlin Collins earlier this week that the administration was reviewing national climate assessment reports published by past governments.

Produced by scientists and peer-reviewed, there have been five national climate assessment (NCA) reports since 2000 and they are considered the gold standard report of global heating and its impacts on human health, agriculture, water supplies and air pollution.

“We’re reviewing them, and we will come out with updated reports on those and with comments on those reports,” said Wright, who is one of the main supporters of the administration’s “drill, baby, drill” agenda to boost fossil fuels, which are the primary cause of the climate crisis.

Wright was speaking days after his agency, the Department of Energy, produced a report claiming concern over the climate crisis was overblown. That energy department report was slammed by scientists for being a “farce” full of misinformation.

“Lying about that [climate risk] reality doesn’t change it; it just leaves people in harm’s way. “

Speaking to CNN about the national climate assessment reports, Wright claimed they “weren’t fair in broad-based assessments of climate change.” He added: “When you get into departments and look at stuff that’s there and you find stuff that’s objectionable, you want to fix it,” he said.

In recent weeks the Trump administration deleted the website that hosted the periodic, legally mandated, national climate assessments. (The most recent report can be read in full on the Guardian website.)

Asked about Wright’s comments on the national climate assessment reports, respected climate scientist Michael Mann said in an emailed comment to the Guardian: “This is exactly what Joseph Stalin did.”

In a statement on Thursday, Rachel Cleetus, policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and one of the authors of the sixth NCA report due in 2028 that the administration dismissed earlier this year, said she was dismayed by Wright’s comments: “Secretary Wright just confirmed our worst fears—that this administration plans to not just bury the scientific evidence but replace it with outright lies to downplay the worsening climate crisis and evade responsibility for addressing it.”

“The process for developing the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment reports is rigorous, ” she added, “with federal agencies and hundreds of scientists constructing this solid scientific foundation that decision makers, businesses and the public rely on to stay safe in a world made more perilous each day by climate change.”

“People across the country are already reeling from climate-fueled worsening heatwaves, floods, wildfires and storms. Lying about that reality doesn’t change it; it just leaves people in harm’s way. We urge Congress to intervene to safeguard the integrity of the NCA reports so they remain vital, lifesaving tools in the fight against climate change.”

The NCA reports are published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a Department of Energy spokesperson told CNN that Wright was “not suggesting he personally would be altering past reports.”

In May, the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union said they would join forces to produce peer-reviewed research on the climate crisis’ impact after the NCA contributors for the 2028 publication were dismissed.

The Energy Department’s climate report last week was published on the same day the Environmental Protection Agency announced a proposal to undo the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which allows the agency to limit planet-heating pollution from cars and trucks, power plants, and other industrial sources.

This raised concerns that the Trump administration was attempting to scrap almost all pollution regulations in steps likely to trigger battles in the courts in the coming years.

Continue Reading…

“It’s Not Just a Texas Problem. It’s an American Problem.”

A lot of people want to get a hold of James Talarico these days. The 36-year-old Texas state representative and seminary student is a rising Democratic star. You—like 5.6 million others—may have seen him in your social-media feed, calling a proposal to place the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom “un-Christian” and the mark of a “dead religion.” Or perhaps you caught his recent two-and-a-half-hour conversation with Joe Rogan—who told him he should run for president. (He’s thinking about running for Senate.)

He’s also on the lam. The state speaker of the house ordered arrest warrants for Talarico and dozens of Democrats who left the state last weekend to prevent a vote on a mid-decade redistricting plan that would likely give Republicans five more congressional seats. “Right before we got on the flight to leave Texas, we all gathered in an interfaith prayer, holding each other’s hands, because this is not just a political struggle, it’s also a spiritual struggle,” Talarico says. I spoke to the legislator via Zoom from an undisclosed location outside Chicago on Thursday, hours after Republican Sen. John Cornyn—a man he may end up running against next fall—announced that the Trump administration would assign FBI agents to help “hold these supposed lawmakers accountable.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Tim Murphy: Sen. John Cornyn says the FBI has agreed to help locate you. How does it feel to officially be wanted by the FBI?

James Talarico: Well, I mean, I think Senator Cornyn is trying to stay relevant in his primary battle with Ken Paxton. So I understand the gimmick, but I think it should trouble us that any politician is trying to use the resources of the state to arrest or remove duly elected legislators who are exercising their constitutional right to break quorum. The Texas State Constitution gives us this tool in our toolbox as the minority to check the abuses of the majority, and so we’re not doing anything wrong. And there’s about 200 years of history in this country of legislators breaking quorum, including Abraham Lincoln. You know, we’re here in Illinois, in the Land of Lincoln. And that’s appropriate because, because Abraham Lincoln broke quorum in 1840 as a state senator by jumping out of the window of the Illinois State Capitol. And thankfully, I didn’t have to jump out of any windows back in Texas. But this is not unusual. It is a tool the minority has. And so for Greg Abbott to threaten to remove us from office, for Ken Paxton and John Cornyn to be threatening our arrest, it is unacceptable in a democracy, and this is a page out of an authoritarian playbook we’ve seen in other countries, and it should be alarming to all of us, regardless of our political party.

TM: So what’s at stake here? Why are you here—wherever you are?

JT: Trump is asking Texas Republicans to redraw the maps that they just drew in 2021 to get him five more seats to protect his majority in Congress, because he’s worried about losing it in the next election, and it’s because his policies are unpopular, right? He’s starting wars and wrecking the economy. He’s protecting pedophiles. He’s kicking millions of people off their health care to fund tax breaks for billionaires, and those policies deserve to be evaluated by the American people and the only way we can hold the most powerful politician our country accountable is through free and fair elections, especially in the midterms, and that’s what’s at stake here. And it’s not just a Texas problem. It’s an American problem.

TM: What persuaded you to actually leave? Because it seems like there was a bit of debate among Democrats, and not all of your colleagues actually have left the state.

JT: When Donald Trump asked Georgia Republicans to find him 11,000 more votes after he lost the 2020 election, they said, No, sir. But when Trump asked Texas Republicans to find him five more congressional seats ahead of the 2026 elections, they said, How about Thursday? So the responsibility to defend and fix this representative democracy of ours fell to Texas Democrats, and 57 of us answered the call, and we’re proud to do so, regardless of what consequences we may face.

TM: Can you tell me a little bit about where you are, as much as you’re able to say?

JT: Well, we’re here in Illinois, and in a nondescript hotel room, as you can see, and that’s for security reasons. As you may have read, we had a bomb threat called into our hotel, and Ken Paxton has put out a tweet asking his followers to “hunt us down.” And so, you know, we’re trying to keep all of our members safe, all of our staff members safe, as we do this important work of fixing this democracy of ours so that it can work for every Texan and every American.

TM: What was that bomb threat like?

JT: It was early in the morning. I woke up to the bomb threat, and a lot of my colleagues did. And it was certainly scary, because we all had to evacuate, and law enforcement swarmed the premises, and we were outside for hours. But I think it’s a reminder that what we’re doing is very important. They wouldn’t be trying to bomb you if you’re not doing something consequential. And we feel that we are at the front lines of protecting and hopefully advancing the American experiment, because if people—Democrats, independents and Republicans alike—can’t hold their elected officials accountable in a midterm election, if they’re not able to change their government from the bottom up, if they’re not able to elect the representatives of their choice, then we no longer have representative democracy and and we’re not ready to accept that.

TM: Texas legislators make something like $7,200 a year. You’re not swimming in inherited wealth or anything like that. Are you putting everything on your card while you’re up here or is somebody else paying for the hotel room? How does this work financially?

JT: It depends. You know, we’re facing financial penalties, fines from the state legislature for breaking quorum. It’s about $500 a day. Those we’re going to pay ourselves, which certainly won’t be easy to do depending how long this lasts, but we will be paying those fines ourselves. Travel, food, lodging—that we’re able to pay out of our campaign accounts, out of the caucus’ account. And thankfully, you know, we have been flooded with grassroots donations from all across Texas, from all across America. You know, $5, $10, $15—regular people funding this operation of ours. And it’s appropriate because we’re fighting for the people, not just Democrats, but independents and Republicans too, and it’s appropriate that those people are the ones funding this effort.

TM: What did you expect from this episode, versus what you’ve gotten? Because it seems a bit more intense than what you went through in 2021.

JT: I think that’s right. I’ve been frankly shocked at how Texas Republicans have conducted themselves, you know, endangering the safety of their colleagues, threatening to remove those colleagues from their duly elected positions and then, you know, people like Donald Trump sending in the FBI to find us. So that kind of rhetoric, those kind of actions, should be deeply disturbing to every American, regardless of their political affiliation, because we’ve seen how this authoritarian playbook works out in other countries, and it doesn’t lead anywhere good.

TM: There’s been a lot of legal threats swirling around this, from Ken Paxton, John Cornyn, Donald Trump, Greg Abbott. How much of this is kind of jockeying for the primary, as you mentioned, and how much of this is like real legal threats that you’re concerned about?

JT: It’s hard to tell. And you know, we think they’re on pretty dubious legal ground but unfortunately, our courts have become highly politicized. They’ve been bought by big money, particularly in Texas, and so it may not matter what the law says. It may just matter what the politics requires, and so we’ll see how this plays out. But my colleagues and I are not going to be deterred. We are here to fight for our constituents and fight for all Texans. We’re here to fight for free and fair elections for every single person in this country and we’re participating in a long American tradition of standing up to bullies, of speaking truth to power, of civil disobedience, of good trouble.

TM: There’s a push to have Democrats respond in kind with redistricting elsewhere. It’s something that Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has called for. Do you think that that’s something that Democrats can actually level the playing field with or is that a losing battle against a party that controls a lot more states?

JT: Our ultimate goal is to get the politics out of redistricting everywhere. We should ban gerrymandering across this country, in every state, red states and blue states alike. It’s why I filed a bill in the Texas legislature to create an independent, citizen led redistricting commission so that voters can choose their politicians instead of politicians choosing their voters. That said, if one side is intent on cheating—which is exactly what Texas Republicans are doing and what Donald Trump is doing by redrawing the maps in the middle of the decade at the direct request of the most powerful man in the country—they are attempting to rig the next election. There’s no other way to describe it. And so if that’s the case, if one side’s going to cheat, all bets are off. And Democrats should not unilaterally disarm, but we should maintain our vision for how we can ultimately fix this democracy so it can work for regular people all over the country.

TM: Do you really think that you can stop this particular redistricting effort from advancing, if you come back and Greg Abbott just calls another session and another session after that?

JT: If every American who took a brave stand throughout our history did it because they knew they were going to win, we’d probably have a very different country right now. Sometimes you have to stand up, even if you’re not sure if you’ll be successful. But I can just tell you, over the last four days of this special session and of this quorum break, we have shined a national, an international spotlight on this power grab in Texas, and that, in and of itself, is a victory. People and the media are talking about this in a way they weren’t before. Sometimes the media needs conflict to be able to report on the news, and so we’re happy to provide that to make sure that all Americans are informed about what’s happening in their name and what’s happening in their government, and how the most powerful politician in the country is trying to rig the upcoming midterm elections. But if we can inspire blue states to respond in kind, if we can inspire acts of courage across the country to stand up to these would be tyrants, then we’re going to consider that a victory.

TM: What would you like to be working on in a special session if you were back in Austin, not not dealing with redistricting?

JT: I think the top of the list is relief for those flood victims and their families in the Texas Hill Country, an area of the state that means a lot to me personally, where I’ve spent a lot of time, where my family has lived, and so we need to get that relief to that community, and we’ve got to prevent a disaster like that from happening ever again in our state. We showed up two weeks ago at the beginning of this special session, and we begged our Republican colleagues to prioritize flood relief and disaster mitigation, and they refused to do so. They held 12 hearings on redistricting, and they held two hearings on flood relief. They didn’t even file a flood bill, and so instead, they put flood victims and their families at the end of the agenda and used them as leverage to try to rig the next election and pass these correct maps. It’s cynical politics at its worst. It’s deeply immoral, and it should outrage all of us, regardless of our party.

TM: You’ve been floated as a candidate for US Senator and governor. Have you narrowed that search at all, or the timeline for that?

JT: Well, I am seriously looking at the US Senate race, but frankly, it’s kind of been put on hold. I was hired by 200,000 people in Central Texas to fight for them at the state capitol. I’m basically their attorney in state government, even though I’m not an attorney, I’m a former teacher. But that’s my job, to defend them and their interests, and that’s what I’m doing by breaking quorum and stopping their voices from being silenced, and I intend on doing this job before I start applying to other jobs. So once we stop this power grab and kill these corrupt maps, I’ll start thinking about other ways I may be able to serve in the future.

Continue Reading…

Relentless Climate Disasters Are Wiping Out Local Businesses

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

The United States is home to millions of small businesses that form the backbone of countless communities. Even during the best of times keeping shops solvent can be a struggle, but when climate-driven disasters strike, the impact on mom-and-pops can be particularly devastating—and prolonged.

“The news coverage has definitely focused on the physical destruction,” said Kyle McCurry. He is the director of public relations for Explore Asheville, an organization that promotes the North Carolina city, which Hurricane Helene pummeled with torrential rain and flooding last fall. “But sometimes what’s less visible is the economic impact on small businesses in our community over time.”

Whether it’s hurricanes, wildfires, heat waves, or ice storms, small businesses are more vulnerable to climate shocks than larger businesses, said Shehryar Nabi, a senior research associate at the Aspen Institute Financial Security Program. He co-wrote a recent report outlining the hurdles small businesses face from severe weather. They can be hobbled by a range of challenges, from limited preparation resources to a lack of post-disaster financing.

“One reason we focused on small businesses here is because of their importance to the US economy,” said Nabi. That was certainly the case in Asheville, a city known for its artists, breweries, and boutiques. Helene not only destroyed homes and upended lives, it sent the region’s economy into a tailspin.

In 2023, McCurry said, visitors to the area spent $2.9 billion. Last year, Helene hit Appalachia right before the busy fall foliage season, when tourists flock to places like Asheville to see the leaves turn. McMurry says the storm, which knocked out some municipal services for weeks, led to a 20 percent to 40 percent drop in annual business revenue.

Ten months later, a slew of businesses haven’t reopened: Vivian’s restaurant, Pleb Urban Winery, and TRVE Brewery, to name a few. Another was New Origin Brewery, which started pouring in 2021 and soon had fans lauding it as their favorite brewery in Asheville. Although the floodwaters inundated the business, the bulk of the destruction occurred when railroad cars floated off nearby tracks and crashed into the building.

“There’s not a way to get money for damages in that scenario,” said Dan Juhnke, one of New Origin’s founders. Even after maxing out the brewery’s flood insurance claim, it wasn’t enough to cover the damage. The only other option was to take on more debt from the federal Small Business Administration, or SBA, which didn’t seem prudent. Ultimately, Juhnke and his business partner decided to apply for a Federal Emergency Management Agency-funded buyout program that purchases flood-damaged property and limits rebuilding as a way to mitigate the damage from future storms.

“We signed up for it and have been waiting almost a year now,” said Juhnke.

“The natural tendency for many small business owners [is] to be reluctant to really engage with the risks that they’re exposed to.”

McCurry estimated that, overall, around 85 percent of Asheville businesses have reopened in some form, which is relatively good news. According to 2014 national data from FEMA and the Department of Labor, 40 percent of small businesses do not reopen after a natural disaster and another 25 percent shutter within a year.

These waves of impacts are coupled with limited support options for small businesses in both the long and short term. While FEMA has individual and public assistance programs, there is little if any funding for businesses. The SBA often offers low-interest loans, but the paperwork can be burdensome and the money might not start arriving for months.

Only 14 percent of businesses were able to rely on support from the federal government, according to an analysis of the 2021 Small Business Credit Survey conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. “Support makes a meaningful difference,” said Nabi. “For a lot of businesses it is the difference between closing down and surviving, but it doesn’t reach all the businesses that could benefit.”

State and local governments, private lenders, and community fundraising are other potential sources of money. New Origin, for example, raised more than $100,000 via a GoFundMe campaign but fell short of its $300,000 goal. A fund that Explore Asheville established has brought in $2.1 million, which has been awarded to more than 500 businesses.

Still, Nabi said, these avenues don’t usually address one of the toughest challenges facing businesses after a storm: liquidity. Even a month or two of disrupted cash flow can devastate some operations, which is why experts point to pre-disaster planning as one of the most effective steps a business can take to help protect itself.

“Often businesses see contingency planning as a distraction from the core thing they want to do,” said Benjamin Collier, an associate professor in the Department of Risk and Insurance at the Wisconsin School of Business. But things like better understanding your insurance coverage, or where to move inventory in the event of a threat, should be routine steps for business owners and generally aren’t expensive.

“The natural tendency for many small business owners [is] to be reluctant to really engage with the risks that they’re exposed to,” he said. “This is a call to have more buffers and be more cautious.”

Nabi also underlined the importance of planning, but says structural change could help as well. Greater use of parametric insurance, which automatically pays out when a specific event like a disaster happens, would allow quicker access to funds. Shifting more money to pre-disaster preparation could help businesses avoid the worst impacts of a storm, too. “The financing for preparation is limited compared to what’s available post-disaster,” said Nabi.

Pat Nye is the regional director for the Los Angeles Small Business Development Network. Earlier this year the counties he oversees saw historically devastating wildfires, and one thing that he noticed was that unlike with residential properties, insurance companies hadn’t offered small businesses discounts for any improvements they might have made to make their buildings more fire-resilient.

“As it stands, there is no incentive that exists for this work,” said Nye. “A lot of stuff just focuses on homeowners.”

Governments often don’t do enough to include small businesses in their recovery plans either, contends Kristen Fanarakis, the associate director of small business policy and innovation at the nonprofit Milken Institute. She pointed to a landscaper in the Asheville area who spent weeks helping clear debris after Helene without pay and ended up facing eviction. Those are the kind of businesses, she said, that municipalities should be hiring and including in rebuilding efforts.

More broadly, a report Fanarakis wrote called for a cross-agency “small business resilience czar,” standardized disaster assistance forms, and quicker grant dispersal, among other recommendations. She called the current system “very reactionary” and argues for increased attention to not just the immediate impacts of disasters but the long-term economic fallout as well.

“When we think about fortifying small businesses,” she said, “it’s about going beyond a physical structure.”

Continue Reading…

A Doctor In Gaza Describes the Horror of Starvation

In 2018, while on a medical mission near the Gaza border, an Israeli sniper shot Dr. Tarek Loubani in both legs. Despite this, Loubani, an emergency room specialist and activist, has returned to Gaza almost every year from his home in Canada to help treat Palestinians. For the last two months, he has been working out of Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis.

The reports coming out of Gaza over the last month have been grim. Aid groups say a “worst case for famine” is playing out in the strip. The United Nations and humanitarian organizations report that only a fraction of the needed aid has been delivered to a starving population. One in three people have not eaten for days, according to a recent UNICEF report, and 80 percent of deaths of children in the region are due to starvation. A whistleblower told Mother Jones that aid distribution in the region is “abhorrent.”

These reports come in stark contrast to the publicity around efforts by the Trump Administration, including the touting of the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Fund (GHF). Last week, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee and President Trump’s Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff spent more than five hours touring a GHF food distribution site in Rafah, where the UN says more than 1,373 Palestinians have died trying to access aid since late May.

”President Trump and everybody around him belongs in jail. What they have done is to actively support and perpetuate a genocide.”

“Over 100 MILLION meals served in 2 months,” wrote Ambassador Huckabee in a post on X shortly after his trip. This week, Huckabee said that the US would throw in its support to expand the GHF from 4 sites to a total of 16 sites across Gaza. This is despite the Financial Times reporting the sites are “death traps” where hungry Palestinians go for food only to be shot at by the Israeli Defense Forces. (In a statement, the Gaza Humintarian Fund said reports about its failures are part of a “disinformation campaign” and some doctors in the region are “not aiding civilians, they’re aiding Hamas.”)

Dr. Loubani is about seven miles from Rafah. He spoke to Mother Jones last week about conditions on the ground.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

You’ve said that you’ve seen starvation in every patient that you’ve seen. What is that like in medical terms?

So when I first came, I understood that Palestinians hadn’t eaten for two months. But I was in denial about how bad it was. What I saw was that every day, patients were bad. I remember the first time that I saw a little girl, she was eight months old, brought to me—she was sticks and bones and she was dead. And her father had brought her for resuscitation because he assumed there was something we could do.

Realizing this is real… The patients kept getting thinner over the two months I’ve been here, until the point around a month ago, where I had to admit to myself that I’m not seeing any patients with fat anymore. I’m not seeing any patients where I can’t make out their ribs, or I can’t make out their spine.

The starvation, truly, is a hundred percent. What I can tell is that somebody used to be overweight before—you know, you can see how much skin they have or had. But right now every single patient that I see is suffering from some level of malnutrition, and most of the patients that I see are suffering from moderate to severe forms of malnutrition.

Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Ambassador Mike Huckabee just made an unprecedented trip into Gaza, supporting the claim that the Gaza Humanitarian Fund has had 100 million meals served in just two months. Based on what you’ve been seeing, do you find that to be an accurate estimate?

The idea that a hundred million meals have been served is laughable. It would mean that there wouldn’t be such a level of famine, which is clearly not the case.

Palestinians are literally in a death run every single time that the GHF opens. Everything that my patients tell me is that they have to cross Israeli lines while under fire. They have to bunker down, wait until the GHF opens, and some days they don’t.

On the issue of starvation in Gaza, President Trump told Axios that “we want to help people. We want to help them live. We want to get people fed. It is something that should have happened [a] long time ago.” What would you say to President Trump?

President Trump and everybody around him belongs in jail. What they have done is to actively support and perpetuate a genocide. Words with no actions are completely meaningless. President Trump can, with quite literally one phone call, as we saw in January, end this thing; the American government can literally end this thing.

These statements don’t bother me in the sense that I don’t think about them. I don’t wonder about the veracity. I see how fake this kind of news is and how much these people are lying. If Trump genuinely cared about Palestinians, then he wouldn’t be behaving as he’s behaving now.

There is no sane human being who can look at the situation and not see a pile of war crimes and evidence of genocide everywhere that they look at this point. Anyone who doesn’t recognize what’s happening in Gaza as war crimes and a genocide is not serious. They are propagandists and that is it.

The only reason why people wonder if it is genocide is because of the tremendous interest in not declaring a genocide by very important countries—because that triggers legal obligations. Once you call it a genocide, it puts you under obligation. And what we’ve realized now is that for all of these countries that wrote these laws about genocide, they were never actually interested in putting themselves in uncomfortable positions against allies. They just wanted to use them as batons against other countries.

There has been some recent activity of Western countries coming out and expressing their support for recognizing a State of Palestine over the last few weeks, notably France and the United Kingdom. In light of the current state of the state, how does the prospect of this kind of international recognition translate on the ground?

What’s needed is not recognition of a Palestinian state. Palestinians don’t need their state to be recognized. It exists—and it’s happening. What the Palestinians need is for participants like France, Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom to stop arming Israel.

You’ve been to Gaza several times in the past, but after being cleared on this recent trip, what were you expecting to see, and what have you been surprised to see?

I wanna draw you a little picture. I first came to Palestine, to Gaza, in 2011. I have been spending four months a year here ever since, until this war. I’m very, very familiar with this place. I remember making this realization in the 2010s that, oh my God, as bad as it is, and as much as I would always say to myself, it can’t possibly get worse than this, it always got worse because there were always more ways to turn the screws on Palestinians.

So I knew it was gonna be bad when I came. I knew it was gonna be bad. But there is no preparing you for this. During the previous wars, kids got killed. Of course, they got killed. They got crushed. They got bombed. They got shot. But this war, it’s as though the kids are the only targets. There are so many kids, and it’s so devastating, and there’s so little I can do for them. Nothing could have prepared me for that.

In every other war, there has been something missing. In 2014, we ran out of gauze. In 2012, we didn’t have stethoscopes. This war, we’re missing everything. And so what’s different this time on in terms of the the patients is that I have nothing that I can do for most of them, but sit there and watch them die—knowing that even if I can do a little bit to get them to the next step, they’re probably not going to heal well because they’re starving.

That’s the biggest difference for me.

Some readers might be asking themselves, “What can I do?” So, what do you think they could do to perhaps apply pressure to change the situation that’s taking place in Gaza right now?

I think the first thing to recognize is that everything people have done so far has helped. Every protest people have gone to, every letter they’ve written, every donation they’ve made—it has all helped. We think of things in terms of, you know, I’ve been to 10 protests. Why hasn’t it stopped? That’s because we’re not strong enough to make it stop in 10 protests.

But there is also a war of attrition happening, not just in the field, in Gaza, but also politically. So, for example, what the UK is doing right now is directly the result of their weekly protests and their increased organizing. It has been political attrition. Also, the tremendous boycott movement has resulted in economic attrition.

So, I think what this kind of person should look to do is to extract the highest cost possible on Israel and its supporters, like the United States, especially so that they can take an account of how much they’re losing and rethink this—by continuing to make sure that you run people in elections, that you keep it an active political issue, that you protest, that no politician who supports the genocide is comfortable.

Continue Reading…

South Park Comes for Kristi Noem and ICE

If anyone was wondering if South Park was going to ease up on the scathing Trump plot lines, this week’s follow-up offered an answer: Hell no.

On Wednesday night, the adult cartoon ripped into the Trump administration yet again, this time targeting JD Vance and right-wing podcast bros. But the episode’s harshest ridicule was directed at none other than Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who is depicted as a wine-guzzling, Botox-loving, puppy-killing, tyrant as the leader of ICE. (The show spends much time ruthlessly skewering the agency, too.)

The episode, in its specific way, holds a comedic mirror to our cruel reality: ICE’s desperate recruitment efforts, an administration hellbent on disappearing immigrants without due process, and “torture.”

Continue Reading…

“What They Did There Was Torture Us”

After a few hours in the air, Neri Alvarado Borges and the other Venezuelans on a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation flight landed in Honduras. Alvarado was hopeful. He had been detained by ICE in Texas in early February. Told he could face years in detention, he agreed to be deported. It was March 15, and Alvarado assumed he would soon be home.

During the brief stopover in Honduras, Alvarado recalls officials giving him and the other Venezuelans boxes of pizza. “Eat,” they said, “because later on we have another surprise for you.” When the plane landed a second time, an ICE agent told the men, “this is the surprise.” Opening the windows, the men realized they had been sent to El Salvador.

Confused, Alvarado asked why they were not in Venezuela. “Those are orders from the President,” the agent replied. The ICE officer told Alvarado to get off the plane quietly because the guards in El Salvador were different. “They are not like us,” he said. “They are going to treat you badly.”

“They knocked out one of my teeth. They messed up my knees. They messed up my ribs.”

The Trump administration had shipped Alvarado and more than 230 other Venezuelans deprived of due process to a notorious megaprison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. In exchange for roughly $5 million, the Salvadoran government agreed to hold the men, who had been accused with scant or nonexistent evidence of being members of the transnational gang Tren de Aragua.

In March, our reporting showed that Alvarado and others had been targeted because of benign tattoos that had no connection to the criminal group. One of Alvarado’s tattoos is an autism awareness ribbon with the name of his younger brother, Neryelson. Alvarado’s story became emblematic of the cruelty of the Trump administration’s decision to disappear Venezuelan migrants to a foreign gulag, where they were held incommunicado for four months.

In his first media interview since the men were released from CECOT on July 18 as part of a prisoner swap deal, Alvarado described to Mother Jones the nightmare he and the others lived through from the first moment they arrived.

Alvarado, 25, said when the plane landed, Salvadoran police officers dragged him off in shackles and violently pushed him onto a bus as if he were a “trash bag.” As he tried to get his bearings, the officers hit him in the head; they cursed, yelling at him to keep his face down. The men were driven around for about half an hour before arriving at CECOT. “Welcome to El Salvador,” the police said.

As they entered the maximum-security prison, Alvarado remembers being thrown to the floor on his knees. He saw hair everywhere. All around him, guards shaved the men’s heads. (The process was recorded and shared as propaganda by the administration of President Nayib Bukele on social media.) “They grab me by the sweater and they were practically choking me,” Alvarado recalled. “It felt like they were choking me for about 15 to 20 seconds, which were the longest 20 seconds of my life because I felt like I couldn’t breathe.”

The guards gave them five seconds to change into the white prison t-shirt and shorts. If detainees took longer, they were beaten. The Venezuelans were then taken to Module 8, a warehouse-like wing of the prison with 32 cells. On the way, Alvarado said a guard asked him who he was and where he was coming from. “From Dallas,” Alvarado said. “What gang are you in?” the guard asked. Alvarado told him he was not a gang member. “But if you’re not a gang member, what are you doing here?” Alvarado wondered the same thing.

In the prison, he recalled seeing blood all over the floor. “They’re going to kill me here,” Alvarado thought. “If I survive, I’ll be locked up my entire life.”

Neri Alvarado reuniting with his family in Venezuela after being released from CECOT.Courtesy photo

Alvarado and two other Venezuelan men sent to CECOT spoke with Mother Jones about the horrific conditions they were held in. Their stories corroborate reports from others flown to El Salvador, who described CECOT as a place where detainees feared death and torture.Some men contemplated suicide. “I’d rather die or kill myself than to keep living through this experience,” Juan José Ramos Ramos told ProPublica. Guards in the prison enacted a “perverse form of humiliation,”Marco Jesús Basulto Salinas told the Washington Post: “The doctor would watch us get beaten and then ask us, ‘How are you feeling?’ with a smile.”

Wuilliam Lozada Sánchez, 27, told Mother Jones that he and other men were beaten with batons upon arriving at the Salvadoran prison. “They knocked out one of my teeth,” he said. “They messed up my knees. They messed up my ribs.”

Before leaving for the United States in 2023, Lozada worked at a factory that made jeans in Colombia. His goal was to save enough money to open a pants factory in his home state of Táchira. Instead, he ended up spending more than a year in US detention before being taken to CECOT in March. Lozada said they experienced a form of torture in the prison.

While being processed, the men were made to line up in a row and kneel. Then, according to Alvarado and other Venezuelans, the prison’s director told the men: “Welcome to hell.” “He told us that we were not going to leave anymore and that he was going to make sure that we never again ate meat or chicken,” Julio Zambrano Perez told Mother Jones. The only way out of that place, the director said, was in a black bag.

On a video call from Venezuela, Zambrano showed a cut on his left eyebrow that he said was from beatings he endured right after arriving in El Salvador. That first night at CECOT, Zambrano couldn’t sleep as he thought about how his life had been ripped away from him. In North Carolina, Zambrano, who, like Alvarado, turned 25 while at CECOT, worked shifts at a hotel and a restaurant to provide for his wife, Luz, and their two daughters, one of whom was born while he was in ICE detention. The family had applied for asylum in the United States.

During the months inside, Alvarado held on to a Bible verse for hope: “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.”

In late January, Zambrano had what he thought would be a routine check-in appointment with ICE. Instead, the agents took him to a room and started interrogating him about his tattoos, a rose and a crown with his name on it. He tried to explain it was normal for Venezuelans to have tattoos, but to no avail. ICE kept him detained and later moved him to Georgia and from there to the El Valle Detention Facility in Texas. “They never had any evidence to say that I belonged to a gang,” he said.

Alvarado had a similar experience. Originally from Yaritagua, a city about four hours west of Caracas, he studied psychology in school but had to abandon his studies for financial reasons. Alvarado went on to get certified as a personal trainer and worked as a swim instructor. (While he was at CECOT, members of the swim club in Venezuela where Alvarado coached made a video demanding his release.) In 2023, he decided to leave for the United States—partly in hope of being able to help pay for the medical bills for his brother, who has autism. Like many others, Alvarado made the grueling journey through the Darién Gap between Colombia and Panama before eventually reaching the US-Mexico border.

After he turned himself over to Border Patrol agents, Alvarado spent about 24 hours in custody before being released. He said border officials reviewed his tattoos and concluded that they were not indicative of gang membership. Along with the autism awareness ribbon, Alvarado has three tattoos written in English and Spanish: One reads “self love,” another “brothers,” and the third “familia.”

Once in Dallas, Alvarado started working at a Venezuelan bakery. It allowed him to send about $500 per month back home to help support his family and his younger brother. But his life was upended in February, when he said ICE and DEA agents, with guns drawn, arrested him outside his apartment. The officers took Alvarado to ICE’s Dallas field office, where he was questioned about his tattoos and gang affiliations.

Alvarado said during the interview he was struck by the ICE agent’s appearance. The man questioning him was covered in tattoos from his hand to his neck. The officer, Alvarado said, even had a tattoo of a rose—one of the tattoos that ICE has used as evidence of membership in Tren de Aragua.

When the agent asked Alvarado about his tattoos, Alvarado—who had been charged earlier in the Trump administration with the misdemeanor offense of entering the country illegally in April 2024—said he showed him the autism awareness ribbon on his leg. “Wow, that’s nice,” he remembered the agent saying in response. The officer then checked Alvarado’s phone and social media accounts before concluding that he had no relation to the gang. “Well, you came to the United States to do good,” Alvarado recalled the ICE agent telling him. “You have nothing to do with Tren de Aragua.” Moments later, a different ICE agent decided to detain Alvarado. (DHS did not respond to a request for comment about whether it sent Alvarado to CECOT in error.)

At his final immigration hearing, Alvarado said there was no mention of Tren de Aragua. He explained to the immigration judge that he had a valid Venezuelan passport and could return home on a commercial flight. Alvarado recalled the judge saying that it was not necessary. ICE would fly him back home soon.

Julio Zambrano Perez with his wife Luz and their daughter Danna.Courtesy of Julio Zambrano Perez

In CECOT, the men settled into a bleak daily routine. They slept on metal beds without mattresses, sheets, or pillows. Their diet was largely rice, beans, and tortillas. On occasion, Zambrano said, the guards would serve them a slightly better meal, only to snap a photo and take it away before they could eat. The lights were always on, and the men were allowed a single shower at 5 a.m. When they sought medical attention, they were given a pain pill and told to drink water—the same water they bathed in.

For a while, they were only allowed out of the cell twice a week to hear a few minutes of a religious sermon. To pass the time, they made dice out of tortillas. They tried to exercise inside the cell every day. “If we kept our minds busy,” Alvarado said, “we wouldn’t think so much about the situation we were going through.” During the months inside, Alvarado held on to a Bible verse for hope: “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.”

Alvarado and others say that those who resisted or complained about the conditions were brutalized in a small isolation cell they called la isla, the island. “What they did there was torture us,” Zambrano said. “They always wanted to take us to la isla for whatever reason.” He said he spent two days in the dark, confined space. When the guards weren’t kicking and beating them, they would hit the doors, laugh, and tell the men they would rot in there. Alvarado recalled hearing the screams and the thud sound from beatings. “They hit them everywhere, on the head, on the legs, on the back, on the abdomen, on the ribs,” he said.

One day, some of the men started protesting in their cell. The guards responded with tear gas. They hit one man so hard he passed out. “They left him there lying on the floor,” Zambrano said. Fearing he had been killed, the Venezuelans started a hunger strike that went on for a few days. “If we’re going to get out of here, dead or alive,” Zambrano reasoned, “then let’s get out defending ourselves.”

As the weeks dragged on, the men started wondering if they had been forgotten. Lozada said he had no idea that their cases were the subject of major legal battles in the United States. “They were telling us that our country—that our president—had abandoned us,” Lozada explained. “That our families had abandoned us as well, and that we were going to die there in prison…that no one was fighting for us.”

Alvarado recalled the Salvadoran guards saying, “There’s no family here, there are no lawyers here, nobody exists here.” During the four months at CECOT, he saw the sun only once.

Wuilliam Lozada reunited with his parents in Venezuela. Courtesy of Wuilliam Lozada

Like others, Alvarado said conditions improved slightly on the days when US officials like Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem or the Red Cross visited. They’d be given a thin mattress and a pillow, as well as deodorant, soap, and toothpaste. But, after the visits, everything was taken away. (El Salvador’s Vice President Félix Ulloa denied that the men were mistreated to ProPublica.)

After nearly four months, Alvarado said the men were asked to provide their shoe and clothing sizes. Soon after, they had check-ups with a dentist, a nutritionist, and other doctors. The next day, they were given a new pair of underwear and socks, along with deodorant and shampoo. Alvarado suspected something was about to happen, but was not sure what.

Finally, in the early hours of Friday, July 18, the guards woke them up and told them to get ready in five minutes. They were taken to the airport, where they were received by Venezuelan officials. But it wasn’t until the plane took off that they believed they were headed home. The men cried and applauded. “For a moment, we thought it was going to be impossible to get out of there,” Zambrano said. “It’s the first time we’ve seen a person get out of that prison alive.”

After arriving near Caracas in Venezuela, Zambrano called his wife, whose number was the only one he remembered by heart. He spent two days in a hotel and then was let go, late at night on a Sunday, to reunite with his mother. “I started to cry, we started to cry,” he said. “I imagined all the suffering they had gone through not knowing about me.”

Zambrano’s children and wife are still in the United States. He has yet to meet his youngest daughter, who’s only six months old, in person. When they had their first video call after his release, he said he barely recognized her because she had grown so much. Zambrano said he would like to go back to the United States to be with his family and continue to fight his asylum case. But he is scared of being detained again.

For now, the family talks on the phone every day. And he hopes for an acknowledgment of the evil done to him and othersand the fact that he is now separated from his wife and daughters. “The first thing I want is to clear our names and for justice be done for everything that happened to us there in El Salvador,” he said.

The day he arrived home, Alvarado said his block was packed with people waiting to greet him. He became overcome with emotion when he saw his family. “It was like I could breathe,” he said, “like finally I’m here.”

Still, the four months in CECOT have taken a toll on his mental health. He has had nightmares about being back in the prison before waking up and realizing with relief that he’s home. And if he sees a police officer or a patrol car, he grows anxious. “I remember everything that happened in CECOT,” he said.

Like Zambrano, Alvarado also hopes for accountability. “Now we’re free in our country,” he said, “but my life was already established in the United States. I was helping my family and now they have sent me back here, where I have to start from zero.”

His main goal, Alvarado said, is to support the younger brother whose name adorns his autism awareness tattoo.

Continue Reading…

ICE Is Extremely Desperate for You to Work For Them

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is apparently so desperate for staff that they are abolishing the agency’s age restrictions to allow any adult to apply to join the force.

On Wednesday, ICE announced that it would do away with its prior requirements that job applicants be at least 21 years old, no older than 37 to be considered for a criminal investigator role, and no older than 40 to be eligible to be a deportation officer, with few exceptions.

“In the wake of Biden’s open borders disaster, our country needs dedicated Americans to join ICE to remove the worst of the worst out of our country,” the agency’s announcement reads, under an Uncle Sam recruitment photo. In a social media post touting the change, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wrote: “We’re taking father/son bonding to a whole new level,” alongside an illustration of both a younger and older man in camouflage tactical gear.

Recruits will still need to be at least 18 and go through medical and drug tests, and complete a physical fitness test. The Wednesday announcement also reiterated a slate of perks available to new ICE employees, including a signing bonus of up to $50,000, student loan repayment and forgiveness options, and “enhanced retirement benefits” after the passage of Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill. The legislation allocated funding to hire 10,000 new ICE agents to join the 20,000 currently on staff to help meet the agency’s deportation goals.

The move to eliminate the age restriction comes as the Trump administration scrambles to fulfill his campaign promise to carry outmass deportations—specifically, a goal of one million deportations per year, according to an April report in the Washington Post. So far, the administration appears to have fallen far below that goal: Since February, the administration has deported an average of about 14,700 people per month, according to an NBC News report published last month. The administration’s efforts to bolster those numbers have included reviving old cases focused on immigrants who have since become citizens or died.

But reports suggest the sky-high deportation quota, coupled with the administration’s general inhumanity when it comes to the treatment of immigrants, has left morale within the agency plummeting. And while DHS Secretary Kristi Noem boasts about a recent surge in applications, related moves within ICE, including the agency reportedly forcibly poaching employees from across the federal government and other law enforcement agencies, appear to contradict those claims. The American Prospect reported on Wednesday, for example, that probationary Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) employees—those with under a year of service—were being reassigned to ICE or threatened with losing their jobs if they did not accept. A DHS spokesperson told the Prospect that the FEMA employees were being temporarily moved to work with ICE for 90 days, “to assist with hiring and vetting,” and claimed that the moves “will NOT disrupt FEMA’s critical operations.”

So will the elimination of the age limit make any difference? Time will tell, though Trump’s prior promises of a massive hiring spree for ICE and Border Patrol agents during his first term did not come to fruition. So far, though, the change has led to at least one newrecruit: 59-year-old former Superman actor Dean Cain.

Continue Reading…

Chemical Pollution Is a Rampant Threat to Humanity, Science Group Warns

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

Chemical pollution is “a threat to the thriving of humans and nature of a similar order as climate change” but decades behind global heating in terms of public awareness and action, a report has warned.

The industrial economy has created more than 100 million “novel entities,” or chemicals not found in nature, with somewhere between 40,000 and 350,000 in commercial use and production, the report says. But the environmental and human health effects of this widespread contamination of the biosphere are not widely appreciated, in spite of a growing body of evidence linking chemical toxicity with effects ranging from ADHD to infertility to cancer.

“I suppose that’s the biggest surprise for some people,” Harry Macpherson, senior climate associate at Deep Science Ventures (DSV), which carried out the research, told the Guardian.

“There isn’t necessarily the need for a massive collective action; it can just be demand for safer products.”

“Maybe people think that when you walk down the street breathing the air; you drink your water, you eat your food; you use your personal care products, your shampoo, cleaning products for your house, the furniture in your house; a lot of people assume that there’s really great knowledge and huge due diligence on the chemical safety of these things. But it really isn’t the case.”

Over eight months, as part of a project funded by the Grantham Foundation, Macpherson and colleagues spoke to dozens of researchers, nonprofit leaders, entrepreneurs and investors, and analyzed hundreds of scientific papers.

According to the DSV report, more than 3,600 synthetic chemicals from food contact materials—the materials that are used in food preparation and packaging—alone are found in human bodies, 80 of which are of significant concern. PFAS “forever chemicals,” for example, have been found in nearly all humans tested, and are now so ubiquitous that in many locations even rainwater contains levels regarded as unsafe to drink. Meanwhile, more than 90 percent of the global population breathes air that breaches World Health Organization (WHO) pollution guidelines.

When these chemicals contaminate our bodies, the results can be disastrous. The report found there were correlational or causal data linking widely used chemicals with threats to human reproductive, immune, neurological, cardiovascular, respiratory, liver, kidney, and metabolic systems. “One of the main things that came out quite strongly was links between pesticide exposure and reproductive issues,” said Macpherson. “We saw quite strong links—correlation and causation—for miscarriage and people basically struggling to conceive.”

The DSV research adds to previous findings by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research that we have already far exceeded the safe planetary boundary for environmental pollutants, including plastics. On Sunday, another report warned that the world faces a “plastics crisis,” which is causing disease and death from infancy to old age amid a huge acceleration of plastic production.

The report also highlights critical shortcomings in current toxicity assessment, research and testing methods, exposing the ways in which existing checks and balances are failing to protect human and planetary health.

“The way that we’ve generally done the testing has meant that we’ve missed a lot of effects,” Macpherson said. He singled out the assessment of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which are substances that interfere with hormones, causing problems ranging from infertility to cancer. These have been found to confound the traditional assumption that lower doses will invariably have lesser effects.

“One of the things is that when you have a chemical which is interfering with the endocrine system, it sometimes has a nonlinear response. So you’ll see that there’ll be a response at a very low dose, which you wouldn’t be able to predict from its behavior at a high dose.”

DSV describes itself as a “venture creator” that spins out companies aimed at tackling big problems in environmental and human health issues. Part of the purpose of the report is to identify problem areas that can be tackled by innovation.

Currently, chemical toxicity as an environmental issue receives just a fraction of the funding that is devoted to climate change, a disproportionality that Macpherson says should change. “We obviously don’t want less funding going into the climate and the atmosphere,” he said. “But this we think—really, proportionally—needs more attention.”

However, there were features of the problem that mean it lends itself more easily to solutions. “The good thing is that this can be potentially quite easily consumer-driven if people start to worry about things they’re personally buying,” Macpherson said. “There isn’t necessarily the need for a massive collective action; it can just be demand for safer products, because people want safer products.”

For his part, since starting the research, Macpherson is careful about what touches his food. He cooks with a cast-iron skillet. He especially avoids heating food in plastic. “Unfortunately, it is a recommendation to eat more organic food, but it is more expensive in general. So at least washing fruit and vegetables before eating them, but organic if you can afford it.”

Continue Reading…

Idaho Lost One in Three Obstetricians After Its Abortion Ban

Two months after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, in June 2022, Idaho’s trigger ban outlawing most abortions—one of the strictest nationwide—took effect.

The fallout soon made headlines. The Biden-era Department of Justice sued, alleging that the Idaho ban violated a federal law that required hospitals to stabilize people who arrived in their emergency rooms facing threats to their life or health—including by providing abortions when necessary. (That kicked off a legal battle that made it to the Supreme Court last year, which avoided deciding the case on its merits.) And within months of the state ban taking effect, a maternity ward in rural northern Idaho closed, citing the state’s “legal and political climate.”

“When those people leave, that is a huge body of institutional knowledge that [walks] out of that state. It’s a big dang deal.”

As all this was happening, another shift was quietly unfolding across the state: obstetricians (OBs) in Idaho—doctors who specialize in delivering babies and providingcare for pregnant people during and after pregnancy—were leaving their jobs as they faced the threat of jail time, fines, and felony charges for providing abortions, even in the case of life-threatening emergencies. While there have been some reports of these departures, there has been limited data quantifying how many OBs the state lost after Roe was overruled—until now.

According to a new peer-reviewed paper published in JAMA Network Open last week, Idaho lost more than a third of its OBs—94 of 268 total—between August 2022 and December 2024. That figure combines the 114 who left their jobs and 20 OBs who moved to Idaho during the study period. It includes physicians who left the state—the most common outcome, accounting for about half of the total departures, according to J. Edward McEachern, the paper’s lead author—as well as those who stopped practicing obstetrics, closed their in-state practices, or retired. The new research supports the hypothesis that experts and abortion rights advocates floated after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: Abortion bans create ripple effects that harm other forms of health care.

“When those people leave, that is a huge body of institutional knowledge that walk out of that state,” said McEachern, who is also a distinguished scholar-in-residence at Boise State University and the chief medical officer at St. Luke’s Health Plan. “It’s a big dang deal,” he added.

AnnaMarie Connolly, a physician and the chief of education, workforce, and well-being at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), told Mother Jones that the findings are “a clear example of the damage abortion bans cause beyond abortion access.” Candace Gibson, director of state policy at the reproductive rights advocacy and policy organization the Guttmacher Institute, agreed, saying the data “shows how abortion bans destabilize the entire reproductive health system.” Other research has also illustrated this: A 2023 survey of more than 500 OB/GYNs conducted by KFF, for example, found that 68 percent of respondents said the Dobbs decision negatively impacted their ability to manage pregnancy-related emergencies. Reporting from ProPublica has also shown that sepsis and maternal deaths surged in Texasfollowing both Dobbs and the state’s six-week abortion ban, which was implemented in 2021.

To come up with their calculations, McEachern and three other researchers initially consulted a federal database of health care providers to find a list of licensed OBs in Idaho; then, they consulted another set of sources—including databases maintained by ACOG and the Idaho Medical Association, physicians’ and hospitals’ websites, and the actual physicians themselves—to verify both the amount of physicians practicing obstetrics in the state and those who had stopped doing so or left Idaho. While the new study did not try to establish causality by asking the physicians if the state’s abortion ban played a role in their decision to stop practicing obstetrics in the state or overall, McEachern points out that none of the OBs who researchers tracked moved to states with abortion bans. The Idaho Coalition for Safe Reproductive Health Care also found in 2023 that more than half of the 240 health care providers surveyed said they were considering or definitely leaving the state within the year in light of the new abortion ban.

I found a similar trend in my own reporting, when I covered the fallout of the hospital in rural northern Idaho, Bonner General Health, that discontinued its obstetrics care in 2023; the four OBGYNs who previously worked at the hospital all moved to states where abortion is legal, and they all told me Idaho’s ban contributed to their decisions to move.“Thinking about what our community has lost—that is gutting,” one of those doctors, Amelia Huntsberger, previously told me; Huntsberger relocated to Oregon that year.

Dr. Amelia Huntsberger unpacked some of the remaining boxes in her new home in Eugene, Oregon after moving from Idaho, in October 2023. Moriah Ratner/Washington Post/Getty

This exodus contributes to maternity care deserts, defined as areas that lack access to maternity care providers, which account for about 33 percent of counties nationwide. In Idaho, nearly 30 percent of counties are maternity care deserts, and nearly 20 percent of women have no birthing hospital within a 30 minute drive, according to the most recent data from March of Dimes. McEachern’s study signals this is only getting worse: It found that 85 percent of the state’s remaining OBs are concentrated in Idaho’s seven most populous counties. That leaves 23 OBs to serve more than 560,000 people in the remaining 37 counties—or, as McEachern puts it, “a very brittle and fragile system.”

“If one person gets hurt or retires or moves on,” he said, “it creates a system that is unsustainable.”

None of the obstetricians tracked moved to states with abortion bans.

Experts say the new data reveals the urgent need to bolster the state’s health care landscape. Connolly, from ACOG, said, “when a state’s OB/GYN workforce is already struggling to meet the volume of patient needs, like Idaho’s, each loss means more people who have to travel long distances for basic health care—or go without it altogether.”

Dr. Megan Kasper, an OB/GYN and president-elect of the Idaho Medical Association, called for “common sense changes to our law to ensure Idahoans have access to maternal health care now and in the future” in response to the study. While Idaho lawmakers have largely resisted calls to amend the state’s abortion laws, advocates have continued pushing for change, including by seeking to gather enough signatures to put an abortion rights ballot measure before voters next year.

McEachern and the other researchers, for their part, plan to continue tracking the losses of Idaho’s obstetricians. They also have several other related research projects planned, including one focused on the amount of time people have to drive to reach obstetrics care in Idaho, with the hope that collecting more reliable data will help improve health care access across the state.

As McEachern put it, “We want this place to be better.”

Continue Reading…

How Democrats Plan to Battle the GOP’s Redistricting Power Grab

For years, Republicans have sought to consolidate power at the state and federal level by controlling the redistricting process through which congressional boundaries are drawn.In places such as Wisconsin and Ohio**,** they have crafted cartoonishly distorted districts that have literally drawn Democrats out of power. But the longstanding battle between Republicans and Democrats over redistricting exploded recently when, with the encouragement of Donald Trump, Texas Republicans proposed a new congressional map—outside of the typical 10-year cycle—that could yield Republicans five congressional seats in next year’s midterm elections.

Democrats, who have historically abstained from the most glaring, self-serving forms of gerrymandering, insist they are now going to re-draw maps in states they control to help them offset their potential loss of seats from the GOP-drawn maps. “They’re not screwing around,” California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom said of Republicans’ redistricting plans, which extend beyond Texas. “We cannot afford to screw around either. We have got to fight fire with fire.”

“We have a really asymmetric pattern of unilateral disarmament, and so if Democrats want to do what Texas is doing, they would have to undo some of the reforms they put in place over the last couple of decades to fight gerrymandering.”

But in addition to the tight timeline between now and the midterm elections, Democrats may encounter another problem: their own firewalls. Through efforts to keep extreme partisan bias out of redistricting, some states—like California and New York—have self-policed themselves into instituting independent commissions that shape the districts. Critically, it may prevent them from carrying out their threat of revenge.

“We have a really asymmetric pattern of unilateral disarmament, and so if Democrats want to do what Texas is doing, they would have to undo some of the reforms they put in place over the last couple of decades to fight gerrymandering,” says Harvard Law School professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos.

In the last week, they’ve started to try.

“We’re already working on a legislative process, reviewing our legal strategies, and we’ll do everything in our power to stop this brazen assault,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said at a press conference this week. “The gloves are off, and I say ‘Bring it on.'”

The terms “redistricting” and “gerrymandering” are often used interchangeably in today’s political environment, but they aren’t supposed to be.

Redistricting is the legal process in which new congressional district boundaries are drawn to take into account changes in population since the last census. Gerrymandering is using the opportunity to redistrict to manipulate boundaries to favor one’s party over the other.

Yet, in most states, the majority party in the state legislature largely controls the redistricting process, especially when that party maintains the governor’s mansion too. Whether or not the party admits it, holding the gavel typically enables lawmakers to impose more favorable maps.

The “independent commission” model of redistricting reflects the Democratic Party’s intention to honor the democratic principle of “one person, one vote,” New York Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins tells Mother Jones.

But, she says, Republicans have left Democrats without another option but to try and change the independent commission method in New York, at least temporarily.

“Republicans have decided that whatever they want to do, they should do. Democrats really have no choice but to look at what it is we must do in order to preserve democracy,” says Stewart-Cousins, who is also chair of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), the party’s national arm for state legislative races.

The DLCC announced a more aggressive approach to redistricting as a coalition-wide objective on Monday. “The DLCC isn’t going to sit back and allow Republicans to cheat the system to keep themselves in power,” the group’s president, Heather Williams, said in a statement. “All options must be on the table—including Democratic state legislatures using their power to fight back and pursue redistricting mid-cycle in order to protect our democracy.”

The Democratic National Committee has also tacitly supported the DLCC’s move. In a statement, DNC chair Ken Martin said members of the party should be able “to combat Trump and Republicans’ craven scheme to rig the maps in their favor.”

But despite the buy-in, mid-cycle redistricting won’t be as easy as ripping up the old maps and drawing new ones over the next few months.

Democrats in the New York legislature proposed a state constitutional amendment last week that would allow state lawmakers to forgo the independent commission process and do their own re-districting in the middle of the usual 10-year cycle, but only if another state did it first. If it passes the legislature, the amendment would then go before New York citizens as a ballot measure.

Asked whether she could foresee New York Democrats successfully redistricting before the 2026 midterms, Stewart-Cousins said, “I am not aware of a way to do that… People are, I’m sure, taking a look to see what could be possible.”

There are similar challenges in the other Democratic-led states that have expressed desire to use Republicans’ own tactics against them.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has said “nothing is off the table” in terms of retaliatory redistricting. But maps in the midwestern state already disproportionately benefit Democrats. (There are only three congressional districts in the state that are not represented by Democrats.) Republicans have even pointed to the Illinois map in defense of their plans to regroup Texas.

California is another state with a willing governor and Democratic majorities in the state legislature. The state may be Democrats’ best—if only—option at picking up more than a couple of blue districts before the midterms, which is why Gov. Newsom has encouraged California Democrats to put new district maps in front of voters in a special election that would precede the midterms. This would be temporary, he says. The maps would stay in place only through 2030, at which point the independent redistricting commission would have the power again.

“Things have changed. We’re reacting to that change,” Newsom said at a recent news conference. “They’ve triggered this response, and we’re not going to roll over.”

In the short-term, Democratic lawmakers in Texas have blocked Republicans from carrying out their plan by fleeing the state to preempt the vote on the new districts. The strategy is almost inevitably temporary; the Texas legislators face $500-per-day fines for not appearing for legislative duty, and Gov. Greg Abbott has threatened to expel them from office. He’s also able to call another special session whenever he wants.

But beyond the questions of strategy and ineffectiveness, there is also the quandary about whether this is a path Democrats should even venture down.

“Now that we’re opening the door to re-redistricting, it really makes it impossible to dislodge gerrymanders,” says Stephanopoulos. “At least in the past, you could maybe hope by year six, year eight, or year 10 of a map that it’s less effective than it was in year one. But if Texas redraws the lines now, why not redraw them again in 2028? And again in 2030?”

Continue Reading…

The Massive Grand Canyon Fire Is Burning Out of Control

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

A wildfire that has closed the North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park raged out of control over the weekend and is now the largest currently burning in the country. The Dragon Bravo fire has burned more than 133,000 acres and was only 13 percent contained as of Wednesday morning, according to a federal interagency website that tracks wildfires.

The blaze, which was sparked by a lightning strike on July 4, has destroyed about 70 structures, according to the National Park Service, including the historic Grand Canyon Lodge and North Rim Visitor Center. The damage was bad enough to prompt the service to close the North Rim of the park for the rest of the 2025 season.

Thirty-nine large wildfires are burning across the country, covering about 523,000 acres in total, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. Dry and windy conditions pushed the Grand Canyon fire out of control last month, and it is now one of seven large fires burning across Arizona, more than in any other state.

The fires come as the National Park Service and other federal agencies face large cuts to their workforces, including personnel who help fight wildfires. Multiple reports have suggested that cuts made by the Trump administration to US Forest Service staffing have hampered the agency’s ability to fight fires.

The National Park Service has lost 24 percent of its permanent workforce under the Trump administration, according to an analysis last month by the National Parks Conservation Association. The group said the cuts have reduced visitor services and weakened wildfire response.

Pollution from wildfire smoke has become an expected part of summer across North America in recent years.

A Park Service spokesperson said in an email that the agency’s priority has been the safety of firefighters, staff, and the public, and that it had successfully evacuated about 900 people from the North Rim area. The spokesperson added that “extreme weather conditions and a shift in wind overwhelmed” the service’s efforts to contain the Dragon Bravo fire and that “these rapidly evolving conditions were the primary cause of the fire’s expansion.”

A White House spokesperson noted that no one has died in the fire, saying that outcome “is a direct reflection of coordinated evacuation efforts, interagency support, and proactive incident management before and during the fire’s rapid expansion.”

The spokesperson added: “It’s a shame that there are those who want to politicize this situation while firefighters are still putting their lives on the line,” and said that more than 7,200 Interior Department employees were qualified to respond to wildfires, about 800 more than in 2024.

Bill Wade, executive director of the Association of National Park Rangers, which supports park service staff, said he had not heard anything to suggest that staff shortages played a role in allowing the Dragon Bravo fire to grow out of control. But he said he is concerned the cuts could harm the service’s ability to respond to fires in the future.

Wildfires have closed parts of other national parks, too, including Black Canyon of the Gunnison in Colorado.

Climate change is worsening wildfire activity globally. Wildfire seasons have grown longer, and the smoke and climate pollution that fires emit is getting worse.

That pollution has become an expected part of summer across North America in recent years, casting an eerie haze through the sky and prompting air quality alerts across large swaths of Canada and the United States. Detroit, Toronto and Montreal were all among the 10 most polluted cities worldwide at one point on Monday, according to IQAir.

The total area burnt across the United States so far this year is below the 10-year average, but north of the border, Canada is having one of its worst wildfire seasons on record.

Increasingly, wildfires are also contributing to climate change by releasing greater volumes of carbon pollution into the air. Fires in Canada have released 180 million metric tons of carbon this year so far, the second most on record, according to the European Union’s Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, which has been collecting data for 23 years. Arizona saw its worst July on record in terms of emissions, with 1.5 million metric tons of carbon released.

“It used to be that the main fire season was during the warmer part of the summer,” said Wade. “Now in many places, there’s no such thing as a fire season,” because the blazes burn throughout the year.

Continue Reading…

Gazans Are Starving. It’s a Manmade Catastrophe.

United Nations-backed food security experts say the “worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out” in the Gaza Strip, home to roughly 2 million Palestinians. One of the few organizations still on the ground trying to feed Palestinians at risk of famine is the Gaza Soup Kitchen.

Abe Ajrami is one of the Gaza Soup Kitchen’s leaders. He was born and raised in Gaza and now lives in the US, where he helps coordinate the organization’s food aid. “This is manmade starvation,” Ajrami says. “There are thousands of people who are starving because the Israelis decide to use hunger as a weapon.”

On this week’s More To The Story, Ajrami sits down with host Al Letson to talk about the Gaza Soup Kitchen’s extraordinary efforts to help prevent famine in Gaza, the debate over whether the Israeli government is committing genocide against Palestinians, and whether a two-state solution is still achievable.

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: What are you hearing from the people you know in Gaza right now?

Abe Ajrami: What I’m hearing is a call, and people are praying, “Oh, God let the judgment day start.” I mean that’s really a common prayer is that people, this just, end this whole thing.

Can you unpack that for me? What do they mean when they say that?

Pretty much saying, let the end of time happen. Let’s, as faithful people believe that this whole life will end one day and we are all going to meet our Creator and there’ll be heaven and hell and all this stuff. And they’re saying just let it happen now.

And another thing, they often see those who were killed already in the war are the lucky ones. For example, I lost my oldest, one of my sisters, 72 years old, Halima, second week of the war. And it was a shock when it happened. And now my brothers and other siblings are looking back at it and saying, “She was the lucky one. We’re the one that’s unlucky to go through this hell for the past two years.” So that’s, that describes how bad things are happening. Everything is a struggle. Staying alive is a struggle. Finding food is a struggle. Finding drinking water is a struggle. I mean, just every minute of it is a brutal experience.

When I hear you say that and that phrase, it makes me feel like the people of Gaza just have no hope anymore, that this is like the status quo and it’s going to remain this way.

And that’s very true. The first one, the first things started going people, that’s not their first rodeo. So they thought, “Okay, we’ve been through this. It’s going to last for a month or two, going to rebuild again.” And then things were getting worse and they thought, “Okay, maybe the world would wake up and intervene to stop the genocide.” When the ICT, for example, took the case and declared that the war must stop, that these are indeed war crimes and issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his defense minister, people thought that’s the highest legal entity in the globe. Something must happen. Well, nothing happened since then. People will tell you this, talk about human rights, this talk about Western democracy, this talk about the Geneva Convention is meaningless because none of those conventions and laws help stop the genocide.

You call what’s happening in Gaza, a genocide. And I think there’s a debate. A lot of people have been pushing back on labeling it as a genocide. What would you say to them?

It seems to me only there are very few places in the world where that description is disputed and mostly in the American politics and to some extent some UK parliament. But the whole world, the United Nations is calling it genocide. Amnesty International is calling it a genocide. And so even so, Israeli human rights organization recently called it a genocide. So all these legal scholars calling it, and I challenge anyone who’s not even just, any ordinary citizen, look up the definition of genocide and see what’s happening in Gaza and look me in the face and tell me this is not a genocide.

I mean there are two things. The actions and the intent. The Israelis are not hiding their intent. As far as yesterday they said, “Our intent is to force Gazans out and settle Gaza with more Israeli settlements.” Their defense minister, before the war started, he said, “We are going to shut water, shut medicine, shut food, shut electricity of Gaza.” That’s collective punishment. That’s a war crime. So when you’re talking about as of yesterday, 60,000 Palestinians get killed, around 20,000 of them are kids, 70% are women and children, and there are thousands are still missing under the rubble. It’s obvious that the Israeli government is using food as a weapon.

And when you hear the peace talks and they say, well, Israelis agreed to let air drops happen, drop in food or allow certain countries to supply Gaza with food, that tells you they’re the ones shutting the borders from entering food. So you’re talking about 2 million people who were intentionally starved by another country.

I’ve seen a lot of talk about widespread hunger and the famine happening in Gaza right now, but a lot of times when I see the news coverage, they talk about the famine as in like this just happened. Like there’s nobody really responsible for it. Suddenly Gaza is now in famine conditions. Can you speak to that specifically?

Right. This is artificial. This is a manmade starvation. People aren’t hungry. They are made hungry by the siege and the Israeli bombing and closing the Gaza. It’s mind-boggling to hear my Jewish friends, the slogan of, “Never again.” And I love the slogan, I have several Jewish progressive friends who are great advocates of human rights and they’re using the history of the Nazi and the Holocaust to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Unfortunately, it’s happening in Gaza because the irony is that you have thousands of people who are starving to death and right a mile across the Egyptian border, there are miles and miles of trucks full of food. So that’s really, it’s extremely sad that the world is watching this live on TV, seeing the irony of you get food on this side, plenty of food. And right across the border there are thousands of people who are starving because the Israelis decide to use hunger as a weapon to subdue the population and force them to leave Gaza.

I want to talk a little bit more about your organization and how it works. How many food distribution centers does the Gaza Soup Kitchen currently have operating?

Currently we have 11 feeding centers and the numbers change based on the situation. There are many factors. It’s not your typical, you go to Christ’s kitchen and it’s open and you eat a meal and eat and leave. It’s very hard. If you see the pictures, these guys either in a school that turned shelter for families or they’re out in the street behind demolished and rubble and they’re cooking.
In addition to those centers that feed the neighborhoods where they at, we have meal delivery to hospitals. We send meals to the staff and patients at the Al-Ahli Hospital and most recently to the children hospital, Nasser Hospital. We also have a medical clinic that’s staffed by physician and every once in a while we have a classroom for kids that gives some basic education and some entertainment services.

And how many people are running them?

Total employees averages between 60 and 65 people between the chefs and the workers that manage, and let me just expand on this. The whole process is extremely difficult. I mean, you collect donations here, that’s the easy part. Try to get that fund into Gaza is very, very difficult because all the banks were forced to shut down. So there is no standing financial system in Gaza. So you rely on money exchangers, just people who have some money and you go through, whether it’s Egypt or Turkey, any third party to get that money into Gaza. So we try to talk with farmers, with people who are providing what’s left of ingredients and vegetables in Gaza about accepting money transfer from a phone app to a phone app in lieu of cash. And we’ve been working for several months now. So there is trust relationship or they’ll accept the payment and people sometimes realize they’re helping their own communities, so they’ll help us get food one way or another. So, that’s just a cash part.

Trying to find fire logs is a challenge. So you try to scavenge a few logs here and there and wood often from houses that were bombed, try to find that wood and light because there is no propane, there is no electricity, no gas. So that’s how you fire up the pots is wood logs. And then find chefs who know how to cook. And sometimes the hardest part is how do you control the crowds? Because more to our, the three things we can never cross is one, you want to provide good quality food, decent food with dignity, and definitely treat people, these guys who cook are neighbors, we cook for our neighbors or friends. We’re not some third party coming in to Gaza to provide food. We are it. We are the Gaza people, so those who cook are locals, the chef is local, everybody that works. So that’s, the hardest thing sometimes is how do you control the crowds?

You’re talking about hundreds of hungry people and the lines extend so far. And initially the first few parts, everything goes well when those in the back start realizing there is only half a pot left, so I may not get to fill my plate and our instructions to these guys, and they know it. If somebody is so hungry that they’ll come attack and grab something, let them take it. He’s not being ugly, he is hungry. So that’s really the hardest part is finding enough food for these people and trying to feed as many people.

Do you have any idea how many people you’re able to serve each day?

On average, each feeding center feeds about between 250 to 400 people depending on the prices. And what, because that a hundred dollars can buy you a hundred meals if the prices are decent, it may buy you 20 meals if the prices are high, but on average is somewhere between 250 to 500 give and take depending mostly on the prices.

The UN says more than a thousand people in Gaza have been killed since May while trying to access food. And that most of those deaths, more than 760 have been near distribution sites run by an organization called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Let me ask you specifically about the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. It’s an Israeli and US-backed organization that was started this year and meant to replace UN efforts to distribute food. What are your thoughts on that group?

Right. Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is as close to humanitarian as the devil is close to enter into paradise. I mean, this is Gaza Humiliation Foundation in reality. And as recent as last week, a US ex-military employee, he worked in Gaza, came out and blew the whistle on what’s happening there and informed the world that actually these guys were shooting at hungry people. So people get killed, many get injured, it’s a scam. It’s really a trap where thousands of people get in. It’s such a humiliating, if you look at the videos and the footage of showing people just piled up, stuck between fences and those are starved people given the choice, you either stay home, die out of hunger, or you walk kilometers several miles to get to the GHF Feeding Center and you may get killed there. So these are the choices.

And I talk to people, I talked to my sister the other day and she said, “Guess what? My son walked several kilometers to the GHF site to get flour.” And I said, “Why? Isn’t that crazy?” And she said, “What were we going to do?” And I said, “So what happened?” She said, “I don’t know.” She said, “I’m still waiting. I’m hoping that he’ll come back alive.” I mean, that’s how bad the situation is, and it is just the whole thing is shady. You cannot feed people while drones are hovering over them and the bullets are flying over their heads. So that’s really, it’s a horrible thing that adds to the Israeli war crimes.

What does the Gaza Soup Kitchen do differently to try and protect people seeking food?

The thing is, just like any organization or charity, when you go seek food at Christ’s Kitchen or any place in the world that provide food, those who are giving the food aren’t carrying guns and aren’t masked. So what really sets us apart as an organization is that we’re purely local organization. Everybody that works in Gaza is part of the community. So when my brother goes and works in a feeding center, he’s feeding his neighbors, he’s feeding his friends in the neighborhood. So everybody knows everybody. Those who provide the food, the ingredients, those who light the fire, the chef that’s cooking and responsible for the recipe is a local in the community, and that’s what sets you apart. People trust our guys and our guys are part of the community. So not only we provide food, but we provide food with dignity.

So recently France, the UK and Canada announced support for a Palestinian State. I’m just curious, do you think that’s genuine support, political theater or something else?

It is way overdue. I mean, this should have been done many years ago. And ironically, even the US government for many years throughout all these administrations believe that the two state solution based on the 1967 border is the way to go. But yet when the issue is submitted to the Security Council to recognize the State of Palestine, the US government veto it. I mean, that’s your own stand. Why don’t you recognize Palestine as a state if you believe the two state solution is the way to go? So that’s way overdue.

Second is that either two opinions. I talk to my family and friends then they’re people who think, “Oh, that’s great. That’s better late than ever.” So they think it’s a good step forward. Others believe it’s just a stunt. It’s a fake cover for the Arab countries like Saudi and Bahrain and those countries to normalize relations with Israel because it would be very shameful on the eyes of their own people. You want to normalize relation with Israel, Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, so shame on you.

So they’re trying to show, well, actually we gained a lot of good things for the Palestinians. Look, we’re working with France and Britain and Canada and all these countries to recognize Palestine as a state, about the same time we have to recognize Israel. Well, if you recognize Palestine as a state without further actions, it would be meaningless. What recognition would change the status of those hungry people in Gaza? What is the British and Canadian and French recognition would help those farmers who losing their land in the West Bank?
So based on that recognition, if they truly recognize Palestine as a state, then those Israeli soldiers carrying the guns and roaming the streets of Gaza become illegitimate. It becomes an occupying force of another land, of another country. Those countries need to put sanctions on the occupying force, just like putting sanctions on Russia for occupying another country that’s called Ukraine. So that political recognition of Palestine as an entity has to translate into punishing Israel for occupying and subjecting Palestinians to all this brutal war and rewarding Israel if the Israeli government agreed to this two-state solution by opening borders with Arab countries and normalizing relationships. But the mere recognition itself, it carries symbolic political, a good thing that’s happening, but unless it translates to change the life on the ground, it won’t be that important.

Yeah. Abe, thanks so much for talking to me today and also thank you for your work in feeding people who are facing an extreme crisis right now.

Thank you, sir. If I may add-

Please.

And just something that I really shared with the American Jews and the Israelis themselves. I mean, we can continue to kill each other to the end of time, or we can sit together and say, how can we build a better future for our children, our grandchildren? It’s not about Hamas and it’s not about anything. It’s everybody knows that the source of the issue is that there are people called Palestinians who live in under occupation, and people throughout the world will pay a price no matter how high, to gain their freedom and get their dignity and have the right to self-determination. How long would it take the Israelis to realize this and the earlier and the faster we get to that point, see each other as humans, not as enemies, I think the closer we can get to a solution.

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

Continue Reading…

The Knock-Down, Drag-‘Em-Out Texas Redistricting Showdown Heats Up

An old-fashioned Western showdown is happening in Texas right now.

On one side you have Texas House Democrats who fled the state over the weekend to stop Texas Republicans from carrying out Trump’s orders to redraw the state’s maps. And Texas governor Greg Abbott who is very, very upset about it all. As of this writing, the move seems to have worked: the Texas House has failed to reach a quorum for two consecutive days. Now, Texas Senator John Cornyn wants the FBI to hunt down the Democrats and arrest them.

In this video I explain the standoff, the stakes and how both Republicans and Democrats are using the tool at their disposal to advance—or impede—competing visions for America.

Continue Reading…

The Supreme Court Prepares to End Voting Rights As We Know It

It is a truth universally acknowledged that if you want to hide what you are doing in Washington, announce it on a Friday evening in the heat of August. Better yet, in place of clarity, reference some pages in another document, so that people have to track that down and read it in order to grasp what you are telling them.

That is precisely what the Supreme Court did last week. But the news is too staggering to hide for long: The Republican-appointed justices have decided it is time to fully destroy the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Republicans argue equal treatment of minority voters is actually discrimination against white voters.

Sixty years ago, the Voting Rights Act ended the Jim Crow regime and transformed the country, finally, into a multiracial democracy—albeit an imperfect one. But, with the court’s quiet announcement it would return to a paused case, the justices are now preparing to take us back to a time when elected officials at all levels of government were white, and the rights of minorities were trampled. The court’s eventual decision will impact how political maps are drawn, and will certainly hasten the precipitous decline of American democracy.

In its most recent term, the justices heard oral arguments in a redistricting case out of Louisiana. The state’s population is one-third Black, but after the 2020 census, the Louisiana legislature drew a Congressional map for its six seatswith just one majority-Black district. After two courts found that this map violated the Voting Rights Act’s mandate that minority voters have an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice, the legislature drew a new map with two Black-majority districts. That should have been the end of the saga, but a group of non-Black voters sued, arguing that the consideration of race in creating a second minority-majority district violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

It’s a perverse argument. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to enforce the vision of equality enacted that animated the 14th and 15th Amendments. Indeed, the VRA was enacted under Congress’ express authority to use legislation to enforce the equal protection and voting rights guarantees of the post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution. Now, Republican lawyers are attacking the law, arguing that equal treatment of minority voters is actually discrimination against white voters. The amendments that ushered in a Second Founding of political equality are being reinterpreted to resurrect white supremacy.

Under the Roberts Court, equal protection has become a sword to wield against programs, policies, and laws intended to create an equal system. The lingeringLouisiana case now presents the Republican justices an opportunity to hollow out one of the few remaining protections of the VRA, the requirement of minority-majority districts, under this twisted reasoning.

Last term, rather than decide the case, the court punted on its final day of opinions in June. Then, on Friday night, it announced it would rehear the case in the coming term. This time, the court wants the parties to submit briefs on “Whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”

The court’s Friday order doesn’t mention the VRA. For that, you have to follow the breadcrumbs it leaves by referring to three pages from the brief of the non-Black voters. In those pages, the litigants argueusing race as a factor in drawing district maps under the VRA is unconstitutional, and that the time has come for the court to eliminate the use of race in political-map drawing. The court is accepting this invitation.

The Supreme Court’s assault on democracy and President Donald Trump’s are tightly intertwined. On Sunday, Democrats in the Texas House fled their state in order to block the Republican majority’s plans to redraw its Congressional map to create five new GOP seats in Congress—and help Republicans hold the House after the 2026 midterms. The plan came down from Washington; supported by Trump and given a veneer of respectability by a legally-ludicrous DOJ letter to Texas leaders alleging five seats held by Black and Latino representatives are illegal racial gerrymanders and requesting they redraw the map. Assuming new lines are enacted, a state with only a small majority of Republican voters will have boldly pushed through a map that gives three-quarters of its congressional seats to the GOP.

“It would be an earthquake in politics and make our legislative bodies whiter.”

Trump may be behind this plan, but it was the Supreme Court that made such brazen partisan gerrymandering possible. In 2019’s Rucho v. Common Cause, a 5-4 GOP majority announced federal courts could not hear challenges to partisan gerrymandering claims. Texas, and any other state that doesn’t have its own constitutional checks on gerrymandering, were greenlit to go ahead and rig their maps as much as possible. Nevermind that when the politicians pick their voters, the democratic mechanism of voting is diminished, if not extinguished.

Now, consider what might happen in the 2026 midterms and beyond if states are not only free to engage in partisan gerrymanders, but, as the GOP justices are presumably preparing to make reality, free from an obligation to create majority-minority districts. This week, UCLA election law expert Rick Hasen laid out the consequences in Slate: “It would end what has been the most successful way that Black and other minority voters have gotten fair representation in Congress, state legislatures, and local bodies. It would be an earthquake in politics and make our legislative bodies whiter and our protection for minority voters greatly diminished.”

Perhaps this sea change will come next June, when the court generally releases its biggest decisions at the end of the term. But the court set an early October due date for the new briefs, leaving open the possibility that if the Republican-appointed majority wants to give their party another leg up in the midterms, it could hear the case again this fall and release an opinion by January, giving states enough time to rush through new maps that replace minority (and usually Democratic) seats with white Republican ones in time for the midterms. Not all gerrymanders are enacted by authoritarians, but authoritarians use gerrymanderingto rig elections and hold onto power.

Whenever the justices release their opinion, they will undoubtedly couch the decision in principles of fairness, equality, and even democracy. But the movement to destroy the Voting Rights Act is closely tied to the MAGA movement and the Republican Party it has taken over. Take, for example, the man who represents the non-Black litigantvoters from Louisiana, who wrote the brief that the justices are likely to turn into law, a Missouri lawyer named Edward Greim. As I wrote earlier this year, “In 2020, Greim was one of the lawyers who tried to halt vote-counting in order to help President Donald Trump win the election. According to the Wisconsin Examiner, Greim later represented a fake elector from Wisconsin who was part of the plot to overturn the election results.” According to Politico, he also represented seven witnesses before the January 6 Select Committee investigation.

There are different ways to rig an election. Trump’s attempted coup in 2020 was one of them. This is another. Neither is compatible with multiracial democracy as we have known for the last 60 years.

Continue Reading…

Trump Will Restore a Confederate Monument in the Nation’s Capital

Since resuming office, President Donald Trump has sought to rewrite American history, rejecting any signs of historical division and exalting some of the nation’s most notorious oppressors.

On Monday, the latest chapter of this quest unfolded: The National Park Service (NPS) announced that officials will restore and reinstall a Washington, DC, statue of a Confederate general that protesters toppled during the June 2020 protests sparked by George Floyd‘s murder by Minneapolis police. NPS’ press release said that the statue of Albert Pike, which was authorized by Congress in 1898 and stood in Judiciary Square, honors his “leadership in Freemasonry,” the male-only secret society. What it does not mention: Pike was a Confederate States of America general who fought to preserve slavery, may have been involved with the Ku Klux Klan in the late 1860s, and commanded Native American troops in an 1862 battle in which they scalped at least eight Union soldiers.

Video obtained by the Washington Post shows protesters pulling down the Pike statue with ropes to cheers in June 2020, which Trump called “a disgrace to our Country!” in a social media post at the time. It was one of nearly 100 Confederate monuments that were removed from public spaces that year, according to a 2021 survey by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).A report issued by the SPLC earlier this year found more than 680 Confederate monuments still standing.

The NPS cites two of Trump’s executive orders—”Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful” and “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History“—as part of its justification for reinstalling the Pike statue. The news release adds that the statue has been in storage since its removal and is currently undergoing restorations, and will likely be reinstalled by October. Spokespeople for NPS and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday afternoon on the cost of the restoration or Pike’s history as a Confederate general and supporter of slavery.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC’s non-voting Democratic delegate to Congress, said in a statement on Monday that she will reintroduce a bill to permanently remove the statue. “The decision to honor Albert Pike by reinstalling [his] statue is as odd and indefensible as it is morally objectionable,” she said.

“A statue honoring a racist and a traitor has no place on the streets of DC,” Holmes Norton added.

As jarring as the move may be, it is just one of a series of measures Trump has taken to try to remake the nation’s history in MAGA’s fantasized image—that is, as an historically colorblind and virtuous society. He has attacked the Smithsonian, alleging they have “come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology” and ordering officials to “remove improper ideology” from their properties; that led to the Smithsonian removing references to Trump’s two impeachments from an exhibit at the National Museum of American History, the Washington Post first reported last week. (The Smithsonian subsequently announced that the information would be restored within weeks.) Trump has also, implausibly, declared English the country’s official language.

His edicts have led the US Army to restore seven bases to prior names honoring Confederate leaders, and NPS to remove references to gender non-conforming and transgender people and slavery from its website. Trump’s sycophants in Congress have also tried to make DC a more Trump-friendly town, introducing legislation to rename Dulles International Airport after the president and the Kennedy Center Opera House after First Lady Melania Trump.

The latest news is just more proof that, as my colleague David Corn wrote back in April:

Trump has launched a crusade not only against public servants, legal and governmental norms, commonsense economics, science, higher education, DEI programs, and his critics and political rivals, as he vies for wide-ranging power that will allow him to rule as an autocrat. He is striving to become the Big Brother who determines which parts of the American story are legitimate and which are to be suppressed and deleted.

Continue Reading…