Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

No, Antidepressants Do Not Cause Mass Shootings

As US health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has drawn a lot of attention for promoting pseudoscience and disproven theories, especially on vaccines. He is using that playbook on another major public health issue: gun violence, which remains the leading cause of death for kids in America. When it comes to school shootings and other mass shootings, here’s what RFK Jr. wants you to believe: It’s not the guns, he argues, it’s the pills.

The fringe theory that antidepressants can cause people to turn violent has been around for decades, focused primarily on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, which are the most common class of these drugs. But extensive research by mental health and violence prevention experts has found no credible evidence that antidepressants cause or contribute to mass shootings.

As I wrote recently, the history of how this failed theory gained attention online is also telling:

The generalized claim that SSRIs can make people violent—and that they supposedly gave rise to the shootings epidemic—traces in part to an unscientific anti-Prozac campaign in the 1990s from the Church of Scientology and gained some traction in online forums after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999. Disgraced conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who helped create a miasma of lies claiming that the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was faked, has also peddled the theory.

Proponents of the SSRI theory use anecdotal, often unconfirmed details about shooters’ health histories to argue causation. But multiple studies from experts in psychiatry, law enforcement, and public health show that the theory has no merit. Data on shooters spanning more than a decade from the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit has been used specifically to examine the claim that psychiatric drugs are at the root of school shootings; independent researchers concluded from the FBI data that “most school shooters were not previously treated with psychotropic medications—and even when they were, no direct or causal association was found.”

In the above video, I show how RFK, Jr. has been using his top government post to continue spreading the failed theory—a misinformation campaign in which he makes at least a half dozen false or misleading claims about guns, psychiatric drugs, and mass shootings.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

California Senate Bill Would Grease the Skids for Balcony Solar

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

California lawmakers are considering two bills that would slash red tape for households looking to add certain types of clean tech.

Earlier this month, Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, whose district includes San Francisco, introduced legislation that would make it easier for individuals to adopt all-electric, super-efficient heat pumps (SB 222) and plug-in solar panels (SB 868).

“The cost of energy is too high,” Wiener told Canary Media. ​“We want to lower people’s utility bills; we want people to be able to participate in the clean energy economy; and we want people to be able to take control of their energy future. And that’s what these bills do.”

The proposals come as Americans are in the grip of a worsening cost-of-living crisis—of which energy is a key driver.

“We should empower people to use this technology. And right now, it’s too hard.”

Electricity costs have grown at about 2.5 times the pace of persistent inflation, and home heating costs are expected to surge this winter. In California, which has the second-highest electricity rates in the nation, the problem is particularly pressing. Heat pumps and plug-in solar panels could help.

Heat pumps—air conditioners that also provide all-electric heat—are about two to five times as efficient as gas furnaces without those appliances’ planet-warming and health-harming pollution. Even in California, where gas is relatively inexpensive compared with electricity, a heat pump’s high efficiency can enable households to save on their energy bills, especially when tapping the sun for cheap, abundant power.

Enter portable, plug-and-play solar panels. These modest systems, which users can drape over balcony railings or prop up in backyards, allow renters, apartment dwellers, and others who can’t put panels on their roofs to harvest enough of the sun’s rays to power a fridge or a few small appliances for a fraction of the day. A connected battery can save solar energy for use at night.

The tech is booming in Europe. In Germany, for example, where people can order kits via Ikea, as many as 4 million households have hung up Balkonkraftwerke, or ​“balcony power plants.” There, households can cover as much as one-fifth of their energy needs using these systems.

In the US, an 800-watt unit for $1,099 can save a household as much as $450 annually in states with higher electricity prices like California, according to the Washington Post.

But unlike those in Germany, US households typically need to apply for an interconnection agreement with their utility before they can install these systems—just as they would for adding a rooftop solar array. That process often requires fees, permits, and an inspection, and it can take weeks to months. Only one state allows residents to install plug-in solar without a utility’s permission: deep-red Utah.

Permitting in some cities ​“is way too lengthy and onerous and expensive.”

Lawmakers elsewhere are now stampeding to make plug-in solar available to their constituents.

Besides Utah and now California, legislatures in more than a dozen states want to unleash the tech: Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington have all introduced bills, according to Cora Stryker, co-founder of plug-in solar nonprofit Bright Saver, which has been advising some states on their proposals. Based on conversations the organization has had with state representatives, Stryker said she expects a whopping half of US states to introduce bills this year.

“We should empower people to use this technology,” Wiener said. ​“And right now, it’s too hard. The idea that you have to get an interconnection agreement with the utility to put…plug-in solar on your balcony—it makes no sense.”

Administrative hurdles are also holding back heat pumps. “The current permitting process is difficult,” Aaron Gianni, president of Larratt Brothers Plumbing in San Francisco, told state policymakers on January 6. ​“As a contractor dealing with more than 109 different building departments in the Bay Area, we must navigate the nuances of each: different inspectors, changing paperwork requirements, high fees, and strict setbacks [that] sometimes make installation impossible.”

The situation can be even worse when a customer lives in a unit governed by a homeowners association, Gianni said. ​“Many HOAs have outright prevented new electric equipment from being installed.”

Wiener, who is running for US Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s seat and boasts a tongue-in-cheek MAGA fan club, put it bluntly. Permitting in some cities ​“is way too lengthy and onerous and expensive.”

“The [heat-pump] bill creates a streamlined path to be able to get a quick, automatic permit,” he explained. It would also loosen restrictions on equipment placement, cap permit fees at $200, and make it illegal to ban heat pumps.

Wiener’s heat-pump legislation, which has some industry detractors as well as grassroots supporters, has already passed out of the California Senate’s housing and local-government committees.

The plug-in solar bill has yet to come up for any votes. Still, with energy affordability shaping up to be a decisive issue in the 2026 midterm elections, both proposals ​“have, I think, a real possibility of passing,” Wiener said.

“These technologies are a win-win-win, and enabling access to them is simply good government.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

They Fled Venezuela to Escape a Regime of Fear, Only to Relive It in Trump’s America

A little girl can’t go to the park with her parents. A mother trembles while taking out the trash. A father peeks through the blinds to see if anyone is watching. Years earlier, this family faced persecution in Venezuela, but now they’re living in terror in the United States.

They traveled thousands of miles on the most treacherous migration path in the world to seek asylum in the US, but following the legal pathways didn’t matter amid Trump’s anti-immigrant crackdown. Jose, one of the primary providers for the extended family, was taken by ICE. For the safety of the family, we’ve changed their names and concealed identifying details.

Like many Venezuelan asylum seekers, they are stuck in a lose-lose situation. The Trump administration has specifically targeted Venezuelan immigrants for deportation, while simultaneously bombing their home country, abducting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and leaving behind a nation of instability.

It’s true that many Venezuelans loathe Maduro for his brutal regime that weaponized fear and terror to horde power. However, despite Trump’s claims that US intervention is helping Venezuelan people, Maduro’s allies remain in power and have already started to crack down on civilians.

The Trump administration continues to claim that it is safe to return back to Venezuela after its illegal attack. But in reality little has changed, and the threat of persecution remains, as does the crippling US naval blockade. There’s no certainty for immigrants back in Venezuela, but there is one thing for certain: They escaped one regime of terror for another.

“I depend so much on him,” Maria says of her husband Jose, the man who was taken. “We were a team. If he was here, he could take care of my son. I could go to work. It has been very complicated and I am so scared to go outside.”

Jose was sent more than 1,000 miles away from his family and spent months in detention. He describes being treated like an animal: Detainees were left to soil themselves while shackled in transit, and were medically neglected at the detention facility. Detainees were obliged to climbonto top bunks despite serious back pain, and were left completely in the dark as to what might be in store for them.

Meanwhile, the family struggles to survive. Maria faced debilitating mental health episodes after Jose’s abduction, kids are missing out on school, and they can barely leave the house to take out the trash for fear they could be snatched at any moment. They also say their family back in Venezuela still relies on them to send money back—between Jose’s abduction and the extreme fear of going outside, that’s become increasingly difficult.

His family, meanwhile, struggles to survive. Maria faced debilitating mental health episodes after Jose’s abduction, theirkids are missing out on school, and they can barely leave the house, even to take out the trash, for fear they could be snatched at any moment. Their family back in Venezuela still relies on them to send money back, butbetween Jose’s abduction and their limited mobility, that’s become increasingly difficult.

Maria and the others held out hope for his release, as they had followed the proper legal pathways to obtain asylum, but the Department of Homeland Security had Jose deportedto Mexico the day before the US military attacked Venezuela. For days, he had nothing but the clothes he’dworn in detention, and hasbeenstruggling to survive in a country where he has no connections.

His family has stayed put despite the constant threat of further separation and deportation. Returning to Venezuela now would put them at the mercy of a government that considers them traitors. It would mean walking right into the chaos the Trump administration has inflamed.

“We were happy people,” Maria says. “We didn’t have any doubt in the process. But now that we’re going through this, we feel terror.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

ICE Detained a 5-Year-Old Minnesota Boy and Used Him As “Bait”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents detained a 5-year-old on his way home from school on Tuesday and used him as “bait” to knock on his front door to see if anyone was home, according to school officials in Minnesota.

Liam Conejo Ramos, a preschooler, is one of at least four children from the Columbia Heights Public Schools district in suburban Minneapolis who have been detained this month, Zena Stenvik, the superintendent for the district, saidin a press conference on Wednesday.

“Why detain a 5-year-old?” Stenvik asked. “You can’t tell me that this child is going to be classified as a violent criminal.”

Liam and his father were arriving home on Tuesday when ICE agents approached them and detained the father, according to a recounting of the incident by school officials. In situations where a parent is being detained and a child is present, the Department of Homeland Security has claimed that ICE’s policy is to see if parents want to be removed with their children or, if not, agents then place the child with someone the parent advises. According to school officials, that’s not what happened on Tuesday.

“Another adult living in the home was outside and begged the agents to let him take care of the small child and was refused,” Stenvik told reporters. Instead, an agent “took the child out of the still-running car, led him to the door, and directed him to knock on the door asking to be let in in order to see if anyone else was home, essentially using a 5-year-old as bait.”

According to the family’s lawyer, Liam and his father are now in DHS custody in San Antonio, Texas. Family members said they didn’t know where the boy was for around 24 hours.

DHS claims that the father attempted to flee when approached before being detained. In a social media post, the ICE account wrote that Liam was “ABANDONED by their criminal illegal alien parent.”

A 5-year-old preschool student was taken with his father by federal immigration agents shortly after arriving home from school, Columbia Heights school leaders said Jan. 21.

Minnesota Star Tribune (@startribune.com) 2026-01-22T00:50:21.734Z

Since federal immigration agents descended on the Twin Cities en masse over a month ago, the Columbia Heights district, where more than half the students are Latino, has seen a steep decrease in student attendance, including on one recent day when a third of students didn’t show up. Administrators say they are worried about the safety of their students to be outside during recess or to attend after-school events like basketball games, as ICE has repeatedly approached or been near campus.

And it’s not just Columbia Heights.

After ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renée Nicole Good in her car earlier this month, schools in and around Minneapolis have cancelled classes or shifted to online learning. Minneapolis Public Schools is allowing for remote learning through at least February 12 after a district spokesperson said they had received “multiple threats impacting several MPS schools.” The decision came shortly after US Border Patrol agents, hours after Good was killed, went to a high school, tackled people, and sprayed a chemical weapon. The charter school where one of Good’s children attends also decided to switch to online learning, according to reporting from Sahan Journal, after people on the right started attacking the school and claiming it pushed a left-wing agenda.

The recent apprehensions of children near Minneapolis are just one part of a massive detention campaign involving minors since President Donald Trump returned to office. According to reporting from ProPublica based on government data, ICE placed around 600 immigrant children in federal shelters in 2025. That’s more than the previous four years combined.

Liam and his father were sent to Texas likely within hours of their arrest, their lawyer said. For the preschooler, according to reporting from Sahan Journal, that meant leaving behind his things in his school cubby, where he kept a winter hat, a blanket, and a small stuffed turtle.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The List of Impeachable Offenses Keeps Growing

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._

On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon. One accused him of obstructing justice and mounting a cover-up to impede the investigation of the Watergate break-in. Another charged him with defying congressional subpoenas requesting documents for the Watergate investigation. A third alleged he had abused his executive power by interfering with and misusing the FBI, the Justice Department, and other federal agencies. All three articles were approved on bipartisan votes. The article on abuse of power received the most votes.

When it comes to using government agencies for corrupt purposes, Donald Trump outdoes Nixon. He has turned the Justice Department and the FBI into his personal revenge police. It’s tough to keep track of the many ways Trump has sicced the bureau and the DOJ on his foes and critics. The targets include former FBI Director Jim Comey; Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell; Fed governor Lisa Cook; Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); New York Attorney General Letitia James; Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Calif.); Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.); Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.); Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Penn.); Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Penn.); Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.); Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a Democrat; Christopher Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; and John Bolton, who was national security adviser during Trump’s first term.

Using a grand jury in Florida—under the supervision of US District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, a total Trump lackey—a Trump-appointed US attorney is trying to mount a criminal conspiracy case against former CIA director John Brennan that could rope in other past Obama and Biden officials, as well as former special counsel Jack Smith. The goal reportedly is to prove there was a never-ending Deep State conspiracy waged by government officials to destroy Trump, stretching from the Russia investigation to Smith’s investigations of Trump’s alleged theft of White House documents and his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Brennan’s lawyer has accused the Justice Department of engaging in “irregular activity” to kickstart this criminal inquiry.

Nixon could not have dreamed of such a revenge-fest.

Trump and his aides have identified other targets for possible federal prosecution, including Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.); Andrew Weissmann, who was a prosecutor for special counsel Robert Mueller; and Lisa Monaco, who was deputy attorney general in the Biden administration. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) is being investigated by the Defense Department.

This is some rundown. Nixon could not have dreamed of such a revenge-fest. All these cases are bullshit—except perhaps for Bolton, who is accused of mishandling classified information. Trump has turned the Justice Department and the FBI into his private retribution squads, ordering investigations of his foes in a manner unprecedented in American history. As those Watergate-era legislators noted, this is impeachable conduct.

Trump is running the government like a mafioso, utilizing its power to intimidate and, if possible, take out his perceived enemies. There’s been some resistance with US attorneys refusing to handle some of these cases. But those folks have been shoved aside, as Attorney General Pam Bondi has been delighted to serve as both Trump’s consigliere and lawfare hitman. (Hit-woman?)

Trump’s use of the Justice Department and FBI might even be criminal. It’s a federal felony to “defraud the United States or any agency thereof.” (Look up 18 U.S.C. § 371.) Usually fraud involves conning someone out of money or property. But the Justice Department website helpfully informs us that fraud extends beyond pocketing ill-gotten gains. It cites Hammerschmidt v. United States, a 1924 Supreme Court case in which Chief Justice William Taft defined “defraud” this way:

To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.

Interfere with…one of [government’s] lawful governmental functions. I’m no constitutional (or criminal) lawyer, but ordering up phony or baseless criminal investigations might fit that description.

Of course, Trump is beyond federal prosecution. Justice Department policy is that a sitting president cannot be federally indicted. And two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative comrades granted Trump (and future presidents) broad immunity for official actions. Moreover, let’s be real: How could a corrupt Justice Department investigate the guy who’s corrupting it?

Trump is crime-ing 24/7—a-griftin’ and a-graftin’.

But Trump’s perversion of the Justice Department ought to be near the top of a (metaphorical) bill of indictment—and a possible line of inquiry for any future impeachment proceedings.

That is, admittedly, a crowded category. Trump is crime-ing 24/7—a-griftin’ and a-graftin’. One example: He and his crew are clearly selling pardons—which might also be considered a defrauding of the government. One of the most recent outrageous pardons went to Julio Herrera Velutini, a Venezuelan-Italian banker, facing felony charges for allegedly bribing the governor of Puerto Rico. His daughter donated $3.5 million to MAGA Inc., a Trump super-PAC, and—presto!—Trump hands daddy a get-out-of-jail-free card.

On his last day in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich, a sleazebag who owed $48 million in taxes. Rich’s ex-wife had made hefty donations to the Clinton library and the Democratic National Committee. The Rich pardon triggered outrage; even some of the Clintons’ most prominent supporters denounced it. A federal investigation was launched, but it yielded no charges. Trump is doing the equivalent of this over and over—and spurring much less of an uproar.

And he has violated international and US law with his attacks on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and his assault on Venezuela. He and his Pentagon even stand accused of a war crime called “perfidy”—using civilian-looking aircraft as bombers.

Words have no meaning for the Trump crew. Let me rephrase that: Laws and the Constitution have no meaning for them.

You can’t swing a dead cat in the White House without hitting an illegal action. Take the Mad King’s absurd but dangerous threat to impose tariffs on European countries if Denmark doesn’t hand him Greenland. The Constitution clearly states that the power to impose tariffs resides with Congress, not the president. Trump claims the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 allows him in emergency situations to slap other nations with tariffs. But that legislation doesn’t mention tariffs, and no president before has sought to use it to justify tariffs. Besides, what was the emergency that demanded his earlier tariffs or these new ones?

Trump’s authority to apply tariffs is now before the Supreme Court, and a decision could come any day—maybe even before you read this. But one thing seems rather obvious: The acquisition of Greenland is not an emergency. When Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was asked about this by Kristen Welker on Meet the Press on Sunday, he said, “the national emergency is avoiding a national emergency.” This was ridiculous. A national emergency usually means an imminent threat or danger. Under Bessent’s definition, anything can be a national emergency. Words have no meaning for the Trump crew. Let me rephrase that: Laws and the Constitution have no meaning for them.

Trump is a crime boss, and this is a lawless regime. With his purposefully cruel deportation crusade, he has turned ICE into a violent secret police. In recent weeks, he has been trying to rally his base for the midterms, declaring that he expects to be impeached if the Democrats win control of the House. Let’s hope someone is keeping a list. It gets longer every day.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Justices Undermined the Federal Reserve’s Independence. Now They Want Backsies.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court sat for oral arguments over whether the all-powerful president the justices have created in recent years can control the Federal Reserve. The end of Federal Reserve independence would reset the global financial order, tank retirement accounts, and give the White House vast new powers. After a two hour hearing, the answer seems to be that the court will craft some carveout to protect Fed independence, but how robust and meaningful it will be remains to be seen.

The problem facing the court is its creation of an all-powerful president who can remove independent commissioners, like Fed governors, at will.

The case, Trump v. Cook, comes from President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook. Federal Reserve governors serve fixed 14-year terms and can only be removed by the president for cause. Trump’s attempted removal came amid his push to coerce the financial regulator into lowering interest rates, but the purported cause is mortgage fraud; in reality, Cook’s supposed misdeed looks like a clerical error at worst. Cook sued and a district court judge ordered that she remain in her job as her case plays out. The question before the justices was whether to let the ruling keeping her at work stand. This led to follow-on questions including: Does she need proper notice and a hearing to be fired? What does that look like? Can the courts even decide if there was sufficient cause? And if they can, can a judge order the president not to fire her?

But all these questions really boil down to just one: Will there be meaningful independence for the Fed? If a president can send a lackey to dig up dirt on a Fed governor and claim it shows sufficient cause, and the courts have no way to intervene, then Trump controls the Fed. That is an outcome that economists, most politicians, the rest of the world, and the justices don’t want.

The problem facing the Republican wing of the court is that they have spent the past several years creating the legal basis for an all-powerful president who can indeed remove independent agency commissioners, like Federal Reserve Board Governors, at will. In case after case, they have decreed that the president must control the entire executive branch, which must operate as an extension of his will. The Republican appointees have let Trump get away with illegal firings at other agencies on the theory that the president suffers an irreparable harm when he is blocked from wielding executive power as he sees fit. Beyond that, the court is currently deliberating a case, Trump v. Slaughter, over whether independent agencies are even constitutional—and the GOP appointees seem ready to rule them out, overturning a 90-year old precedent, Humphrey’s Executor, that blessed independent agencies, including the Fed.

The Roberts’ Court’s destruction of independent agencies, which are led by bipartisan commissions given for-cause removal protections, is a longtime Republican goal. Without any independence, the president can circumvent Congress and the laws it enacts and instead rule by fiat through administrative agencies that would act at his behest. To justify this reordering of American government, the GOP appointees have embraced the “unitary executive theory,” the idea that all executive power is vested in the president. This has animated decision after decision by the Roberts Court to grow the powers of the presidency.

Despite their zeal for presidential power, the justices, including the GOP-appointees, are clearly uncomfortable with handing the Fed over to Trump. In May, when the court allowed Trump to fire independent commissioners from two other agencies, it went out of its way to explain that its decision did not implicate the Fed, dubbing it a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.” Legal experts quickly pointed out that this distinction was nonsense: the Fed is not uniquely structured, it’s not private in any sense, and rather than being a descendent of private banks, it’s a bank regulator. But on Monday, the justices continued their tortured attempts to exempt the Fed from the unitary executive mess they’ve made.

Indeed, today's argument could be framed in at least some respects as the Court having to face (and stretch existing doctrinal understandings to account for) the consequences of its own incoherent jurisprudence.

Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2026-01-21T17:27:29.822Z

One of the most telling moments came when Justice Amy Coney Barrett explicitly asked Paul Clement, who represented Cook, whether the unitary executive theory simply might not apply to the Fed in the same way. Barrett wanted to know if the court could get out of its logic blessing Trump’s firings elsewhere in this case and keep Cook in office given that “the president doesn’t have the same control over the Fed.”

Clement happily helped her flesh this out: If the president doesn’t have the same power to remove a Fed governor over a policy disagreement as he would the head of a different agency, then he is not harmed in the same way by a court order keeping Cook in her job, at least temporarily. But that exact same logic would apply to other independent agencies, because there’s no way to make the Fed carveout Barrett discussed coherent.

Even as the justices tried to insulate the Fed from the worst effects of the unitary executive theory, the theory undermined them at every turn. When discussing what would count as sufficient notice and hearing under for-cause removal protection, Clement noted that such hearings should be adjudicated by someone who has not prejudged the facts. “How can it not be the president?” Gorsuch asked, since it is, after all, his removal power. To which Clement responded, “if you believe in the unitary executive theory, then anybody that makes the removal decision is acting on the president’s power.” The exchange shows how unitary executive theory undermines the very concept of an evidentiary hearing, replacing it with the equivalent of an exit interview.

The unitary executive theory also complicates how the president is supposed to determine cause—even though Cook’s alleged crime falls short of almost any definition of cause for removal. Under the court’s ruling in Trump v. United States, the infamous immunity decision that let Trump commit crimes in office with impunity, Trump can direct sham investigations against political rivals. Just to bring home how this power is already infecting Fed independence, Trump’s DOJ has launched a criminal investigation into Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, in what is a clear attempt to get him off of the board and take control of the Fed. Whereas a criminal probe might have once signaled sufficient cause, it may now appear pretextual. It’s just another way that the court has already created the circumstances for a Fed takeover and now must find a way to pare it back.

In other words, attempts to bring order and process to the Fed’s removal protections start to fall apart under the unitary executive theory. We’re seeing “the justices discovering just how dangerous and problematic this theory could potentially be,” warned Lev Menand, a Columbia law professor and former Treasury Department official, on a call with reporters prior to oral argument. “They’ve allowed the president to proceed with scores of illegal removals and effectively abrogated precedent on their emergency docket, biding themselves time in some sense, but also allowing the president to basically suspend much of American administrative law for the first year of his administration. And now the rubber is gonna meet the road.”

At the arguments on Wednesday, several conservative justices seemed to embrace the kind of consequentialist thinking that was completely lacking in the Slaughter case just last month. “We have amicus briefs from economists who tell us that if Governor Cook is—if we grant you your stay, that it could trigger a recession,” Barrett said to Solicitor General John Sauer. “How should we think about the public interest in a case like this?”

“ Now the rubber is gonna meet the road.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wanted to discuss the “real-world downstream effects” and the “big picture.” Sauer’s contention that Trump’s removal power is unreviewable by the courts would reduce the for-cause requirement to effectively at-will employment, Kavanaugh argued: “All of the current president’s appointees would likely be removed for cause on January 20th, 2029, if there’s a Democratic President, or January 20th, 2033. And then we’re really at at-will removal. So what are we doing here?”

The court’s Democratic appointees have written dissent after dissent standing up to the president over the last year, but have been overruled by the GOP-appointed majority, which has shown extraordinary deference to Trump—firing officials, ignoring various laws, withholding funds appropriated by Congress, gutting federal agencies, and blessing ICE’s racially-targeted terror. One way to understand the majority’s recent decisions is to view them as facilitating Trump’s power grabs so as to avoid a confrontation with a would-be authoritarian, while trying to maintain the appearance of normalcy that is critical to financial markets and the broader economy. After all, the justices are just as beholden to the capitalist billionaires who helped seat them on the bench as they are to the president. These dynamics help explain why they appear ready to cabin Trump’s chaotic and uninhibited tariff regime and wince at the idea of him controlling the Fed, but have still decided to go ahead and let him blow past numerous acts of Congress.

If this is the majority’s M.O., then the outcome in the Cook case—and the future of Fed independence more broadly—will depend on how far the justices are willing to go to defy Trump. The simplest way to resolve the case for now is to keep Cook in office while her challenge to her removal plays out in the lower courts. This would maintain the status quo and show that the justices are committed to treating the Fed differently—although how differently would remain unclear.

Another option Chief Justice John Roberts discussed Wednesday is to find that the alleged cause in this case—a possible paperwork error—does not rise to the level of cause required by law. That would certainly be more reassuring, but it may not insulate Powell from a removal effort unless their ruling was specific and forceful about what constituted sufficient cause.

It’s not obvious how the justices will outrun their unitary executive theory in the end, but after oral argument, it appears clear they are going to try—at least in some ways—to carve out the Fed. What’s unclear is whether it’s even possible to insulate the Fed, and how much power Trump could gain over the uber-powerful bank agency. Trump would surely use any leverage to lower interest rates—as he’s already been haranguing the Board to do for months—to juice the economy ahead of elections. But the more influence he has over the agency, the more dystopian his power grows. The Fed can print endless money, provide repayment-free loans, and essentially cut off access to the financial system to any individual, business, or organization. Its powers would allow Trump to enrich himself and his allies, punish critics, and circumvent Congress’ power of the purse by instead drawing on the Fed’s limitless coffers.

Trump is determined to seize these reins one way or another. The Supreme Court has boxed itself in when it comes to protecting the Fed. It remains to be seen how much they will stand up to Trump and how effectively they can wall off the Fed through rulings that are logically incoherent at best, and undermined by the rest of their judicial agenda at worst.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Hakeem Jeffries Says No to Funding ICE. Democrats Still Aren’t United.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said on Wednesday that he would reject a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security for the rest of the fiscal year over concerns that it did not sufficiently curb Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

The announcement came in a closed-door meeting with Democratic caucus members, following continued ICE violence in Minnesota as part of Operation Metro Surge.

“We’ve heard our members speak loudly that ICE isn’t doing enough, these reforms aren’t doing enough. This lawlessness has to stop,” Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar (D-CA) told reporters after the meeting on Wednesday. “They are only doing this because they can. They are only doing this because the president of the United States wants to use them to terrorize communities, to terrorize U.S. citizens.”

But, according to NBC News, Democratic leaders did not state they would whip a vote to push all members to follow their “no” vote. This leaves the door open for Democrats, many of whom are facing close elections this year, to vote in favor of the appropriation bill.

The House Appropriations Committee released the DHS funding bill on Tuesday with three other appropriation bills for the departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and other related agencies. Those three bills are grouped into a single vote, while the DHS bill is separate.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), a conservative who participated in negotiations with Republicans on the legislation as the lead Democrat on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, voiced support for the bill in the meeting, NBC News reported.

The bill maintains funding for ICE at $10 billion. Still, it includes some guardrails, including allocating $20 million of the budget to body cameras for ICE and CBP officers, and reducing $115 million from ICE enforcement and removal operations. It also cuts Border Patrol funding by $1.8 billion and provides $20 million for mandated, independent oversight of detention facilities

According to House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the bill doesn’t include “broader reforms proposed by Democrats, including preventing U.S. citizens from being detained or deported and preventing non-ICE personnel from conducting interior enforcement.”

DeLauro acknowledged the bill would frustrate many Democratic lawmakers, but said it was necessary to fund numerous agencies, such as FEMA, the US Coast Guard, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. She also noted that ICE received $75 billion from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, so if no appropriations legislation passed, ICE would still be able to function for years while other agencies would struggle.

This vote is expected to take place on Thursday, amid despicable cruelty being inflicted on individuals, families, and communities. As my colleague Isabela Dias wrote last week, the policies behind ICE’s violence are intentional. It will take more to stop it.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Clergy Are Raising Holy Hell About ICE

Over 2,000 clergy members from around the country signed onto a letter to Congress, demanding an investigation into ICE agent Jonathan Ross’s killing of Renée Nicole Good in Minneapolis, calling for federal agents to be removed from that city, and urging “moral accountability” and “urgent action” to address “ongoing abuse of power at the hands of ICE,” according to a statement from the national organization Faith in Action.

“We’re here today as clergy across the country to hand deliver a letter from our siblings in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and to stand in solidarity with them to tell Speaker Johnson that the blood of Renée Good is on his hands,” Pastor Delonte Gholston, who leads Peace Fellowship Church in Washington, DC, said in a video posted by the organization on social media in front of Speaker of the House Mike Johnson’s office. “And that the blood of the ground is crying out, as it did in our sacred scriptures, crying out for justice. And crying out to end state-sponsored terror,” he continued, surrounded by other faith leaders.

View this post on Instagram

The letter is the latest instance of faith leaders from across the country calling on President Donald Trump’s administration to cease its violent mass deportation campaign. Clergy have shown up at protests attempting to halt or delay federal agents’ operations. And sometimes, they’ve been targeted for speaking out—like the pastor who was shot in the head with a chemical agent outside of an ICE detention facility in Illinois.

The group of faith leaders that delivered the letter to Johnson on Wednesday is calling for a “Day of Truth and Freedom” on Friday to draw attention to ICE’s actions in Minnesota and other cities in the US. The clergy are planning a march and rally in downtown Minneapolis that day. In an address before the letter was delivered, Bishop Dwayne Royster, Faith in Action’s executive director, called on people “not to eat, not to buy, and not to support anything that causes tyranny in this country” on Friday and to spend the day, instead, praying and fasting.

“We are here to make sure that we can protect our freedoms and get ICE out of Minnesota.”That’s right.📅 Friday, January 23✊🏽 #DayOfTruthAndFreedom❌ No Work. ❌ No School. ❌ No Shopping.#ICEOutOfMN #ICEOutForGood #BeGood

ISAIAH (@isaiahmn.org) 2026-01-21T17:29:41.136Z

Bishop Royster then led the clergy members in a prayer.

“Hear us oh God for our siblings across this land who are in fear and trembling even at this moment and hour, for the young folk that are not in schools because they are afraid today, for the people that can’t go to their jobs to provide for their families because they are afraid today,” he said, eyes closed. “God, for the folk that are afraid to answer their doors because they’re not sure who is knocking. God, we pray that people of faith and moral courage will go stand in the gap.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Grok’s Leering Pictures Are the Newest Version of an Old Problem

There’s a picture of myself that I had saved on my desktop for years; I suppose we could call it a caricature. A little more than a decade ago, someone on a Nazi messageboard pulled a photo of me from social media, then updated it with some antisemitic flair: a little cartoon rat sitting on my shoulder, a yellow Judenstern pinned on its tiny body. Referencing what Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust is meant to be a humiliation; the goal isn’t hard to figure out, given that the whole star patch thing is near-medieval in both its imagery and its aims. Unfortunately for the messageboard user, the rat was adorable, making the overall effect of the illustration really, really cute—like I had a lovable ratty little sidekick. I kept the image for a long time, until I eventually lost it to the sands of time and the need to clean my computer’s desktop.

“Generative AI has fueled a surge in deepfake abuse.”

Of course, there have been other, much worse, manipulated images of me out there, which I’m deliberately not describing because it would probably please their creators. As long as the social internet has existed, some of its users have wanted to deface, sully, and degrade images of women. The methods used to effect that outcome range from the slapstick—hello, Herr Rat—to the truly vile. When I first started working at the feminist website Jezebel, a semi-common practice from troll messageboard users was to masturbate on a writer’s photo, then email her a picture of the results. In 2014, the site dealt with a barrage of disgusting and graphic photos in our comments, often featuring pictures of female corpses. The same year, scores of celebrity nude photos were hacked and leaked online, with a subreddit dedicated to sharing the photos left up for almost a full week—making violation of both the living and the dead an ongoing theme.

Websites that produce deepfake nude images have also existed for several years. In 2024, a Guardian investigation found that these sites contained faked images of thousands of celebrities and other women, which were then often uploaded to porn sites. The problem was clearly snowballing, the paper wrote: “In 2016, researchers identified one deepfake pornography video online. In the first three-quarters of 2023, 143,733 new deepfake porn videos were uploaded to the 40 most used deepfake pornography sites—more than in all the previous years combined.”

And now, of course, there’s Grok, the generative AI tool created by Elon Musk’s X, which has been embroiled in a scandal over users using its new graphics-editing feature to create gross images of women—and, crucially, to put those manipulated images on Twitter, where other people can see them, because attempted public humiliation is the goal. Those manipulated images have reportedly included one of the dead body of Renée Nicole Good, the woman killed by ICE agent Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis, slumped over the wheel of her car, in a bikini.

All of this adds up to a chilling and global picture, experts say, one sometimes referred to as “technology-facilitated gender-based violence.” And while the problem is very old, generative AI is making things much worse, said Kalliopi Mingeirou, the chief of UN Women’s Ending Violence Against Women section.

“Generative AI has fueled a surge in deepfake abuse,” she told me in a statement, “with women comprising the overwhelming majority of victims.” Mingeirou added that a December 2025 UN Women report found that almost one in four women working as human rights defenders, activists, or journalists had “reported experiences of AI-assisted online violence.”

“Urgent regulation and safety-by-design are essential,” Mingeirou added, “to ensure AI advances women’s rights rather than undermining their safety and participation.”

“Many of the victims are feminists who dare criticize the phenomenon.”

Carrie Goldberg, an attorney who often represents victims of sexual abuse, trolling, stalking, and revenge porn, says deepfaked images come up regularly in her practice. The earliest iteration were images of actresses being turned into deepfaked porn, but the problem didn’t stop there. Today, “the main sets of victims coming to us are kids deepfaking kids,” she told me, “and then anonymous trolls creating deepfakes to sextort their target into giving them actual nudes. I know of one case on Discord where a targeted child was coerced down a very dark road that began with somebody threatening her with a deepfake he’d made.”

“We have observed popular online personalities getting targeted a lot,” Goldberg adds, “and of course this recent spate on X, many of the victims are feminists who dare criticize the phenomenon.”

In the United States, there are both state and federal laws designed to address the harms caused by “nonconsensual intimate imagery” (NCII), another common term to describe both real nudes and deepfakes distributed online. In March 2025, President Trump signed the “Take It Down Act,” a bipartisan bill criminalizing the distribution of NCII and requiring platforms to remove such images within 48 hours of a victim’s request. The bill was introduced by Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), after an incident in Texas where a high schooler took images of his classmates, manipulated them to appear nude, and posted them on Snapchat. California’s AB 621, also passed last year, strengthen the legal enforcements available against people who distribute—and not just create—deepfake images.

“The law has been dealing with false information and bad information for a long time,” points out David Greene. He’s the senior counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the preeminent digital rights and privacy group in the United States. “We have structures in place for balancing the competing free speech and harm interests when dealing with false information.”

But law isn’t the only response. It’s always advisable, Greene says, “to urge the companies to look for tech solutions… some way they can do something to make it harder to make these images.” Other AI image generators, he points out, “do have filters in place,” more than Grok seems to.

When it comes to tech companies fixing the very problems they’ve created, Greene doesn’t see “relying on their good faith” as the sole solution. “As with any bad actions by a company, consumers and users only have so many points of leverage,” he says. “People fleeing the site, or other ways of exerting financial pressure on the company, those will probably be more effective than trying to appeal to [Musk’s] feelings, and certainly to his ethics.”

With sexualized deepfakes, Greene adds, it’s important not to lose sight of why they’re being created in the first place. If “women tend to disproportionately be victims, then it’s probably part of a larger sociological phenomenon,” he says, of harm to women not being “evaluated as being as harmful as it actually is.”

True to form, tech companies aren’t leading the way to a less disgusting future. In recent tweets, Musk clarified that Grok should, as he put it, “allow upper body nudity of imaginary adult humans (not real ones) consistent with what can be seen in R-rated movies on Apple TV.”

In a cryptic post, Musk also recently declared that Grok should “have a moral constitution.” He didn’t elaborate.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Rules Out Force. But His Greenland Demands Are Only Escalating.

President Donald Trump just gave a preview of how he plans to acquire Greenland: economic warfare.

That was the unmistakable warning embedded in Trump’s rambling, complaint-heavy speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday, where he blasted European leaders and appeared to threaten retaliation if the US does not acquire Greenland.

“We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it,” Trump told the audience, before warning, “They have a choice. You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no, and we will remember.”

While Trump said that he wouldn’t “use force” to seize Greenland, he justified his ongoing demands to acquire the territory because the US keeps “the whole world afloat.”

“Without us, right now, you’d all be speaking German and a little Japanese, perhaps,” he said. “After the war, we gave Greenland back to Denmark. How stupid were we to do that? But we did it. But we gave it back. But how ungrateful are they now?”

The president then shared a startling anecdote, which many viewed as an implicit warning of how the US could retaliate if it did not acquire Greenland. Trump told the audience that after initially planning to slap a 30 percent tariff on Switzerland’s exports to the US, he ultimately went up to 39 percent because Switzerland’s president at the time, Karin Keller-Sutter, had rubbed him “the wrong way.”

“She just rubbed me the wrong way, I’ll be honest with you,” Trump told the audience. “And I made it 39 percent.” The US later reduced the tariff on Switzerland to 15 percent, which Trump described on Wednesday as evidence of his compassion: “I don’t want to hurt people.”

The remarks appeared to underscore the exact warnings Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney shared at the World Economic Forum just the day before.

“You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination,” Carney said on Tuesday, stressing that “great powers” like the US have used “tariffs as leverage” and “financial infrastructure as coercion.”

Now, some leaders in Europe seem to be taking Carney’s approach.

In response to the Trump administration’s continued threats to take Greenland, the chair of the European Parliament’s international trade committee announced on Wednesday that it would pause a EU-US trade deal that would have, in part, suspended tariffs on all industrial goods.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Canadian PM’s Davos Speech Is Unmissable in a Time of “Rupture”

President Donald Trump famously doesn’t like to read. And if his increasingly frequent public naps are any indication, his attention span is only getting shorter. But he did claim to watch what one historian praised as a “riveting, extraordinary and brutally honest” speech by Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada yesterday in Davos, Switzerland. And Trump’s reaction was typically petulant.

Imploring an audience chock-full of European officials at the annual World Economic Forum to recognize that “nostalgia is not a strategy,” Carney rallied middle powers—countries with economies similar to Canada—to bind together in the face of unilateral military and economic coercion by bigger powers. (Unspoken but clear among them: Trump’s America.) In doing so, Carney painted a stark view of a new world in which old rules have been torn up, and countries should stop pretending otherwise. “We are in the midst of a rupture,” he said. “Not a transition.”

His call to the world: Resist subordination to the “great powers” who “have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms.”

“The middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu,” Carney said.

Trump was clearly irked. “Canada gets a lot of freebies from us,” he said on Wednesday. “They should be grateful but they’re not.”

“Canada lives because of the United States,” Trump said. “Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.”

Carney’s speech, which received a standing ovation, is rooted in Carney’s personal experience after winning an election fought on protecting Canada’s sovereignty against economic attack from the United States in the form of tariffs and bellicose threats that Canada should be the 51st state of America. At Davos, Carney framed Trump’s attempts to “buy” Greenland as part of the same intimidation campaign: “Great powers began using economic integration as weapons,” he said. “Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.”

“We know the old order is not coming back,” he added. “But we believe that from the fracture, we can build something better, stronger, more just.”

Read the full transcript here. And watch the speech below.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

RFK Jr.’s Proteinaceous Food Pyramid Is a Land Hog and a Climate Disaster

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

The Trump administration’s new dietary guidelines urging Americans to eat far more meat and dairy products will, if followed, come at a major cost to the planet via huge swathes of habitat razed for farmland and millions of tons of extra planet-heating emissions.

A new inverted food pyramid recently released by Donald Trump’s health department emphasizes pictures of steak, poultry, ground beef, and whole milk, alongside fruits and vegetables, as the most important foods to eat.

The new guidelines are designed to nearly double the amount of protein currently consumed by Americans. “Protein and healthy fats are essential and were wrongly discouraged in prior dietary guidelines,” said Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US health secretary. “We are ending the war on saturated fats.”

But a surge in meat-eating by Americans would involve flattening vast tracts of ecosystems such as forests to make way for the hefty environmental hoofprint of raised livestock, emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases in the process, experts have warned.

Choosing beef over protein sources like beans and lentils is “a big choice we make that has real consequences.”

Even a 25 percent increase in the amount of protein consumed in this way in the US would require about 100 million acres of additional agricultural land each year, an area about the size of California, and add hundreds of millions of tons of extra pollution to an already overheating planet, according to an estimate by the World Resources Institute (WRI), a nonprofit research body.

“We are seeing millions of acres of forest cut down and agricultural expansion is the lead driver of that—adding 100 million acres to that to feed the US means additional pressure on the world’s remaining ecosystems,” said Richard Waite, the director of agriculture initiatives at WRI. “It’s already hard to feed the global population while reducing emissions and stopping deforestation, and a shift in this direction would make the challenge even harder. We need to reduce the impact of our food systems urgently and the US is an important piece of the puzzle in doing that.”

While many Americans will simply ignore the guidelines, the new framework will probably influence institutions such as schools and federal workplaces. The average American already eats about 317 pounds of meat and seafood a year, second globally only to Portugal, and ingests more protein than previous federal government guidelines recommended.

Any further increase will be felt in places such as the Amazon rainforest, which is already being felled at a rapid rate for cattle ranches and to grow livestock feed.

Red meat, in particular, has an outsized impact upon the planet—beef requires 20 times more land and emits 20 times more greenhouse gases per gram of protein than common plant proteins, such as beans. The raising of cows, pigs, lamb and other animals for slaughter is also associated with significant localized air and water pollution.

“To the extent that people follow these guidelines and eat more animal protein foods, particularly beef and dairy, they will negatively impact our environment, since the production of these foods emits way more greenhouse gases than vegetable protein foods, or even other animal foods,” said Diego Rose, a director of nutrition at Tulane University.

Choosing beef over beans and lentils is “a big choice we make that has real consequences,” said Waite. “If people want more protein there are ways to do that via eating plant-based foods without the environmental impacts. We can have our protein and our forests, too.”

“Americans already eat a lot of meat, so this promotion of more meat and things like beef tallow is puzzling to me.”

Animal agriculture is responsible for about a fifth of global emissions, with little progress made in recent years to reduce its impact as more of the world starts to demand meat products. Worldwide consumption of pork, beef, poultry and meat is projected to reach over 500 metric tons by 2050—double what it was in 2000.

In the US, much of this meat-eating is concentrated in a relatively small group of avid carnivores—just 12 percent of Americans consume nearly half of the country’s beef, a 2024 study found. But plant-based options, including “fake meat” burgers, have suffered a slump in sales in recent years amid a resurgent trend in meat-eating fueled by online “meatfluencers” and a broader desire to consume more protein.

The environmental problems associated with the meat industry were previously highlighted by Kennedy himself, when he was a campaigner on green issues. At one point, Kennedy even said the pork industry was an even bigger threat to the US than Osama bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind.

“The factory meat industry has polluted thousands of miles of America’s rivers, killed billions of fish, pushed tens of thousands of family farmers off their land, sickened and killed thousands of US citizens, and treated millions of farm animals with unspeakable and unnecessary cruelty,” Kennedy wrote in 2004.

However, since becoming Trump’s health secretary, Kennedy has sought to elevate meat-eating, dismissing an independent scientific committee’s advice to emphasize plant-based proteins to instead favor meat.

“The Trump administration will no longer weaponize federal food policy to destroy the livelihoods of hard-working American ranchers and protein producers under the radical dogma of the Green New Scam,” a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said in response to questions about the knock-on environmental impacts of the new guidelines.

“Americans already eat a lot of meat, so this promotion of more meat and things like beef tallow is puzzling to me,” said Benjamin Goldstein, a researcher at the University of Michigan who has studied the huge emissions associated with meat-eating by city-dwellers in the US.

“We needed to be addressing climate change two decades ago and we are still not doing enough now. If we are adding more greenhouse gases to impose unnecessary ideas of protein intake, that’s going to destabilize the climate further. It’s going to have a big impact.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

How ICE Became Trump’s Very Own Paramilitary Force

Over the last few weeks, Minneapolis has looked like a city under siege. The Trump administration has sent roughly 3,000 federal agents to Minnesota in what Todd Lyons, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has called the “largest immigration operation ever.”

This comes as protests have spread around Minneapolis and across the country demanding that ICE leave Minnesota and other states following the death of Renée Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident and US citizen who was killed by an ICE officer as she observed federal agents. While the Trump administration has labeled her a “domestic terrorist” who tried to run over the agent with her car, multiple videos show Good appearing to drive away.

As protests continue, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has mobilized the state National Guard, while President Donald Trump has threatened to use the Insurrection Act to send in the military. The Pentagon has since readied 1,500 soldiers for deployment.

ICE and other immigration agents are operating in ways we’ve never seen before in this country. But their tactics and weapons are not entirely new. Investigative journalist Radley Balko is the author of Rise of the Warrior Cop and host of Collateral Damage, a podcast about America’s war on drugs. He’s been tracking police militarization for decades and how it’s tied to America’s long-running drug war. On this week’s More To The Story, Balko describes what he’s seeing today from law enforcement as one of his “worst fever dreams.”

“Law enforcement leaders around the country are horrified by what they’re seeing,” Balko says. “Nobody thinks that how Trump is using law enforcement right now is appropriate or consistent with the principles of a free society.”

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

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

ICE Has Stopped Paying Contractors for Detainee Medical Treatment

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

During the second Trump administration, the population of migrants held at US Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities has exploded—from below 40,000 in January 2025 to over 73,000 today. Under the law, ICE is required to provide necessary medical care for this population.

While ICE employs some of its own medical staff, it often uses third-party providers. ICE’s Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, for example, houses over 500 detainees and has no doctor or dentist on staff.

ICE, however, has not paid any third-party providers for medical care for detainees since October 3, 2025. Last week, ICE posted a notice on an obscure government website announcing it will not begin processing such claims until at least April 30. Until then, medical providers are instructed “to hold all claims submissions.”

Screenshot of a webpage that says "Jan 13: The landing page for Acentra Health, IHSC's new claims processing third party administrator is live at ihsc-dhs.acentra.com. –Please visit ihsc-dhs.acentra.com for all upcoming updates, FAQs, and future links for provider portal login. –IHSC estimates claims and processing will launch April 30, 2026. Please continue to hold all claim submissions while IHSC works to bring the new system online in the interim."

Screenshot by Popular Info

ICE’s failure to pay its bills for months has caused some medical providers to deny services to ICE detainees, an administration source who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press told Popular Information. In other cases, detainees have allegedly been denied essential medical care by ICE.

ICE has not yet responded to a request for comment they received on Monday.

In lawsuits, numerous ICE detainees with severe illnesses allege that they cannot obtain treatment. For example, Viera Reyes, a detainee being held at ICE’s California City Detention Facility, has symptoms and test results that suggest he has prostate cancer.

But despite often being in excruciating pain, Reyes cannot obtain a biopsy. All of his requests to see a urologist have been ignored. Without a biopsy, Reyes has no formal diagnosis and cannot begin chemotherapy or take other steps to slow the cancer’s progression. Reyes was one of seven ICE detainees to sue over inhumane conditions at the California City facility.

How did this health crisis inside ICE detention facilities begin?

Beginning in 2002, the Department of Veterans Affairs played a small but critical role in providing essential medical care to ICE detainees. When a detainee needed medication or treatment that the ICE facility could not directly provide, the VA Financial Services Center processed reimbursement claims from pharmacies and third-party medical providers. ICE paid the VA for this service—no resources were diverted from veterans.

Beginning in 2023, however, the VA’s role in administering these claims from ICE was subject to criticism by Republican officials and right-wing media outlets. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), who introduced legislation to end the practice, falsely claimed Biden was “robbing veterans to pay off illegals.”

After Trump’s election, criticism of the VA’s role quieted down until, on September 30, 2025, the Center to Advance Security in America, a small right-wing nonprofit, filed a lawsuit. The CASA lawsuit sought to compel the Trump administration to respond to a public records request for documents regarding the VA’s role in administering medical claims from ICE.

According to government documents first reported by Popular Information, the VA “abruptly and instantly terminated” its agreement with ICE on October 3. That cancellation, according to the documents, left ICE with “no mechanism to provide prescribed medication” and unable to “pay for medically necessary off-site care.” Among the services ICE said it could not provide were “dialysis, prenatal care, oncology, [and] chemotherapy.” The documents were posted to SAM.gov on November 12 as part of ICE’s effort to hire a private contractor to process medical claims in place of the VA.

The situation was described by ICE as an “absolute emergency” that needed to be resolved “immediately” to “prevent any further medical complications or loss of life.”

Screenshot of a document from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from the Office of Acquisition Management that reads, "Justification for other than full and open competition: claims for medications. It is an absolute emergency for ICE to immediately procure PBM support because lack of this support will delay critical prescriptions and life-saving medications for IAs. Due to the criticality of PBM support, it is imperative that ICE instantly restore service to ensure there is mechanism in place for ICE to acquire prescriptions for IAs to prevent any further medical complications or loss of life. Additionally, since there is no coverage for prescription medications, there will be delays in pharmacy provider payments. Providers who are not paid timely may not accept new prescription requests or provide vital medications. This could reduce current and future provider participation in the IHSC community provider network which is central to the success fo the ICE and CBP mission.

Screenshot by Popular Info

More than three months later, the situation is not resolved, and it is expected to last until the end of April, if not longer. The process of replacing the VA, according to the administration source, has proven very complex. Acentra, one of the companies that won the ICE contract to replace the VA, says it will not be ready to process claims until at least April 30. Even if Acentra meets that target date, which is not a guarantee, claims filed on the first day may not be paid until May 30.

In the meantime, the situation with ICE detainees has grown so dire that the VA is now working to potentially bring its claims processing back online temporarily, the administration source said.

Internal administration data obtained by Popular Information reveals a massive gap in essential medical treatment for ICE detainees. The data shows that, in 2024, the VA processed $246.4 million in medical claims related to the treatment of ICE detainees by third parties. In 2025, despite an 83 percent increase in the daily detained population, the VA processed just $157.2 million in claims. (These figures include medical reimbursements from a much smaller number of detainees held by US Customs and Border Protection.)

Assuming the medical needs of a typical ICE detainee remain constant, the data suggests a nearly $300 million gap between needed care from third-party providers and what ICE paid. This gap is a combination of unpaid bills since October 3 and ICE detainees who are simply being denied necessary medical treatment.

An investigation by Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) identified “85 credible reports of medical neglect, including cases that reportedly led to life-threatening injuries and complications,” among ICE detainees between January 20 and August 5, 2025. The incidents included “a heart attack after days of untreated chest pain, complications from untreated diabetes, and denial of necessary medications and associated complications.”

After October 3, medical care for ICE detainees almost certainly became much worse. And it is not likely to improve anytime soon.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Congressional Compromise Bill Rejects Trump’s Worst Environmental Cuts

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

The US Senate passed a limited spending package on Thursday that will largely fund several science- and land-related agencies, including the Department of Interior, the US Forest Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the US Environmental Protection Agency, at current levels. Having passed the House on January 8, the bill now heads to President Donald Trump, who is expected to sign it.

The bill was, in many ways, a congressional rebuke of Trump’s request to drastically cut critical federal services related to the environment.

“It really shows that our public lands are meant to be managed for everyone in this country and not just private industry looking to turn a profit,” said Miranda Badgett, senior government relations representative for The Wilderness Society. “This bill really rejected some of the reckless budget cuts we saw proposed by the administration that would impact our national public-land agencies.”

Still, to conservation and science advocates, the bill is a compromise between Republican and Democratic priorities: It trims slightly 2025 budget numbers, including millions of dollars cut from NASA, the EPA and the US Geological Survey. It also doesn’t account for inflation, said Jacob Malcom, executive director of Next Interior, which advocates for the Interior Department.

“This is part of that long-running plan: ‘We’ll make services worse and then they won’t have popular support.’”

The Senate also rejected nearly 150 budget riders placed by the House that would have dramatically hamstrung agencies, Badgett said. Rejected riders included prohibiting the Bureau of Land Management from spending money to enforce the Public Lands Rule that was finalized in 2024 (which the Trump administration is currently trying to repeal), requiring quarterly oil and gas lease sales in at least nine states, and prohibiting any implementation of the BLM’s Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Rule that, among other things, boosted the royalty rates oil and gas companies must pay the federal government.

The biggest blow to the West, climate science and the nation’s health and safety, however, are potential cuts to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, based in Boulder, Colorado. The center creates the modeling and analysis that underpins the weather forecasting people around the world depend on for their lives and work. But instead of including a line item to fund NCAR in this budget, the bill simply tells the National Science Foundation, which oversees the center, to continue its functions.

This leaves the center with a shaky future in light of the administration’s stated desire to dissolve it, said Hannah Safford, associate director of climate and environment for the Federation of American Scientists. Colorado Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper fought unsuccessfully to include NCAR-specific funding in the bill.

Unless politicians find a workaround, climate science at the center will be destabilized, Safford added, but what that will look like on the ground is still uncertain. “It’s unlikely to manifest as a sudden loss of a particular service, but it might cause weather forecasting to be more unreliable,” she said.

It’s unclear if the current administration will follow the will of Congress and implement the budget as it’s written, Badgett said, though it includes directives that require federal agencies to receive approval from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees if they significantly change staffing or how the money is spent.

“I personally have concerns,” she said. “But I’m glad to see there are various guardrails to safeguard the agencies and our public lands and the folks who work hard to do the work at the agencies.”

In addition, Malcom said, most environmental agencies were already chronically underfunded. An agency like the US Fish and Wildlife Service, for example, only receives a fraction of the money that’s needed to recover threatened and endangered species. And that’s been the case for years. When agencies are underfunded and under resourced, he said, the public lands and water they oversee will continue to suffer along with the critical research done to prepare people for climate change.

In other words, the budget is, he said, “not as bad as it could be, but it’s also not as good as it needs to be.”

Jonathan Gilmour, cofounder of The Impact Project, a data and research platform focused on the value of public service, worries that agencies won’t have the staffing after last year’s layoffs and deferred resignations to continue necessary projects. He hopes the new budget will allow them to rehire or hire new employees to fill critical roles, though whether that happens remains to be seen.

While this bill doesn’t include draconian cuts, those who live, work and recreate in the West will likely continue to notice services decline, Malcom said. “Watch for things to get worse. This is part of that long-running plan at least since the Reagan years of, ‘We’ll make services worse and then they won’t have popular support, and then it will make it easier to cut further because there’s not popular support,’” he said. “This will just be heading in that direction.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

She Fought for Indigenous Voices at the UN. Now She’s in a Russian Jail Cell.

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

Russian authorities have detained an Indigenous climate advocate, accusing her of participating in a terrorist organization in what international observers are calling “retribution” for her United Nations advocacy on behalf of Indigenous peoples.

Daria Egereva, an Indigenous Selkup woman from the city of Tomsk in western Siberia, has been involved in international advocacy at the United Nations for several years and has been a co-chair of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change since 2023—an official forum that facilitates the participation of Indigenous peoples in UN meetings and gatherings, including the annual Conference of the Parties climate change conventions. During COP30 in Brazil, Egereva advocated for the inclusion of Indigenous women in climate negotiations. “If we don’t protect women, we don’t have a future,” she said in a video published on social media on November 21.

In addition to her work at COP, Egereva advocated for better inclusion of Indigenous peoples at the United Nations and researched the effects of the green transition on Indigenous communities. “The transition to a green economy without an appropriate framework or with disregard for the rights of Indigenous peoples will continue to result in historical injustices, marginalization, discrimination, and dispossession of their lands and resources,” she wrote in a 2024 report that criticized the lack of inclusion of Indigenous peoples in the green transition.

According to the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change, on December 17, Russian authorities searched Egereva’s home, confiscated her digital devices, and arrested her, in what the organization called “a direct retaliation for her Indigenous rights advocacy,” which included her work at COP30.

“These reprisals are part of a broader pattern of repression affecting Indigenous peoples across the globe, and are an unacceptable attack on the right of Indigenous peoples to engage in the global human rights and climate change processes,” said Sineia Do Vale, who is Wapichana from Brazil and co-chairs the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change along with Egereva.

“I believe I am being persecuted for my activism.”

A 2023 UN report concluded that advocates from multiple countries have been discouraged from participating in UN processes because of fear of reprisals. In 2024, the Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reported an increase in the number of cases of reprisals, but did not publish specific numbers. More than 2,000 environmental and land defenders were killed or disappeared for their work between 2012 and 2024, nearly a third of them Indigenous, according to Global Witness.

In October, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution criticizing the Russian Federation’s designation of 55 Indigenous organizations and other groups as “extremist organizations,” and calling on the country to abide by international human rights law.

Luda Kinok, a Yupik woman from Russia who spoke to Grist as a friend of Egereva’s, said that Egereva is expected to be detained until her next court hearing on February 17, after which she could be sentenced to as long as 20 years in prison.

Kinok said Egereva was targeted in part because of her affiliation with the Aborigen Forum network, a group of Indigenous advocates that was designated as an “extremist” organization by the Russian Federation in July 2024. The forum advocated for the protection of Indigenous peoples’ rights as countries sought to develop the Arctic. Egereva was also a member of the Centre for Support of Indigenous Peoples of the North, which Russian authorities shut down in 2019.

Valentina Vyacheslavovna Sovkina, a Saami advocate based in Russia and one of 16 members of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, said through an interpreter that she was also subjected to a search by Russian authorities the same week that Egereva was arrested.

“During the search, they seized technical equipment and searched the premises, folders, books, and boxes for four hours. They compiled a report without leaving a copy and without allowing me to call a lawyer,” she said. “I believe I am being persecuted for my activism and my steadfast commitment to protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples.”

Egereva’s arrest has been decried by several Indigenous international organizations, including Cultural Survival, the SIRGE Coalition, and the International Indian Treaty Council. The IITC called the situation “a grave case of intimidation and reprisal against an Indigenous leader in direct connection with her participation in the UNFCCC process,” referring to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The Basmanny District Court of Russia and the United Nations did not respond to messages seeking comment on Egereva’s case.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

More Immigrants Detained by ICE Recount Harsh and Cruel Treatment

As the Trump administration’s deportation campaign continues to bring fear and upheaval to Minneapolis, more immigrants are sharing their stories of detainment and harsh treatment when being apprehended at their homes, while driving, and at work. Tensions continue to rise as federal immigration agents target people who they claim are in the country without legal status, as well as protestors filling the streets to demand accountability for Homeland Security’s often violent tactics, including ICE agent Jonathan Ross’ killing of Renée Good in her car.

This week, according to reporting from the Minnesota Star Tribune, federal agents detained three workers from a family-owned Mexican restaurant hours after the agents themselves dined at the establishment. The agents reportedly followed the workers after the workers closed up for the night and took them into custody. That was not the first time ICE agents have gone to a local business as customers before arresting someone who works there.

“They took trophy pictures with their personal phones,” a man detained by ICE says.

During a Saturday press conference, a recently released man described a different form of callousness by ICE. Garrison Gibson, 38, said that agents showed up to his house multiple times, eventually smashing open the door with a battering ram. After armed agents took him from his home Gibson says, they reveled in his detainment.

“They took trophy pictures with their personal phones,” he said, adding, “like one stood by me on the right side of me. One stood on the left side of me. And they went, like, thumbs up and took pictures with their personal phones.”

According to reporting from Minnesota Public Radio, the federal agents “did not let Gibson change into warm clothing or put on a coat before taking him out into the 16-degree winter air.” Gibson was sent to El Paso, Texas, before being returned to Minnesota, due to a federaljudge’s intervention.

He made it back home just in time for his daughter’s birthday, but Gibson is still fighting the government’s efforts to deport him to Liberia, “a country he hasn’t visited since he fled a civil war there when he was 6 years old,” reported MPR.

Another troubling account comes from a husband and wife who were pulled over by federal agents while on the way to the hospital. According to reporting from Sahan Journal, Bonfilia Sanchez Dominguez was experiencing back pain and was being driven to the emergency room by her husband, Liborio Parral Ortiz, when ICE agents stopped the car. The couple’s daughter, who says she was on the phone with Ortiz duringthe interaction, said that ICE “started opening their doors and pulling them. They were not asking them any questions, they just started grabbing them.”

Ortiz was taken into custody and quickly sent to El Paso, Texas, according to the family and ICE’s detainee locator system. According to the daughter, ICE agents and hospital staff have been restricting access to her mother at the hospital, even turning away the family’s pastor and lawyer.

“They were just racially profiled and picked up and kidnapped without a destination,” the daughter told Sahan Journal.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Top Trump Official Says FBI Won’t Investigate Killing by ICE Agent

In an interview on Fox News Sunday, US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told Shannon Bream that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is not, nor are they planning to, investigate Jonathan Ross—the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who shot and killed Renée Nicole Good in her car in Minneapolis earlier this month.

“We don’t just go out and investigate every time an officer is forced to defend himself against somebody or putting his life in danger,” Blanche, formerly Donald Trump’s personal attorney, said. The Trump administration began asserting immediately after the killing that Good was a “rioter” who committed an “act of domestic terrorism,” continuing a long pattern of responding to deadly tragedies by making baseless and false claims.

“We investigate when it’s appropriate to investigate and that is not the case here, it wasn’t the case when it happened, and it’s not the case today,” Blanche insisted. “If circumstances change, and there’s something that we do need to investigate around that shooting or any other shooting, we will,” he said, adding, “but we are not going to bow to pressure from the media, bow to pressure from politicians.”

BREAM: Is the FBI investigating the ICE agent who shot Renee Good?BLANCHE: What happened has been reviewed by millions of Americans bc it was recorded. We investigate when it's appropriate. That is not the case here. We are not going to bow to pressure. So no, we are not investigating.

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-18T16:24:27.784Z

Blanche used a remarkable rationale. Hesaid that the FBI didn’t need to investigate, in part, because “what happened on that day has been reviewed by millions of Americans because it was recorded on phones when it happened.”

Such footage appears in video investigations, including from the New York Times and Bellingcat, that undercut the administration’s message that Ross was acting in self-defense. The Times found that “the visual evidence shows no indication that the agent who fired the shots, Jonathan Ross, had been run over” and “also establishes how Mr. Ross put himself in a dangerous position near her vehicle in the first place.” As Mother Jones reported last week, many Americans do not buy the Trump party line about what eyewitness videos show.

While the Department of Justice and FBI decline to investigate Ross, they have reportedlybeen investigating Good’s wife, Becca Good, as well as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. And they also shut out state and local law enforcement:The day after Ross killed Good, Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension announced that the US attorney’s office was preventing it from participating in any investigation.

The Trump administration’s investigation into Good’s family—and lack thereof into the shooter—prompted the resignation of several federal prosecutors in Minnesota, with more poised to resign soon, according to reporting from my colleague Samantha Michaels.

On Friday, the DOJ announced it is investigating Gov. Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey, alleging that they are conspiring to impede federal immigration agents.

“This is an obvious attempt to intimidate me for standing up for Minneapolis, our local law enforcement, and our residents against the chaos and danger this Administration has brought to our streets,” Frey said in a statement to CBS News. “I will not be intimidated. My focus will remain where it’s always been: keeping our city safe.”

Days earlier, Blanche had accused the two men of “terrorism.”

“Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement. It’s disgusting,” he wrote on X on Wednesday. “Walz and Frey – I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.”

On Friday, Walz responded to the DOJ probes into him and Frey: “Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic.”

“The only person not being investigated for the shooting of Renee Good,” Walz continued, “is the federal agent who shot her.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

A Flood-Plagued African City Sets Out to Reengineer Its Wetlands

This story was originally published byYale e360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Maurice Manishimwe runs a small garage beside a fuel station in Musango village, just outside the Rwandan capital of Kigali, in a nation known as the land of a thousand hills. Sandwiched between one of those hills and the Nyabugogo River, his workshop hums with activity as people arrive with cars and equipment to be tested and repaired.

But this busy location comes at a cost: When rainstorms hit, water running off the hillsides and rising river levels flood the streets and spill into Manishimwe’s workplace. “Our shops were submerged and our goods were destroyed,” says the 30-year-old, speaking about a December 2023 storm that surrounded his garage with knee-high water. He says the flood cost him thousands of dollars in lost inventory and tools.

Manishimwe built a higher step into his workshop to protect his brake pads and taillights, laid new tiles, and replaced his wooden shelves. Still, he worries that heavy rains could once again wreck his shop.

“The project represents a rare, citywide effort to rebuild nature-based infrastructure.

Kigali, a city of 1.7 million, has historically seen an average of nearly 40 inches of rain a year. But rainy seasons in Rwanda are becoming both “shorter and more intense,” according to the Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA). Since 2017, East Africa’s spring rains have shown record-breaking extremes as warmer air and ocean surfaces load storms with more moisture.

Forty years ago, Kigali was protected from stormwaters by extensive wetlands at the base of its many hills. The wetlands soaked up rain, slowed floods, and filtered runoff. But decades of degradation, including informal agriculture, sand mining, and industrial dumping in these areas have reduced the wetlands’ ability to perform these essential ecological functions.

Rapid urban growth has placed additional pressure on the wetlands. The city’s population has risen by 4 percent each year since 2020, and open space continues to be replaced with impermeable concrete, which sends ever more runoff downhill. The flooding erodes soil, destroys buildings and infrastructure, and causes tens of millions of dollars’ worth of damage a year, according to Teddy Kaberuka, a Rwandan economist.

Eager to protect its citizens and property, create green space for communities and wildlife, and curb financial losses, Kigali began working nearly a decade ago to restore its natural defenses. In just a three-year period, the city converted a degraded swamp into a functioning wetland—featuring a series of ponds, a riverine forest, and a savanna—that stores carbon, controls floods, filters pollutants, and enhances biodiversity. Building on that success, the city is now reforesting hillsides and restoring an integrated wetland system that will eventually span more than 18,000 acres. The ambitious project will ultimately reshape one of Africa’s fastest growing capitals.

As wetland loss accelerates worldwide, few cities have the space, resources, or political will to restore nature at this scale. Kigali’s project cannot stop floods on its own or reverse climate change, but it represents a rare, citywide effort to rebuild nature-based infrastructure—offering one of the continent’s clearest models for urban areas seeking to boost their resilience.

Kigali sits within what was once an exceptionally soggy and verdant landscape, with 37 interconnectedwetlands covering almost 23,000 acres, or 12.5 percent of the city’s land mass. These weren’t small urban ponds with patches of swampland but broad, saturated expanses teeming with vegetation that supported birds, reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals.

The city’s wetlands functioned as a vast natural sponge, soaking up excess water, reducing flooding, trapping sediment, and filtering pollutants before they reached streams and rivers. Wetlands also cool surrounding neighborhoods through moisture release and shading and, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency, support a diverse array of wildlife in their reedbeds and grasslands, and store carbon in their soils and vegetation.

But in Kigali, explained Gloriose Umuziranenge, a senior lecturer in the Department of Urban and Environmental Management at Protestant University Rwanda, urban expansion—including the construction of new roads, housing estates, commercial developments, and hillside settlements—as well as the pasturing of livestock and dumping of waste gradually degraded the city’s wetlands.

At least 50 percent of Kigali’s wetlands have lost their ecological character, according to the World Bank, meaning these wetlands have lost their “capacity to absorb and store excess rainwater,” Umuziranenge said. This local trend reflects a global pattern: about 22 percent of the world’s wetlands, around 1 billion acres, have been lost since 1970, and 25 percent of the remainder are degraded.

Eastern Kigali’s Nyandungu wetland is a case in point. The formerly lush area had been despoiled by decades of sand mining, stony quarrying, and cattle grazing. It frequently flooded the nearby roadway, jamming up traffic and endangering lives. In response, REMA—with support from the World Bank, Global Environment Facility, and Rwanda Green Fund—began in 2016 to transform this wasteland, at a cost of $5 million, into a biologically productive landscape.

Today, the 400-acre Nyandungu Eco-Park is alive with marshes, ponds, and more than 200 species of birds. “From the time [the wetland] was restored,” said park manager Ildephonse Kambogo, “there was no more flooding.”

The success of the Nyandungu pilot project reshaped national thinking about other wetlands, said Richard Mind’je, an environmental studies lecturer at the University of Lay Adventists of Kigali. “After having this benefit, Rwanda said, ‘Why can’t we now restore other wetlands from Kigali so that we can keep benefiting from these services?’”

Today, cranes and diggers are working amid the bustle of Kigali’s streets— crowded with buses, moto taxis, shops, and homes—to restore and reshape five more degraded wetlands, covering 1,200 acres. Hundreds of workers are reshaping the land, creating islands, lakes, and ponds, clearing water channels, planting indigenous species, removing invasives, and establishing reed beds.

“If you’re deforesting the catchment, no amount of wetland is going to make much difference.”

By mid-2026, according to the city’s restoration blueprint, the restored sites—Gikondo, Rwamperu, Kibumba, Nyabugogo, and Rugenge-Rwintare—will link up, forming a continuous ribbon of wildlife corridors, parks that contain 36 miles of walkways and bike lanes, and wetlands that guide stormwater safely downstream. With wetlands under threat across the continent, the project has the potential to serve as a model for other African cities, said Julie Mulonga, East Africa director for Wetlands International. Its design, financing, and community engagement are all elements “that can be replicated,” she said.

Yet challenges remain as Kigali expands. The city must balance new green spaces for flood protection and climate resilience with residents’ need for agricultural land. Many of the areas now set aside for restoration have been used informally for generations—to grow food, graze cattle, and fish. According to a 2019 report by the Albertine Rift Conservation Society, 53 percent of Rwanda’s wetlands had, by 2015, been converted to agriculture. The land is government-owned, and its use has, so far, been tolerated, as these wetlands are clearly spaces that people have come to depend on.

The Kigali Master Plan 2050 aims to restore and protect 18,000 acres of wetlands that thread between the city’s hills, said Emma Claudine Ntirenganya, a spokesperson for the City of Kigali, but more than 14,000 farming households could lose access to these areas if the city’s restoration ambitions proceed as planned. Nyandungu, for example, no longer allows agricultural activity, its grounds are fenced, and entry now requires a fee.

Park manager Kambogo acknowledged that informal use has continued in Nyandungu, including illegal fishing and collecting grass for cattle. He said some breaches, such as fence cutting, incurred fines and that it was important to engage with and educate the local community until they “understand the importance of having the wetlands.”

Emphasizing conservation and tourism over agriculture, said Alan Dixon, a professor of sustainable development at the University of Worcester, in the UK, risks creating “spaces of exclusion.” Ultimately, he said, “people have just got to feed themselves. Everywhere else is drying up, the weather is becoming less predictable, so wetlands are the last place in the catchment that people can [use].” The dilemma for governments, planners, and conservationists, he added, is “how do you allow people to use these areas while also retaining the environmental integrity?”

Christian Benimana, a Rwandan architect and the founding director of the African Design Centre, emphasized the importance of monitoring social impacts as Kigali restores its wetlands. So far, among the six wetlands restored to date, he said, displacement hasn’t yet occurred, “but it’s something that might happen.” Gentrification is also a concern. “Before, you were living close to makeshift car shops, and all of a sudden it’s a beautiful park,” he said. “Is it bad that it makes these people’s property more valuable? I don’t think so. Is it bad if it leads to some form of negative gentrification? I think so.”

For some residents, relocating from the wetlands has been a relief rather than a loss. Athanase Segatsinzi, 60, head of Runyonza Village in Nyandungu, spent decades farming and grazing cattle in the flood-prone area.

“When heavy rains came, the wetland overflowed and destroyed our crops,” he recalled. “Even after the water receded, everything was ruined.” In 2019, he says, farmers and herders using the wetland were resettled in Rwanda’s Eastern Province, where the government gave his family 15 acres to farm. “Milk production increased because my cows now graze on a much larger area without the risk of losing pasture to floods,” he said.

But wetlands alone cannot protect the capital from flooding as temperatures rise, rainfall intensifies, and deforestation of the city’s slopes compounds the city’s challenges. “If you’re deforesting the catchment,” Dixon said, “no amount of wetland is going to make much difference.”

In response, the City of Kigali last year launched a community campaign that aims to plant 3 million trees over five years, creating a continuous network of forest that links the restored wetlands.

Gatsata Hill, the steep slope that channels torrents of water into Maurice Manishimwe’s workplace, is currently being reforested, and the wetland in front of his garage is being restored. Together, these interventions will create a buffer that fills him with optimism.

“Once the reforestation is complete and the trees take root, the water that used to rush downhill will slow,” he said. “And when the Nyabugogo wetland restoration is finished, the flooding problem will be solved for good.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

A Wave of New Polls Shows Trump’s Support Cratering Across the Board

As President Donald Trump wraps up the first year of his second term—one marked by US aggression abroad and rising political violence at home—a wave of new polls released this week shows him and his policies at remarkably high, and in some cases record, levels of unpopularity. Across nearly every major measure, Trump is generating more backlash than loyalty, deepening distrust as his personal standing continues to slide.

A new CNN poll released Friday found that nearly 60 percent of Americans describe Trump’s first year back in office as a failure. Trump is faltering even on issues that have historically been his strongest, like the economy. A majority of Americans (55 percent) say he has made the economy worse, while just 36 percent believe he has focused on the right priorities—a nine-point drop since the start of his term. CNN also found Trump’s overall job approval rating languishing at 39 percent, down from 48 percent last February.A clear majority say he has gone too far in using presidential power. You can read the full results here.

New from us: Public opinion on nearly every aspect of President Donald Trump’s first year back in the White House is negative, a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS finds.www.cnn.com/2026/01/16/p…

Ariel Edwards-Levy (@aedwardslevy.bsky.social) 2026-01-16T15:09:44.022Z

CNN’s numbers are not outliers. A new Associated Press–NORC poll, released on Thursday, shows erosion even within Trump’s own party. Only 16 percent of Republicans say the president has helped “a lot” with the cost of living, down sharply from 49 percent in April 2024. Trump’s approval on immigration—still one of his strongest issues among Republicans—has slipped as well, falling from 88 percent in March to 76 percent in the latest survey. Overall, just 38 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of immigration, a marked decline, while 61 percent disapprove. Across the poll, voters say Trump is focused on the wrong priorities, abusing power, hurting the economy, and leaving the country worse off. The survey marked his lowest approval ratings on the economy reported by AP pollsters during both stints in the White House.

Other surveys this week echoed the same themes. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Trump deeply underwater overall, with 58 percent disapproving of his job performance and just 36 percent approving of his handling of the economy. The poll also found overwhelming opposition to Trump’s foreign adventurism, with 71 percent saying the use of military force against Greenland would be a bad idea. Meanwhile, a Marist poll released Friday found that 56 percent of Americans oppose the United States taking military action in Venezuela.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

“Utter Buffoonery”: Trump Slaps NATO Allies With Tariffs over Greenland, Even as More Republicans Revolt

Donald Trump promised on Saturday to issue a series of increasing tariffs on European NATO allies until he is permitted to buy Greenland, the latest escalation in his already feverish threats to take over the Arctic country, which is part of Denmark.

Trump announced on Truth Social that starting next month, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland would all be charged a 10 percent tariff on all goods sent to the US. The tariff would rise to 25 percent on June 1.

“These Countries, who are playing this very dangerous game, have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable,” Trump wrote.

The president continued to assert that acquiring the island was “imperative” for America’s national security and the “survival of our planet” in the face of alleged threats from Russia and China, adding that the US’ “Golden Dome” air and missile defense system made the takeover necessary.

But Trump’s claims are unfounded and don’t require obliterating the US’ relationship with NATO. As I noted earlier this week, the US already has a massive collection of at least 128 military bases in at least 51 countries—all without taking over land—and the US has had a strategic military presence in Greenland since World War II. There is also no evidence of a Russian or Chinese military presence on Greenland’s coast.

Trump’s threats have led European nations to send military personnel to the island at the request of Denmark. Protesters in Denmark and Greenland demonstrated on Saturday, demanding sovereignty.

A massive "Hands off Greenland" protest is happening right now in Copenhagen to demonstrate against Trump's threats."The aim is to send a clear and unified message of respect for Greenland's democracy," organisers said.“Respect for Greenland, respect for Greenlanders, respect for Denmark.”

Adam Schwarz (@adamjschwarz.bsky.social) 2026-01-17T15:52:08.356Z

Massive crowds have taken to the streets of Nuuk to protest the Trump administration with one message: Greenland is not for sale. It is not negotiable.

Olga Nesterova (@onestpress.onestnetwork.com) 2026-01-17T18:19:34.148Z

According to CNN, an estimated 5,000 protesters showed up in Greenland’s capital city of Nuuk—remarkable for an island with a population of approximately 56,000.

Even many Republican lawmakers have voiced strong opposition to buying Greenland.

Trump’s rhetoric risks “incinerating the hard-won trust of loyal allies.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), chair of the Senate defense appropriation subcommittee, labeled Trump’s rhetoric as risking “incinerating the hard-won trust of loyal allies in exchange for no meaningful change in U.S. access to the Arctic.”

“If there was any sort of action that looked like the goal was actually landing in Greenland and doing an illegal taking… there’d be sufficient numbers here to pass a war powers resolution and withstand a veto,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said on Thursday.

A bipartisan delegation of congressional lawmakers visited Copenhagen on Friday to reassure Denmark and Greenland officials that they would not support Trump’s plan to annex or buy Greenland—and especially not any military action against a fellow NATO member.

“Greenland needs to be viewed as our ally, not as an asset, and I think that’s what you’re hearing with this delegation,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said on Friday after meeting with Danish and Greenlandic leaders there.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) said on Wednesday that the president’s threats were “utter buffoonery.” “If he went through with the threats, I think it would be the end of his presidency,” he continued. “He hates being told no, but in this case, I think Republicans need to be firm.”

But on Friday, Trump refused to commit to not engaging in attacking a NATO partner.

“I don’t talk about that,” the president replied when questioned by reporters.

REPORTER: Do you commit to not militarily engaging NATO partners?TRUMP: I don't talk about thatREPORTER: You're not willing to commit to not attacking a NATO partner?

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-16T22:01:15.026Z

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s Frantic Attack on Minnesota Hits Obstacles in the Streets—and the Courts

On Friday afternoon, a judge blocked federal agents in Minneapolis from arresting peaceful protesters or using crowd control tools against them, just as news broke that Trump’s justice department desperately launched an investigation into whether Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey impeded immigration enforcement through their public opposition.

US District Judge Kate Menendez ruled that DHS and ICE agents working in Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota must refrain from “using pepper-spray or similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity.” Menendez also barred federal agents from stopping vehicles from following them if they maintain a safe distance.

Menendez’s order granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed by protesters last month that argued that their constitutional rights to exercise free speech and peaceably assemble were violated by federal agents who retaliated with intimidation, force, and detention.

Menendez wrote that protesters and observers “did not forcibly obstruct or impede the agents’ work.”

“The First Amendment protects speech and peaceful assembly—not rioting,” DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “We remind the public that rioting is dangerous—obstructing law enforcement is a federal crime and assaulting law enforcement is a felony.”

Menendez’s order comes as the Trump administration began sending about 1,000 more federal agents to Minnesota last week—in addition to the 2,000 others already deployed in the state.

The Justice Department is also intensifying its assault on Minnesota by targeting Gov. Walz and Mayor Frey. Prosecutors reportedly issued grand jury subpoenas to the pair on Friday.

But the investigation into Gov. Walz and Mayor Frey raises similar First Amendment concerns as the lawsuit filed by the protesters—the right to condemn the government without fear of punishment.

“Two days ago it was Elissa Slotkin. Last week it was Jerome Powell. Before that, Mark Kelly. Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic, Gov. Walz wrote Friday in a post on X. “The only person not being investigated for the shooting of Renee Good is the federal agent who shot her.”

Two days ago it was Elissa Slotkin. Last week it was Jerome Powell. Before that, Mark Kelly. Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic.

The only person not being investigated for the shooting of Renee Good is the federal agent who shot her. https://t.co/MfgwSjDFwh

— Governor Tim Walz (@GovTimWalz) January 16, 2026

On Friday night, Mayor Frey said on X that the subpoena was an “obvious attempt to intimidate.”

In a Friday night post to X, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote, “A reminder to all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law.”

But the Trump administration’s claim that its escalation of violence is justified against protesters comes as story after story emerges of violent encounters with federal officers, including using tear gas on a six-month-old baby.

While yesterday’s ruling protecting protesters will likely go to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where 10 of the 11 active judges have been nominated by Republican presidents, the broader picture is becoming clearer: the administration must know protesters are thwarting federal agents; they know their enforcement is being challenged in court; and they know support for their immigration policies is plummeting.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

A Dictator Deposed—What Now for Venezuela?

Journalist Mariana Zúñiga woke up in the middle of the night to the sounds of explosions and military planes in Caracas, Venezuela. Her WhatsApp chats flashed the news: The ruling dictator, Nicholás Maduro, had just been captured by the US military. She was surprised and felt uneasy about what was to come.

In the days that followed, Zúñiga would go into the field, despite the dangers journalists face, to report on what the country feels like at this tumultuous moment.

This week on Reveal, we speak with Venezuelans about witnessing this moment of history from up close and afar. For Freddy Guevara, an exiled Venezuelan opposition leader living in the US, there is little confidence in the country’s new leadership.

“They are not moderate at all,” Guevara says. “They are super radical, and they believe they are smarter than everyone.”

And historian Alejandro Velasco explains the role Venezuela’s most valuable resource—oil—has played in the country’s history and relations with the US.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Minnesota US Attorney’s Office Is Bracing for a New Wave of Resignations

More resignations of federal prosecutors are expected at the US Attorney’s Office in Minnesota amid ongoing frustration over the Trump administration’s response to the fatal shooting of Renée Good by an ICE officer in Minneapolis.
“I have heard there may be more people leaving, people I would consider senior and respected career prosecutors,” said Anders Folk, a former acting US attorney in Minnesota, who left the office in 2021 to work for the Justice Department in Washington, DC, under former President Biden.

Minnesota Federal Defender Katherian Roe, in a staffwide email obtained by the Sahan Journal, also wrote that “more resignations are anticipated” at the US Attorney’s Office. “It’s a sign that something is not right” there, added Folk, who is still in touch with colleagues in the office and is now running for Hennepin County Attorney.

Already this week, at least five federal prosecutors in Minnesota announced their resignations. Among them was the office’s second-in-command, Joseph Thompson, who was overseeing the welfare fraud investigation involving Somali immigrants that President Trump used as a pretext to send his immigration force to Minneapolis.

The prosecutors did not give a reason for their departures, but their announcements came shortly after the Justice Department ordered the office to investigate Good’s wife rather than focus on the shooter and the shooting. “It’s a big deal, and this is fairly unprecedented,” Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor now based in Los Angeles, said of the resignations. “You have so many leaving, and frankly on principle: We are living in unique times where prosecutors are being asked to do things they’ve never had to do before. That’s not what they signed up for.”
Five senior prosecutors at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in DC—a unit that investigates police killings—also resigned this week.

Since Trump’s reelection, the Minnesota US Attorney’s Office has seen a steady stream of departures. Nearly 50 out of about 135 staffers have left their positions, according to a person with knowledge of the departures who did not want to be named, and who confirmed that more resignations are likely. Some of the office’s attorneys left earlier this year as Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency was working to downsize the federal workforce. Others quit in December, after ICE launched its Minneapolis surge.

“They’ve had a major brain drain, and I don’t know who’s going to be left to do the cases.”

The administration’s response to the Good’s death on January 7 appears to have been the last straw for some of the prosecutors. The 37-year-old mom, who had partly blocked a neighborhood street with her vehicle, was fatally shot in the head and chest by ICE officer Jonathan Ross. The killing, which has sparked nationwide protests, was captured on video by multiple bystanders, and also by Ross, who recorded the encounter on his phone. In his footage, a male voice**,** which the New York Times has verified was Ross, could be heard calling Good a “fucking bitch” after he shot her.

The Justice Department has defended Ross, accusing Good of trying to run him over, and ordered the US Attorney’s Office to focus on Good’s wife, who was on hand protesting the ICE operation. But a frame-by-frame video analysis from the Times clearly shows that Ross shot Good as she was steering her vehicle away from him, and that he was not run over, as Trump and other federal officials claimed, or struck by the vehicle in a substantial way.

The administration quickly excluded the Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from its investigation, making it harder for state authorities to gather evidence. As staffers at the US Attorney’s Office watched the video footage, some were crying or otherwise visibly emotional about the death and the Justice Department’s response, according to the person with knowledge of the departures.

Since Operation Metro Surge began in the Twin Cities, federal immigration officers have reportedly arrested more than 2,400 people. To deal with the influx of cases, given its reduced staff, the US Attorney’s Office is receiving help from military attorneys known as Judge Advocates General. Several JAGs are already stationed at the office, and the Pentagon, according to CNN plans to send about 25 more.

As videos spread showing brutal ICE encounters in the Twin Cities—officers dragging a disabled woman out of her car as she tried to drive to a doctor’s appointment; carrying away an unconscious man in handcuffs; throwing a flashbang at a car with six children, and more—protesters are calling for accountability and yelling at the masked federal officers to get out of their neighborhoods.

But to file civil rights cases against ICE agents or any other law enforcement, prosecutors at the US Attorney’s Office would need approval from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys in DC. And that “feels impossible,” said the person with knowledge of the resignations, “when you can’t even get an investigation for a woman who was shot point-blank in the head.”

Folk, the former acting US attorney, told me that he’s never seen anything like the recent spate of resignations in Minnesota. It’s unusual, he said, for so many career prosecutors, as opposed to political appointees, to leave at the same time. “It’s deeply concerning to many members of the legal community here,” Folk told me, and he worries about the consequences for other investigations, including the ones looking into fraud in state welfare programs and the assassinations of former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, last year.

At least some of the attorneys who resigned this week had planned to use their accumulated leave to stay on longer and help with the transition, but the Justice Department fired them after they announced their intentions, abruptly blocked their credentials, and had them escorted our of the building.

The Minnesota US Attorney’s Office had fewer than 30 prosecutors prior to the latest departures—that’s less than half of what the full head count should be, Folk said. Former federal prosecutor Levenson added that it might be difficult for the office to hire new attorneys, given the explosive political environment. “People of the caliber you used to get at US attorney’s offices aren’t interested in the job; they’ve had a major brain drain, and I don’t know who’s going to be left to do the cases,” she said.

“This will have an impact for years to come.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

These Researchers Are Working to Quantify the Value of Nature

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

In an era of rapid globalization, economic growth has come with trade-offs. To make room for urban development or fossil fuel extraction, countries often clear forests, pollute water and decimate wildlife populations.

However, while nations and businesses build lucrative markets around these activities, destroying nature often comes at a cost—literally. Natural resources underpin the global economy, from pollinators supporting agricultural supply chains to forests ensuring water quality and availability. One estimate suggests that more than half of the world’s gross domestic product is moderately or highly dependent on the environment.

Research shows the services that nature provides are diminishing as we degrade it. Now, a growing number of economists and ecologists around the world are helping decisionmakers understand the full extent of the contributions to local and national economies made by plants, animals, or entire ecosystems—and what’s at risk financially if they are lost.

Since time immemorial, humans have relied on natural resources like clean water, forests, and soil to prop up economies. As Stanford University ecologist Lisa Mandle put it to me bluntly, “if there were no nature, there would be no economy.”

But it wasn’t until fairly recently that experts formally started to catalogue the environment’s financial contributions to society through an approach dubbed “natural capital accounting.” In 2005, a report compiled by hundreds of scientists from around the world, which was called for by the United Nations, estimated that human activities had driven the decline of two-thirds of ecosystem services on Earth, including freshwater supply, climate-change mitigation, and disease control.

Pollinators contribute $800 billion in gross economic value annually, including $34 billion in the United States.

Dubbed the “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,” the report also revealed how much was not known about the environment’s financial contributions, finding that the costs of degrading nature were rarely tracked in local and national economic accounts. Since then, experts have scrambled to fill these gaps.

Mandle is the co-executive director of Natural Capital Alliance, a Stanford-based collaboration of research institutions and nonprofits such as the Nature Conservancy working to help countries better understand their natural resource availability and how to balance those benefits with development.

For example, the group recently worked with the Colombian National Planning Department to calculate the economic value of the country’s Upper Sinú Basin. Using input from locals and complex financial models, they found that ecosystems in the region deliver around $100 million in benefits to hydropower production and the delivery of clean water to households and economic sectors—nearly 2 percent of the region’s GDP.

“In many decisions, nature has been treated as essentially worthless or of negligible value when compared to other kinds of human activities,” said Mandle. “Natural capital accounting is an effort to correct that and to shine a light on the many different ways that nature and biodiversity supports human well-being and the economy.”

It’s not just governments using this type of data; businesses around the world are increasingly required to disclose the biodiversity risks of their operations, the Financial Times reports. At the same time, investors have shown more interest in companies that can show they are environmentally friendly, Viorel Popescu, an ecologist at Columbia University, told me.

Large corporations are major contributors to biodiversity loss, but Popescu said they are also at “the forefront of being able to do something about it,” and can often move at a faster pace than governments. With this in mind, Columbia University announced in September the creation of a master’s program focusing on biodiversity data analytics. The idea is to help businesspeople understand the implications of corporate operations on nature.

“We’ve been training ecologists to do ecology forever, and they don’t always get into places where they can actually make decisions, unfortunately,” said Popescu, who is the director of the program. He has been an ecologist for more than two decades and stressed that the new program is “trying to get people that don’t have necessarily an ecology or a conservation background…but are in the position of making a difference.”

Ecosystem accounting has revealed some staggering stats on nature’s financial contributions. Pollinators contribute $800 billion in gross economic value annually, including $34 billion in the United States. A recent federal report found that US birders spent an estimated $108 billion related to their pursuits in 2022 alone, which is almost six times the total revenue generated by the National Football League that year. Mangrove forests prevent more than $65 billion in property damage around the world each year, according to a 2020 study.

Even a single species can bring in the big bucks: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that the endangered North Atlantic right whale generated $2.3 billion in sales for the whale-watching industry and across the broader economy in 2008 alone. Conservation groups often use these analyses to make the case for protection of plants and wildlife.

“To participate in the commodification and financialization of our Relatives is an affront to the Natural Laws.”

Experts recognize that natural capital accounting has limitations, largely due to the diversity of ecosystems and what values different groups of people put on various services. Additionally, interactions across a single ecosystem can be incredibly complex, and “it can be hard to tease out what the value is of an individual component, because its value is not just [that component], but it’s how it interacts within this system to sustain life,” Mandle said. The UN has a framework to help countries track ecosystem services, though much of these processes are case by case.

In recent years, new markets have emerged to commodify nature-based solutions through the sale of carbon offsets or “biodiversity credits,” which represent a measured unit of biodiversity protection that companies can purchase to support conservation. However, critics say the “financialization of nature” fails to recognize its intrinsic value, and could actually work against its protection.

“Only humans would have the audacity to assign ‘financial value’, in their colonial thought process ways, to the Sources of Life and the living beings that are our relatives,” Casey Camp- Horinek, an elder of the Ponca Nation of Oklahoma and chairwoman of the Indigenous Council of the Global Alliance of the Rights of Nature, said in a statement on the group’s website. “We do not own anything that is called Nature, we are Nature, and to participate in the commodification and financialization of our Relatives is an affront to the Natural Laws and quite simply wrong.”

Popescu said he’s “conflicted” about assigning financial values to ecosystem services. “But at the same time, I’m well aware that if we don’t try to do that, you’re not going to advance the conversation,” he said.

Echoing this sentiment, Mandle said that while it’s crucial to also consider the intangible values of nature, “there are some decisions that get made, you know, comparing numbers, lines on a spreadsheet, or weighing costs and benefits.”

It’s a “head approach and a heart approach,” she said. “I think they work together.”

In any case, it’s clear that environmental degradation and climate change are already taking a heavy toll on the global economy, costing trillions of dollars annually, according to a UN report released in December. “I think [natural capital accounting] has become especially relevant recently as the size of the human enterprise relative to Earth systems has grown,” Mandle said. “Many of these values have only been apparent once they’ve been lost.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s USDA Is Hiding the Data on Food Stamp Cuts

On December 1, under President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—which more than 40 million Americans rely on—introduced new work requirements for people verging on retirement age.

Millions of adults ages of 55 to 64 may now be locked out of the program if they’re not able to work—and in a one-two punch of attacks on federal services, the USDA has terminated its annual Food Insecurity Survey, making it impossible to know just how devastating an impact Trump’s backdoor SNAP cuts will have on aging adults who are unable to get exemptions from their state.

In normal conditions, said Tufts University food economist Parke Wilde. policymakers and government workers would ask, “‘What are the consequences of policy changes this fall so that we can calibrate and improve the program in the future?’ We won’t be able to do that this year.”

Targeted actions to eliminate federal government data have accompanied countless other Trump administration cuts and defundings: An executive order by Trump curtailed the collection of gender and sexuality information in federal surveys, and the Institute of Education Sciences, which disseminates education data, faced mass layoffs last year.

What existing data tells us is that tacking on new SNAP work requirements leads people to lose their benefits. Research from George Washington University found that between 2013 and 2017, changes to SNAP work requirement waivers led to around one-third of adults without dependents losing SNAP benefits. “There is scant evidence that work requirements are effective in helping people gain employment or become more self-sufficient, and there is strong evidence that work requirements create hardships,” the researchers concluded.

Colleen Helfin, a Syracuse University professor of public administration and international affairs, said that around half of early retirements between the ages of 55 and 65 are the result of health issues or difficulties maintaining employment, often compounded by challenging state processes to seek exemption from

“It’s really important for states to be thinking about the administrative burden,” Helfin said. “All these things become a little bit harder as people become older, and they may have declines in hearing, sight or cognitive function.”

Some states try to reduce hurdles, rather than add them, explained Lauren Schuyler, a specialist in family welfare at the University of Maryland School of Social Work.

“Having your practitioner provide documentation or proving that you have disabilities is just an added layer of that administrative burden,” Schuyler said, which is especially likely to strip SNAP from people in their fifties and through mid-sixties. With the USDA’s decision to quit tracking food insecurity, the impact will remain unclear and far more challenging to address.

Helfin is wary of smaller organizations trying to fill the data gap left by USDA—but some states are seeing an effort to do so.

“There’s a movement for state legislators to pass bills to mandate the state measurement of food insecurity, perhaps putting it on something like the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey,” Helfin said.

In response to a request for comment, a USDA spokesperson characterized the Food Insecurity Survey as “subjective, liberal fodder” designed “as a means to support the increase of SNAP eligibility and benefit allotments.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

ICE’s Tear Gas Sent a 6-Month-Old to the Hospital, the Latest in an Alarming Pattern

A mother in Minneapolis rushed to perform CPR on her 6-month-old baby on Wednesday night after federal immigration agents deployed a flash bang and chemical agent near her car, leading all six of her children to be taken to the hospital.

The Jackson family told local news outlets that they were coming home from their son’s basketball game when they got stuck between protesters and immigration agents, unable to drive away. That’s when, according to the family, their car began filling with a chemical irritant.

“All we heard was BOOM and every airbag deployed,” Destiny Jackson, the mother, told KARE 11 News.

She recalled screaming for her children to get out of the car and hearing them say that they couldn’t maneuver out—and couldn’t breathe. Bystanders rushed to help as Destiny said she screamed out for her youngest.

“He was just lifeless, like he had foam around his mouth,” she said. “He had tears coming out of his eyes. “I was giving him mouth-to-mouth, and I remember stopping, and I said, ‘I will give you all my breath ‘til you get yours back.’”

“Nobody wants to see their kids like that,” Jackson said, visibly holding back tears as she discussed the violence.

The whole family was taken to the hospital. Destiny called the incident “very traumatizing” in a GoFundMe post, writing that “never in a million years would I have thought something like this would happen to me and my family.”

In an X post that appears to have been taken down, DHS appeared to blame the Jackson family for their hospitalization. “It is horrific to see radical agitators bring children to their violent riots,” adding, “PLEASE STOP ENDANGERING YOUR CHILDREN.”

This isn’t the first time kids have been on the receiving end of chemical weapons used by federal immigration agents in the Trump administration’s mass deportation plans. These include incidents where children have been harmed as ICE agents targeted their parents with chemical agents. Young people have also been caught in the crosshairs at protests or nearby. Several incidents of tear gas have taken place at schools.

Just a week earlier in Minneapolis, and just hours after ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renée Nicole Good in her car, US Border Patrol agents descended upon Roosevelt High School, “began tackling people,” and “handcuffed two staff members and released chemical weapons on bystanders,” according to reporting from Minnesota Public Radio. The Department of Homeland Security denied that tear gas was used; the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers said in a statement that agents did use a chemical irritant.

The incident prompted Minneapolis Public Schools to cancel classes for the remainder of the week for the whole district. The school system is now allowing for remote learning through at least February 12 after a district spokesperson said they had received “multiple threats impacting several MPS schools.” The charter school where one of Good’s children attends has also switched to online learning following right-wing attacks, according to reporting from Sahan Journal.

And it’s not just kids in Minneapolis, nor is it just this month.

In July 2025, children were seen on video running away from a chemical agent that ICE set off during a raid on farmworkers in Southern California.

In August, a Portland grade school announced that it was relocating as an “emergency move” due to dangerous conditions surrounding a nearby ICE facility. “We have been impacted mostly by chemical weapons that are being used against protesters in the vicinity of our school,” the school’s interim executive director explained at the time, adding that they had routinely found “munitions” on the playground.

Multiple incidents involving alleged chemical agents and children were also reported in Chicago last fall.

On the Northwest side of the city in late October, Border Patrol agents reportedly interrupted a children’s Halloween parade, deployed chemical agents, and tackled and arrested several people, including US citizens, according to residents in the neighborhood and videos verified by ABC News.

Days later, near the Logan Square neighborhood, federal agents threw a chemical irritant onto a busy street near an elementary school, with DHS later justifying the action by claiming protesters had been impeding an activeoperation. According to reporting from ABC 7, children were playing on the monkey bars at school moments before officials threw tear gas canisters from a white SUV.

Shortly after, in November, in a Chicago suburb, video showed what appearedto be a federal agent in a truck spraying a chemical irritant into a car as it drove past. In that car was Rafael Veraza and his family, including his one-year-old daughter, who was reportedly impacted by the chemical agent.

“My daughter was trying to open her eyes,” Veraza told reporters at a press conference following the interaction. “She was struggling to breathe.”

“Us, as adults,” he said, “we can handle it. But as kids, they shouldn’t be targeting kids.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

These Finnish Homes Are Being Heated by a Surprising Source: Bitcoin Mining

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

For someone who cares about climate change, Matt Carlsson had what seemed like a dream job: teaching clients how to decarbonize buildings. But he was frustrated. He could give customers the tools to improve energy efficiency and phase out fossil fuels, but if they couldn’t easily turn his guidance into cost savings, they’d simply ignore him.

“Most of these people are not going to take action,” he realized, “because there’s not going to be a business case.”

Carlsson decided that he’d need to find a job where he could make the case for energy efficiency on economic terms. This led him somewhere surprising: bitcoin.

Mining bitcoin throws off an enormous amount of heat. That’s because the “mining” in question refers to the energy-intensive computational process by which bitcoin transactions are verified. In a typical transaction, a boxy computer attempts to solve what’s essentially a very complex math problem. If it can do this before any of the other “miners” working on the problem across the world, the miner is rewarded with bitcoin of its own.

This process takes a whole lot of power; overall, bitcoin mining accounted for an estimated 0.5 percent of global electricity use in 2024. The more complex the task at hand, the more electricity is needed—and the more heat is created. Essentially, as long as it’s lucrative to mine bitcoin, it’s going to spit out a lot of extra heat as a byproduct. The question becomes: Can that heat be put to beneficial use?

“It’s not a bad thing to be able to heat homes in an affordable way. But does that provide justification for the industry?”

That’s where Carlsson comes in. He’s now helping to heat the homes of 80,000 residents in Finland with waste heat from local cryptocurrency miners, as a part of a project run by his new employer, the bitcoin mining company MARA Holdings.

Water runs through MARA’s miners, which are stored in black metal units in the center of the towns, cooling them off before coming out at a scalding 122 to 172 degrees Fahrenheit (50 to 78 degrees Celsius). From there, the water is pumped underground through the cities’ existing district heating systems, drastically cutting down the need for traditional boilers. As a result, MARA’s two bitcoin districts have avoided greenhouse gas emissions roughly equivalent to those produced by 700 US homes since its first project came online in 2024.

Carlsson thinks this model could be expanded to cities and buildings across the world—and he’s not the only one. Joint bitcoin mining and heating operations are popping up across Finland, an ideal location because of its cool climate and existing district heating systems that companies can easily plug into. Terahash Energy’s “Genesis” project, for example, is sending waste heat from bitcoin mining to be used in an industrial area in the Nordic nation, plus some nearby homes. The global bitcoin mining infrastructure firm Hashlabs hosts six sites connecting miners to district heating systems elsewhere in Finland, with more in the works.

“It’s a business, after all,” said Alen Makhmetov, co-founder of Hashlabs. “I just want to make our business much more sustainable, robust, and long term,” he said. Though there’s a climate case to be made for the operation as well, Makhmetov means “sustainable” in an economic sense. That’s because Hashlabs is now insulated from a crash in the price of bitcoin—if it loses crypto revenue, it’ll still get revenue for its heating services. The heating customers are insulated, too: Hashlabs has promised to continue producing heat, even if the value of bitcoin makes its mining unprofitable.

“It was really a no-brainer in terms of: Why not do this?” said Adam Swick, MARA’s chief strategy officer. That’s because MARA gets to pull in two revenue streams: The company earns bitcoin by mining, of course, but it also earns a fee from the districts for supplying heat—all while receiving the water necessary to cool its miners for free. Each of MARA’s bitcoin heating systems are sized so they provide the minimum heat needed year-round in the cities where they operate. (In the winter, the districts use a combination of electric and biomass boilers to provide extra heat.)

Residents of the two locations where MARA operates, the region of Satakunta and the city Seinäjoki, might not realize that anything has changed, since they’re getting heat from the same pipes that they always have. “That’s kind of the goal, that nobody’s impacted,” Swick said. MARA assumed all equipment costs and is providing heat at a lower price compared to electric heating companies.

Through MARA’s eyes, it’s better for the climate, too. District heating systems in Finland are mostly powered by burning biomass, such as wood chips. While biomass is considered renewable by some, including the European Union, it still emits carbon when burned. **(**In the two sites where MARA installed its bitcoin miners, the districts were also burning peat.) By cutting down on the amount of biomass and peat the districts need to use, MARA calculates that it has mitigated almost 5,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the 1.5 years that its districts have been operating. (To come up with this tally, the company references the latest official count of emissions caused by producing and consuming electricity in Finland to figure out how many emissions are caused by the miners, and then it compares that to the emissions stemming from traditional district heating in Finland.)

But the scheme won’t make sense for every district heating system in the Nordic nation, because many of them are already highly efficient. Nearly half source their heat from co-generation plants, or power plants that are already burning fuel for the electricity grid. These systems “harvest that heat to be as efficient as possible,” said Eric Bosworth, founder of Thermal Energy Insights, where he advises on projects to transition heating systems from gas to low-carbon thermal energy networks. That weakens the case for heating with bitcoin.

“If a bitcoin operation is already planned, then that heat should definitely be recovered.”

And even where using waste heat from co-generation plants is not possible, reusing the heat from bitcoin mining is by no means the ideal form of efficient heating—although it is undoubtedly better than letting it go to waste. Bitcoin miners use the same amount of energy as an electric-resistance water heater. Essentially, one unit of energy in produces one unit of heat out. That pales in comparison to the efficiency of electric heat pumps.

But while converting to heat pumps would be far more efficient, that would require costly overhauls; each individual building would have to install a heat pump and the associated infrastructure. Most existing systems are not prepared to bear these costs—another version of the dilemma Carlsson found himself confronting before he joined MARA.

When district heating systems find themselves overly reliant on imported fossil fuel sources, however, waste heat from bitcoin can offer a cost-effective solution that comes with a plausible climate case. Hashlabs got its first contract for a bitcoin heating district after Russia invaded Ukraine, sending energy prices soaring. Some district heating plants that relied on natural gas had gone bankrupt and “needed to either shut down or innovate,” said Makhmetov. Bitcoin mining offered a cheaper solution—one that provided heat with far less need for fossil fuels.

Of course, it’s easy to argue that the one thing better than efficiently using bitcoin’s waste heat is not mining bitcoin at all. Out of all forms of crypto, bitcoin consumes the most electricity—more than a small country—because of the particularly energy-intensive way it verifies transactions, which is called proof of work.

Given that most electricity grids today still run primarily on fossil fuels—unlike in Finland, which is powered by nearly 95 percent carbon-free sources, including nuclear and biomass—this could severely limit the climate case of welcoming bitcoin mining to harness its waste heat.

“It’s not a bad thing to be able to heat homes in an affordable way,” said Johanna Fornberg, a senior research specialist at the environmental advocacy nonprofit Greenpeace. “But does that actually provide justification for the industry? I would argue it does not.”

“We want to avoid believing these claims that bitcoin is providing a solution where there otherwise is not one,” she added. Greenpeace, along with other climate organizations, has advocated for bitcoin to change its verification method, which would cut its energy use drastically.

In a world where decarbonization efforts frequently involve tradeoffs, Carlsson is happy that, in this case at least, bitcoin mining produces what looks to him like a win-win.

“When I first started learning about bitcoin, I was leery of it and trying to figure out if it was a scam,” he said. Seven years later, two tiny miners sit atop his desk. “Now, I feel like a missionary, part of a strange cult.”

Still, if operations like MARA’s expand further, it could mean fossil power plants in Finland have to run more, increasing overall emissions, just to have enough energy to power bitcoin mining, Bosworth said. “I think the more valid argument is that if a bitcoin operation is already planned, then that heat should definitely be recovered and sent to a district where possible,” he said.

A reduction in energy use stemming from reuse of mining’s waste-heat “is more of a positive side-effect that largely has a negative climate impact,” said Fornberg, “not something that we want to incentivize and become increasingly reliant on in the long term.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

How Trump Is Using Violent Tragedies to Divide America

Once again, the response was quick, fuming, and filled with falsehoods.

On January 7, about five hours after a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis fatally shot a woman in her SUV, President Donald Trump addressed the reckless killing in a social-media post: The victim, he said, “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense. Based on the attached clip, it is hard to believe he is alive.”

Those were lies. Trump shared murky slow-motion footage from a distant door camera, but clearer videos from eyewitnesses had already gone viral and showed the reality. ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot Renee Good, an American citizen and 37-year-old mother of three, point-blank through the windshield and open driver’s-side window as Good tried to turn her slow-moving vehicle away from him. Ross then reholstered his gun and walked down the street toward where the SUV had crashed, eyewitness video showed. (Moments later in that same video, Ross can be seen even more clearly walking back up the street and showing no signs of serious injury. Trump officials have since claimed that Ross suffered from an unspecified degree of internal bleeding.)

Trump’s post culminated with him blaming Good’s death on what he said was a sprawling conspiracy targeting ICE agents: “We need to stand by and protect our Law Enforcement Officers from this Radical Left Movement of Violence and Hate!” Just over a week later, amid tense protests and further violence by ICE in Minneapolis, he threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act.

Trump’s vitriol, though often seen as “unhinged” by critics, is methodical and by design. He uses any violent national tragedy as political ammo. During his first year back in the White House, he has seized upon assassinations, mass shootings, and other deadly traumas to stoke partisan division and justify extreme policies and actions. Fact-finding in the aftermath of a tragedy does not matter to him—only setting the narrative does.

“He only speaks in one key, and that key is division.”

His top officials back him in lockstep. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem declared shortly after Good’s killing—before any investigation—that Good had committed “an act of domestic terrorism.” Noem’s description of what happened with the ICE agents defied reality: “A woman attacked them, and those surrounding them, and attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle.” Vice President JD Vance blamed the deceased victim for “an attack on the American people,” declaring it “classic terrorism.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated that Good’s death was “a result of a larger, sinister left-wing movement that has spread across our country.”

The brazen lying and demonization were familiar, the latest in a pattern from Trump that has included his response to the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, a mass shooting at a Mormon church, a terrorist attack on National Guard soldiers, and even the shocking murders of Hollywood icon Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele. (Details on these and others below.)

Most modern presidents have sought to console and reassure the country in the face of national tragedy, but Trump’s behavior stands alone, says Matt Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University. “He seems incapable of trying to unify people or issue words of healing,” Dallek says. “I can’t think of a single instance in which he tried to calm tempers. He only speaks in one key, and that key is division.”

Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, President George W. Bush stated that true Islam “is peace” and urged Americans not to vilify millions of Muslims who were making “an incredibly valuable contribution to our country.” After the devastating gun massacre at a historic Black church in South Carolina in 2015, President Barack Obama called for national soul-searching and emphasized the power of goodness and grace over racist hatred.

You have to go back half a century, to “law and order” hardliner Richard Nixon, to find a more combative approach, Dallek notes. Yet even though Nixon was bilious and conspiratorial against the political left, he was more measured in his public reaction to national trauma and less willing than Trump to disregard reality. Nixon’s messaging included victim-blaming after four students were shot dead by national guard troops at Kent State University in May 1970—but he also acknowledged that most in the protest movement were “very peaceful” and said he would withhold judgement about the shooting until after a factual investigation.

Trump’s tactics have been effective for helping him maintain a minority base of fervent supporters, says Dallek. “They can all get behind this idea that whatever is happening within MAGA is much less worse than the threat of ‘the radical left.’”

He adds: “It justifies, after the fact, his very aggressive and even extremist policies, including the unleashing of ICE on blue cities and states. The narrative he creates says to all his supporters that what he’s doing is ‘destroying the enemy within,’ that he’s taking care of the scourge that he promised to address. I think it’s a mistake to discount just how powerful that can be.”

Trump provokes so much news and controversy for the public to process that his exploitation of violent tragedies tends to fade quickly from consciousness. The rhetoric has an intended effect, then attention is gone. But scrutiny of recent disasters reveals the clear pattern by which Trump has built up a leftist bogeyman (including designating antifaa domestic terrorist group) and hasfurther cultivated contempt for immigrants and political adversaries.

“With God as my witness”

When Charlie Kirk was assassinated last September, the Trump White House emphasized blame, rapidly and without evidence, on a broad conspiracy. Law enforcement authorities announced in the initial aftermath that the suspect charged in the killing, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, likely acted alone—and no evidence to the contrary has emerged in the more than four months since. Nevertheless, top Trump aide Stephen Miller hammered home the preferred narrative on Kirk’s former podcast, in a conversation with Vance that was live-streamed from the White House five days after the killing. “It is a vast domestic terror movement,” Miller said. “And with God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks…and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi pushed broader blame in an interview with ABC News: “Who killed Charlie?” she asked. “Left-wing radicals, and they will be held accountable.” On Newsmax, Dan Bongino, then the FBI deputy director, leaned into talk of investigating a possible conspiracy.

“That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent.”

Inside a Phoenix stadium 11 days after the killing, Trump led the memorializing of Kirk as a persecuted martyr. He said that Kirk had faced “menacing hate” everywhere on his campus tours from “rage-filled radicals.” He denounced “antifa terrorists” and claimed that “many of these people” allegedly targeting Kirk were highly paid “agitators.”

In an especially dark turn, Trump went off script after saying that Kirk was a “noble spirit” with a forgiving view of the political opposition. “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie,” Trump added, waxing sardonic. “I hate my opponent. And I don’t want the best for them.”

“Another targeted attack on Christians”

Later in September, a man committed a mass shooting and arson at a Mormon church in Michigan and was quickly killed by police. Less than three hours afterward, Trump commented on social media: “The suspect is dead, but there is still a lot to learn.” In that same post, however, he declared a motive: “This appears to be yet another targeted attack on Christians in the United States of America.” Asked the next morning about motive on Fox & Friends, Leavitt said she’d learned from FBI director Kash Patel that all they knew so far was that the killer “hated people of the Mormon faith.”

Further media reporting on the perpetrator, who killed four victims and injured eight others, soon complicated the Trump narrative of a war on Christianity. Friends said that 40-year-old Thomas Sanford was a right-wing Republican. Social media posts showed he’d backed Trump for president, and recently a Trump sign had been displayed on his home. His grievance with the Mormon church appeared to hinge specifically on a rough breakup he’d gone through years prior with a Mormon girlfriend. He was an ex-Marine who’d served in Iraq and had a history of substance abuse. He had a young son with a rare genetic disorder, a source of emotional and financial strain. Sanford, in other words, was like many other suicidal mass killers: his pathway to violence was complex, with no clear ideological explanation.

The Trump White House said nothing further. Media coverage dwindled. But there was evidence from the start that some people had perceived the source of the massacre the way Trump wanted: As a Wall Street Journal reporter described from near the scene that day, “I’ve heard people yelling out car windows about radical leftists.”

“So whacked out”

Depending on who the victims are, Trump’s divisiveness has taken other forms—including what he doesn’t say or do in the aftermath. Back in June of last year, when a man in Minnesota hunted two Democratic state lawmakers at their homes, fatally shooting former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband and wounding Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Trump was notably muted as a search was underway for the suspect. Trump offered only a brief, uncharacteristic written statement, posted by Leavitt on his behalf, in which he denounced the violence generally and said that the DOJ and FBI were fully on the case. After the suspect was captured and evidence emerged that he was a Trump supporter who held extreme far-right views, Trump began using media interviews to trash Gov. Tim Walz as “grossly incompetent” and “a terrible governor.”

Normally after such a rare, high-stakes catastrophe, a president would offer support to regional leaders directly impacted, but not in this case. Trump sowed uncertainty in the media about whether he would reach out to Walz, and when asked again three days after the assassinations, he scoffed. “I think the governor of Minnesota is so whacked out. I’m not calling him,” he said. “The guy doesn’t have a clue. He’s a mess.”

Three months later, when asked by a reporter why he hadn’t ordered US flags lowered in honor of Hortman—as he had just done for Kirk—Trump said he was “not familiar” with who Hortman was. He added that he “wouldn’t have thought of” lowering flags for her and blamed Walz for not making the request. Earlier this January, Trump promoted a delusional conspiracy theory on social media suggesting that Walz himself was behind Hortman’s killing.

“We don’t want them in our country”

After an Afghan national gunned down two National Guard members in a terrorist attack just before Thanksgiving in Washington, DC, Trump unleashed a broad tirade against immigrants. The shooter had first been resettled in the US in 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome, a program for some who’d fought alongside the US military in Afghanistan. But although the shooter had later been approved for asylum under the Trump administration in 2025, Trump railed against his predecessor, vowing to “re-examine every single alien who has entered our country from Afghanistan under Biden.” In those same remarks from Mar-a-Lago the day of the attack, Trump went on to demonize “hundreds of thousands of Somalians” in Minnesota (overstating and misnaming that population). He blamed them for “ripping off billions of dollars” and alleged they hate America.

Trump soon amped up his dehumanizing rhetoric as ICE began aggressive operations targeting Somalis and others in the Minneapolis region. During a Dec. 2 cabinet meeting broadcast live, the president laced into Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, whom he has vilified for years: “She’s garbage. Her friends are garbage. These aren’t people who work.” He said further of the Somali community, “When they come from hell and they complain and do nothing but bitch, we don’t want them in our country. Let them go back to where they came from and fix it.”

Trump’s team applauded as Vance pounded the table enthusiastically.

“A very sad thing happened last night”

Trump’s reaction to another high-profile tragedy late last year seemed especially revealing. It is difficult to conceive of any purpose—other than to express vengeful satisfaction and provoke outrage—for his response to the news that Rob and Michele Reiner had been stabbed to death in their home, and that their long-troubled son Nick was the suspected killer.

Trump’s victim-blaming post on social media was bizarre, degrading, and grim: “A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME… He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness.”

The outrage came indeed. (“We are led by the most loathsome human being ever to occupy the White House,” wrote conservative columnist Bret Stephens.)

This pattern of conduct from Trump may be pushing the nation farther down a dark path, says Dallek, the historian. One concern is that the more violent events we have, the more divided the country could become. “Because the interpretation of those events by different factions is so in conflict, each violent episode worsens the atmosphere. It inflames people on all sides, and it’s impossible at that point for reason to triumph over the fury that people feel, in some cases justifiably.”

Trump has made clear repeatedly that he may further attempt to use the American military against Americans.

The risk has heightened around the killing of Renee Good and as ICE and Border Patrol operations have grown more lawless and violent. In Dallek’s view, Trump’s signals have been disturbingly clear: disinterest in the real facts of what’s happening on the ground, a total absence of accountability, and the White House doubling down on claims that it is their militarized deportation forces, not communities, that are under siege.

“To all ICE officers,” Miller declared on Fox News this week, “you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties.”

“It creates a kind of permission structure,” Dallek says. “I think the leaders of the Trump administration have told ICE and Border Patrol to take off the gloves, to be very aggressive. Now we are seeing the results of that message on the streets of American cities.”

Trump’s latest threat has long been building. Though the federal courts recently thwarted some of his extended deployments of National Guard troops, he has made clear repeatedly that he may further attempt to use the American military against Americans.

“We have an Insurrection Act for a reason,” he told reporters in the Oval Office last fall. “If people were being killed and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I’d do that.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

A Federal Agent Shot Another Person in Minneapolis. Then Trump Threatened the Insurrection Act.

The Trump administration’s offensive against immigrants in Minneapolis—and those who seek to help them—continued to intensify Wednesday night and into Thursday after a federal agent shot another person during an immigration operation.

President Donald Trump, in a Thursday morning Truth social post, threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act—a centuries-old law that allows the president to deploy the US military domestically.

The move comes after another chaotic night in Minneapolis during which a federal agent shot a man in the leg, according to the Department of Homeland Security. The City of Minneapolis said that the man was taken to the hospital with a non-life threatening injury.

According to DHS, the man was a Venezuelan national who was a target in an immigration operation. The federal agency claimed in a statement on X that officers were assaulted on the scene prior to the shooting and that an agent was also taken to the hospital.

This latest shooting by a federal agent comes just one week after ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Rénee Nicole Good in her car.

In a post commenting on initial reports of the shooting, US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Wednesday evening that there was a “Minnesota insurrection” happening. Blanche, who used to be Trump’s personal attorney, accused Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz of “encouraging violence against law enforcement.” Both Frey and Walz have multiple times called for peaceful protests against ICE’s actions in the city.

“Walz and Frey,” Blanche wrote, “I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.”

President Trump threatening to send the military into a US city under the Insurrection Act isn’t a new idea for the administration. Back in 2023 in an interview with the New York Times, Stephen Miller,Trump’s longtime advisor, said that they were already planning to invoke the law to apprehend immigrants.

The ongoing situation in Minneapolis has been intensifying for over a month and has only become more acute after the killing of Good. Videos from the frontlines, including many published by Mother Jones, show federal agents violently pulling a woman from her car, repeatedly deploying chemical agents on protestors, and otherwise continuing their offensive against those DHS claims are in the country without legal status—in their home, at school, and at work.

In a Wednesday night address, Gov. Walz spoke directly to Minnesotans, urging them to continue to record ICE’s actions. “If you see these ICE agents in your neighborhood, take out that phone and record. Help us create a database of the atrocities against Minnesotans. Not just to establish a record for posterity, but to bank evidence for future prosecution,” he said, once again telling protestors to respond peacefully. “Trump wants this chaos,” Walz added. “He wants confusion. And yes, he wants more violence on our streets. We cannot give him what he wants. We can’t. We must protest loudly, urgently, but also peacefully.”

Watch my address on the ongoing federal presence in Minnesota:https://t.co/n4AqTkHXRx

— Governor Tim Walz (@GovTimWalz) January 15, 2026

“This long ago stopped being a matter of immigration enforcement, instead, it’s a campaign of organized brutality against the people of Minnesota by the federal government,” Walz said, telling Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to “end this occupation.”

Continue Reading…