It’s Time for Soft Secession

In 2013, venture capitalist Tim Draper launched a “Six Californias” ballot initiative. The upshot was that with some 40 million people, more than the population of the 20 smallest states combined, California was too big, too diverse, to be “efficiently” governed. So why not, Draper argued, break it up into six new “startups,” a.k.a. states? Instead of two senators, we erstwhile “Californians” would get 12.

Draper’s scheme was part of a long tradition—since California was admitted to the Union as part of the Compromise of 1850, there have been more than 220 proposals for it to divide or secede—but derided as a Silicon Valley ploy to create a libertarian deregulation zone. (Tellingly, the Bay Area state was to be named “Silicon Valley.”) And aside from the feasibility of making it happen, state and federal constitution-wise, people worried that it would cleave four rich populous states from two poorer rural states (fair) and weaken Democrats’ voting share in the Senate (in retrospect, nah). Draper’s measure gleaned valid signatures from some 753,000 people—more, it must be said, than the populations of America’s three smallest states—but in California, that wasn’t enough to get on the ballot.

After the 2016 election, which put the anti-majoritarian provisions of the US Constitution very much front of mind, Draper came back with a simpler proposal—three Californias, or Cal 3. This initiative got enough signatures to head to voters, but the day before the 2018 ballots were to be printed, the state Supreme Court blocked the measure—what about things like existing water treaties, the justices worried—and Draper eventually gave up.

While his motives were murky, Draper tapped into something now excruciatingly felt. The assignment of two senators per state, no matter its population, was always a deeply flawed (and deeply racist) proposition. But the unfairness has only gotten more acute. As my colleague Ari Berman has noted: “In 1790, the country’s most populous state, Virginia, had 12 times as many people as its least populous, Delaware. Today, California has 67 times the population of Wyoming. Fifteen small states with 41 million people combined now routinely elect 30 GOP senators; California, with 39 million residents, is represented by only two Democrats.” The Golden State is the fourth-largest economy in the world but doesn’t have political clout proportional to its population, let alone to our status as a global cultural, technological, and agricultural juggernaut.

In case it’s not obvious why I’m taking a leisurely drive down a byroad of California electoral history, let’s review some of the abuses and usurpations that President Donald Trump has visited upon us.

California, and the country, cannot await the outcome of the midterms to repel Trump’s siege on democracy. More drastic action is required.

The most vicious of those abuses has been over immigration. On June 6, at the urging of his deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, ICE escalated raids in California, hitting farms, factories, construction sites, and schools, separating families and detaining undocumented people, legal residents, and even citizens. Federal agents arrested and hospitalized David Huerta, the head of one of the state’s most powerful unions. When protests erupted, Trump jumped at the chance to federalize the National Guard against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s wishes—something that hasn’t been done since LBJ acted to protect civil rights protesters from segregationists. Border czar Tom Homan threatened to arrest Newsom, which Trump agreed was a “great” idea. When a reporter asked for what crime, Trump responded that his “primary crime is running for governor” and called protesters “insurrectionists.” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson chimed in that Newsom should be “tarred and feathered.” Then Trump sent Marines into LA. When California Sen. Alex Padilla—who was voted for by more Americans than 18 GOP senators combined—tried to ask Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem questions at a press conference, federal officials knocked him down and cuffed him. One-quarter of California’s population are immigrants, and the continual attack on them—and anyone who is brown—is a moral injury that plays out in our streets and our feeds day after day after day.

A demonstrator faces US Marines and National Guard members in Los Angeles on July 4, 2025.Etienne Laurent/AFP/Getty

But the direct assaults on California are by no means limited to raids and those protesting raids. Trump has dragged his feet about providing federal aid to address the devastation of LA’s wildfires, saying he’d release it only if we pass a voter-ID law; taken our own National Guard off fire lines; and made bizarre claims about sending us water for the fires from the Pacific Northwest. He’s canceled our car efficiency and emissions rules, attacked our renewable energy plan, and zeroed out federal money for rooftop solar and high-speed rail. He’s revoked federal grants to UCLA over spurious charges of antisemitism, then gave the school a list of demands, including a $1 billion settlement and the end of ­gender-affirming care in its hospitals.

Amid all of that came Trump’s demand that Texas engage in midcycle redistricting to give the GOP five extra congressional seats that he says it’s “entitled to.” Newsom, both legitimately enraged and sensing an opportunity to help his presidential ambitions, has rallied California Democrats to mount a ballot initiative to temporarily set aside its nonpartisan redistricting commission and draw congressional maps to counterbalance Texas’ scheme.

We will vote on that initiative in November, and my bet is it will pass. But California, and the country, cannot await the outcome of the midterms to repel Trump’s siege on democracy. More drastic action is required.

Unfortunately, especially as Trump berates generals and admirals on “the enemy within” and suggests they use US cities as “training grounds,” it’s all too easy to imagine a world where the commanders of California’s military bases are compelled to choose sides. (If you think such scenarios are out of the realm of possibility, ask yourself why he and Pushup Pete Hegseth have been purging the brass.) Our boundaries of oceans and mountains and deserts, our copious natural resources, and our technological prowess make a return to an independent California Republic more feasible than it might be for other states. But in advance, and hopefully in lieu, of that, it’s time to start applying our economic muscle.

When Trump first said he was gutting federal funding to California’s public universities, a system that is the envy of the world, Newsom responded: “Californians pay the bills for the federal government. We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back. Maybe it’s time to cut that off, @realDonaldTrump.”

Remember when Mitt Romney called 47 percent of Americans “takers,” layabouts who fed off the “makers” that he claimed to represent? (We do, since Mother Jones’ own David Corn broke that story, arguably changing the course of the 2012 election.) This persistent GOP talking point is especially odd when you consider the residents of 19 mostly blue states pay more to the US Treasury than they get in federal benefits; to Newsom’s point, none pays more than California. (This includes our undocumented residents, who pay billions in federal taxes and receive no federal benefits.) We’re mostly happy to do it because we believe in things like Social Security, public education, pandemic preparedness, and research institutions. But why should we sit by while you take our money, defund our priorities, and shit on our values?

California can’t claim no power in Congress, like DC—home to 700,000 people, more than either Vermont or Wyoming—can. But it’s time to think outside of the electoral box and start flexing our considerable leverage. We are the nation’s largest agricultural state—growing more than a third of the country’s vegetables and ­three-quarters of its fruits—and the fifth-largest food producer in the world. We produce the most milk and the most wine, copious amounts of rice and cattle, and, crucially, 90 percent of US avocados. Other states may be poster children for farms, but we’re No. 1. Hollywood is a $47.2 billion industry exerting, for better or worse, immeasurable global cultural power. The $623 billion tech sector is even mightier. Were California to secede, almost 15 percent of America’s GDP would go with it, and the US could slip behind China as the world’s biggest economy.

Short of actual secession, what could California do? It could learn from the Jimmy Kimmel showdown and lead a financial “countervalue” rebellion, using “the full weight of blue states’ market power, cultural influence and legal authority to raise the stakes of Republican red-state aggression,” Democratic strategists Arkadi Gerney and Sarah Knight wrote in the Washington Post, by imposing “regulatory and economic costs that bite hard enough to make the constituents of even the most insulated legislator feel the pain.” We could start by disinvesting our pension funds from red-state companies like AT&T, American Airlines, ExxonMobil, and Tesla. “The 15 blue trifectas (states where Democrats control the governor’s mansion and both houses of the state legislature), with their larger state budgets and more generous pensions, have state investments that total almost 75 percent more than the 23 red trifectas,” they note.

If that seems a reach, consider that Texas effectively got BlackRock to drop its “woke” investment and governance policies by blackballing it. Blue states could lure away techies, doctors, nurses, and electricians with relocation bonuses. We could institute tax and other incentives to pull new factories and data centers away from red states. We could selectively terminate professional licensing reciprocity. We could ease commerce between friendly states and make it difficult for unfriendly ones.

Economic retribution is just part of a broader constellation of tools that law professors Jessica Bulman-Pozen (Columbia) and Heather K. Gerken (Yale) call “uncooperative federalism” and others call “soft secession.” It’s not, writes Substacker Chris Armitage, “the violent rupture of 1861, but something else entirely. Blue states building parallel systems, withholding cooperation, and creating facts on the ground that render federal authority meaningless within their borders.” Some of this is already underway. Led by California’s Rob Bonta, the attorneys general of blue states have been having almost daily Zoom calls to plot strategy and file briefs and suits. Democratic governors have devoted tens of millions to hire lawyers for those fights and banded together to oppose Trump’s threats to send troops to their states. In early September, California, Oregon, and Washington created the West Coast Health Alliance to formulate their own vaccine standards and distribute shots, no matter what lunacy Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unleashes. Hawaii signed on a day later. Other blue states are honing similar coalitions.

Unified action could further preserve what the federal government is destroying, law professors Aziz Z. Huq (University of Chicago) and Jon D. Michaels (UCLA) wrote in the Los Angeles Times. Blue states could create “large regional research consortia; re-create public-health and meteorology forecasting centers servicing member states; and finance pandemic planning.” (A proposal to do much of this is underway in Sacramento.) With the Justice Department doing little more than acting as Trump’s goon squad, states could also “mobilize interstate criminal task forces to track and prosecute corruption by politicians, ­lobbyists and government contractors (who invariably, when violating federal laws, run afoul of myriad state laws, too).” Ditto consumer and environmental investigations—the cost of which could be offset by fines, even as they lay the groundwork for federal prosecutions if America is ever restored to sanity.

But we need to be clear-eyed: Such a restoration may not come in time. So far, this year has been marked by a collective action problem. Media conglomerates, law firms, universities, banks, CEOs—too many powerful institutions and individuals have failed to meet the moment. This is why people all over the country, desperate for pushback against Trump’s autocracy, have embraced Newsom’s redistricting plan, whatever their broader opinions of him. With Trump provocatively sending troops into blue cities, and using recision and the shutdown to claw back congressionally appropriated funds from blue states, it’s time to turn the tables on him. Soft secession, powered by the presidential ambitions of multiple blue-state governors, could, should it come to that, be the proving ground of a new confederacy. Hopefully the threat of CalExit or a new Union will be enough. But that extreme measures might be necessary to ensure that American democracy shall not perish from the Earth is becoming more self-evident with every passing day.

Continue Reading…

The “Dual State” Theory Was Invented to Describe Nazis. The Supreme Court Could Take Us There.

Perhaps the most brazenly illegal action of President Donald Trump’s second term so far took place on his first day in office: an order to deny birthright citizenship to thousands of newborns. Within months, the question had reached the Supreme Court. But rather than affirm the right to birthright citizenship, which is plainly enshrined in the Constitution, the high court used the case to strip lower courts of the ability to issue nationwide emergency relief in most cases—now only those who sue can get reprieve. Instead of halting the administration’s lawless action, the justices made it easier for Trump to get away with future illegal abuses.

The ‘dual state’ framework explains how a dictator can exercise power while life appears mostly ordinary.

In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the majority of facilitating a two-track system of justice: One for those with the resources to challenge illegal actions, and a second where those without recourse are subjected to the president’s illegal whims. “The law-free zone that results from this Court’s near elimination of universal injunctions is not an unfamiliar archetype,” Jackson wrote. It is, she added, “eerily echoing history’s horrors” that “the zone of lawlessness the majority has now authorized will disproportionately impact the poor, the uneducated, and the unpopular.”

To eliminate any doubt about which historic “horrors” she had in mind,Jackson included a footnote citing Ernst Fraenkel, a Jewish labor lawyer who observed the transformation of the German legal system under Adolf Hitler. When Fraenkel fled Berlin in 1938, he smuggled out a manuscript on the legal mechanisms of Nazi authoritarianism. He eventually came to the University of Chicago and in 1941 published The Dual State: A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship. Fraenkel’s work has seen a resurgence of interest in the United States in recent months because it provides a framework for a phenomenon we are increasinglyexperiencingunder the second Trump administration: How a dictator can exercise unfettered power while life appears ordinary for most people. Or, as Jackson observed, how a “zone of lawlessness” can swallow some, while the rest go about their lives under the protection of the law.

In the Third Reich, Hitler’s will replacedGerman law. Whatever he wanted, he did. If anyone was perceived to threaten the Nazi project of a fascist ethno-state, no legal protection could save them. Fraenkel called this realm the “prerogative state.” But the broaderlegal system didn’t immediatelycrumble under arbitrary rule. To the contrary, the Nazis purposefully left some of the existing legal system intact in the 1930s and courts were allowed to function, particularly in areas of contracts and other economic concerns. This parallel “normative state,” Fraenkel observed, enabled Germany’s capitalist system to continue against the backdrop of an uninhibited regime. Most Germans generally lived in the law-bound normative state, while Jews and other disfavored people were victims of the arbitrary and violent prerogative state. The dual state is thus two-faced twice over:it is characterized by a bifurcation in the law, but also by the facade of normalcy obscuring the fact of an authoritarian state.

Life in the early months of Trump’s second presidency hews to this framework in important respects. How else to explain that most people enjoy a sense of normalcy while, for example, foreign students like Rümeysa Öztürk and green card holders like Mahmoud Khalil can be detained for their speech. Americans and immigrants alike can be terrorized by ICE, the federal government’s unleashed immigration force, if they speak Spanish, look nonwhite, or happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The administration is sinking Venezuelan vessels and executing the civilians on board without any legal authorization—killings that look like war crimes or murder. The government demanded that Disney fire comedian Jimmy Kimmel as if the First Amendment didn’t exist. But at the same time,the Trump administration’s law-breaking in its war on immigrants, its crusade against dissent, its takeover of the machinery of the federal government, its unrestraineduse of the military, have not cannibalized the broader legal system or society—at least not yet.

While these actions augur the onset of a dual state, the Trump administration hasn’t gotten us to this pointalone. The Supreme Court, with its Republican-appointed 6-3 majority, has been a crucial facilitator. When the court blesses the administration’s disregard for the law while maintaining the appearance that the law still rules, it is enabling a dual state. When Jackson made explicit reference to Fraenkel,she was sounding an alarm on the court’s role in the shift toward a dual state. As Evan Bernick, a constitutional law professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law, puts it: “The reality is that the court is adjusting the law to make place for arbitrary power.”

“The court is adjusting the law to make place for arbitrary power.”

With the Supreme Court beginning its next term this week, the question hanging in the air is whether the Republican-appointed majority will finally draw legal boundaries to fence in the president or, confronted with Trump’s demands for ever-increasing power, it will revise or abandon the law to accommodate him. The results could consolidate adual state or, in the extreme, extend Trump’s leash so far that all Americans begin to feel the effects of his unbridled powers—the onset of an authoritarian state without the dual state’s pretense of normalcy.

In three major cases, the Supreme Court will be addressing a key feature of a dual state: the ability of the government to switch a person or entity from the normative state and the protection of the law to the prerogative state, where the laws do not apply. Emergency powers, like the ones Trump has cited in these cases, are a quintessential switch.

In November, the justices will hear oral arguments over Trump’s sweeping tariffs. In his first three months in office, Trump announced tariffs on dozens of countries. Tariffs are Congress’ bailiwick, but Trump claimed power to impose them under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That law gives presidents power to respond to “any unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad, but does not explicitly name tariffs as an available tool. Citing the Roberts Court’s own recent precedents, the lower courts found that the president cannot unilaterally impose such a major policy—indeed, a policy that could hamstring both the United States and global economies. The question, as UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky wrote last month, is “Will the conservative justices adhere to what they have said and held recently, or will they just rubber stamp whatever Trump does?”

The case will be an important signal of whether the United States is operating as a dual state. If the justices abandon their legal principles in order to give the president more power, but do so under the color of law, then they will be bowing to the prerogative state while maintaining the illusion of the normative state.

Though it is not currently on the court’s docket, the justices will likely have to confront the question of whether Trump can once again use the specter of an emergency—even a pretend one—to round up and deport people. Since March, Trump has claimed the power to invoke the Alien Enemies Act with the baseless assertion that Tren de Aragua is invading the United States. This case, if it reaches the Supreme Court, will similarly test the justices’ willingness to maintain the guardrails around presidential power or whether, when it comes to the president’s targets, the law suddenly does not apply.

The justices will also consider the president’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors even though her position is protected from firing except for cause. Trump claims sufficient cause in allegations of mortgage fraud—allegations that are factually weak and unproven. If the court blesses this as sufficient for immediate removal, even as the dispute moves forward in the lower courts, it will have ultimately handed control of the Federal Reserve to the president, unlocking Trump’s ability to control interest rates and transform the Fed’s coffers into a personal slush fund. Worse, Trump could use the Fed to withhold access to the financial system to any entity or individual who crosses him. It’s hard to overstate the degree to which the entire economy could tumble into the prerogative state if Trump were to stack the Federal Reserve Board with loyalists.

Should the court hand Trump the unchecked power to declare emergencies, invasions, and causes for removal, it would give him a legal tool that can nullify the law he claims to be invoking. As Aziz Huq, a constitutional scholar at the University of Chicago explains, in a dual state, the high “court’s role is in creating affordances within the law that operate as off switches for the law… The classic example of that is the emergency powers article in the Weimar Constitution that was used to switch off the Weimar Constitution.” It’s lawlessness dressed up as law.

“There’s no explanation…that’s one of the frightening things about the shadow docket.”

The Supreme Court is also facilitating the creation of a dual state through its emergency or “shadow” docket, where the court issues decisions in cases it has taken up outside of its typical procedures. In the first nine months of Trump’s second term, the six Republican-appointed justices have issued weakly or unexplained orders viathisdocket that switched off legal constraints on the president.They’ve blessed Trump’s firings of federal officials—despite those firings being illegal—enabling Trump to take control of bodies that Congress created to be bipartisan and independent, and to hollow out other agencies beyond what the law allows. It used it toreinstate Trump’s ban on transgender service members in the military, greenlighting a policy unconstitutionally animated by disdain for a minority group. In the realm of immigration enforcement, a shadow docket decision allowed the administration to violate federal and international law to send immigrants to dangerous places like South Sudan, and sanctioned the administration’s policy of racially profiling people as part of its immigration enforcement toolkit, subjecting both citizens and immigrants alike to harassment and inhumane detainment. The court even used the shadow docket in the birthright citizenship case to stop the lower courts from issuing universal relief from these abuses. When Trump refused to spend $4 billion in foreign aid appropriated by Congress, the Supreme Court used the shadow docket tolet him ignore the law and withhold the money—even though Congress is supposed to have the power of the purse.

“A prerogative state situation is a situation where it seems like there’s this rule that should apply and require X—and then all of a sudden, it’s Y,” says Bernick. “The court says it’s Y and there’s no explanation that’s given. That is a dual state situation. And that’s one of the frightening things about the shadow docket.”

In The Dual State, Fraenkel recounts how the German courts allowed landlords to stop renting to Jews in the 1930s, even though tenancy laws protected Jewish and Aryan renters alike. “The courts therefore had to choose between doing their duty and applying the law for the protection of the defenseless victim or sacrificing justice to the demands of National-Socialism,” Fraenkel wrote. Initially, courts protected Jewish renters. But after the Nazi press criticized those decisions, the courts changed their tune—not by reinterpreting the law, but by forgoing with the business of law entirely; a decision Fraenkel cites from the Appellate Court of Berlin held thatthe “question before the court is not a problem of the law of landlord and tenant, but a question involving a fundamental outlook on life.” In complying with the Third Reich, the courts elevated Nazi policies, as Fraenkel put it, “above the laws.”

It’s hard not to see echoes of this in the court’s current use of the shadow docket. Often, the court’s orders, issued with little or no explanation, don’t even attempt to find justification in the law. The law appears ignored. Take the decision last month to permit ICE officers to racially profile people who don’t look white. After years of decrying any state use of race to differentiate between people, the court allowed ICE to use race without any explanation. Only Justice Brett Kavanaugh attempted a justification, though it was the legal equivalent of swiss cheese.

“ICE is the face of a prerogative state, emerging or actual: It swoops in, it ignores safeguards, you can’t escape it,” says Bernick. “A Supreme Court that gets out of the way in that context, where the state is at its most brutal, and tries to manage everything else as normal, is a dual state Supreme Court.”

The key to understanding the Supreme Court’s interest in creating a dual state—and how close the United States actually is to becoming one—is that the normative state is not truly a safe zone. While the dual state framework generally refers to the law-bound normative state and the lawless prerogative state, that doesn’t capture the dual state Fraenkel described.

Under the Nazis, the normative state proved to be a fiction. As much as the Nazis wanted to use the courts to preserve the country’s capitalist economy, they would never be constrained by them. “Where the Prerogative State does not require jurisdiction, the Normative State is allowed to function,” Fraenkel wrote. “The limits of the Prerogative State are not imposed from the outside; they are imposed by the Prerogative State itself.”

Republican appointed justices prefer a hidden authoritarianism to one that is out in the open.

In such a dual state, the normative state remains a useful illusion, but it is not truly bound by the rule of law. Huq, who is working on a book about Fraenkel’s theory and today’s United States, suggests that Fraenkel thought of the prerogative state as something like a black hole: “It’s this void, but it’s a void that exerts a gravitational pull on everything around it. So there’s this constant distortion of what he calls the normative state. And there are these moments where some piece of the normative state just gets collapsed and blown away.”

As long as there are actual limits, a real safe zone, the United States is not a Fraenkelian dual state. Öztürk and Khalil were eventually released from detention on judges’ orders, while Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the administration deported in violation of a court order and then claimed it did not have to retrieve him, did finally bring him back. While these are signals that a true dual state hasn’t yetarrived, their situations remain touch-and-go, with the administration still attempting to deport Khalil and Abrego Garcia to farflung nations. Similarly, insofar as the Supreme Court actuallyis a critical facilitator of Donald Trump’s increasingly unfettered power—which would also mean it retains its authority to limit the administration’s actions—then Trump has not succeeded in creating a true prerogative state.

However, the justices appear to have a keen understanding, possibly intuitive, of Fraenkel’s dual state theory. In recent months, the court’s Republican wing has let Trump opt out of following the law virtually every time Trump has asked the justices for a hall pass. Covetous of their authority, this improbable winning streak—some 21 shadow docket cases—may actually signal the conservative justices’ unwillingness to cross him. They may realize that should Trump defy the court, it would mean that the court’s authority was, just as in Fraenkel’s world, an illusion of normalcy projected by the prerogative state to lull the masses into complacency.

The Republican appointed justices, to the extent the United States has become a dual state, would rather stave off such a collapse, not least because their legitimacy and power relies on such a mirage. Thus, they prefer a hidden authoritarianism to one that is out in the open. And more than anyone else, the justices are in the position to paper over Trump’s lawlessness or expose it. But this is precisely why the dual state is so dangerous: It allows the would-be autocrat to consolidate power under the cloak of democracy and norms.

Clearly, the Republican appointees are not mere victims of Trump’s authoritarian aims. Their role in the creation of a dual state began before Trump’s second term. Kim Lane Scheppele, an expert on authoritarian regimes at Princeton, has documented the ascendance of “autocratic legalism,” a modern form of authoritarianism that uses existing laws and constitutions to ultimately subvert those guardrails and establish an autocratic state. To succeed, she notes, autocrats must inherit an already weakened democracy or first weaken it substantially; a robust democracy is much harder to conquer.

Any account of America’s sclerotal democracy must include the Supreme Court. As often happens in backsliding democracies, the US’ highest court has been captured by loyalists to the autocrat. Between 2017 and 2020, Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices when, under historical precedent, at least one if not two of those seats should have gone to the Democratic president who either preceded or succeeded him. In other words, the current court is the result of a partisan plot to seize power through court appointments, enabled by a president who took office without majority support. But even before those appointments,the Supreme Court under John Roberts—he has been its chief for 20 years—was already facilitating the US’s democratic decline. From voting rights to campaign finance, the Roberts Court has repeatedly interfered with the machinery of a healthy democracy.

The Roberts court has given “the presidency the option, essentially, to opt out of statutory laws.”

A dual state is a legal artifice of authoritarianism, and under Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court inflated the powers of the president in case after case, as critics warned that the justices were paving the way to autocracy. The capstone in this progression was Roberts’ July 2024 opinion granting former presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for most official acts. “It’s basically saying Congress cannot constrain the President with criminal statutes,” Scheppele previously explained to Mother Jones. “So then why should Congress be able to constrain the President with appropriation statutes or anything else?”

You can look at these Roberts court opinions building up to the immunity decision, says Huq, as giving “the presidency the option, essentially, to opt out of statutory laws.” The opinions created a dual state mechanism wherein the Constitution itself could be used to switch off the law when it comes to the president. In his book, Fraenkel defined the “principle of the inviolability of law” as meaning that “once the sovereign has promulgated a law, he may not violate it at his discretion” and explained that its abandonment is quintessential to the prerogative state: “The complete abolition of the inviolability of law is the chief characteristic of the Prerogative State.” It’s likely no accident that a year after Trump was given the unregulable power to launch sham prosecutions of political enemies, he is doing just that.

Why would a dictator prefer a dual state to an overtly authoritarian regime? In Fraenkel’s telling, the normative state served the Nazis’ aims by maintaining an illusion of normalcy, especially in economics. Similarly, an American president with authoritarian ambitions would be more likely to realize them if people thought their lives wouldn’t be affected. The Republican wing of the Supreme Court has a self-interest in a dual state as well; without the illusion of the normative state, the justices’ are revealed to be pawns, not power brokers. Their authority wouldevaporate because it is based on the perception of the rule of law. But maintaining a stabledual state means that the prerogative state must hold itself back, particularly in when it comes to the economy—the black hole cannot grow too large.

The upcoming term contains key tests of whether this administration and this court canmaintainthe sort of dual state that reassures voters and financialmarkets. In May, the Supreme Court used the shadow docket to allow Trump to fire commissioners on the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board, even though the law prohibited their removals. But in its order, the GOP appointees attempted to protect the similarly-situated Federal Reserve Board from Trump’s firing authority. “The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,” the opinion stated. That exemption isn’t actually grounded in any set of laws or precedents—and neither is the Fed board quasi-private. But the distinction’s utility in a dual state context is clear: hand Trump control of every other agency but reassure the markets by protecting the Fed. As Bernick put it, “It’s like the court is offering, ‘We’re going to help you. We’ll do this for you. And if you want to have a dual state, we’ll give it to you.’”

Unappeased, the administration is back before the court in the Lisa Cook case, again pushing it to hand Trump control of the Fed by allowing him to remove members for obviously pretextual “causes.” The dual state response would be to fashion a compromise in which the court both lets the administration remove Cook while also calming the markets by making it seem like a complete Trump takeover of the nation’s monetary policy is not about to happen. That balancing act may be impossible. “The paradox is that if the markets don’t believe you, because they see through it, then you don’t have a dual state,” says Bernick. “If it’s too transparent that what’s going on here is just capitulation to authoritarians who want to do whatever they want, then you don’t have the normative state. And then markets get spooked because they like the normative state.”

“You can read Fraenkel as a story of inevitability… The dual state eventually collapses.”

The tariff case carries the same economic perils for the dual state—and the administration seems to know it. Its reassurances in its briefs in both cases that its positions will only help the economy are likely its own attempt to calm both the justices and the markets. Similarly, Trump’s decision in April to back off his most extreme tariffs when bond prices began to wobble signals that the administration is aware, at least on some level, that a takeover of the machinery of the economy is self-defeating. And yet, the desire to seize this power and quite likely wield it in aggressive and economically disastrous ways has been a feature of Trump’s second term. “You can read Fraenkel as a story of inevitability; going back to the black hole, at some point the prerogative state just sucks everything in,” says Huq. “That’s one version of the story, where the dual state eventually collapses into a single prerogative state.”

Justice Jackson’s warning in the birthright citizenship case tries to halt the shift to authoritarianism before it is too late. In her dissent citing Fraenkel, she tells the public that the Republican appointees are not applying the law so much as clearing it out of Trump’s way. “To hear the majority tell it, this suit raises a mind-numbingly technical query” about the historical analogues to universal injunctions, she wrote. “But that legalese is a smokescreen. It obscures a far more basic question of enormous legal and practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?”

The dual state is dual in two respects: First, it divides the law into the prerogative and normative zones; next it uses the normative zone to create an illusion of normalcy to cover up an authoritarian reality. This “smokescreen” sustains the economy and fosters acceptance by the people until it’s too late. Jackson accuses her colleagues of creating this dual state on both tracks: first, by sanctioning a zone of lawlessness, and second, by pretending that doing so is business as usual. But, she warns, “Were courts unable or unwilling to command the Government to follow the law—they would ‘sanctio[n] a tyranny.’”

Jackson, in the court’s minority, cannot stop her colleagues from hastening this tyranny. But in her dissents, she can blow their cover.

Continue Reading…

If You Want to Stay Healthy and Care About Humanity, Here’s What to Eat

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

Adoption of a plant-rich “planetary health diet” could prevent 40,000 early deaths a day across the world, according to a landmark report.

The diet—which allows moderate meat consumption—and related measures would also slash the food-related emissions driving global heating by half by 2050. Today, a third of greenhouse gas emissions come from the global food system and taming the climate crisis is impossible without changing how the world eats, the researchers said. Food production is also the biggest cause of the destruction of wildlife and forests and the pollution of water.

The planetary health diet (PHD) sets out how the world can simultaneously improve the health of people and the planet, and provide enough food for an expected global population of 9.6 billion people by 2050.

“This is not a deprivation diet…” It “could be delicious, aspirational and healthy.”

The diet is flexible, allowing it to be adapted to local tastes, and can include some animal products or be vegetarian or vegan. However, all versions advise eating more vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes and whole grains than most people in the world currently eat. In many places, today’s diets are unhealthy and unsustainable due to too much meat, milk and cheese, animal fats and sugar.

People in the US and Canada eat more than seven times the PHD’s recommended amount of red meat, while it is five times more in Europe and Latin America, and four times more in China. However, in some regions where people’s diets are heavily reliant on starchy foods, such as sub-Saharan Africa, a small increase in chicken, dairy and eggs would be beneficial to health, the report found.

North American adult diets in 2020 versus planetary health recommendation, daily per capita intake in grammesGuardian

Severe inequalities in the food system must also be ended to achieve healthy and sustainable diets, the researchers said. The wealthiest 30 percent of the world’s population generates more than 70 percent of food-related environmental damage, it found. Furthermore, 2.8 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet and 1 billion are undernourished, despite enough food being produced globally. The food system is also failing the 1 billion people living with obesity, the report said.

The report recommends shifting taxes to make unhealthy food more costly and healthy food cheaper, regulating the advertising of unhealthy food and using warning labels, and the shifting of today’s massive agricultural subsidies to healthier and more sustainable foods.

“What we put on our plates can save millions of lives, cut billions of tonnes of emissions, halt the loss of biodiversity, and create a fairer food system,” said Prof Johan Rockström, who co-chaired the EAT-Lancet Commission that produced the report. “The evidence is undeniable: transforming food systems is not only possible, it’s essential to securing a safe, just, and sustainable future for all.”

“This is not a deprivation diet,” said Prof Walter Willett of the Harvard TH Chan school of public health, and another commission co-chair. “This is something that could be delicious, aspirational and healthy. It also allows for cultural diversity and individual preferences, providing flexibility.”

“Our recommendations are grounded in scientific evidence and real-world experience.”

The report, published in the Lancet, was produced by 70 leading experts from 35 countries and six continents. It builds on the 2019 report that introduced the PHD, but includes new evidence of the health benefits of the diet.

“We have been able to look at this diet in relation to health outcomes such as total mortality, diabetes, respiratory diseases, heart disease, stroke, etc and we found very strong inverse relationships” said Willett. The diet was also linked to reduced cancer and neurodegenerative diseases.

Overall, the researchers estimated global adoption of the PHD could prevent 15m early deaths a year in adults. The estimate did not include the impact of the diet reducing obesity, meaning it is probably an underestimate.

The PHD recommends plant-rich, flexible diets, including:

• Fruits and vegetables—at least five portions a day
• Whole grains—three to four portions a day
• Nuts—one portion per day
• Legumes (beans, peas, lentils)—one portion per day
• Dairy—one serving of milk, yoghurt or cheese portions a day
• Eggs —three to four a week
• Chicken—two portions a week
• Fish—two portions a week
• Red meat—one portion a week

Marco Springmann from UCL in the UK and an author of the report said the differences between the PHD and current diets vary: “What needs to be reduced differs a lot. In low income countries, it’s the starchy foods and grains, whereas in high income countries it is animal-sourced foods, sugar, saturated fats, and dairy. It’s insane how much dairy is consumed in Europe and North America.”

The data underlying the report is available online and can be used to tailor different planetary health diets for the tastes of people in specific countries and of different ages. The website also shows how much the diets reduce deaths, improve nutrition, and cut environmental impacts. “Hopefully this will lead to more science-based policymaking,” said Springmann.

The PHD is better than current average diets for many nutrients, including fatty acids, fibre, folate, magnesium and zinc. Adequate iron and vitamin B12 could be provided by green leafy vegetables, fermented soy foods and algae, the researchers said.

Moving diets towards the PHD could be achieved by helping consumers make better everyday choices, said Line Gordon, director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, for example by shifting taxes to make healthy foods cheaper, and putting warning labels on unhealthy foods. “But it is not just about getting prices lower, it’s also about bringing purchasing power up so that people can afford a healthier diet” she said.

“Our recommendations are grounded in scientific evidence and real-world experience,” Gordon said. “Changes are already under way, from school meal programmes to regenerative agriculture and food waste reduction initiatives.” England banned price promotions on unhealthy foods on Wednesday and will ban advertising such foods online.

The report estimates that food-related ill health and environmental damage costs society about $15 trillion a year. It said investments to transform the food system would cost $200 billion to $500 billion a year, but save $5 trillion.

Alongside a shift in diets, the report calls for other changes to the food system, including cutting the loss and waste of food, greener farming practices, and decent working conditions, as a third of food workers earn below living wages.

The launch of the PHD in 2019 led to attacks from meat industry interests. Rockström said: “The [new report] is a landmark achievement. It is a state-of-the-art scientific assessment that quantifies healthy diets for all human beings in the world and the environmental boundaries all food systems need to meet to stay safe. So we have a really rigorous foundation for our [results]. We are ready to meet that assault.”

Continue Reading…

“Authoritarian”: Trump Sending Troops to Another American City

President Donald Trump is making good on his promise to invade more American cities.

On Saturday, Gov. JB Pritzker (D-Ill.) announced that the Trump administration planned to deploy 300 National Guard troops to Illinois “against our will.” Gov. Pritzker added that Department of Defense officials had told him that if he did not call up the troops himself, they would.

“For Donald Trump, this has never been about safety. This is about control.”

“They will pull hardworking Americans out of their regular jobs and away from their families all to participate in a manufactured performance—not a serious effort to protect public safety,” Pritzker added. “For Donald Trump, this has never been about safety. This is about control.”

Earlier this week, Pritzker said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was requesting National Guard troops be sent to Illinois to protect ICE agents, who have been carrying out what they call “Operation Midway Blitz,” an enforcement effort that DHS says has led to more than 1,000 arrests.

It is unclear where or when the National Guard troops were deployed, and spokespeople for the White House and Pritzker’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Mother Jones on Sunday afternoon.

Trump has already sent the National Guard to Washington, DC, Portland, Los Angeles, and Memphis, even though troops in some of these cities don’t appear to have much to do.

Related

The National Guard Soldier Pissed About Trump’s DC Takeover

The Portland operation also hit a legal snag: On Saturday, a Trump-appointed federal judge temporarily blocked Trump’s deployment of the troops to the city, saying that the president’s allegations of unrest and his depiction of the city as “war-ravaged” were “untethered to facts.” The government, the judge said, “made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power—to the detriment of this nation.”

Trump has long been floating the idea of sending troops to Chicago, which he has called “a mess,” as I previously reported. Earlier this week, at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s bizarre military meeting, Trump said he told Hegseth officials “should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds” for the US military, adding, “we’re going into Chicago very soon. That’s a big city with an incompetent governor, stupid governor.”

On CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Pritzker told host Jake Tapper that residents are “booing” the presence of ICE, who are “just picking up people who are Brown and Black, and then checking their credentials.”

“We didn’t need them before they showed up,” he added.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker blasts the Trump administration over its immigration crackdown in Chicago: “They are the ones making it a war zone… They want mayhem on the ground. They want to create the war zone so that they can send in even more troops.” pic.twitter.com/UUTCV2PC69

— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) October 5, 2025

Trump told reporters on Sunday that he believes Pritzker is “afraid for his life,” and baselessly claimed protesters in Chicago were “paid.”

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) [said in a post on X][13] that Trump’s deployment of the troops was “authoritarian.” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) [added][14], “History will recognize President Trump’s mobilization of our nation’s military in American cities for what it is—a vile abuse of power by a cruel President pushing us toward authoritarianism.”

Colleen K. Connell, executive director of the ACLU of Illinois, [called][15] the announcement “the latest escalation of attacks on people in the Chicago area,” adding, “The president clearly despises the reality that Chicago rejects his cruel policies, but we will not be intimidated.”

According to reports, tensions have been ramping up between people on the ground in Chicago and ICE agents. Pritzker and other officials referenced an overnight ICE raid at an apartment building in Chicago’s South Shore neighborhood this week, which reportedly [led][16] to the arrests of 37 people. Pritzker [said][17] the raid involved kids being zip-tied and separated from their parents. DHS officials [claimed][18] the area was frequented by gang members, but building residents told local media that they were swept up in the chaos regardless of whether or not they had any warrants out for their arrests.

On Saturday, DHS officials [said][19] Border Patrol agents shot an armed citizen after they were “attacked and rammed by vehicles and boxed in by 10 cars.” The woman, who DHS [says][20] has a history of doxxing federal agents, was released from the hospital and is in FBI custody.

Protests have also broken out at an ICE facility in Broadview, an area on the outskirts of Chicago. More than a dozen people were arrested there on Friday, when Noem made an in-person visit, CNN [reported][21].

On CNN on Sunday, Pritzker said the chaos is the point. “They want mayhem on the ground,” the governor said of the Trump administration. “They want to create the war zone so that they can send in even more troops.”

[13]: http://He’s terrorizing citizens in attempt to expand his power and punish opponents. That’s just not who we are. It’s authoritarian. [14]: https://x.com/SenatorDurbin/status/1974868683077173312 [15]: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-and-aclu-of-illinois-slam-president-trumps-imminent-activation-of-300-troops-to-chicago [16]: https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/03/us/chicago-apartment-ice-raid [17]: https://gov-pritzker-newsroom.prezly.com/governor-pritzker-directs-state-agencies-to-evaluate-treatment-of-children-during-federal-raid-in-south-shore [18]: https://abc7chicago.com/post/ice-chicago-federal-agents-surround-south-shore-apartment-building-dhs-requests-military-deployment-illinois/17908911/ [19]: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/04/vehicles-again-used-weapon-attack-against-dhs-law-enforcement-officers-forced-fire [20]: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/04/update-dhs-deploys-special-operations-after-multiple-violent-attacks-federal-law [21]: https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/03/us/illinois-broadview-ice-protests

Continue Reading…

ICE Will Be “All Over” the Super Bowl

In the latest reminder thatnowhere is safe, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is planning to “be all over” the Super Bowl, according to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

“They suck and we’ll win and God will bless us,” said a government official to a podcaster.

Noem made the announcement on podcaster Benny Johnson’s show on Friday. Right-wingers, including Johnson, have been freaking out over Bad Bunny’s recently announced performance during the halftime show at the February game in Santa Clara, California. The Puerto Rican rapper, who has been critical of Trump, has said he avoided touring in the mainland US because he was concerned about ICE enforcement targeting his fans.

In response to Johnson’s questions, Noem told the host of the Super Bowl and its halftime show, “We’ll be all over that place.”

“I think people should not be coming to the Super Bowl unless they’re law-abiding Americans who love this country,” she added.

When Johnson asked if Noem had a message to the NFL—alleging that by picking Bad Bunny it “seemed like they were trying to send a message to the Trump administration”—she replied: “They suck and we’ll win and God will bless us.”

Just two days earlier, Corey Lewandowski, one of Noem’s top aides, made similar comments to Johnson, calling Bad Bunny a “cross-dressing, America-hating, ICE-hating, Puerto Rican dude” and complained that “he doesn’t sing in English.” Lewandowski told Johnson, “It’s so shameful that [the NFL] decided to pick somebody who just seems to hate America so much to represent them at the halftime game.”

Bad Bunny hosted Saturday Night Live’s season premiere last night. But he did not address the plans for ICE enforcement at the Super Bowl. The closest he came was introducing a short montage of Fox anchors edited to say they love him and want him to be the next president (instead of the actual criticism the hosts spewed).

Bad Bunny's monologue! pic.twitter.com/pjS0Ejckcg

— Saturday Night Live – SNL (@nbcsnl) October 5, 2025

Later in the monologue, he made some comments in Spanish, which reportedly translated to thanking “all of the Latinos and Latinas in the world here in the United States who have worked to open doors.” He added: “Our footprints and our contribution in this country, no one will ever be able to take that away or erase it.” Then, he added in English: “If you didn’t understand what I just said, you have four months to learn.”

Neither Bad Bunny nor the NFL have appeared to respond to the Trump administration’s threats.

Continue Reading…

Indigenous Nations Plan Tariff-Free Trade Corridor Across US-Canada border

This story was originally published by Canada’s National Observer and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Just west of Fort Qu’Appelle in Saskatchewan, the Standing Buffalo Dakota Nation is working across the US border to revive centuries-old trade routes as part of a new Indigenous-governed trade corridor.

Trucks from the First Nation could soon be transporting food, furniture and even critical minerals south of the border along ancestral pathways once used to move buffalo hides and pemmican across the plains—without paying taxes or tariffs.

For generations, Indigenous peoples freely exchanged goods, knowledge and culture across the land that is now divided by the Canada–US border. Those networks were disrupted by colonial laws that divided families and communities but they are now being reimagined as a modern supply chain grounded in Indigenous law and sovereignty.

“We’re operationalizing our old corridors—taking ancient trade routes our elders told us about and articulating them in a modern context,” said Solomon Cyr, spokesperson for Standing Buffalo Dakota Nation.

The First Nation plans to formalize its partnership with the Fort Peck Sioux Tribes, in Montana, next week by signing a memorandum of understanding to advance the trade corridor and its infrastructure development.

The corridor intends to use traditional routes traversing Dakota territories in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and into the United States, reviving the historic Oceti Sakowin trade network, a historic alliance of seven Dakota, Lakota and Nakota Indigenous groups united by kinship, language and spiritual beliefs. The shared trade routes historically facilitated economic and military ties across their territories. “We have a lot of history, and even to this day, ties linking us to our relatives,” said Rodger Redman, chief of the nation.

“There was a promise to our people that we would continue to trade and be allowed to trade in our traditional territories.”

Redman said this corridor is not symbolic, but rather an economic engine for the countries. Standing Buffalo is located in a region rich with critical minerals vital to global industries including renewable energy and technology. By owning the corridor, Indigenous nations can control the movement of these resources and expand economic opportunities for their communities.

The plan includes a $2-billion infrastructure proposal submitted to Canada’s Privy Council aimed at developing core projects such as a cross-border trade portal, renewable energy corridors and smart transportation networks.

“We’re not only talking about natural gas or oil pipelines,” Cyr said. “We’re talking about furniture, anything connected to the GDP that moves on trucks, trains or pipelines that can be tax exempt, so long as the products move from point A to point B.”

It is currently the only Indigenous nation actively pursuing a trade corridor of this kind, which could transform commerce between the United States and Canada. “It’s a very distinctive and powerful world-class application of an old Indigenous order of operations,” Cyr said.

Redman said the initiative is part of a centuries-old relationship with the British Crown and Indigenous allies, noting that the nation never ceded its land or jurisdiction.

“There was a promise to our people that we would continue to trade and be allowed to trade in our traditional territories. Today, we are operationalizing those promises made by the Crown that we would continue to trade in our personal territory,” he said.

The promise Redman is referring to is the Jay Treaty, a 1794 agreement between the United States and Great Britain that recognizes the right of Indigenous peoples to freely cross the US-Canada border for trade and travel.

Nadir André, a partner at JFK Law with extensive experience in Aboriginal Law, said the Jay Treaty is the only legal source that could facilitate such movement. But while the United States acknowledges and enforces the treaty’s provisions, Canada has never acknowledged the treaty. In fact, a Supreme Court decision from the early 2000s, known as the Mitchell case, found that the Jay Treaty is not enforceable in Canada.

The court also ruled that there is no clear Aboriginal right under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution allowing Indigenous peoples to bring goods across the border for trade purposes. If a First Nation fuel company wanted to bring fuel from Canada to sell in the United States, under US law this is allowed without paying duty taxes or tariffs. However, the reverse—bringing goods from the US into Canada—is not legally recognized.

“We were called refugees and treated in a discriminatory fashion… Now, with constitutional protections, we’re asserting sovereignty.”

“If it’s not bilateral, then it defeats the purpose, because then it would only confer an advantage to Canadian First Nations doing trade in the ‘States and it would not be a counterpart for the American tribes to be able to trade in Canada,” he said.

John Desjarlais, executive director of the Indigenous Resource Network, believes this initiative could serve as another test of the Jay Treaty, which could set a precedent for other First Nations creating trade corridors and opportunities in resources such as timber, oil, and mining, as well as long-term manufacturing. However, many questions remain.

“We’re pushing jurisdictional boundaries and sovereignty within Canada. What does that mean in the broader turmoil of cross‑border trade between Canada and the US? What does protected, tax‑ and tariff‑free trade look like?”

André said there’s also concern that without clear verification processes, non-Indigenous companies could misuse the system by falsely claiming Indigenous status.

He said considerations for the corridor extend beyond customs lines, involving strict environmental, health and safety regulations, as well. Many products, such as lumber and drinking water, require adherence to such standards. “Would you allow drinkable water as a trade? Could you bring water by bulk from Canada to the States through this initiative? Or would it be limited to certain items that are already allowed for trading?”

Governance is another significant challenge. Canada’s trade regulations come under the jurisdiction of multiple layers of government—provinces, territories and federal departments—while the US adds its own complexity with 51 states, each having separate rules. Coordinating among all these authorities will be a daunting task.

André recalled that similar efforts have been made before, such as during the renegotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2016, but none succeeded.

For the nation, this initiative is a breakthrough.

Until 2024, the Standing Buffalo Dakota Nation was not officially recognized as an Indigenous nation in Canada. That year, the Canadian government apologized for this mistake and formally recognized Standing Buffalo and eight other Dakota and Lakota First Nations as Aboriginal peoples, granting them constitutional protections under Section 35. “We were called refugees and treated in a discriminatory fashion without rights or recognition. Now, with constitutional protections, we’re asserting sovereignty over our lands and trade,” Cyr said.

Redman has been actively advancing the trade corridor through international diplomacy, including high-level meetings in Mexico City with officials from CUSMA (Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement), which replaced the former NAFTA agreement. He said that while the nation continues to wait for Canada to formally recognize its sovereignty and legal framework, officials from Mexico and the US have shown greater openness to work together.

The nation has also established its own consultation frameworks and environmental oversight processes to ensure that its voices and rights remain central in developments on their lands. The funding for their initiative is expected to come from multiple sources including the First Nations Finance Authority, the federal Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program, nation’s capital, and other investment partnerships.

“We’re not begging for crumbs anymore. We’re demanding what’s rightly ours and share our responsibility to Mother Earth,” Redman said. “We’re asserting our sovereignty. We’re here to give them notice that we have our trade corridor and we’re implementing that.”

Continue Reading…

Judge Says DOJ May Be Vindictively Prosecuting Kilmar Abrego Garcia

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—the immigrant whose deportation to a Salvadoran prison in March caused national outrage—has taken a new turn. On Friday, a federal judge found that the Trump administration may be pursing charges against him out of vindictiveness. Now, the judge is allowing evidence gathering and a hearing to determine if the Justice Department’s criminal prosecution of Abrego Garcia should be dismissed as a “selective or vindictive prosecution.”

In March, the Trump administration sent Abrego Garcia, originally from El Salvador, to a notorious Salvadoran prison, despite a judge’s previous order preventing his return to his home country. The government acknowledged it removed him by mistake, but then refused for months to return him to the United States. The government finally returned Abrego Garcia to the United States once it had filed criminal charges against him in Tennessee in connection to a traffic stop there in 2022, in which he was pulled over for speeding and questioned about transporting other immigrants in the vehicle he was driving. He wasn’t charged then, but now, more than years later, the government alleges that he was part of a human smuggling operation, transporting undocumented people within the United States.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have argued that the case should be dismissed as a vindictive and selective prosecution. They noted that such dismissals are rarely granted, but argued that this should be one such rare case. Tennessee District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr., an Obama appointee, agreed that the matter should be explored.

In his opinion, Crenshaw pointed to public statements from several Trump administration officials celebrating Abrego Garcia’s indictment. Most telling, Crenshaw wrote, are the actions of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

After Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador, he had sued for his release in Maryland. In a TV interview, Blanche later revealed that the Justice Department only launched the criminal investigation into Abrego Garcia after the judge in the Maryland case ruled in the man’s favor. The implication, then, is that the government may have launched criminal charges against Abrego Garcia as retaliation for the civil case where he questioned his deportation—and where the judge “found that it ‘had no right to deport him,’ and ‘accus[ed] [the government] of doing something wrong.'”

“The Fifth Amendment forbids the government from punishing Defendants for exercising their constitutional and statutory rights,” Crenshaw continued. “Consequently, Defendants may challenge the government’s charging decisions for actual or presumptive vindictiveness.”

This order comes at a perilous time for Abrego Garcia. After his return to the United States, he was jailed in Tennessee. At one point, his lawyers asked that he be allowed to remain in jail, because they feared the administration would deport him if released. Since August, the administration has been threatening to remove him to Uganda—a country where he’s never lived.This ispart of the government’s effort to deport people to far-away countries, with often dangerous conditions, if they cannot be returned to their country of origin. (This is one of many Trump policies that the Supreme Court has green lit on its shadow docket—usually brief and unexplained opinions made without a hearing.)

Now, Abrego Garcia is fighting his deportation even as the criminal prosecution against him in Tennessee proceeds. This week, an immigration judge in Baltimore denied his asylum request, which he has 30 days to appeal.

Even as his claims of vindictive prosecution move forward, the administration continues to work to remove him:“One thing is certain: This Salvadoran man is not going to be able to remain in our country,” Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to the Washington Post. Abrego Garcia will “never be loose on American streets.”

Continue Reading…

The Supreme Court Just Took Legal Status from 300,000 Venezuelans

The Supreme Court’s Republican appointees on Friday let the Trump administration end the legal status of 300,000 Venezuelan immigrants who were granted Temporary Protected Status(TPS), a type of humanitarian relief for people whose home countries are in crisis, even as this group’s case continues to wind through the courts. The order is extraordinary—not least because it puts 300,000 people at the mercy of President Donald Trump’s increasingly brutal and uninhibited deportation forces.

Just this week, the American people saw images of an ICE raid on a Chicago apartment building with a significant Venezuelan population. Citizens had their doors bashed in and were zip-tied for hours. Pulled from their apartments in the middle of the night, mothers were separated from children, and children were zip-tied to each other, some naked. This type of raid is precisely what the Supreme Court allowed just last month when it said that ICE could use race to detain suspected immigrants. Nowwith Friday’s decision, they’ve all but ensured that many of the 300,000 Venezuelans will have no legal protection should they get detained.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced earlier this year that she was ending temporary protected status for Venezuelans, even though, by law, those protections run until October 2026. It was, as Mother Jones reported, “the largest delegalization campaign in modern US history.” Friday’s order pausedDistrict Court Judge Edward Chen’s ruling that the revocation of TPS violated federal law. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow its revocation of TPS for the Venezuelan immigrants anyway, and it did. Now, even as the district court’s decision is not final—the case’s appeal is working its way through the courts—300,000 people will suddenly lose legal immigration status. Many have been here for years and have had temporary protected status since 2021.

The Supreme Court opinion behind this was brief, unreasoned, and unsigned. It is another decision on the so-called emergency or shadow docket in which the GOP wing of the court disregards lower court rulings with little or no explanation. It also fits a pattern, now demonstrated in nearly two-dozen cases, in which the Republican appointees on the high court have decided thatwhen it comes to Trump policies whose legality is still being decided in the courts, they should proceed in the interim, with little regard for the harm to people whose lives may be upended as a result.This case is a dramatic example of that decision to privilege Trump’s interests above everyone else’s—even as ICE’s brutality plays out daily across the country.

The three Democratic appointees dissented, but only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson chose to explain her objections. She criticized her colleagues misuse of their emergency powers. Jackson stressed the human toll that her colleagues decision will have, and then juxtaposed that harm with their unwillingness to even explain their decision.

“We once again use our equitable power (but not our opinion-writing capacity) to allow this Administration to disrupt as many lives as possible, as quickly as possible,” Jackson wrote. She points out that her colleagues, rather than prioritizing the harm to 300,000 people, instead privilege “the bald assertion of unconstrained executive power over countless families’ pleas for the stability our Government has promised them.”

“Because, respectfully, I cannot abide our repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference with cases pending in the lower courts while lives hang in the balance,” she concluded, “I dissent.”

Continue Reading…

Climate Scientists Raise a Middle Finger to Trump’s Censorship Efforts

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

Researchers across the United States and the world who raced to protect climate data, public reports and other information from the Trump administration’s budget cuts, firings, and scrubbing of federal websites are launching their own climate information portals.

A group of scientists and other experts who formerly worked for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently launched Climate.us, where they eventually hope to replicate much of the public-oriented climate content from Climate.gov.

In a parallel effort, two major scientific institutions, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society, have started soliciting studies for a special “Climate Collection” to maintain momentum on the work that was already under way on a Congressionally mandated 6th National Climate Assessment, due in 2028, before all the scientists working on the report were fired and cabinet-level team that led the effort disbanded.

“It’s unbelievable…We were literally forced to word search our own website and take down articles because they didn’t want to read the word ‘equity’ “

The new efforts demonstrate how difficult it is to erase or obscure climate science from the public in an era when thousands of scientists and computers around the world are continuously calculating and measuring climate and greenhouse gas emissions. Other science rescue efforts have focused on preserving those data sets, but the public-facing portals are also important, experts said.

Current efforts by the US government to make it harder for people to get scientific information are a clear-cut case of censorship, said Haley Crim, currently a climate solutions researcher at MIT and one of the leaders of an effort to restore important climate information that officials in the Trump administration purged from federal websites.

Along with significant funding and personnel cuts to various federal climate programs and other scientific efforts, some scientists report facing increased harassment and threats online. Others worry that misleading, inaccurate and potentially dangerous misinformation is being posted on official government websites.

Gaining traction for new climate websites can be a challenge in a world filled with misleading and false scientific information, but the latest efforts have endorsements from leading scientists and scientific institutions. And the researchers working on the science preservation and restoration efforts say that, in the long run, the projects may result in new ways to store and share scientific information, and perhaps even better ways to make that information more relevant to the growing number of people experiencing deadly and disruptive climate impacts in the US and around the world.

During her last few months working on the Climate.gov website, Crim said she was ordered to remove articles mentioning diversity and other terms identified by political appointees. The altered version of the website remains online, but its future beyond the end of this year is uncertain.

A NOAA spokesperson said that changes to Climate.gov were made in compliance with an executive order, and that all research products from climate.gov will be relocated to Noaa.gov to “centralize and consolidate resources.”

“It’s unbelievable, and it is censorship, and I think people were afraid to say that for a long time,” Crim said. “We were literally forced to word search our own website and take down articles because they didn’t want to read the word ‘equity’, or other related terms.”

The administration could still use Climate.gov to publish misleading information, like a recent debunked climate report from Trump’s DOE.

On top of the censorship, Crim said she and others working on the new website fear that the Trump administration could lash out at them or their institutions, but she said she won’t be intimidated.

“There’s no other option for me,” she said. “I can’t sit back and watch this stuff be taken down because someone didn’t like it. It is state-of-the-art climate information and I’m not just going to let that go away.”

Any mentions of climate justice were also purged, said former Climate.gov editor Rebecca Lindsey, who is now working on the effort to restore the deleted information on the new website, Climate.us.

So far, a handful of people are coordinating the effort publicly, with dozens of others volunteering behind the scenes. The long-term goal is to ensure there is as complete a backup as possible, including censored material, if Climate.gov goes offline.

“They removed anything about trying to increase diversity in the sciences, and the fact that the impacts of human-caused climate change are going to be disproportionately felt by people who are already marginalized,” Lindsey said, adding that the team wants to revive that potentially life-saving information.

Through mid-September, crowdfunding efforts have enabled the volunteers to launch their new website and, in a big step, to post the Fifth National Climate Assessment.

The NCA5, published in 2023, is the most comprehensive federal report on human-caused warming and its impacts and serves as a critical resource for communities facing wildfires, rising sea levels and other climate-related challenges. It was relegated to an archival website in June when the administration shut down the interagency US Global Change Research Program, which had a congressional mandate to produce the report.

In a worst-case scenario, Lindsey added, the administration could use the popular Climate.gov portal to publish deliberately misleading information, like a recent debunked climate report from the US Department of Energy.

To establish the new website’s credibility, the team plans to partner with authoritative institutions, such as the World Meteorological Organization and the American Meteorological Society, and recruit an independent science advisory panel for expert review and oversight, she said.

Parallel to the efforts to re-create the Climate.gov information portal, the AGU and the AMS are working to ensure that climate information relevant to the United States’ interests is being properly cataloged in a format that could be used in a future national climate assessment.

Their project compensates for the potential discontinuation of work on a new congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment scheduled for 2028. The Trump administration defunded the interagency team and dismissed the scientists working on the assessment in April.

A federal task force coordinated the National Climate Assessment, but the new US climate collection will be more of a grassroots project, as the peer-reviewed contributions help define its shape.

Working “outside the federal fence” could open avenues for climate communications that weren’t previously an option.”

“One of the things that we in the broader science community can do in this moment is do what we do best, and that’s peer-reviewed, rigorous science,” said Costa Samaras, director of the Scott Institute for Energy Innovation and trustee professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, who is helping to coordinate the collection.

“Information about how climate affects communities and resources is essential for both public understanding and for public and private decision making,” he said.

The collection can be a beacon for the scientific community to submit “high-quality, rigorous scientific research around climate that can be peer-reviewed and widely shared for free,” he said, “in a way that helps, our broader understanding of these issues, especially as climate impacts accelerate.”

He said some of the research likely will focus on questions like where extreme rains will lead to flooding in coming decades, and where sea level rise may take unexpectedly big bites out of coastal communities, as well as studies looking at overall ecosystem impacts and community impacts, with an eye toward how climate impacts “disproportionately affects marginalized communities, both here and around the world,” he said.

Co-organizer Bob Kopp, a climate researcher at Rutgers University who has also participated in several other major national and international climate assessments, said there has been significant research on systemic climate impacts that could be part of the collection, including effects on insurance and real estate markets, and how climate impacts strain municipal health infrastructure. Additionally, he said assessments of carbon dioxide removal and other negative-emissions technologies would be useful.

There are, for example, a lot of ways to think about climate impacts and climate solutions that “relate to the education sector, the IT sector, or the legal system. I personally would love to see things that haven’t been assessed as much,” he said. “New synthesis papers could really lay the groundwork for future assessments.”

Lindsey, the former NOAA contractor now working on the new public climate information portal, climate.us, said that working “outside the federal fence” could open avenues for climate communications that weren’t previously an option for the federal agency, including posting information about global warming and carbon dioxide mitigation, which was not part of the mission of the climate.gov website, she said.

“We see this as an opportunity to diversify our support, to get out from under potential political interference,” she said.

Continue Reading…

Russ Vought Is Trump’s Shutdown Hero. His Neighbors Think His Work Is “Abhorrent.”

On Thursday night, President Donald Trump shared a music video on Truth Social. In it, an AI-generated Russ Vought—Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget and a Project 2025 mastermind—is the grim reaper, carrying a scythe along a hallway lined with portraits of Democratic leaders. Vought, the video’s soundtrack explains, “wields the pen, the funds, and the brain” to enforce the president’s plans to axe federal workers.

“Everyone still remembers when he said he wanted to cause maximum trauma to federal workers,” one neighbor said.

The budget chief has been in the spotlight lately as Trump’s shutdown enforcer. He is pressing on with threats to permanently cut federal workers en masse during this crisis. It is part of his long-held dream of shrinking the federal government and giving the president unrestrained powers. Vought’s combination of bureaucratic know-how and hardline ideology has made him a star in right-wing circles.

But on the quiet, residential street tucked in the Virginia suburb where Vought lives, the perception of him and his role in the shutdown is less than favorable. Several homes in the neighborhood have a yard sign in the front proudly declaring: “This house supports federal workers.” That includes the house right next door to his.

“So many people in this neighborhood are federal workers,” said Cathy Hunter, a 60-year-old archivist who has lived in the area since 1993. “They do really good work and they just feel so disrespected.”

Related

The Bureaucrat Who Could Make Trump’s Authoritarian Dreams Real

Residents said the signs started cropping up early on in the administration, after Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) dismantled the US foreign aid agency and haphazardly purged government employees who are now being rehired by the hundreds. (A recent New York Times article included photos of a sidewalk chalk protest in the vicinity of Vought’s house that read: “I was hungry and the USA fed me. Until Vought cut USAID.”) Other chalk protests have popped up, too.

A chalk message in Russ Vought’s neighborhood.Courtesy of a neighbor

A chalk message in Russ Vought’s neighborhood.Courtesy of a neighbor

These days, the pro-federal worker signs have been sending an even louder message to Vought.

“People have strong feelings about him,” one person who lives further down the street told me, describing the neighborhood as solidly blue. “Everyone knows someone who lost their jobs.”

“He takes food and health care from the neediest and tries to, in his words, traumatize people—then he calls himself a Christian,” another neighbor told me. “Pretty despicable.”

Residents I talked to said that many federal employees, contractors, and active and retired military live in the area. “It’s a very friendly neighborhood,” one person said. “People look out for each other.” Of Vought, she said: “I don’t think he’s interacted with the neighbors at all.”

“Everyone still remembers when he said he wanted to cause maximum trauma to federal workers,” the neighbor said. “And that’s hard to forget.”

Most of Vought’s neighbors I talked to for this article declined to speak on the record or asked to remain anonymous. Some said they didn’t want to create a rift in an otherwise cordial neighborhood, while others worried about retribution or negative repercussions from their employers.

“I just wish he would have gotten to know us,” Hunter said. “We consider ourselves good Americans, we have good values. And I don’t think he’s been interested in getting to know any of us, in hearing if we might have a difference of opinion.”

Last week, Vought director sent around a memo blaming Democrats’ “insane demands” for the imminent lapse in funding and instructing agency heads to start making plans to cut non-mandatory programs “not consistent with the President’s priorities” and “use this opportunity to consider Reduction in Force.” Appearing on Fox Business, Vought claimed an “authority to make permanent change to the bureaucracy here in government” during the shutdown.

He has since announced pauses to funding for infrastructure projects in New York—home state of House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York), who called Vought a “malignant political hack”—and slowdowns in clean energy projects in several blue states.

Vought, Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said on Fox News, “has been dreaming about and preparing for his moment since puberty.”

AsIwrote in a profile of Vought from 2024, the bespectacled official spent years as a Washington insider and government bureaucrat before becoming the architect of a supersized second Trump presidency.

An avowed Christian nationalist and dedicated America First warrior, he once described the job of OMB director as the “keeper of ‘commander’s intent” and criticized the federal bureaucracy for standing in the way of the president’s agenda. During Trump’s first term, Vought tried to implement an executive order that would have made it easier for political appointees to fire career civil servants and replace them with MAGA loyalists. Now, he’s getting to realize his vision while earning points with the president.

For some of his neighbors, it is personal. “You stare it in the face when he’s there,” one person said. “This is the guy, you know.”

Another neighbor I talked to, who also asked not to be named, said many in the neighborhood find Vought’s policies and actions “abhorrent.”

“He takes food and health care from the neediest and tries to, in his words, traumatize people—then he calls himself a Christian,” the neighbor said. “Pretty despicable. You asked what it is like living near such a man. Frankly, I’d rather not, but this is a wonderful neighborhood and, unlike Mr. Vought himself, we do not want our neighbors (even Mr. Vought) to be traumatized. So we just live with it.”

Continue Reading…

The “War-Ravaged” Portland Only Exists in Trump’s Head

First it was Los Angeles. Then, Washington, DC. Then, Memphis. Now, Portland, Oregon, is in President Donald Trump’s sights—just the latest Democratic city facing increased militarization.

Last week, Donald Trump announced on Truth Social he was authorizing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth “to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland” from what he called a “siege” by “Antifa.” At the center of this claim is Portland’s ICE facility, where protesters have been gathering acrosssummer.

I recently visited the ICE facility with my cameraand spoke with people there and across Portland—and the reality of what is happening on the streets is very different than what the administration wishes to portray.

“What you hear is music and you see bubbles,” Oregon state representative Willy Chotzen told me at demonstration featuring Governor Tina Kotek. “This is the true Portland and this is the Portland that shows up for each other.”

While there has been some damage to facilities and clashes between agents and demonstrators, it’s been largely peaceful. Video shows protesters gather to dance to the “Cha Cha Slide” and show up dressed in silly costumes—a familiar Portland scene. Even the local city police have stated in court that they see the feds “instigating” and causing a “ruckus.”

While the White House and its allies framed weeks-long demonstrations outside the Portland ICE facility as “violent riots,” and authorizing “full force if necessary,” Oregon and the City of Portland jointly sued the administration, arguing president cannot federalize Oregon’s Guard to protect federal property without meeting the narrow conditions—such as rebellion or foreign invasion.

“This is an illegal escalation of force against the city of Portland,” Portland city councilmember Mitch Green told me. “This is an attempt to normalize the rising fascism that’s going on.”

Continue Reading…

For Furloughed Workers, Trump’s Partisan Shutdown Jabs Are Just the Latest Slight

In the past, for veteran federal employees, the weeks leading up to a potential shutdown situation have always involved a flurry of emails and meetings in preparation for a winding down of their agency. That, at least, has been the experience of an employee I spoke with at the National Institutes of Health (my former employer) who asked not to be named for fear of retribution. This time was very different, they told me: “I experienced absolutely none of that, because there’s nobody around me…I go to the office most days and it’s empty.”

One of the few communications this employee received was an email stating that “President Trump opposes a government shutdown” and that any lapse in funding was “forced by Congressional Democrats.” Emails of this nature have been sent to employees throughout the government, in addition to some agencies instructing their staffers to set up out-of-office emails containing similar language—some employees have even reported that their automated replies were altered without their consent.

Apart from violating an apolitical ethos that runs deep within the career federal workforce, this partisan framing is a likely violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activities. “Honestly, at this point, I don’t think me or my coworkers were shocked at the ethics violations,” says a State Department employee who also asked for anonymity.

The NIH employee wasn’t particularly surprised, either, they said, but given the workforce reductions and other administration actions that have impeded their work since January, “I liked the fact that I still had the capacity for disappointment.”

The Hatch Act isn’t some small stipulation buried away in an employee handbook. Impartiality is emphasized in the ethics training that federal workers take when they start their jobs and typically re-up every two years. And it’s something career civil servants take seriously.

“I, like every other federal employee, have gone through tons of hoops and given up tons of things,” the NIH employee said. For example, when invited to give lectures at other institutions, the employee had to fill out piles of paperwork and always declined any honorarium, as many federal workers are required to do. “And that didn’t bother me. That felt correct,” the employee said.

Of the Hatch Act and related ethics stipulations, they added, “Those aren’t laws for the sake of being laws. They actually were things that were worth believing in because they prevented real conflicts of interest.”

The Trump administration’s blatant disregard of the laws and traditions governing federalcommunications—rules that most employees follow dutifully throughout their careers—has left some workers with a bad taste in their mouth. “Not only is it insulting to the standards we’re all supposed to abide by,” the State Department employee said, “but it’s also insulting to our intelligence.”

It furthermore has added insult to injury. A shutdown is a pause to normal operations, but for those who have remained in the federal government through rounds of layoffs and reduction-in-force deals, normal operations ended a long time ago. “I can’t do the job I was hired to do now at all…because, you know, everyone I work with was fired,” the NIH employee said.

This is true for teams across the NIH and other agencies. For much of this year, the website of the NIH institute I used to work at had a banner alert saying it was not being updated because of “reduction in workforce efforts.” Now, a new banner blames the lack of updates on the shutdown, when the truth is that the entire team that managed that website is gone.

To claim the shutdown is the cause of government dysfunction—and to blame “the Radical Left in Congress,” as the Housing and Urban Development website does—is “factually untrue,” the NIH employee said.

This is something many Americans realize, even if they don’t share front row seats with dedicated federal workers. But the pain for those workers transcends the administration’s falsehoods: “There were reasons for the rules and the norms,” the NIH employee told me. “They created a sense of legitimacy…The institution doesn’t have the legitimacy it did six months ago.”

Continue Reading…

Taking Stock of the Roberts Court at 20—and the Shadowy Forces That Built It

Chief Justice John Roberts has led the Supreme Court for 20 years now. In that time, his Republican-appointed majority has completely transformed America and its politics, with many of its most destructive opinions written by Roberts himself. Some effects are already visible in our everyday lives, others are only now coming into focus.

“This is now a MAGA court, and Roberts is at the helm.”

The court has rolled back voting rights and greenlit gerrymandering, at particular costs to nonwhite voters. It has allowed unlimited money to warp our politics and empowered the wealthiest elites at the expense of most Americans—a distortion that is reflected in growing inequality. The court ended affirmative action in higher education. It ended the right to an abortion. It made it harder for the government to issue the kinds of rules and regulations that safeguard our health and environment. It so aggressively expanded gun rights that virtually every American is now essentially entitled to a machine gun. It’s consistently weakened labor unions and consumer rights. The court has eviscerated the separation of church and state by inviting religious activities and opinions into public schools. And after significant wins for LGBTQ rights—over Roberts’ objection—the court has pivoted and begun to attack them, and transgender people in particular. It’s made public corruption great again. And then there is the court’s obsessive drive to increase presidential power, culminating in last year’s immunity decision, written by Roberts, in which the court granted the president sweeping new powers and general immunity from criminal prosecution, upsetting the separation of powers in our system of government. The decision was the most radical one in a series of holdings where, leading up to the 2024 election, the court repeatedly stepped in to help Trump escape accountability for alleged crimes and aid his return to power. Finally, in recent months, the court has unleashed Trump to act illegally by halting lower court injunctions—decisions which have resulted in illegal deportations to South Sudan, racial profiling by ICE, and the partial dismantling of multiple federal agencies, to name a few. In the face of district courts reining in Trump, the justices decided to strip lower court judges of their power to issue nationwide relief.

That’s quite a record.

Lisa Graves saw it coming. As chief nominations counsel to Sen. Patrick Leahy, when President George W. Bush first nominated Roberts to a seat on the federal bench, she believed Roberts had been selected by monied rightwing interests to rise the ranks and lead a conservative revolution on the Supreme Court. In her subsequent years as a researcher, she has sought to uncover the billionaire funding networks behind the hijacking of the court. This month, she published a book, Without Precedent, that lays out not just the damage wrought by the Roberts court, but also the behind-the-scenes machinations that created it. The details and context Graves provides—both as a witness and a player in nomination fights, and a researcher working with reporters—combine tocapture the movement to overtake the court with a wide aperture. Did you know, for example, that the parents of C. Boyden Gray, a Republican kingmaker and key Roberts backer, celebrated their upcoming wedding with a party in which some guests dressed as Nazis? I didn’t.

To Graves, the Roberts court is the right’s answer to the Warren court, which in the 1950s and 1960s issued a long list of opinions that expanded individual rights and promotedracial equality. Conservatives wanted to undo that progress, but their mission to take over the court sometimes hit roadblocks. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan tapped Robert Bork, but his reactionary views on civil rights sank his nomination. In 1990, President George W. Bush nominated David Souter, who would go on to vote with the liberal wing of the court. Rightwing interests, whose power was channeled largely through the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo, redoubled their efforts. This meant firstly, no more Souters. Second, it meant ensuring none of their nominees could get “Borked.” Graves account of the Roberts court is as much a story of Roberts as it is the people, like Leo, who spent fortunesorchestrating this campaign.

“No Supreme Court majority in American history has ever been constructed the way the Roberts court has—with the help of big, dark secret money,” Graves writes. “The Roberts faction dominating the Supreme Court is quite the cast of characters. Each of them was carefully selected not because they were thought to be fair but because they were believed to be dependable votes for a revolution in the law—one Leo and his cohorts knew could be accomplished only by keeping Americans in the dark about their views.” They have succeeded, perhaps beyond their wildest dreams.

Lisa Graves leads the judicial watchdog group True North Research, is a frequent guest on MSNBC, and sits on several non-profit boards—including the Park Foundation, which has supported Mother Jones. I spoke with Graves about her book, her thoughts on Roberts’ legacy, and where the country goes from here.

You finished the book earlier this year, but events are moving at warp speed with this Supreme Court. Have your thoughts on the chief justice evolved in the last few months as the court hands Trump win after win? Or is the John Roberts that you document over decades the same John Roberts that you see all the way through?

The court’s aggressive action to overturn numerous temporary restraining orders by lower court judges—and to do so using the emergency docket this summer—just the amount of those interventions and disregard for the detailed findings of lower court judges, exceeded my worst fears. But we’re not done yet, and there’s more damage that this Court will do. I do think that that is in many ways very consistent with the through line of who Roberts is and was at the time of his confirmation.

One of the stories in the book is about how he was auditioning for the job on the Supreme Court, secretly interviewing with the Bush administration, as the Bush administration was litigating a case before him. The Bush administration was asserting that the president had the power to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions and subject [Salim Hamdan] to these military tribunals that Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney constructed. Roberts never told Hamdan’s lawyers that he was seeking a job from the administration while that case was pending. Had he recused himself, he might not have gotten the job. Had he ruled against them, he might not have gotten the job. The facts are that he interviewed with the Bush administration, with top officials, for more than 100 days while that case was pending. He joined the decision ruling in favor of [the Bush administration], and two days later, he was nominated for the Supreme Court. He interviewed with Bush basically as that decision had come down.

One of his first acts in getting power was to accept a very aggressive assertion of executive branch power, and he did so while he was trying to get a job from that president. So in that sense it’s not a surprise to me that we’re here now, where he is basically using the power of the court, along with his fellow Republican appointees, to expand the power of a Republican President.

Your research has focused a lot on the shadowy network of billionaires behind the conservative legal movement. When we think about the court’s entanglements with billionaires, we generally think of Clarence Thomas, or even Samuel Alito. Can you explain Roberts’ relationship with the moneyed interests that support the Federalist Society and a lot of the agenda that he’s implemented?

I observed that firsthand when I was the chief counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee for Senator Leahy. Roberts was one of just over a dozen people who were nominated by George W. Bush on May 9, 2001, putting people in place for potential Supreme Court vacancies. [Roberts was nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.] We were not going to move him forward to a hearing or a vote. And the right wing groups were enraged. They started spending a lot of money to try to pressure Democrats to approve Roberts. He was almost always at the top of their talking points; he was their top horse in the race. That was Leonard Leo. It was C. Boyden Gray and some right wing groups actively pushing for Roberts’ confirmation.

“It’s so damaging, it’s so destructive—and he orchestrated it.”

Then, when he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2005, those groups went into overdrive. There’s very little known about some of the donors to some of those groups. But we know, for example, that Charles Koch supported Roberts and Alito. He’s been a long-standing funder of the Federalist Society. And Leo was described in internal documents that were released as part of the [Brett] Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination as leading the umbrella group that was marshaling and managing the confirmation process for Roberts to the DC Circuit and and then to help ensure that they got their guy on the Supreme Court.

To crystallize it, Roberts is really the beneficiary of the first billionaire-backed campaign to capture the US Supreme Court. And as the Chief Justice, he’s used the power of that court to advance an agenda that has been aligned with the regressive agenda of those billionaires that are funding the right’s legal movement that Leonard Leo has helped helm.

If you look at what big business interests want, that’s the result that Roberts votes for. And at this point, what the court votes for.

There’s statistics showing that he almost never rules against the Chamber [of Commerce].

Looking forward, the upcoming tariffs case and also the case over the firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook feature clashes between the Leonard Leo side of the conservative legal movement and the MAGA side. Leo and Koch have both funded the group challenging Trump’s tariffs. A prominent Republican lawyer is on the brief opposing Lisa Cook’s removal. But Trump thinks he should be able to do whatever he wants, even if it’s taking over monetary policy, and using tariffs to destroy the economy. What do you think of Roberts’ predicament in these cases?

The immunity decision signaled that Roberts has moved more into MAGA land. He has really taken the driver’s wheel in terms of embracing a MAGA agenda, and that’s reflected in the January 6 trio of cases last year, and in particular the unprecedented immunity decision, and is reflected in the rulings this year, these emergency rulings. He is embracing the White House’s position on immigration in a way that is not consistent with most of the business community that does not support these sort of aggressive attacks on immigration and our employment systems.

Let me ask about the immunity decision, Trump v. United States, because I was surprised that they granted presidents immunity from criminal prosecution—and then how far it went beyond that. The more I learn about the opinion, the more extreme it is. How does Trump v. United States fit into Robert’s career? Does it stand out in a way that seems radical even for him?

At his confirmation hearings, he affirmed that no president is above the law, no one is above the law. And then when it mattered most for him to stand for that principle, he not only abandoned it, he aggressively wrote this very expansive opinion, ignoring the language of the Constitution that says in two places, the job of the president is to faithfully execute the law. And nothing could be less faithful than breaking the law.

When Richard Nixon asserted that ‘When the President does it, it’s by definition legal,’ no reasonable person accepted that assertion. It was the assertion of a crook. And here we are, almost 50 years since that outlandish claim by Nixon, with a court that has embraced it as a matter of law to say that if the President says that something is part of his so-called official acts, that he cannot be held accountable in a court of law. That ruling broke a key component of our democratic republic, which is that no president is above the law. It’s so damaging, it’s so destructive, and he orchestrated it. Now, why did he do this?

“Roberts has moved more into MAGA land.”

This is now a MAGA court, and Roberts is at the helm of it, and he is helping to drive this agenda that is aiding Trump and emboldening Trump at every turn. The cynical view of that would be this notion that there will be no accountability, because once Trump and the Republicans consolidate the levers of power, they will never let them go. That is the worry that I think a lot of people have. So they’re consequence-free in the sense of not having to face an impeachment or reforms in Congress. That’s sort of the cynical view. And I can’t say that it’s an irrational view.

We are in a whole new territory because of this Supreme Court basically paving the way for Trump’s return by blocking the trials of Trump, signaling to some subset of the American people that those charges were illegitimate when they were well-grounded in the law. And signaling to Trump and some of his followers that he could do no wrong, that he could not violate the law, or going forward, that he, as President, has vast powers.

You predict in the book that Roberts will go down as the worst chief justice in American history. That seems bold, maybe less bold by the day. But Roger Taney wrote Dred Scott and might have caused a Civil War. What is your pitch for why you think that you’ll be proven right?

I didn’t make that observation lightly, knowing how Roger Taney’s inflammatory, outlandish, outrageous ruling helped precipitate the Civil War. What John Roberts has been orchestrating, in particular with the immunity ruling, and then the actions this year, along with the Citizen United decision [on political spending], the Shelby County decision limiting the Voting Rights Act, the Rucho case on the [political] maps, the South Carolina case [on racial gerrymandering], Brnovich [on voting rights], I think that Roberts will go down in history as the most destructive chief justice when it comes to the rights of Americans in our democracy, to participate in our democracy, to have a fair and representative democracy. And the ruling he orchestrated for Trump in the immunity case will threaten whether our democracy will continue to exist.

Continue Reading…

It May Be Hard to Stop Trump From Privatizing Our Public Lands

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

In June, a long-standing effort to sell off massive chunks of federal land grew closer to fruition than ever before when a provision mandating such sales was slipped into President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

The bill passed, and selling public lands easily could have followed. But it didn’t, largely due to a fierce public outcry led not just by pro-public land progressives but by a surprisingly broad coalition that included horseback riders, ATVers, backpackers, birdwatchers, hunters, anglers and tribal nations—even podcaster Joe Rogan.

“The ones that want to see this sold only have to win once. And those of us that want to keep public lands public…have to win every time.”

Months later, pieces of that coalition continued to hold together. But not all of it, said Land Tawney, co-chair of American Hunters and Anglers, citing the administration’s recent attempts to overturn the Roadless Rule, which restricts road construction and logging on nearly 60 million acres of land managed by the US Forest Service.

“There’s a lot of people who aren’t speaking up about the Roadless Rule that did speak up about public lands,” he said. “So as far as (the coalition) pivoting to other things, I think it depends on the issue.”

David Willms, the National Wildlife Federation’s associate vice president for public lands, has even more to say. Willms spent over a decade working on land issues in the Wyoming attorney general’s office and served as former Gov. Matt Mead’s natural resources policy advisor. He recently spoke with High Country News about how the effort to sell public lands made it this far, why it faltered, and where we go from here.

This interview was edited for length and clarity.

Why didn’t the provision to sell public lands make it into the final version of the One Big Beautiful Bill?

It could be for a few reasons.

It was written in a way that called for the sale of a certain percentage of lands in Western states under the guise of affordable housing. But these lands weren’t really tied to places that needed affordable housing. And it was drafted in a way where you didn’t know who could purchase the land.

A second piece of it is how quickly it came about. There was really no opportunity for the public to engage in this. There wasn’t even a hearing.

And the third thing is: It became crystal clear that the public as a whole, from the far right to the far left and everything in between, does not support selling public lands, particularly for undefined development.

It’s hard to find anything right now that the majority of Americans can agree on. Do you think this coalition of people who opposed sale of public lands will hold to help manage public lands in the longer term?

Here’s my hope: I don’t believe that the existence of public lands is inherently political, and I think this whole process bears out that the public at large deeply cares for their public lands and wants to be able to have access to those lands.

When it comes to how public lands are managed, that becomes more political. So I hope that this same coalition is willing to come to the table and say, “We care about our public lands, and we want to see them exist in perpetuity for future generations to enjoy. That means having hard conversations about how we manage them.”

And maybe if we have that as our centerpiece, of keeping public lands in public hands, that it enables us to work together better on some of the harder issues.

What do you think it would take for that to happen? For all these parties to come together and continue to engage on all these other issues surrounding public lands?

That’s the million-dollar question that I don’t have a million-dollar answer to.

What should people who want public lands to remain public watch out for over the next few years or decades?

Watch for proposals that are more place-based rather than national in scope. Work with folks to make sure that the proposal is balancing all different needs.

On the executive branch side, I’d suggest watching the Federal Land Policy Management Act, because some of the lands that are on the “suitable for disposal” list may have been put on that list 30 years ago, when they were deemed difficult to manage because nobody knew how to access them. But with new technologies like onX (a popular GPS mapping application), many of those lands are accessible, and some of these parcels are really high-quality habitat for wildlife.

And then you have to watch for county commissions and state legislatures passing resolutions of support for transfers or sales of public lands. Those are elected officials representing their constituents. If enough do that, it’ll send the signal to Congress that there’s a lot of local support for sales or transfers.

There are also types of policies that could reduce the value of lands in a way to shift support away from ownership. So monitor those policies dictating how lands are managed and the resources that are allocated to agencies.

That’s a lot to keep track of. Do you think people will get exhausted and stop fighting?

I don’t think so. There’s a recognition that the ones that want to see this sold only have to win once. And those of us that want to keep public lands public for future generations have to win every time.

Once the lands are sold, they’re gone. You can’t just wait for the next election cycle to “fix it.” And that’s what keeps people motivated.

Continue Reading…

Americans Aren’t Buying Trump’s Shutdown Blame Game

As Democrats and Republicans trade accusations over which party is responsible for the government shutdown, new polling suggests that President Donald Trump’s efforts to falsely claim—in social media posts, on television, on government agencies’ websites, and in internal directives to federal employees—that Democrats shut down the government because they want to provide “free health care for illegal aliens” are not working.

Nearly half of Americans blame the shutdown on Trump and Republicans in Congress, according to a new nationally representative poll of more than 1,000 Americans, conducted by the Washington Post on Wednesday. Meanwhile, 30 percent said they blame Democrats, and nearly a quarter of respondents said they are unsure of who to blame. Interestingly, eight percent of Republicans blame Trump and the GOP for the shutdown, higher than the two percent of Democrats who blame their own party.

The White House’s claims, of course, are not accurate. Undocumented immigrants are already mostly ineligible for federal health care, and Democrats are seeking to restore access to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies for documented immigrants, including refugees and people granted asylum. The Republican spending bill passed this summer contains the Medicaid cuts, while the ACA subsidies are set to expire at the end of this year under the Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022. Yet, Republicans ranging from Trump, to Vice President JD Vance, to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) have made the claim that Democrats shut down the government over efforts to provide health care to undocumented people.

I questioned Speaker Mike Johnson tonight on the claim being made by Republicans that Democrats want to give free health care to “illegal aliens” in the government shutdown fight. pic.twitter.com/sjvnQwxTKN

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) October 1, 2025

Polls recorded before the shutdown officially started found similar results. An NPR/PBS News/Marist poll of nearly 1,500 people, conducted last week, found that nearly 40 percent of respondents would blame Republicans for the shutdown, compared to only 27 percent who would blame Democrats. Just over thirty percent said they would blame both parties. And a New York Times/Siena poll of more than 1,300 registered voters, conducted last week, found a higher proportion of respondents said they would blame Trump and Republicans than Democrats for a shutdown—26 percent to 19 percent—though about a third said they would blame both parties equally. Just over a fifth of respondents said they had not heard enough to say.

But beyond the fact that Republicans control all three branches of government, it appears as though the substance of their legislative priorities are also unpopular. The same Washington Post poll found that a staggering _71 percent o_f respondents say that the federal subsidies that reduce the cost of ACA plans scheduled to expire at the end of the year—a sticking point for Democrats in the stalled negotiations that led to the shutdown—should be extended, and nearly half of respondents said Democrats should demand the extension “even if it continues a government shutdown.” When you crunch the numbers, this view makes sense: A KFF analysis found that last year, the subsidies saved enrollees an average of more than $700 last year. And a more recent analysis found that extending the subsidies would save enrollees an average of more than $1,000 in premium payments in 2026.

Democrats, for their part, have leaned on this context as they try to spin the shutdown in their favor. “Republicans shut down the government because they would rather make health care more expensive than keep the government running,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a speech on the Senate floor. “That is literally where we are.”

Trump and Republicans shut down the government because they'd rather make healthcare more expensive than keep the government running.

Democrats are fighting to roll back the Republican cuts that will take away healthcare from millions.

Via @SenWarren pic.twitter.com/1yuLz7bjOV

— Senate Democrats (@SenateDems) October 1, 2025

Continue Reading…

Jane Goodall’s Final, Urgent, Message

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

Jane Goodall, one of the most influential environmental figures in human history, has died at 91 while doing what she’s done for most of her later years—touring the country to deliver an urgent message about nature and human existence.

Goodall, who revolutionized what we know about chimpanzees and animal intelligence, was interviewed as recently as last week, during New York City Climate Week. And her message was clear, consistent, and timely.

“It seems these days everybody is so involved with technology that we forget that we’re not only part of the natural world, we’re an animal like all the others,” Goodall, founder of the Jane Goodall Institute, a conservation group, said last week during the Forbes Sustainability Leaders Summit in NYC. “We’re an animal like all the others. But we depend on it for clean air, water, food, clothing—everything.”

And yet, “we’re destroying the planet,” she said.

In a separate conversation with the Wall Street Journal last week, Goodall said the problem is the pernicious idea that economic development should come before the environment. In reality, we’re on a planet with finite resources, and if we exhaust them, it could spell our own end. “Humans are not exempt from extinction,” Goodall said in the WSJ podcast, The Journal.

One of the most compelling messages from her last interviews is that while we’re the most “intellectual animals” to ever walk the planet, “we’re not intelligent,” said Goodall, who’s an expert in animal behavior. “Because intelligent creatures don’t destroy their only home.”

Ultimately, she said, it’s that intellect that gives us the best shot at saving ourselves and the planet. That’s what’s ushered in solutions to living in greater harmony with the natural world, Goodall said, including renewable energy and plant-based foods. She emphasized that we know what’s killing the planet: industrial agriculture, including livestock, and burning fossil fuels.

“We have a window of time,” Goodall, who’s authored more than two dozen books, said in The Journal. “But it’s not a very big window. If we don’t change the way we do things, the way we develop economically, then it will be too late.”

Continue Reading…

Energy Department Tries to Stifle Workers’ Use of Climate-Related Words

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

The US Department of Energy has told employees in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) to avoid using the words “climate change” in what seems to be the latest incident in a crackdown on discussing the climate crisis in the US government.

“Please ensure that every member of your team is aware that this is the latest list of words to avoid—and continue to be conscientious about avoiding any terminology that you know to be misaligned with the administration’s perspectives and priorities,” says an email from an agency acting director seen by the Guardian.

Employees of EERE, which is the government’s largest funder of carbon-slashing technologies, were told to avoid using the terms in internal dealings and public-facing work: “Whether you work directly on communications or not, this email applies to you,” says the email, which was first obtained by Politico.

“DOE leadership can choose to stick their heads in the sand, but that won’t make the climate crisis go away.”

It’s a continuation of the anti-environmental agenda Trump has pushed since entering the White House, said one anonymous agency staffer. It follows a move by Trump to gut EERE’s funding of green technologies. “My reaction was: same shit, different day,” the worker said.

In addition to “climate change,” the banned terms include “decarbonization,” “sustainable,” “emissions,” and “green.” Also on the list are “energy transition,” “‘clean’ or ‘dirty’ energy,” and “carbon/CO2 ‘footprint’.”

Another set of words to be avoided: “Tax breaks/tax credits/subsidies,” probably because of the terms’ association with Joe Biden’s efforts to subsidize green technologies, which the administration is clawing back.

“Banning the use of these words would silence key elements of DOE’s mission,” another anonymous current agency staffer told the Guardian. “But what is even more worrying is that Secretary Wright is also illegally freezing and cancelling programs that fund advanced research into solar, wind, and other clean energy technologies. DOE leadership can choose to stick their heads in the sand, but that won’t make the climate crisis go away or stop super storms and wildfires from destroying more homes.”

The Trump administration has this year asked agency leaders to avoidsome 200 terms—a list that also includes words like “activism” and “injustice.”

“Welcome to the Donald Trump post-truth world,” Dr Ali Khan, a retired US assistant surgeon general and a former director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, wrote on social media.

The Department of Energy’s press secretary denied the agency had instructed employees to avoid the use of specific terms.

“There is no directive at the energy department instructing employees to avoid using phrases such as ‘climate change’ or ‘emissions’,” Ben Dietderich, the agency’s press secretary, said in an emailed statement. “President Trump and Secretary Wright remain committed to transparency and fostering an open, honest dialogue about climate science. Reflecting that commitment, Secretary Wright regularly engages on these issues.”

Wright railed against climate policy at the United Nations general assembly last week. “The more people have gotten into so-called climate action, the more expensive their energy has become,” he said. “That lowers people’s quality of lives and reduces their life opportunities.”

He defended a July climate report produced by the energy department that experts say is riddled with misinformation, and announce the cancellation of $13 billion of funding for renewable energy projects.

The recommendations are the latest attempt by the Trump administration to minimize or silence discussions about the threats posed by the climate crisis. Upon retaking the White House in January, Trump stripped mentions of climate change and global heating from government websites and ended a slew of climate-focused government programs.

In a speech at the United Nations last week, the president called the crisis “the greatest con job ever perpetrated upon the world.”

“Countries are on the brink of destruction because of the green energy agenda,” he said.

Continue Reading…

“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” Invites You to Look Directly at a Woman’s Rage

What happens when a mother is pushed to the brink, when stresses both tedious and extraordinary break her beyond recognition? What happens is that she might look a lot like Rose Byrne.

That might seem impossible, given that Byrne is, after all, a beautiful A-list actor. The suggestion even borders on cruelty. But her knockout performance in If I Had Legs I’d Kick You, a new film from Mary Bronstein, is the stuff of terrifying relatability.Byrne plays Linda, a mother flailing in an increasing state of crisis after the ceiling of her apartment suddenly collapses, forcing her to take refuge in a gritty motel room with her young daughter, who suffers from a mysterious illness that requires feeding tubes. Meanwhile, Linda’s work as a therapist grinds on with multiple clients, including a missing mother in the throes of acute postpartum depression. Linda’s efforts to manage her own deteriorating mental health by seeking the help of a colleague, another therapist played chillingly by Conan O’Brien in his first dramatic acting role, are met with escalating antagonism. Meanwhile, her husband may be traveling for work, but his requests for updates on the ceiling are relentless. Wine is chugged, and drugs via the dark web are pursued.

If I Had Legs I’d Kick You is not an explicitly political film. With seven years in the making, it could not have predicted the landscape into which it premieres today. But the film arrives at an urgent moment,a shot-out-of-a-cannon rejoinder to the hostile suggestion that women in pain “tough it out.” Its ability to maintain darkly humorous, propulsive energy despite the anxiety-inducing twists speaks to Bronstein’s enormous skill as both a writer and director. Ahead of the film’s theatrical release, I talked to Bronstein about a woman’s rage, Courtney Love, and the radical beauty of an untouched middle-aged face.

Talk to me about some of the personal parallels that led to you writing Kick You.

I have a daughter, and she’s 15 now and doing great. But when she was 7 years old, she became very ill. We are New Yorkers, but to get her the treatment that she needed, we had to go to San Diego. When I spoke initially to the place in San Diego, I asked: “Well, how long does the treatment usually take? How long should I expect to be in San Diego?” And they responded, six, max eight weeks. We were there for eight months.

While we were there, my husband, Ronald Bronstein, needed to stay back in New York. He’s a filmmaker who is a close creative partner with Josh Safdie, and during this period, they were making Good Time. So he’s making this film with Rob Pattinson while I’m in San Diego in a really shitty, tiny hotel room as a roommate with my daughter. It was incredibly stressful for obvious reasons, but I’m also the type of person who thinks of things in existential terms all the time. Like, my husband would say to me: “You can’t have an existential crisis every day. You can’t dismantle your entire existence and life choices every day.” But that’s just how my brain works.

During this time, I had a strong sense of dread and anxiety all the time, and I couldn’t articulate it. And part of it was that I felt trapped. [My daughter] was young, so the lights would go out at 8 p.m., and I’d be in this tiny room. Now, I didn’t do the things that Linda does in this film. But what I did for my escape was I would go into the bathroom and turn on the light of this horrible, cheap hotel room and sit on the tiles of the bathroom floor, drink cheap wine, and scarf candy and junk food.

One night, I was suddenly able to pinpoint that I felt like I was completely disappearing into the caretaking of my daughter. The dread shifted from what the situation was to: Wait a minute, this situation is going to end. She’s going to get better, and we’re going to go back to New York, and then what? Then what? That’s the emotional and physical, literal place where the film started from. I actually started writing the script in that bathroom while going through the situation. No one knew I was writing it for myself at that point, and the rare beauty of a middle-aged woman.

“I literally went into a trance. Like, ‘tough it out?’ You’ve never been pregnant. You don’t know what it’s like. Also, don’t tell me what to do with my body.”

This is an unflinching portrayal of a woman in acute stress. Linda is seen literally begging for someone to just help her. But everyone around her seems to expect nothing but calm and order. What do you think makes us so blind to a woman in crisis, even when she is screaming for help?

That’s such a great question and a question I haven’t gotten before. I think that in American society, a woman’s rage is terrifying, and the idea is to quell it by any means. A lot of the advice that we get as little girls is: Be a good girl. The difference between you and a boy is that you are not disruptive in a classroom. That stays with us, right? You know that scene in Networkwhere [Howard Beale] goes, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” It’s like that. We suddenly don’t have room. And if a woman does have that personality and does have that boldness to do that, she’s villainized, and we don’t like her. We hate her.

I’m thinking of cultural things, too. I’m thinking about people like Courtney Love. Why was she hated? It wasn’t her music. She was hated because she was a woman who was loud and would say exactly what was on her mind. [Love] is the type of woman thatI’ve always been attracted to. My favorite feminist thinker of all time is bell hooks, and her work in Ain’t I a Woman. That no woman can write enough because there has not been enough. I think that right now, in 2025, is one of the scariest moments to be a woman. I don’t want to get political, because my work is not political in a literal sense, but we must acknowledge that this is a time in history where our rights are being taken away, and we are being told constantly in the media, “Just shut up.”

“You’re about to spend just under two hours with this woman, and you are going to watch her. You are going to deal with it. This is a woman who’s going through it. She is crying. It is on a giant screen. And instead of averting our eyes like we do in normal life, I’m making you deal with it.”

Meanwhile, our president is telling mothers to “tough it out.”

I was on a plane coming here to Los Angeles when I glanced over at a person’s TV screen, sort of diagonal from where I was sitting on the plane. I couldn’t hear it, but I saw the message at the bottom, the president telling pregnant people to “tough it out.” I literally went into a trance. Like, tough it out? You’ve never been pregnant. You don’t know what it’s like. Also, don’t tell me what to do with my body.

I think with my film, it’s “Don’t tell me what to do with my emotions.” Linda is screaming into the ether. “Is anything that I’m saying being heard or important to anybody? Can you hear me?” There’s a scene where she literally screams into her therapist’s face, this person who is supposed to help her, where she screams one inch from his face, “Help me!” And it still cannot be heard. It’s a moment where she is rejected in the most awful way. The filmmaking choices that I make in this film speak to the woman who doesn’t want to shut up or tough it out and instead wants to say: “No, this isn’t fair. No, I actually feel this way, and I’m going to make you listen to me.”

I open the film with an extreme close-up that keeps getting closer and closer until we’re right in Linda’s eye as she’s crying. That’s me saying to the viewer: “You’re about to spend just under two hours with this woman, and you are going to watch her. You are going to deal with it. This is a woman who’s going through it. She is crying. It is on a giant screen. And instead of averting our eyes like we do in normal life, I’m making you deal with it.” You’re going to see her tears, and you’re going to deal with it, and however it makes you feel, that’s not my business. It’s the viewer’s business. And it’s not me indicting the viewer. It’s really me, in quite a radical way, just saying this is a reality. Women have emotions. They’re not always polite; they’re often messy.

I want to talk more about the close-ups. One thing I loved about Kick You is how the close-ups of Rose Byrne let you see her real face. Like, that might be Rose Byrne, and she is gorgeous…

Oh, totally gorgeous. One of the most gorgeous women that we have in show business today. And I’m sorry to interrupt your question, but I want to say that one of the reasons that I cast her is because she and I are the same age. We’re middle-aged women, and she has a real face. She has the real face of a middle-aged woman.

Exactly! The shots captured her exhaustion. They felt radical. Like, yes, of course, Rose is beautiful. But I know that woman. She is exhausted and over it. That woman is me!

[Holding a C Magazine cover featuring Byrne] This is one version of what we are shown, and this is real, too. She is gorgeous. But for me, it was very, very important that I had a middle-aged woman who had not had work done on her face. I don’t disparage women who do, and I don’t judge women who do. By the way, Linda happens to be a gorgeous woman. She is a beautiful, gorgeous woman, but she’s going through it. What I wanted to do with the close-ups is that by the end of the movie, you know every pore on this woman’s face. Every pockmark when she smiles. How her eye crinkles when she cries. That’s disappearing in our society. What happens if everybody gets their face done? What are young people, especially young girls, seeing? Are they going to know what a middle-aged face even looks like? That’s something that freaks me out, but it was important to me. And Rose was so on board and not scared.

“The filmmaking choices that I make in this film speak to the woman who doesn’t want to shut up or tough it out and instead wants to say: ‘No, this isn’t fair. No, I actually feel this way, and I’m going to make you listen to me.’”

The other thing the close-ups are doing is exposing. Linda cannot hide from the camera. She’s trying to hide and run away from everything else. But she cannot run away from my camera. That was important, too. You’re trying to escape. But we see you. Maybe none of the other characters in the movie sees you. But we see you. The tragedy is that she doesn’t know that, because she’s inside the film. But we see her, and we see her cry, and we see the messiness. When the movie opens, that’s as good as it gets for Linda in both physical appearance and mental state. The de-evolution that follows is purposeful and calculated in a mathematical way that I worked out with the makeup and costume departments. By the end of the film, what I wanted her to really look like was a disheveled teenager, because that’s what she becomes emotionally. Actually, something that I don’t know if I’ve said in another press, but that band T-shirt that Rose wears, with the album Cheap Thrills by Big Brother and the Holding Company and Janis Joplin, is a T-shirt I bought when I was 14. At the start of the film, we see Linda wearing it as pajamas. But then she starts wearing it to work. By the end of the film, in that final therapy session, she’s wearing the shirt with a hoodie and looks like shit. But that’s where she’s at.

I have to give all kudos to Rose. She never, ever, ever had an issue with how I wanted her to look or how close the camera was going to get. She knew what it meant as an actress, as an artist, and she agreed with it. It shouldn’t be brave, but it is brave.

Definitely brave. I thought exactly the same thing, like, I am really seeing her face, a real face, the blemishes and all. It just felt like something I had never seen in movies before.

Thank you so much for bringing that up. Because nobody really brings it up, and I think some of that might be because I mostly talk with male journalists. Yes, I’ve talked with some wonderful female journalists. But filmmaking is a male-dominated space, and so is journalism. Maybe the question feels like it’s not polite to ask for some people, but it’s a very important question and something to talk about.

Let’s turn to Conan, who, I must admit, I did not expect to be so effective as a serious therapist. What were some of your thoughts that went into casting him?

How good is he? I want people to understand when they see his name on the poster that they know that this is not a cameo. It’s not him playing himself. It’s not him being the comic relief. He is turning in a proper dramatic performance that is on tit-for-tat with Rose as a scene partner. And what an extraordinary thing, because it started with me approaching O’Brien and him saying: “I am not an actor. I want to do it. I love the script. But I don’t know if I can do it.”

I don’t want to give away, but there’s a monologue that he does. And while I was writing it, I literally thought to myself, I am writing something that is not performable. I’m writing something so didactic, there’s no way it’s performable. So I’m going to have to work it out with whoever the actor is. But O’Brien performs that thing, and he kills it. And that is a testament to his talent. He radically availed himself of this totally unknown form that he had neverdone before. He was such a dream to work with.

Continue Reading…

The End of the FBI—in One Act

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

SCENE: An office at the headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. One side of it is a glass window through which other offices can be seen. On the wall are a collection of citations for meritorious service. There is a plant in the corner. It needs watering. On the desk are framed photos of a smiling middle-aged woman hiking a mountain trail and of identical twin girls of high school age in front of a sailboat. In walks Special Agent HENRY DOBSON. He’s 50-ish, with a square and solid build. His salt-and-pepper hair is thinning. He’s grinning. He sits at the desk and straightens the framed photos. He picks up the phone and dials.

DOBSON [into the phone]: Shelly, Hank. They just closed the bank. It’s done. After five years. Five fuckin’ years. He’s pleading. The Brazilians have it wrapped up. Nine years, no wiggle. Pretty good, right? Now on to the next scumbag…What? C’mon, you can’t be serious. That’s not what I do…No, no, no…What do I know about street patrols?…This is nuts—.

A YOUNG AGENT pokes her head in the office and tosses DOBSON a sealed manila envelope.

YOUNG AGENT: Someone dropped this off for you.

DOBSON: Who?

YOUNG AGENT: Didn’t say. Woman. Lots of jewelry. Big sunglasses. Floppy hat. Skedaddled quickly.

DOBSON [into the phone]: Hold on, Shelly.

DOBSON opens the envelope, takes out a sheaf of papers, and starts to flip through them.

DOBSON [murmuring]: Oh shit…Oh, I said, “Oh shit.” Someone just dropped off a stash of docs. Bank account summaries. Spreadsheets. Prospectus…With a memo explaining it all…It’s crypto…Sham deal…Dubai and Antigua…Looks like a fake ICO, maybe a rug pull…$34 million…SEC filings, transfers, phone numbers…Damn, the whole shebang…Ever get a silver-platter case like this?…Yeah, it says who did it…A guy named Carl, uh…Hold on, just hold on, let me do something.

A list of Google results come up. DOBSON clicks on the first one. A large headline appears: “Crypto Entrepreneurs Gather at Mar-a-Lago.” DOBSON immediately turns off his computer.

DOBSON puts down the phone without hanging up. He boots up his computer. The wallpaper image appears. It’s Kevin Costner playing Eliot Ness in The Untouchables_. DOBSON enters his password and goes to the Google homepage. He types in a few words._

DOBSON [loudly into the phone]: Hang on. Be right there. Just checking…

A list of Google results come up. DOBSON clicks on the first one. A large headline appears: “Crypto Entrepreneurs Gather at Mar-a-Lago.” DOBSON immediately turns off his computer.

DOBSON [to himself]: Oh shit.

DOBSON nervously looks around to see if anyone is watching him. He starts stuffing all the documents back into the envelope. He picks up the phone and cradles it between his face and shoulder and continues shoving the papers into the envelope.

DOBSON [into the phone]: Yeah, yeah, I’m still here…Oh, you know what? I don’t think this is anything…Yeah, I think it’s a prank…Yeah, the guys in laundering. They’re always doing shit like that…Yeah, yeah, should’ve looked more closely at first…But, please, Shelly, do me a favor: Don’t mention this to anyone, okay? Not anyone. I wouldn’t want them to know they got me…Yeah, okay, you’re the best…And, yeah, where should I report tonight?…Okay, got it. I know that Potbelly’s. It’s always real quiet around there…See ya later.

DOBSON reaches for a burn bag.

***

I don’t know if anything of the sort has happened at Kash Patel’s FBI. But it doesn’t take much imagination to wonder whether such scenes are occurring. The FBI has become a cauldron of vengeance, with scores of agents who worked on cases despised by Trump and his crew being canned—most notably, the gumshoes who pursued the Trump-Russia investigation or the January 6 insurrectionist rioters. Even bureau employees whose only sins were to be pals with agents who worked those cases have been booted.

Then there’s the absurd and troubling indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. Even though Comey’s decision to revive the Hillary Clinton email probe eleven days before Election Day in 2016 helped Donald Trump win the White House, Trump has been angling for years to take Comey down for having kick-started the FBI’s Russia investigation that morphed into the inquiry run by special counsel Robert Mueller. A US attorney and several assistant US attorneys refused to move the Comey indictment forward, contending there was no there there. So Trump forced out this US attorney, put in a lackey with absolutely no experience in prosecuting criminal cases (she specializes in insurance law), and—presto—he had his bullshit indictment of Comey. (I’ve been reading indictments for decades, and this slim two-pager is the worst and most amateurish indictment I’ve ever seen.)

If you’re an investigator at a federal agency, you’d have to be crazy to contemplate an inquiry that might involve an associate, friend, or crony of Trump, his family, or anyone in his inner or outer circle.

Comey is likely to beat the rap—perhaps easily. But this bogus act of retribution, the dismissal of all those FBI agents, and other get-even actions (such as Trump’s henchmen targeting New York Attorney Geneal Letitia James and Sen. Adam Schiff) are creating a chilling effect of Arctic proportions for all federal law enforcement.

If you’re an investigator at the FBI, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, or any federal agency, you’d have to be crazy to contemplate an inquiry that might involve an associate, friend, or crony of Trump, his family, or anyone in his inner or outer circle. You have 10 years until retirement, kids you want to put through college, parents that need home care—will you risk your job by looking at the possible misdeeds of a donor to Trump’s campaign or anyone with a connection to his crew, let alone Trump himself? Not even a former FBI director is safe. And Trump is now braying about going after Chris Wray, Comey’s successor at the FBI whom Trump appointed to the job.

Should you get a tip about possible wrongdoing involving anyone with a link to Trump, you’d be a fool to even mention it to a colleague or supervisor. Don’t put anything about this into an email. Find a narcotrafficker to chase instead—if you haven’t been reassigned to help round up migrants.

The Trump administration has signaled it doesn’t want the bureau bothering with whole categories of crime, such as foreign bribery or failure to register as foreign agents. Attorney General Pam Bondi shut down the task force investigating foreign influence operations. In February, the leadership of the public integrity section of the Justice Department quit instead of dropping the corruption charges that had been filed against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. After that, this section was downsized. That’s good news for dirty pols.

Should an FBI agent open an investigation that irks Trump, he or she would have to fear losing their job and more—possibly being harassed on social media by Trump and doxed by his MAGA army.

What all this means is that a host of wrongdoers, including crooked politicians and Trump chums, have a get-out-of-jail-free card—that is, license to cheat, grift, and crime with little fear of investigation or prosecution. And it’s a card that’s easy to obtain. In trouble with the law? Buy a million dollars of Trump’s crypto. That ought to keep the G-men at bay.

Should an FBI agent open an investigation that irks Trump, he or she would have to fear losing their job and more—possibly being harassed on social media by Trump and doxed by his MAGA army. And if a gutsy agent did move ahead with such a case, would the Trump Justice Department prosecute it against Trump’s wishes? Forget about it, Jake. There’s no percentage in starting such an inquiry. It will only lead to a world of hurt.

That’s the loud-and-clear signal that Trump and Patel have been sending to the FBI, while they shift agents to street crime tasks and ICE assistance. The Comey indictment is merely the exclamation point on the don’t-fuck-with-us message conveyed to all federal law enforcement. Special Agent Dobson is no fool. He knows the saying used to be that justice is blind. In Trump’s second term, it’s now justice is blind to the crimes of Trump and his gang—and if you dare take a glance in their direction, we’ll rip your eyes out.

Continue Reading…

Another Shutdown Casualty: Medicare Telehealth Coverage

In 2001, Congress implemented partial Medicare coverage for telehealth, allowing remote visits with doctors and other forms of long-distance care—a response to the increasing need, in particular, for people in rural areas to reach specialists, and an essential service especially after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, when lawmakers expanded that coverage to a broad range of services now used by a quarter of the country’s 68 million Medicare users.

But Wednesday’s federal budget impasse has halted that funding—and unlike other, temporary service cuts brought on by the shutdown, telehealth won’t be restored for long just by bringing the government back online.

As a consequence of the temporary way it was funded, Congress has had to renew Medicare telehealth coverage roughly annually, or even twice a year, since 2021.

This latest termination is linked to the government shutdown that began Wednesday: Medicare telehealth funds were tied to the failed continuing resolution for the federal budget, which would have funded government operations for just seven more weeks. But the repeated expirations of a program with bipartisan support, which Congress has repeatedly agreed to continue, look increasingly ridiculous to health care advocates and federal government observers.

Multiple bills across multiple recent sessions of Congress would have extended that coverage either for a two-year period or more permanently. The president of the American Medical Association has also argued in support of making telehealth coverage permanent for people on Medicare.

“Commercial payers generally follow Medicare guidance, and…this could eliminate coverage for telemedicine across the board for all Americans.”

Gin Jones, an author who lives in Massachusetts, is one of the millions of people affected. Jones has a rare genetic disorder, X-linked hypophosphatemia, which requires specialized treatment from an endocrinologist who lives four hours away. Her next visit, on Tuesday, is now in-person rather than remote; Jones doesn’t know what she is going to do about it. The long trip would be exhausting and painful and an “extraordinary waste of my time.”

“The big question is whether I go ahead and endure the four-hour round trip,” Jones said, “or switch to a closer endocrinologist who isn’t really qualified to treat me.”

Some smaller clinics are rescheduling their Medicare patients in person and suspending their telehealth appointments for Medicare patients, said Lydia Homovich, a policy analyst with the Center for Telehealth and eHealth Law.

Other patients are insulated, said Homovich, as some larger institutions are “going to continue providing these telehealth services as normal, even if they don’t get back payment for that if the waivers are reauthorized.”

Dr. Kanwar Kelley, the CEO and co-founder of Side Health, which focuses on virtual chronic disease management, said that his practice will be greatly impacted: most of his patients are on government insurance. “Unfortunately, given the uncertainty around whether we will be reimbursed, we are planning a dramatic reduction in workforce with furloughs,” Kelley said.

Homovich notes that some members of Congress may view a longer-term expansion of telehealth as too expensive—but ultimately, she says, it may actually be a cost-saver.

“Telehealth allows for the earlier detection and treatment of conditions that otherwise would be escalated to much more costly levels of care, like being admitted to a hospital or an emergency room,” Homovich said.

Kelley also cautioned that the expiration of Medicare telehealth waivers could have a knock-on impact for people on private health insurance.

“While this may not immediately affect patients with commercial insurance, commercial payers generally follow Medicare guidance,” Kelley said,” and depending on when or if the waivers are reinstated, this could eliminate coverage for telemedicine across the board for all Americans.”

Continue Reading…

The Government Shutdown Means No Jobs Data—Conveniently for Trump

One of the many casualties of the government shutdown is the critical jobs report administered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)—and much maligned by President Donald Trump—which economists say is especially neededin light of predictions that the US could soon enter a recession.

The BLS data, which features estimates of employment and earnings nationwide from the previous month, offers important information on the state of the economy for economists, policymakers, government officials, and employers. It was due to be released Friday, but the Department of Labor (DOL), which oversees BLS, said in its contingency plan that no data would be released during the shutdown. Trump politicized the report back in August, when he baselessly alleged that poor jobs numbers were evidence of “rigged” data and subsequently fired then-BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer.

Paul Schroeder, co-chair of the Friends of the BLS, a nonpartisan group of organizations and individuals that support the agency, saidon Wednesday that the employment data was“more critical now than in normal times.” That’s due to both the massive impacts of Trump’s tariffs and the large revisions to BLS data released last month, which showedthat almost a million fewer jobs had been created than previously thought in the 12-month period prior to March 2025. Those revisions, Schroeder added, mean “the economy is changing, and that’s what’s concerning.”

“Unfortunately, it looks like it’s going the wrong direction, not the right direction, and that’s why we need this data now,” said Schroeder, who is also executive director of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics. “People are on edge at the moment, economists are trying to figure out what’s going on and to lose this source of data at this critical time, it’s just a real problem.”

Erica Groshen, who served as BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, agreed with Schroeder, saying that “it’s a particularly fraught time because of the economic conditions right now.”

It’s unclear if the data will be released when the government re-opens, though economists hope it will. The DOL’s contingency plan says the data release would “likely be delayed if a lapse is prolonged.” Following a 16-day shutdown in 2013, BLS released the information when the government was back up and running, Groshen said.

The limited data we do have is not promising: A report released Wednesday by ADP showed that there was a loss of 32,000 private sector jobs last month, and that a prior estimate of 54,000 jobs added in August was adjusted to a loss of 3,000 jobs.

CNBC: "Very disappointing. It's a weak number. This is private sector jobs for September. The total comes in -32,000. And that was a surprise because economists were looking for an increase of 51,000. Also, the revision was not good. August now showing -3,000 compared to the initial read of 54,000"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-10-01T14:10:25.192Z

The future of the BLS is also uncertain after the White House withdrew Trump’s nominee to be its new commissioner on Tuesday. Trump named E.J. Antoni—a conservative economist at the Heritage Foundation, an architect of Project 2025, and longtime BLS critic—as his pick to run the agency after firing McEntarfer. Antoni’s nomination was controversial from the jump, as I previously explained:

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.

Unsurprisingly, then, some greeted the news that Antoni would not be in the running to lead the BLS as welcome. The Friends of the BLS said in a statement released on Tuesday that the next nominee “should demonstrate a commitment to gold standard statistics, strong management skills, excellent economics training, and a record of public support for the integrity of BLS products and standards.”

Groshen, who is also co-chair of the Friends of BLS, added that “the next BLS commissioner is going to face a very daunting job,” pointing to problems including understaffing, attacks from the Trump administration, and longstanding challenges to data collection.

“The agency will be better served the more that a new commissioner has a really deep grounding in economics and federal statistics, a commitment to following the principles and practices that make the statistics trustworthy, and the ability to protect the agency right from meddling and from unwarranted attack,” Groshen said.

Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, said in a statement on Tuesday that Antoni’s “immense capabilities and insightful economic analysis have not changed—and we are very proud to have him on our team.”

“It is undeniable that BLS needs reform and [Antoni] was the right man for the job,” Roberts wrote, adding that Antoni “will keep calling for that reform.”

Spokespeople for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones on Wednesday. An automated reply said responses could be delayed due to the government shutdown, adding, “As you await a response, please remember this could have been avoided if the Democrats voted for the clean Continuing Resolution to keep the government open.”

Such messages have become commonplace across the federal government—even though they may violate the Hatch Act, which prohibits engaging in political activity while in office. As Wired reported, the websites of several agencies blame the shutdown on Democrats, and employees at the Small Business Administration (SBA) were also told to blame Democrats in their out-of-office email responses. Additionally, emails viewed by Mother Jones show that the Office of Management and Budget also directed DOL employees to set out-of-office messages blaming Democrats for the shutdown.

Groshen said she was “pretty shocked” to see reports of the out-of-office messages instructing federal employees to blame Democrats.

To Schroeder, both the shutdown and the politicization of the BLS and similar agencies are “really damaging to our nation’s data infrastructure.”

“This damages the reputation of the independence and trustworthiness of the federal statistics that BLS puts out,” he added.

Continue Reading…

Not Just “Medbeds”: How TruthSocial’s Bogus Medical Claims Fool Elderly Trump Fans

“I know in my heart that med beds [sic] are real,” a woman named Pam wrote recently on TruthSocial, the social media site owned by Trump Media and Technology Group, and President Donald Trump’s favorite place to post. “I’ve been hoping and at the same time thinking it’s too good to be true,” Pam confided. “But Trump is giving me back my hope.”

“I’ve been dreaming about this healing tool for a long time.”

Over the weekend, Trump posted an AI-generated video on the platform that touted purported “medbeds,” a non-existent healing technology that people falsely believe will miraculously cure all maladies. In the video, a robotic-sounding Lara Trump is seen heading a Fox News segment about medbeds, as footage of a fake Donald Trump proclaims, in part, “Every American will soon receive their own medbed card. With it, you’ll have guaranteed access to our new hospitals led by the top doctors in the nation, equipped with the most advanced technology in the world.”

Trump deleted the video without comment a few hours later. But even after it was taken down, his TruthSocial followers—who are among his most devoted fans—took the post as a sign that medbeds are about to be unveiled. They speculated about why the video had been deleted (one theory was that it had too many comments) and assured each other that the technology was indeed on its way.

“I’ve been dreaming about this healing tool for a long time,” one woman wrote. “I hope a ticket for me and my husband. [sic] Healing frequency and advancing healing technology is possible.”

“All citizens will get a card,” another wrote, “And I’m sure the waitlist will take the most acute first.”

All of this, of course, is a lie. “The medbed fantasy isn’t new,” says Jonathan Jarry, a science communicator at McGill University’s Office for Science and Society. “The promise is always that this fantastical technology will be rolled out tomorrow, and tomorrow never comes.”

Medbeds are just one outright fake or dubious health technology being promoted by TruthSocial accounts. TruthSocial users skew older and generally have a great deal of faith in Trump—demographics that suggest a less sophisticated approach to evaluating online claims. The site has become fertile ground for false or contested health claims, with TruthSocial users often proclaiming the miraculous healing benefits of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, both of which have been heavily promoted as fake Covid cures. On a recent day, for instance, a user calling herself “Oksana Trump” with 143,000 followers—a massive number for the site—shared a post about Florida’s plans to investigate ivermectin and other generic drugs as cancer treatments. Her replies were full of TruthSocial users proclaiming they already had used the drug to treat cancer, instead of chemotherapy or other scientifically-backed options. TruthSocial users also frequently promote or even provide links to places to buy what is called “vitamin B17,” a longstanding fake cancer cure often derived from apricot seeds, as well as “Indian black salve,” a product that falsely claims to cure skin cancer. The FDA warns that using black salve can result in disfigurement and infection while delaying actual treatment.

Even before Trump re-shared the AI-generated video, the medbed discourse was extremely active on TruthSocial. Users who seem to be would-be conspiracy entrepreneurs provide posts with what they claim are “medbed hospital updates” or assurances that “medbed cards” are being rolled out, sometimes accompanied with what look like AI-generated illustrations.

Several accounts on the platform claim to provide access to medbed reservations or hospitals. “This is not a rumor,” one such account proclaimed. “Not speculation. Not a future promise. Reservations are NOW open.” The link the account provides goes not to a medbed facility, but to a Telegram channel; Jarry has written about how social media users who claim to have access to medbeds will solicit a “registration fee” of hundreds of dollars from potential customers seeking appointments to use the technology—appointments that will, of course, never come.

TruthSocial, of course, is not alone: most social media sites are now filled with bad health information and dubious cures, as the companies have rolled back rules against health misinformation that were put in place during Covid. Twitter/X stopped policing Covid misinformation in 2022, while Meta moved to a “community notes” system for health misinformation in January—one that public health experts warned would likely lead to a rise in health misinformation on Meta’s platforms. This week, YouTube announced that it would reinstate accounts previously banned for making false claims about both Covid and the 2020 election.

But TruthSocial’s aging and especially Trump-devoted crowd represents a particular user base, one looking for any sign that the Trump administration will bring them the prosperity, deliverance, and even healing they’ve been promised. Long after Trump deleted the post, users there were still excitedly speculating about when, exactly, they would receive their medbed cards, and assuring each other the technology absolutely exists, but is kept secret.

“I know medbeds are already here,” wrote one TruthSocial user named Cyndi who, based on her online activity, appears to be an older white woman living in the Midwest. “I’ve seen facilities in several states. I believe medbeds are our future, not Big Pharma.”

When I reached out to her by email to ask about her confidence in the non-existent technology Cyndi replied, “All I can tell you is that I’ve done Google search on med beds, which showed me where the facilities are.” She added that she believes there’s “at least one in about every state,” sometimes using the name “Tesla Med Beds.” (The product neither exists, nor has any link to Elon Musk.)

“I’ve seen videos of people using med beds going back 10 years,” Cyndi added. “First article I saw was a facility out of Ohio. That’s all I know and that the military has been using med beds for decades. That’s all I can tell you.”

When the president posts a fake video promising a miraculous piece of healing technology, it speaks directly to the deepest hopes of some of his base. But, Jarry warns, it also opens the door for more scams.

What’s “remarkable” about Trump supporters’ belief in medbeds, Jarry explains, “is that it is one of the few optimistic conspiracy theories I have seen. Whereas most conspiracy theories center on a sinister goal, this one is benevolent in nature.”

But that doesn’t mean it isn’t harmful to the president’s fans. “Given that Trump has given this mythical technology the biggest publicity it has ever received,” Jarry warns., “I won’t be surprised to see entrepreneurs jumping on it to sell gadgets and services that will enrich them and impoverish desperate people.”

Continue Reading…

How the Two-State Solution Became a “Big, Expedient Lie”

Former government officials rarely write good books. Whatever insights they may have acquired tend to be buried by self-justifying recriminations, personal loyalties, and the fear that unsolicited candor will prove disqualifying in some future administration.

Tomorrow Is Yesterday, a new book by the veteran peace negotiators Robert Malley and Hussein Agha, is an exception. The book tells the timely story of how the two-state solution in Israel-Palestine failed, despite its authors spending much of their careers trying to make it a reality.

Both are uniquely positioned to tell that story. Agha, a confidant of the late Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat, was involved at the highest levels of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks for decades. Malley advised President Bill Clinton at the Camp David summit that brought together Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Malley went on to be the lead negotiator for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal struck by Barack Obama’s administration.

“Over time, [the two-state solution] did become something that people greeted with a yawn—and then as a joke, or a lie.”

Agha has roots throughout the Middle East: Lebanon, Iraq, Iran. Despite his acceptance into the inner circle of the PLO, he is described in Tomorrow Is Yesterday as being Palestinian “by conviction,” rather than blood. After growing up in Beirut, he attended Oxford.

Malley was born with radical bonafides, but went on to obtain degrees from Yale, Oxford, and Harvard Law School. His mother is a Jewish woman from the Bronx who worked for the Algerian National Liberation Front at the United Nations in New York. He is the son of the late left-wing journalist Simon Malley, an iconoclastic Egyptian-born Jew whose devotion to anti-colonial liberation movements was combined with an intense anti-Zionism.

The older Malley, who was granted honorary Palestinian citizenship, decided never to set foot in Israel. His ties to revolutionary movements shaped his son’s initial exposure to the conflict; Arafat was the first person from Israel or Palestine that Robert Malley met in his youth. (The former government official spoke about his father’s influence—and their many differences—in a 2008 lecture later published by Jewish Currents.)

Malley and Agha have now been collaborating for decades. In 2001, they attracted international attention with a New York Review of Books essay that eviscerated the American conventional wisdom that Palestinians were to blame for the failure of the 2000 Camp David summit. Two decades later, they argue it is well past time to move beyond the binary of continued Israeli occupation, or an eventual and still vaguely defined Palestinian state. They resist specificprescriptions in favor of a broader call to go back to an earlier time when partition was not considered the only possible resolution.

I spoke with Malley—who is now a senior fellow at at the Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs—last Friday about the book, his skepticism about recent decisions to recognize Palestine by Western nations, and the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza.

The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

In one of the more damning passages in the book, you and Hussein write that the two-state solution over the years has “evolved from abstract idea to colonial-inspired policy to seemingly viable diplomatic venture to ambivalent hope to joke and finally big, expedient lie.” How did you come to that conclusion?

That sentence reflects the tension at the core of the book, which is that we don’t say that the two-state solution was never possible. We question whether it really would have resolved the core of the conflict, but you may have been able to have both sides agree to partition at some point. But, over time, it did become something that people greeted with a yawn—and then as a joke, or a lie.

Why do we use the word lie? Because there did come a point where a number of people—particularly Americans—would invoke the two-state solution not because they thought it was going to happen.

Let me give one example: when the Biden administration spoke of two states and an irreversible pathway to Palestinian statehood, I think if you gave them a lie detector test, they would say, Yeah, we know we’re not there. But they used it because they felt that it was an important element of a different strategy, which was to get normalization between Israelis and Saudis, or at least to placate American public opinion over their enabling and support for Israel’s onslaught on Gaza. It was a convenient instrument to trot out when you needed it.

You and Hussein argue that a “two-state solution is not the natural resting place for either Israelis or Palestinians.” What do you mean by that?

I think particularly to Palestinian ears—but Israeli ears as well—both of them heard things that didn’t really resonate with them when Americans spoke about a two-state solution. Beyond whatever tactical mistakes or lack of leverage that was exercised, there’s a strong sense that the two-state solution was not an idea that either Palestinians or the Zionist movement came up with.

For the Palestinians, the notion was that all the land belongs to them, and that they had been deprived of their land during the Nakba, the War of 1948, what they call the catastrophe. The Palestinian movement was not born out of a desire to get a state on the borders of 1967. The borders of ’67 meant nothing to them in 1948. If Palestinians concede that this was just about the borders of ’67, then are they conceding that the struggle they were waging before was a tragic mistake?

By the same token, many Israelis today would say Hebron [in the West Bank] is far more significant to them than Tel Aviv. For them, what matters is full supremacy, basically. The Zionist movement and its origins—and many of those who are speaking today—their attachment is to all of the land. It’s not just to the land they had before 1967. So, partition doesn’t naturally respond to the deep-seated yearnings of both sides. Both have higher aspirations. Both have deeper historical attachment.

The most dynamic elements on both sides, the ones that have generally been excluded from the peace negotiations—the Islamists, the Palestinian refugees, the settlers, the religious Zionists; those who feel most strongly and therefore have the greatest ability to undo any effort—were sort of viewed as alien because they were not really in tune with what the peace process was trying to do. But, in some ways, they reflected the core of the conflict more accurately than those with whom, I admit, I felt more comfortable talking to.

What would you say to those who look at the efforts to achieve a two-state solution via Oslo and Camp David and conclude: That was the moment. If things had just gone a little differently, we could have solved this once and for all? What are the costs of seeing it through that lens?

The cost is where we are today. This may not be a straight line, but there certainly is a line that links the peace process and the failed efforts of the peace process to the absolute, unspeakable horrors that we’re witnessing today.

It’s not as if one is completely detached from the other, and that the government of Israel landed from Mars, or that Hamas landed from Mars. And that what happened on October 7 and what happened afterwards are completely disconnected from everything that’s happened beforehand.

“At the end of the day, on this issue, the US is not prepared to put its foot down.”

No, as we say in the book, and it’s a painful thing for people to hear, October 7 was welcomed by a large swath of Palestinian public opinion as Israel having a taste of its own medicine. There was really a sense of, Finally, we get to do to them what they’ve been doing to us. As we say, this is nothing new. Way before Hamas existed, there were attempts by Fatah, or by other movements, to do something like this, which is to sow fear in the minds of Israelis.

And by the same token, and I know it’s painful to hear, but it is a fact that a vast majority of Israelis are absolutely comfortable with and supportive of a war that an increasing number of organizations are calling a genocide.

Neither one of those appeared out of nowhere. They are the product of years of a failed effort to chase what has ended up being an illusory goal.

If we just go back and say, Okay, we didn’t try hard enough. We’re going to try again. Whoever embarks on that effort is going to create new illusions, which is going to lead to new disillusionment, which is going to lead to frustration and violence.

The book is quite critical of Joe Biden’s response to October 7. What do you think led to the decisions he took?

As we try to explain—and that’s why we call the book _Tomorrow Is Yesterday—_so much of what we’re seeing today is reminiscent of what we’ve seen in the past.

When it comes to the US, the reaction to October 7 and the war that followed was an exacerbated microcosm of American habits: To say things that either they don’t believe, or they shouldn’t believe, or that they should know that others won’t believe.

So, [the US says]: We are working tirelessly for a ceasefire. A ceasefire is around the corner. We care equally about Israeli and Palestinian lives. We’re on the verge of normalization between Israelis and Palestinians. We’re going to put forward an irreversible pathway to a Palestinian state.

Not one of those sentences really bore any resemblance to truth.

Now, why did the administration say those things? But also why did the administration take the stance that it took?

One is just that it’s born of an American foreign policy culture, an establishment culture, about how you look at Israel and how you look at the Palestinians. It’s sort of the playbook of how the United States reacts, in general, for the last few decades to instances of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Added to that, you had a president who has been around for some time, who also has a fierce loyalty to Israel and to the Jewish people. He felt it very much in his guts. And the fact that he comes from a generation where an American politician, as a rule, could not pay a price for backing every Israeli policy, and always risked paying a price by taking his or her distance from Israeli policy.

I think it was very hard for the team to get out of that mentality, which is that we need to stick to Israel even if we have deep reservations about what they’re doing. If we’re going to deal with those reservations, it’s better to “bear hug” them because that’s the best way to get them to do what we want them to do—even though history has proven time and time again that the “hug” allows Israel to continue what they’re doing and then to dismiss the criticism that comes with it.

There has been a lot of news about recent moves to recognize a Palestinian state by Western nations. How does your understanding of the two-state solution—and the role the idea of it plays—impact how you see that?

It’s a little bit awkward because I feel more comfortable in the company of many who support recognition of a Palestinian state than those who oppose it. And I certainly don’t buy the argument that it’s a reward for Hamas, but I question the motivation and the end result of recognition.

It’s pretty clear that recognizing a Palestinian state today is not going to change the lives of a single Israeli or Palestinian. It’s not going to change what’s happening in Gaza. It’s not going to change what’s happening in the West Bank. And so it’s hard to see how it’s the adequate response to what we’re seeing today, when there are other responses in terms of putting real pressure on Israel and making them face the consequences of their actions.

Some countries are doing both, but many are choosing one rather than the other, which raises the question of the motivation. Is it to show that they’re doing something, even if it’s not something that’s going to make a difference? Is it to say, _Look, we’ve done our part_s?

Right now, it does look far more like a symbolic gesture that’s designed to make those who are under criticism for not having done enough to end what’s happening in Gaza feel like they’ve done something. And that’s the tendency that we described in the book: To use a two-state solution for purposes that have very little to do with its achievement.

You’ve talked about Vietnam being a watershed moment for your generation. For younger Americans, the war in Gaza may be playing a similar role. What possibilities do you think might open up in a world in which public opinion allows, or compels, the US government to use its leverage over Israel in the service of trying to resolve this conflict?

There has been a sea change in public attitudes. The polling reflects it. The position taken by growing numbers of members of Congress reflects it. Even the fact that you’re hearing former members of the Biden administration coming out in favor of conditioning or withholding aid to Israel. It comes in different shades, but all of that is a marker of those changes that have taken place.

I teach now, and I hear it in my students. This war—not just the war but also the US enabling of it, the hypocrisy, the moral indignation combined with, at best, feckless action, at worst, active complicity in the war. I think all of that is going to leave its imprint on a generation of future American policymakers. But, also, soon to be, if not already, voters.

And so what does it do to the composition of Congress? What does it do to the primaries for the next presidential election? Again, I don’t know. And there’ve been too many cases where I had hope in the past, and that hope didn’t quite pan out. But I do think we may be witnessing a different attitude.

I’m not saying that the US can impose a solution and dictate how Israelis and Palestinians are going to live. I think that would be another fallacy if we believe that we could just snap our fingers and either Israelis or Palestinians will do as we wish. But if Israel, in particular, didn’t feel the sense of impunity that it has felt, I think that starts changing something.

President Obama said in conversations with us when I was serving him, It’s hard to see why Israel will change course if it doesn’t incur the price of the policies it’s pursuing. It wouldn’t even make rational sense. So, that’s not condemning the Israeli government. If continuing with the status quo and continuing what they’re doing doesn’t cost them, then why wouldn’t they continue?

If there’s been a constant for the decades since I started working in the US government, it’s been: At the end of the day, on this issue, the US is not prepared to put its foot down. Does that begin to change? And if it changes, does it change the behavior on the ground in Israel-Palestine? I think there’s at least some reason to hope.

But again, I think that shouldn’t spare us—but mainly Israelis and Palestinians—the need to think about what are the most achievable and sustainable ways for Israelis and Palestinians to coexist. That’s a difficult conversation to have, but it needs to be had. Because even with a different US policy, you still need to have an outcome that most Israelis and most Palestinians are prepared to live with.

Continue Reading…

The Joke’s On You at the Riyadh Comedy Festival

Any writer worth a damn will tell you that writing short is often a lot harder than writing long. You have to get the pacing, the structure, and the tone just right, but when it hits, it really hits. Capturing something essential about the modern world in 80,000 words is an accomplishment. The Riyadh Comedy Festival manages to do it in four.

The first-of-its-kind event, which is happening this week in Saudi Arabia, has brought some of America’s most famous comics to the autocratic Gulf State. Dave Chappelle, Kevin Hart, and Pete Davidson are there, as is Bill Burr, who once swore off the idea of “going over there and getting kidnapped and getting my head sawed off on fucking YouTube.” But Burr will have to keep those kinds of comments to himself while he’s in Riyadh. An offer shared by the comedian Atsuko Okatsuka (who is not attending), stipulated that participants would not perform perform “any material that may be considered to degrade, defame, or bring into public disrepute, contempt, scandal, embarrassment, or ridicule…The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, including its leadership, public figures, culture, or people” and “The Saudi royal family, legal system, or government.” The whole thing feels like a bit: Did you hear what the anti-censorship guys said to the dictator? Nope.

As a glimpse of the state of mid-career comedians with Netflix specials, it’s quite grim. But the festival tells a story that goes well beyond this particular industry. It’s a stand-in for a broader capitulation to autocracy abroad that mirrors the acquiescence to autocracy here at home.

The whole thing feels like a bit: Did you hear what the anti-censorship guys said to the dictator? Nope.

Saudi Arabia’s strategy for accruing political and economic power under crown prince Muhammad bin Salman is pretty straightforward. It is not just a petro-state anymore. In just the last few years, the kingdom has launched a competitor to the PGA Tour; blown up the finances of European soccer and effectively taken control of FIFA; and cemented itself as a destination for boxing, UFC, and Formula 1. Its annual investor conference, known as “Davos in the Desert,” is a marquee event for that sort of crowd. Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, the PIF, is a player in everything from alfalfa to video games to Jared Kushner. For a brief moment, in 2018, it seemed as if the state-sanctioned dismemberment of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul might cause people to keep their distance, but the assassination turned out to be little more than a blip for many American entertainers and businessmen.

This kind of mass capitulation marks a moral erosion in its own right. But you can also see, in the ways these deals and big events are often discussed, a kind of anti-politics at work. Influential Americans are not just willing to put up with bad state actors, but are genuinely dismissive of the idea that you shouldn’t. Self-respect and standards are weak and woke. It is virtue-signaling to care about dismemberment, or 9/11. This broad acquiescence to the Saudi rebrand reflects an avowed shamelessness couched in a right-wing moral relativism; acknowledging the complexity of the world becomes a way to never have to really believe in anything.

I’m not going to go so far as to say that the Riyadh Comedy Festival or LIV Golf—“Golf, but louder”—explains how Donald Trump got a second term, but I do think these things are on the same continuum. (For one thing, Trump did literally host LIV Golf tournaments.) The lesson is: A lot of Americans just aren’t as opposed to vengeful monarchs as you might have thought. Trump didn’t just rebrand himself via many of the same spectacles MBS embraced—fights, races, football, and “edgy” comedians. Like MBS and the oppressive state over which he presides, his ascent was the product of a lot of powerful people who once denounced him forsaking their purported ideals for an inside shot at a windfall. His movement is powered by a willingness to sell out. In Washington, as in Riyadh, it turns out that persuading people to make peace with an oppressive, anti-democratic regime dominated by an unspeakably wealthy ruling family is not as hard as you might think. All you have to do is make them rich.

Continue Reading…

Team Trump Will Spend $625 Million and Open Public Lands to Revive a Dying Industry

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

The White House will open 13.1 million acres of public land to coal mining while providing $625 million for coal-fired power plants, the Trump administration has announced.

The efforts came as part of a suite of initiatives from the Department of the Interior, Department of Energy, and Environmental Protection Agency, aimed at reviving the flagging coal sector. Coal, the most polluting and costly fossil fuel, has been on a rapid decline over the past 30 years, with the US halving its production between 2008 and 2023, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

“This is an industry that matters to our country,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a livestreamed press conference on Monday morning, alongside representatives from the other two departments. “It matters to the world, and it’s going to continue to matter for a long time.”

“This is a colossal waste of our money at a time when the federal government should be spurring along the new energy sources.”

Coal plants provided about 15 percent of US electricity in 2024—a steep fall from 50 percent in 2000—the EIA found, with the growth of gas and green power displacing its use. Last year, wind and solar produced more electricity than coal in the US for the first time in history, according to the International Energy Agency, which predicts that could happen at the global level by the end of 2026.

Despite its dwindling role, Trump has made the reviving the coal sector a priority of his second term amid increasing energy demand due to the proliferation of artificial intelligence data centers.

“The Trump administration is hell-bent on supporting the oldest, dirtiest energy source. It’s handing our hard-earned tax dollars over to the owners of coal plants that cost more to run than new, clean energy,” said Amanda Levin, director of policy analysis at the national environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council. “This is a colossal waste of our money at a time when the federal government should be spurring along the new energy sources that can power the AI boom and help bring down electricity bills for struggling families.”

The administration’s new $625 million investment includes $350 million to “modernize” coal plants, $175 million for coal projects it claims will provide affordable and reliable energy to rural communities, and $50 million to upgrade wastewater management systems to extend the lifespan of coal plants.

The efforts follow previous coal-focused initiatives from the Trump administration, which has greenlit mining leases while fast-tracking mining permits. It has also prolonged the life of some coal plants, exempted some coal plants from EPA rules, and falsely claimed that emissions from those plants are “not significant.”

The moves have sparked outrage from environmental advocates who note that coal pollution has been linked to hundreds of thousands of deaths across the past two decades. One study estimated that emissions from coal costs Americans $13-$26 billion a year in additional ER visits, strokes and cardiac events, and a greater prevalence and severity of childhood asthma events.

Continue Reading…

So You Don’t Understand Crypto. Buckle Up.

The growth of crypto—decentralized digital currency that doesn’t rely on the backing of a bank or government—is one of the most transformative financial developments of the 21st century. And yet cryptocurrencies still baffle so many. How risky of an investment is it? Where do I buy it? And, wait, what is crypto again?

On this week’s More To The Story, host Al Letson sits down with independent journalist Molly White for some answers. She examines the growth of cryptocurrency in the US, how digital currencies have begun permeating American politics, and the extreme risks and rewards of investing in crypto as the Trump administration is deregulating the industry.

“We see these crypto bubbles happen over and over again, where crypto companies get very high, cryptocurrency companies proliferate, and everyday people are being increasingly brought into crypto,” White says. “And then things get out of hand because there’s very little oversight and bad behavior is very common. And at a certain point, things get untenable.”

White also recounts the epic rise and fall of FTX, the cryptocurrency exchange started by Sam Bankman-Fried, who was convicted of fraud in 2023. FTX’s collapse and ensuing bankruptcy is the focus of Reveal’s new two-part series, The Secret Story of FTX’s Rise and Ruin.

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.

So before we get too deep, I’d love to start off with the fundamentals, so what exactly is cryptocurrency and Bitcoin?

So cryptocurrency is a digital asset, meaning that it exists entirely in the digital world, there’s no physical representation of the asset, and people trade these assets, like Bitcoin or various other crypto assets, to try to speculate on the price, hoping that these very volatile assets will increase in price. They were created in 2009 or so with the advent of Bitcoin, which was the first cryptocurrency, but now there are thousands and thousands of them that people trade back and forth in hopes of earning a profit typically.

And so, what exactly is a blockchain and how does that relate to cryptocurrency?

The blockchain is the ledger on which all of these transactions are recorded. So this is basically a distributed, decentralized record of every transaction that happens, say, with a Bitcoin. And so, there is this system in which anyone can run one of these computers and contribute to maintaining this digital ledger, without, say, a centralized entity, like a bank, keeping track of every transaction or acting as a middleman in those transactions.

Okay, I think I grasp all of that. It’s a way of keeping big institutions, banks, out of the mix, so to speak.

Right. The idea is that a ton of different people will all contribute to maintaining this ledger, but no single person or entity controls that ledger, and so there is no bank telling you, “Oh, sorry, you can’t make that transaction,” for whatever reason, that was the original design of cryptocurrencies. Since then, it has evolved quite a lot, and so now there actually are a lot of intermediaries in the crypto world, but the fundamental design was to cut them out of the mix.

So right now, we’re in the middle of reporting on the collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which at one time was valued at more than $30 billion. You’ve also done a lot of reporting about FTX, including about the way customers were paid out as part of the bankruptcy. Can you talk some about that?

Yeah. So this has been a bone of contention in a number of crypto bankruptcies, where instead of having their assets returned to them in the form that they had been holding them, people are being repaid with the dollar equivalent of those assets based on the time at which the company went bankrupt, and for FTX, this was an all-time low in crypto prices, there had been a very tumultuous year in the crypto industry, and so Bitcoin prices were low, other crypto asset prices were low. And now, years later, as creditors are being repaid, they would much rather get their Bitcoin back because those Bitcoins are worth many times what they were worth at the time of bankruptcy, but instead they’re being repaid in dollars, which means that they’ve lost a significant amount of value than if they had managed to hold onto their crypto assets for that time. But this is the risk that people take when they get involved in crypto, when they store assets on exchanges like FTX, is that there really aren’t protections that are ensuring that people get the outcome that they wish when catastrophes happen.

If the US had a better system in place, could that have prevented things like FTX crumbling?

Yeah. I think that there were regulatory failures that contributed to both FTX’s business operations, that were extremely high risk, that were very much out of the norm for a traditional financial institution, and issues that led to creditors not being repaid in ways that they maybe expected.

There has been very limited oversight of crypto firms like FTX, in part because FTX was based offshore, and so although they did have a branch of the company that was serving US customers, much of the company and its operations were not necessarily subject to US oversight, and there were very little regulations, like you see in traditional finance, that would aim to prevent the types of conflicts of interest that happened with FTX and its sister trading firm, which was called Alameda Research. Typically, you wouldn’t want a company that is holding customer funds to also be engaging in trading activities that could potentially be trading against those very same customers, you would want a very significant firewall around customer assets so that a company could not misuse those assets for their own expenditures or trading purposes, and those types of protections really were not in place, they did not prevent FTX from doing exactly that, which I think contributed to its downfall.

Since the collapse of FTX, how has crypto entered the bloodstream of American finance and investment?

Well, it’s been a pretty remarkable turnaround, I think, in the crypto world. After FTX, I think people were very disillusioned with cryptocurrency, especially the everyday person rather than the crypto enthusiast, they saw crypto as very high risk, not worth getting involved in, they saw FTX as a cautionary tale. But over the couple of years since then, crypto has really re-emerged in the American system as a major portion of the financial world, where we’re seeing big companies, traditional financial companies, embracing crypto. There are companies like Fidelity that have issued crypto ETFs, which are a way for people to essentially gain exposure to crypto assets through a traditional brokerage. We’ve seen a massive embrace of cryptocurrency from the President and the President’s administration, where the crypto industry has become very, very close with not only the President, but also the regulatory structure, and has exerted quite a lot of influence over upcoming legislation over the regulatory approach. And so, crypto has really reinserted itself, I would say, into the American consciousness as crypto prices have come back up and there has been this embrace of cryptocurrency from the political administration.

So if I wanted to buy crypto today, how risky of an investment is it?

Well, crypto is still a very risky investment for a couple of reasons. For one, it’s risky in the sense that crypto is extremely volatile, and so there are these huge swings in price, even in some of the most established cryptocurrencies. We see Bitcoin, for example, dramatically changing in price, both up and down. And so, there is risk in that sense, that you might put a lot of money into Bitcoin, and then the price goes down and you lose a considerable portion of your original investment.

But there are also risks in the crypto worlds that people are maybe not as used to from more traditional institutions, where you can actually lose all of your crypto assets, they can be stolen from you, or companies can go under and your assets may not be returned to you ever, or if they are returned, it can be much, much later or in a different form, and those risks, I think, are still fairly significant, even as companies try to present themselves as more legitimate versions of exchanges, like FTX.

When FTX was still doing business, they very much branded themselves as the safe and easy place to trade crypto. They tried to portray themselves as a place where you didn’t have to worry about the custody of your crypto assets, you could just log on to the exchange and they’d be right there. They tried to create trust among their customers that they were the legitimate, above board way of trading crypto, because FTX was not the first catastrophe in the crypto world, people had grown concerned about the legitimacy of these exchanges even prior to FTX.
And so nowadays, we’re seeing other cryptocurrency exchanges doing the same thing, where they claim that, “Okay, for real this time, we’re the place where we will actually take care of your assets and protect you,” but without much oversight still, and as the crypto industry is actually being deregulated rather than regulated, I remain very skeptical and cautious about those types of companies, because we see these catastrophes happening again and again and again, and without some sort of external force or oversight to stop that pattern, I think it will just repeat.

So Molly, another part of your research and reporting is the influence of cryptocurrency in politics, how did crypto affect the 2024 elections?

The crypto industry became incredibly politically active in 2024, and this had been happening over a period of a couple of years, where crypto firms, including FTX, actually, were becoming very politically active and trying to influence legislation and regulators so that they would have a more friendly environment under which to operate. But they really went into overdrive in 2024, where a coalition of cryptocurrency companies and executives raised over $100 million, they spent something like $130 million on congressional elections in the United States to either support candidates that they believed would be pro-crypto and who would support the legislation that the crypto industry wanted to see put into place.

But also to oppose candidates that they saw as threats to the crypto industry, people like Katie Porter in California, who lost her primary race for the California Senate seat, she was viewed as a ally of Elizabeth Warren, as someone who was maybe going to be skeptical of the crypto industry’s promises and its plans for a much looser regulatory regime. And so, they spent millions of dollars to unseat people like her, or Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and instead replace them with politicians who would be much friendlier to the crypto industry and would vote for legislation that they essentially drafted.

What kind of influence is crypto having on the upcoming midterms?

Well, we saw an incredible degree of crypto spending in the 2024 elections, and I think we are poised to see that again in 2026. The cryptocurrency Super PACs have already raised a significant amount of money, rivaling what they raised in 2024, and they’re continuing to accumulate funds to spend in the midterms. There’s already been some spending happening in special elections and other races that have happened a little bit earlier, and I think we will continue to see that even more so into the midterms as the crypto industry continues to exert influence.

The strategy last time was essentially to show force against candidates who might be skeptical of cryptocurrency or even just unwilling to sign on to the crypto industry agenda and essentially threaten them and say, “We will spend you out of office. We will support your opponents, and we will make sure that they are elected rather than you, unless get on board with our agenda.” And so, some people decided to acquiesce, they embraced cryptocurrency. Others were indeed up against huge spending, where their opponents were backed by the crypto industry because the industry didn’t want to see a skeptic or someone who is more focused on consumer protection put into office. So I think we’re going to see that pattern again, where candidates are being strong armed into at least going along with the crypto industry’s agenda, if not outwardly embracing it, in hopes of earning potentially millions and millions of dollars in campaign support.

Yeah. When you’ve got a candidate like Trump, who I think it’s fair to say has made a lot of money off of crypto, versus a candidate who maybe is not doing as much for the cryptocurrency, it’s clear where their alliance is going to go.

I think so. There was this perception from the crypto industry that the Biden administration was very anti-crypto, that it was because of Biden that we saw more enforcement in the crypto world, and there was this belief, or certainly the crypto industry contributed to this belief, that Kamala Harris would be an extension of that, and so if you supported her, you would essentially be putting your crypto assets at risk. Whereas Trump very much positioned himself as an ally to the crypto industry, he was describing himself as the pro-crypto president, he was launching his own tokens, he was building businesses where he was personally profiting from cryptocurrency. And so, I think many executives in the crypto world saw him as the obvious choice, because he wants to get rich from cryptocurrency, and so he will support policies that will allow anyone to get rich from running a cryptocurrency business, and they very much threw their lot in with Donald Trump as a result of that.

What’s Trump’s involvement with World Liberty Financial? It seems like he and his family have made large investments and have their own family token.

Right. So the Trump family has a whole portfolio of cryptocurrency companies and crypto-related investments at this point. World Liberty Financial was one of the first ones, and this was a project that was launched by the Trump sons, in collaboration with a couple of other crypto entrepreneurs, and the whole selling point was that they were going to create their own cryptocurrency trading platform that would address what they describe as debanking that they’ve experienced personally.

So the Trump sons have said that in the past, they were denied banking services due to their political beliefs, due to their family associations, and they see crypto as the way to answer that, where no bank can deny you service because it’s decentralized and you can just set up an account and go about your business, and that was the ideology behind World Liberty Financial. Although, the company so far has not actually launched anything besides a token called WLFI, from which the Trump family has made hundreds of millions of dollars. They’ve also launched a stablecoin called USD1, which is, again, a crypto asset that is pegged to the US dollar, that has also been very lucrative for them. But so far, the actual promises of the platform have yet to be realized.

Before we move on, I’m still having a hard time understanding exactly what a meme coin is. So a meme coin is just digital currency that somebody creates based around a meme, and those can have dramatic swings in how much they’re worth, is that correct?

Yes, that’s absolutely correct. Meme coins often start at extremely low prices, and then as interest is drawn to them, people are always looking for the next new meme coin, and so if someone is able to get some attention on a meme coin, it can spike in price, even if we’re talking about many, many fractions of a penny to a penny, and because of that, people try to make huge returns on them, even though often those spikes are very short-lived and people often lose a substantial amount of money trying to speculate on the next big meme coin. That is the model of meme coins is to pick the right one early and then hopefully make a profit.

So it’s like pick the right one, get in early and get out early as well, make the money in balance?

Right. And the people who are a little bit late to that party are the people who lose a lot of money, because they allow those early purchasers to get out with their profits.

So is this the same type of thing that the Hawk Tuah girl, I have no idea what her real name is, the Hawk Tuah woman did, she created her own meme coin, is that what it was?

Yep, that’s exactly right.

So she created a meme coin, and everybody got mad at her because she made a lot of money, or the people that were working with her made a lot of money, but everybody that came later to it kind of got screwed?

Right. And that is actually the most common trajectory for a meme coin, is the insiders who launch the token are the ones who make money, and everyone who comes in later tends to lose money. And there’s very little oversight or regulations around how meme coins are supposed to work, but people still get very angry when they perceive that the person who launched or endorsed a meme coin did it in the wrong way that caused them to lose money.

So let me ask you a really basic question then, if that’s the way it goes, why invest in a meme coin? I don’t understand. If you know that it’s an inside job, why invest in it? I’m really truly trying to understand.

Yeah. I think a lot of crypto investing is really not terribly rational. There is a lot of hope that they’re going to be one of those early buyers and they’re going to be the ones who make the money and not the ones who are allowing the insiders to make the money. In reality, it’s often not the case, and oftentimes, especially with meme coins, they are set up in such a way that you could never make money off of them, because the insiders just have a structural advantage that is not available to everyday people who are coming in later to purchase these tokens. But I think people get really hopeful. They see stories about a person just picking the right token and suddenly they’re a millionaire overnight, and they think that could be me, I just have to pick the right one. And sometimes they lose over and over and over again, and they get very upset when that is not happening for them, even if it’s not an entirely rational behavior.

Is there a safe strategy with crypto in general? I’m pulling out from meme coins, because it seems like what we’re saying with meme coins is it seems like it is the extreme Wild West, you’re almost playing the lottery, hoping that something will work out. Is there a crypto strategy that is a little bit more stable?

Well, staying out of it is certainly the safest option, I think.

That’s what I’m planning to do, I’ll just-

Yeah, that’s been my strategy as well.

My kid though is very much into crypto, so I’m just curious, is there another path?

Yeah, I think there are ways that people work to minimize risk. I think that some people view cryptocurrency as what it is, which is an extremely high risk investment choice, and they see that maybe there is some room in their portfolio for that type of asset, and so they allocate a small percentage of their investment strategy towards crypto, maybe they stick to some of the more mainstream coins, maybe they take custody of their assets personally so that they don’t have to worry about an exchange going under.

But ultimately, anyone who is involved in crypto speculation is taking on a significant amount of risk, both in the sense that it’s very volatile and it’s high risk in the sense that maybe high risk investments outside of crypto can be high risk. But there is also this additional layer of risk in crypto that people I think often don’t recognize, which is that, typically, if you buy a high risk stock, you can at least be sure that that stock is going to be in your brokerage account the next time you check, whereas in the crypto world, it is actually very common for companies to go under or for crypto exchanges to be hacked and have assets stolen. And so, that amount of risk is also a factor, and people maybe don’t recognize that quite as much.

You, like me, sound very skeptical about crypto. I would say I’m skeptical about crypto out of ignorance, I don’t know enough about this stuff, so I’m just like, yeah, I’ll keep my money. You sound skeptical about crypto with an abundance of knowledge. I’m curious though, what’s the flip side of it, why are there crypto enthusiasts, people who absolutely believe that this is the way of the future?

I would say it’s a mix of different ideologies that abound in crypto enthusiasts. Some of it is very ideological, and so it ties back to the early goals of crypto, which was to remove banks from the equation or make sure that governments were not even involved in issuing the asset. There are a lot of people who are digital equivalents of gold bugs, who think that we should have never left the gold standard, and they see Bitcoin as a similar asset class to gold because it has a limited supply, and so they think that it is a superior currency from a structural level.

There are a lot of people who love cryptocurrency because they think it’s their ticket to getting rich quick. There have been people who have made their fortunes in Bitcoin or other crypto assets because they got in early and they made a lot of money, and so people see those stories and they think, that could be me. And so, they get involved in crypto speculation, hoping for the same results. And then, I think there are people who have really bought into the idea that blockchains are a superior technology to the banking rails that we use today. That one, I think, I find the least convincing, just because the technological promises of blockchains have been fairly limited, and we’ve seen how little progress there has been towards making Bitcoin or some other crypto asset the currency of the future. But there are people who still believe that we just need a couple more years and it’ll be right around the corner.

What do you think is the future of regulation for cryptocurrency? Is it going to always be this lawless place?

Well, I think that remains to be seen. But we’ve certainly seen a lot of pressure in the United States to avoid regulations for the crypto industry, to even remove regulations that were in place, the few regulations that were being enforced prior to the Trump administration. And so, I think at least for the next couple of years, we’re going to see very little in the way of regulations, at least in the sense of regulations that protect consumers or prevent these businesses from engaging in abusive behaviors.

I think the regulations that are being put in place and that are coming out of the cryptocurrency industry, which often claims that it actually wants regulation, are solely regulations that benefit the cryptocurrency industry and the wealthy executives running these companies. They are not the types of protections that you would hope to see in financial institutions to ensure that they’re being fair and that customers are being protected. And so, I think that will be the trend, at least in the near future.

But I think we’ve also seen throughout history that what happens in the cryptocurrency world is that things get very, very inflated, we see these crypto bubbles happen over and over again, where crypto prices get very high, cryptocurrency companies proliferate and everyday people are being increasingly brought into crypto, and then things get out of hand, because there’s very little oversight and bad behavior is very common, and at a certain point, things get untenable. And so, we see catastrophes like we saw in 2022, when many, many, many companies collapsed, not just FTX, FTX was certainly the most high profile, but there were tons and tons of crypto companies that went under because they were engaging in very risky lending or they were outright frauds that eventually reached the end of their line. And so, a lot of people lost a ton of money, crypto prices came crashing back down. That is a cycle that we’ve seen over and over again in the cryptocurrency world, and I worry that it will only continue and become more dramatic as the sector continues to expand.

And so, I do think, unfortunately, there may be this natural boundary to the extent to which the crypto industry can grow under such a deregulated administration, and at some point, it will unfortunately self-correct in a way that is very, very painful for everyday people.

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

Continue Reading…

A Reagan-Appointed Judge Just Wrote a Blistering Anti-Trump Decision

On Tuesday, William G. Young—a federal district court judge in Massachusetts and a Reagan appointee—issued a decision filled with obvious contempt for the unconstitutional actions of the current president of the United States.

The ruling comes in a case brought by academic associations seeking to block the Trump administration’s policy of targeting and arresting noncitizens protesting Israel’s actions in Gaza. Judge Young’s decision makes it absolutely clear that the First Amendment rights of students like Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk were violated when federal agents detained them and sent them to faraway immigration detention centers.

“ICE goes masked for a single reason—to terrorize Americans into quiescence,” the Reagan appointed judge wrote.

The legal conclusions of the decision, which come after a nine-day trial involving 15 witnesses and hundreds of exhibits, are significant. As is the evidence uncovered in the case. It was revealed that the Trump administration was relying on information from shadowy websites like Canary Mission to determine who to target.

The judge wrote that a hearing on how the government can remedy its unconstitutional conduct will be scheduled “promptly.”

But what sets the ruling apart is its mix of unapologetic evisceration of Trump and admiration for the rights he has trampled on. That it is no ordinary ruling is apparent from the first words of the 161-page decision.

Young, who is 85 years old and was appointed to the bench four decades ago, begins by quoting a postcard he received on June 19 that reads: “TRUMP HAS PARDONS AND TANKS …. WHAT DO YOU HAVE?” Young replies in the ruling:

Dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous,

Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, We the People of the United States—you and me—have our magnificent Constitution. Here’s how that works out in a specific case—

The judge goes on to write that the case he is deciding is “perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court.” He concludes that there was not an “ideological deportation policy” targeting pro-Palestine speech. Instead, there was something more sinister:

[T]he intent of the Secretaries was more invidious—to target a few for speaking out and then use the full rigor of the Immigration and Nationality Act (in ways it had never been used before) to have them publicly deported with the goal of tamping down pro-Palestinian student protests and terrorizing similarly situated non-citizen (and other) pro-Palestinians into silence because their views were unwelcome.

By defending that policy, Young writes, the president has violated his “sacred oath” to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That Trump is “for all practical purposes, totally immune from any consequences for this conduct,” Young adds, citing the Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity decision, “does not relieve this Court of its duty to find the facts.”

The Reagan appointee is similarly disdainful of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s conduct under Trump. As he puts it:

Despite the meaningless but effective “worst of the worst” rhetoric, however, ICE has nothing whatever to do with criminal law enforcement and seeks to avoid the actual criminal courts at all costs. It is carrying a civil law mandate passed by our Congress and pressed to its furthest reach by the President. Even so, it drapes itself in the public’s understanding of the criminal law though its “warrants” are but unreviewed orders from an ICE superior and its “immigration courts” are not true courts at all but hearings before officers who cannot challenge the legal interpretations they are given. Under the unitary President theory they must speak with his voice. The People’s presence as jurors is unthinkable.

Young is particularly disturbed by ICE agents’ use of masks while detaining Öztürk and others—calling the government’s defense of the practice “disingenuous, squalid and dishonorable.” He explains:

ICE goes masked for a single reason—to terrorize Americans into quiescence. Small wonder ICE often seems to need our respected military to guard them as they go about implementing our immigration laws. It should be noted that our troops do not ordinarily wear masks. Can you imagine a masked marine? It is a matter of honor—and honor still matters. To us, masks are associated with cowardly desperados and the despised Ku Klux Klan. In all our history we have never tolerated an armed masked secret police.

Elsewhere in the decision, Young quotes an almost surreal defense mounted by the government at trial. While cross-examining Bernhard Nickel—a German citizen and Harvard philosophy professor who censored himself and abandoned a trip to visit a terminally ill brother abroad following Öztürk’s arrest—a government lawyer seemed to imply that Nickel was simply imagining things. Specifically, the lawyer quoted the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard’s maxim that “anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.” As Young notes dryly, “It is an odd kind of freedom that compels one to leave writing unpublished, leadership positions unpursued, and terminally ill relatives unvisited.”

It is apparent throughout the decision that Young’s horror is born out of patriotism. He laments that the blatant First Amendment violations so carefully catalogued in the case are unlikely to inspire all that much outrage, but calls for a return to what he considers America’s ideals:

The United States is a great nation, not because any of us say so. It is great because we still practice our frontier tradition of selflessness for the good of us all. Strangers go out of their way to help strangers when they see a need. In times of fire, flood, and national disaster, everyone pitches in to help people we’ve never met and first responders selflessly risk their lives for others. Hundreds of firefighters rushed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 without hesitation desperate to find and save survivors. That’s who we are. And on distant battlefields our military “fought and died for the men [they] marched among.”

The final pages of the decision are as unorthodox as its first. They begin with a quote about how “[Trump] seems to be winning. He ignores everything and keeps bullying ahead.” The line, Young explains, comes from a “very wise woman.” Specifically, his wife.

Young then dissects its meaning and its consequences: “The Constitution, our civil laws, regulations, mores, customs, practices, courtesies—all of it; the President simply ignores it all when he takes it into his head to act.”

Young wraps up by quoting Reagan’s lines about how freedom is a “fragile thing” that is “never more than one generation away from extinction,” and that, as a result, it must be “fought for and defended constantly.”

Pulling out all the stops, the veteran judge writes:

As I’ve read and re-read the record in this case, listened widely, and reflected extensively, I’ve come to believe that President Trump truly understands and appreciates the full import of President Reagan’s inspiring message—yet I fear he has drawn from it a darker, more cynical message. I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected.

Is he correct?

Finally, on page 161, there is a coda addressed to the anonymous letter writer who boasted about Trump’s pardons and tanks. “I hope you found this helpful. Thanks for writing. It shows you care. You should. Sincerely & respectfully, Bill Young.”

Continue Reading…

Hegseth Uses Extraordinary Meeting to Fat-Shame Generals

More than 800 members of the US military’s top brass, including hundreds of generals and admirals, gathered for an extraordinary meeting in Quantico, Virginia, on Tuesday, where they were greeted by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s order to return to “the highest male standard” in military fitness tests and training exercises.

In the same breath, Hegseth disparaged women serving in the military, claiming they were physically incapable of meeting the same physical standards.

“I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape or in combat units with females who can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men,” Hegseth said as the crowd remained virtually silent throughout the meeting. The former Fox weekend host included references to “woke garbage” and fat-shaming—”It’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals”—before all but announcing an end to formal processes that allow military personnel to register complaints of abuse.

“We are overhauling an inspector general process that has been weaponized, putting complainers and poor performers in the driver’s seat,” he said. “We are doing the same with the equal opportunity policies. No more frivolous complaints, no more anonymous complaints.”

A similar silence greeted President Donald Trump as he aired a characteristically discursive speech that at turns featured self-praise for his decision to send the National Guard to Portland, Orgeon, suggesting that such cities be used as “training grounds” for the military, misguided claims that he ended eight world wars, love for his own signature, and comparisons of “nuclear” power to the “n-word.”

Together, the dual speeches appeared to confirm suspicions leading up to Tuesday’s meeting that the country’s top military commanders were being forced from their posts around the world in order to attend what essentially boiled down to a MAGA pep rally—absent the cheering crowds.

Continue Reading…

When Miscarriages Become Crimes

In early June, Sasha, who was around 16 weeks pregnant, started to bleed vaginally. She went to the emergency room, where doctors told her she was suffering from a “subchorionic hemorrhage,” diagnosed her with a “threatened miscarriage,” and sent her home.

A couple of weeks later, Sasha (whose name has been changed to protect her privacy) miscarried a tiny, non-viable, 18-week-old fetus in a South Carolina motel room. She later told a county coroner that she didn’t call for help at the time because she “was scared and did not know what to do.”

As it turned out, she was right to be fearful. The day after her miscarriage, Sasha continued to bleed and suffered from severe abdominal pain, so she returned to the hospital. There, her medical providers reported her to the state’s Department of Social Services, whose staff alerted the county sheriff’s office about a possible “child abuse” case, as they complied with South Carolina’s reporting mandates. According to the hospital, failure to report any suspicion of harm to a fetus, viable or not, can result in the provider being criminally liable. The sheriff’s office began an investigation and eventually found the pregnancy remains in a trash receptacle near the motel.

The Mayo Clinic estimates that 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. Nonetheless, Sasha was arrested and jailed for the improper disposal of hers. A local abortion fund that had heard about the arrest on the news provided Sasha’s $10,000 bail.

Sasha’s arrest was not an isolated incident. A report released today by Pregnancy Justice—a research, legal, and advocacy group—shows that between June 2022 and June 2024, at least 412 people across the country have been charged for crimes related to their pregnancies, pregnancy losses, or even live births. Sasha’s case is not included in the report because her arrest occurred a year after the researchers’ 2024 cut-off date, as were at least four criminalization cases Mother Jones has identified. But collectively, experts say, these types of arrests show a concerning pattern: Amid a conservative movement to enshrine rights to fetuses, being pregnant is not just a health status. Sometimes, it’s a criminal liability.

“Four hundred and twelve women were charged with crimes that would not have been crimes if they were not pregnant. That is exactly what happens when we give rights and status to embryos and fetuses.”

“Four hundred and twelve women were charged with crimes that would not have been crimes if they were not pregnant,” says Dana Sussman, senior vice president at Pregnancy Justice. “That is exactly what happens when we give rights and status to embryos and fetuses.”

The pregnancy-related prosecutions tracked by Pregnancy Justice span 16 states, most having taken place where Republican state legislatures or courts have conferred legal rights to eggs, embryos, and fetuses: a conservative movement known as “fetal personhood.”

The 62 prosecutions that took place before Sasha’s in South Carolina followed a 1997 state supreme court decision that held child endangerment charges also applied to fetuses. In Oklahoma—where Pregnancy Justice identified 112 prosecutions—a state appeals court made a similar decision in 2020.

Pregnancy Justice counted 192 pregnancy-related prosecutions in Alabama, which was the first state to enshrine rights to unborn children in its constitution via a 2018 ballot measure. The Alabama state supreme court used this ballot measure to support its 2024 decision that even frozen embryos are considered “extrauterine children” with inalienable rights. (This ruling had vast implications for Alabama fertility clinics, some of which paused IVF services out of fear they’d be held liable for the “wrongful death” of embryos on ice. Facing backlash, Republicans spoke out in support of IVF. Alabama subsequently passed a law shielding fertility providers from liability.)

Roughly 90 percent of the charges catalogued by Pregnancy Justice accuse pregnant women of abuse, neglect, or endangerment—accusations that are bolstered by the conservative perception of fetuses having the same rights as children that result from live births.

Many of the abuse, neglect, and endangerment cases involved allegations of substance use during pregnancy. Evidence of meth and cocaine use was noted in some of the charging documents, according to Pregnancy Justice. So was the presence of marijuana, nicotine, and alcohol. In 68 of the cases, the nonprofit says, the only substance use alleged was marijuana.

Some defendants were charged for pregnancies they did not know existed. This was the case for Catherine, a 31-year-old woman in Alabama, who was arrested in 2023 for a pregnancy-related drug charge.

Catherine, who asked not to be identified by her last name, previously spoke to Mother Jones reporter Madison Pauly about her years-long ordeal. She said what began one day in 2021 as severe stomach pain quickly escalated to an intensity that led her to collapse in her bathroom, where she lay on the floor surrounded by blood and holding a stillborn baby. After calling 911 and being transported to a local hospital, law enforcement confiscated her phone, and the nurses asked for her password. They all were seeking evidence in order to charge her with “chemical endangerment” of her “unborn child.”

For many reasons, Catherine said she was shocked. She never tried to hide that she had a controlled substance in her system. (She admitted to battling drug addiction.) Nor was she trying to hide a pregnancy.

“I never knew that I was pregnant,” she told Mother Jones. “My body never showed signs. I never gained weight. I felt completely normal.”

Generally, most health experts would recommend that individuals battling substance abuse try to avoid becoming pregnant. But in real life, Sussman says, the scenarios are often far more nuanced. Some investigations have arisen from pregnant individuals using medications they had been prescribed; there have even been cases in which mothers who consumed poppy seed bagels were falsely charged with opioid abuse. In circumstances where pregnant women are actively battling addictions to substances like methamphetamines or fentanyl, Sussman argues that criminalization can be more harmful than helpful.

“Criminalization does not improve health outcomes,” Sussman says. “Ensuring that people can access prenatal care and go to the hospital when they need to, without worrying that they will be charged with a crime—that is the best intervention possible.”

“Criminalization does not improve health outcomes.”

A law Tennessee passed in 2014 illustrates the risks of criminalization. The statute allowed prosecutors to bring aggravated assault charges against women for using illicit narcotic drugs while pregnant, with penalties of potentially up to 15 years in prison.

While the law intended to reduce Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome and other complications, reproductive care advocates such as Pregnancy Justice say it discouraged pregnant people from seeking prenatal care or drug treatment, out of fear of prosecution.

According to a review by the Georgetown Law Journal, there was a “sharp decline in the receipt of prenatal care” around the time the fetal endangerment law was implemented, and fetal deaths increased. The law was also seen as being responsible for having a disproportionate impact on women in poverty and those with more limited access to treatment programs. As a result, the law was sunsetted in 2016.

The Trump administration’s recentamplification of a narrow research study suggesting that acetaminophen use during pregnancy can cause autism gives Pregnancy Justice additional concerns about what else could make pregnant women vulnerable to prosecution in the future. “We are moving into a place, potentially, where pregnant people’s behavior and exposure of their pregnancy to any risk—whether perceived or actual, justified by science or not—can further diminish their rights,” Sussman says.

As seen with both Sasha and Catherine, medical facilities and personnel potentially can play a significant role in the pregnancy criminalization surveillance system. In 264 of the 412 prosecutions Pregnancy Justice tracked between 2022 and 2024, health care providers contributed information to police that eventually was used as evidence against the defendants during their prosecutions.

Brittany Watts is one example. In September 2023, she repeatedly went to her local hospital in Ohio after her water broke prematurely. Her 22-week-old fetus registered a heartbeat, but doctors determined it was nonviable. Despite physician concerns that Watts could contract sepsis, hemorrhage, or even die, staff at the hospital delayed inducing her as they awaited input from the hospital’s ethics board. (Ohio banned abortion at 22 weeks.) Over the course of two days, Watts waited 18 hours at the hospital for an induction that never came. Frustrated by the delays, she went home to be more comfortable.

Less than 48 hours later, she miscarried in the toilet, attempted to flush, and returned to the hospital, where she was treated for dehydration and blood loss. But hospital staff also took it upon themselves to report Watts to the police.

“The nurse comes in and she’s rubbing my back and talking to me and saying, ‘Everything’s going to be OK. You’re going to be OK,'” Watts told CBS News last year in her first sit-down interview. “Little do I know, there’s a police officer who comes into the room a short time later. And I’m wondering, ‘Why is a police officer coming in here? I don’t recall doing anything wrong.’ And little do I know, the nurse comforting me and saying that everything was gonna be OK was the one who called the police.”

As Watts lay in a hospital bed, police searched her home, where they rummaged through her trash and disassembled her toilet to find evidence of the fetal remains, investigatory files obtained through public records requests show.

Photos taken by police as a part of the investigation reveal what anyone who has endured the trauma of a pregnancy loss might expect: blood-stained pants, soiled rags, a drug store receipt for Tylenol, and a discarded hospital bracelet. For the purported crime of experiencing a pregnancy loss in her bathroom, Watts could have faced a year in prison. Instead, a grand jury declined to indict her, leading prosecutors to drop the charges against her.

Amari Marsh risked a much longer sentence for her 2023 home miscarriage. Prosecutors initially charged the South Carolina woman with homicide through child abuse. Police erroneously suspected she had tried to induce an abortion. They also claimed that a proximate cause of death was her not removing the fetus from the toilet fast enough. An autopsy later determined thatan infection hadcaused the pregnancy loss, and a grand jurydeclined to indict Marsh. Had she been convicted, she could have faced 20 years to life in prison.

Fueling the issue, Sussman argues, is the public’s lack of knowledge around miscarriages: “How common it is, what it looks like, where it happens, how it happens.” Law enforcement might find something suspicious that is, in fact, “completely normal,” she says.

Pregnant women also can be in the dark, Sussman notes: “No one is given a pamphlet in their doctor’s office when they go for their first prenatal appointment that’s like, ‘By the way, if you miscarry, here’s the number to call, here’s the coroner’s office that you’re required to call.'”

Even when charges don’t result in convictions, pregnancy-related prosecutions can have enduring consequences for those accused. In a civil lawsuit Watts recently filed against the city that prosecuted her and the hospital that she went to for medical help, Watts claims to have suffered “deprivation of liberty, reputational harm, public humiliation, distress, pain, and suffering, for which she is entitled to compensatory damages, including damages for mental and emotional distress.”

And in the midst of dealing with legal issues, some women who have been prosecuted for pregnancy-related crimes are also mourning pregnancies they lost. According to her civil suit, Watts’ pregnancy was “very much wanted.” Catherine, who is in remission from drug addiction, says she misses her stillborn daughter every day. Sasha and her lawyer declined to be interviewed while her case is active, but in police records, she asserts that she was taking prenatal vitamins—another indication that she, too, was trying to have a healthy pregnancy.

Contained in these stories, experts say, is a painful irony. Pregnant women who fear becoming the next Watts, Catherine, or Sasha may choose to forgo medical help altogether, risking even worse outcomes for both them and their fetuses. “It’s not surprising,” Sussman says, “that the states that represent a lot of the arrests also have poor infant health outcomes.”

—with reporting by Sheena Samu, Rachel de Leon, and Laura Morel.

Continue Reading…

Trump and His Minions Are Eyeing “Wholesale Destruction” of Environmental Science

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

The United States is hurtling towards a potential government shutdown if Congress does not pass a budget or short-term funding bill by the end of the month, and the fate of the federal government’s Earth and climate science programs may hang in the balance.

President Donald Trump has proposed vast, devastating cuts to these agencies, many of which target programs dedicated to studying and preparing for climate change. In the event of a shutdown, the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, has told agencies to consider layoffs or reductions in force for “all employees” in all “programs, projects, or activities” with lapsed funding that are “not consistent with the President’s priorities.”

As Sophia Cai notes in Politico, this is starkly different from how previous government shutdowns were handled, when federal workers were temporarily furloughed and returned to work when funding was restored. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer characterized the memo as an “attempt at intimidation.”

“When you cut holes in the mosaic…It has an impact on people’s lives and their livelihoods….We are really hurting our civil defenses.”

Bobby Kogan, a former OMB official with the Biden administration, said the direction may not be legal. “It doesn’t seem to me that they would really be able to legally do that additional work during a shutdown—and it doesn’t seem to me that they’d be able to get it all done beforehand,” Kogan told the Federal News Network. “So either this is something they were planning to do anyway, and they are just using this as a pretext, or it’s a threat to try to get what they want.”

Organizations that represent the interests of public workers have been more explicit: “The plan to exploit a shutdown to purge federal workers is illegal, unconstitutional, and deeply disturbing,” Tim Whitehouse, the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said in a statement. “A shutdown triggers furloughs, not firings. To weaponize it as a tool to destroy the civil service would mark a dangerous slide into lawlessness and further consolidate power in the Executive Branch.”

But illegality (or possible illegality) would not necessarily stop the Trump administration from choosing the layoff route if a budget deal is not reached. In any case, the memo obviously creates uncertainty and anxiety for the federal scientists whose work has been singled out for steep funding cuts or even elimination by the Trump administration.

“Either we all go home or it’s business as usual…nobody knows what’s going to happen,” one NASA scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told the Bulletin.

Earlier this year, the president submitted a budget request to Congress that would slash NASA’s overall 2026 budget by 24 percent. It is the clearest indication of what his priorities are going into a possible government shutdown. The steepest cuts were within science programs, which the president proposed reducing by more than 46 percent. Funding for Earth science programs specifically would be cut by more than half.

Proposed cuts to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) research are also severe, outright eliminating the entire budget for climate research, weather and air chemistry research, and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). (In addition to cuts to Earth and climate science, the proposed budget recommends cutting all funding for habitat conservation and research, as well as ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research.)

Although the White House recommended cutting NOAA’s budget by up to 30 percent, members of the House Appropriations Committee have recommended a much smaller cut of 6 percent. But by telling agencies to conduct layoffs based on the president’s priorities, the Trump administration could try to preempt Congress and reshape the federal government in line with their own vision and budget proposal during a shutdown.

Even without a government shutdown, a third of the US Geological Survey’s Climate Adaptation Science Centers could wind down or cease operations this week because the Interior Department is refusing to submit paperwork to release funding.

“This is a dismantling of efforts in the United States on climate science, and in fact, in large swaths of environmental science. And I don’t think that people know that,” Elisabeth Moyer, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, told the Bulletin. “This is wholesale destruction, what’s proposed.”

“We are not talking about trying to find water on Mars. We are talking about understanding what’s happening on our planet.”

There are at least 14 NASA Earth science missions that the Trump administration has proposed terminating. These include an array of satellite-related research (see: NASA missions at risk under the Trump administration).

The worst-case scenario would be if the government shuts down and agencies begin to comply with the administration’s budget proposal, including the termination of missions. According to a NASA scientist, people have already been instructed to do the preparatory work for ending these satellite and instrument programs, so this is not an impossibility.

The list of projects and programs that the Trump administration has proposed terminating at NOAA is, frankly, shocking. It includes the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, which conducts wide-ranging research on everything from aquaculture to corals to pollution; the National Coastal Resilience Fund; Habitat Conservation and Restoration; and OAR’s Regional Climate Data and Information program, which helps communities develop plans for dealing with climate crises like droughts and heat waves.

The budget also recommends terminating funding for OAR’s Climate Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes, which would result in the closure of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory; the Air Resources Laboratory; the Chemical Sciences Laboratory; the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory; the Global Monitoring Laboratory; the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory; and the Physical Sciences Laboratory.

NOAA has already been hard hit under the Trump administration this year. Rick Spinrad, a NOAA administrator under President Biden, said the agency has lost around 2,000 of its 12,000 employees to layoffs, buyouts, resignations, and retirement this year. (Exact figures are remarkably hard to find, but in March the New York Times reported that the agency was planning to fire another 1,000 workers in addition to the 1,300 workers that had already resigned or been laid off.) Some of the vacancies within the National Weather Service (which is part of NOAA) have resulted in reduced operations at some forecasting stations across the country.

Monica Medina, a principal deputy administrator of NOAA in the Obama administration, compared the work the National Weather Service does to issue weather forecasts to a mosaic. “When you cut holes in the mosaic…you’re losing pixels, and so the picture gets fuzzier,” she said. “It has an impact on people’s lives and their livelihoods. When key vacancies happen, when we cut holes, we are really hurting our civil defenses.”

The Trump administration has already withheld or rescinded several hundred million in funding for NOAA operations this year, Spinrad said. The Senate Appropriations Committee has been tracking federal funding that the Trump administration has frozen or cancelled (last updated September 8) totaling more than $400 million in NOAA funds, including those earmarked for disaster response and the procurement of weather radars and satellites.

“There are programs like the phased array radar program that have been pulled back—that was undoubtedly going to be one of the most important efforts in trying to improve observational capability for the National Weather Service,” Spinrad said. “So many of those kinds of programs are suffering, and that’s just what’s been done in [fiscal year] ‘25, I’m not even talking about the ‘26 budget.”

“We are not talking about trying to find water on Mars,” Medina said. “We are talking about understanding what’s happening on our planet, impacting people in their day to day lives today. We could be improving that in the face of these forces that are changing in our global environment. And instead, we’re taking away funding at the very moment when we need it most.”

Continue Reading…