Mother Jones: Posts

Mother Jones

Trump’s Surgeon General Pick Proves Devoted to MAHA’s Dangerous Talking Points

President Donald Trump’s pick for surgeon general, wellness influencer Casey Means, parroted various MAHA talking points throughout a Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday, while deflecting on key issues such as vaccines and birth control. Some of Means’ responses even appeared to contradict previous public health-related statements she’s made in order to fall in line with the administration.

The MAHA talking points included a push for “informed consent” where “patients [or parents] need to have a conversation with their doctor” to ensure “faith in public health.” Then, “I don’t think it’s responsible to make a blanket statement for all Americans” when discussing the safety of vaccines and birth control pills. Instead, Means claimed, that public health officials should “focus on the root causes of why we are sick.”

Her remarks on vaccines and birth control pills were particularly troubling. She largely disregarded decades of overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccines do not cause autism, insisting that “we should not leave any stone unturned” to promote further investigation. Means also backed her previous claim that birth control represents a “disrespect for life” and carries “horrifying health risks” for women, telling senators Wednesday that “all medications have risks and benefits” and provided the example of “blood clots and stroke risk in women who have clotting disorders, who are smokers, who have obesity.”

In a telling exchange, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) cited a newsletter from August 2024, in which Means pointed to the World Health Organization’s warning against glyphosate and argued that people should avoid conventionally grown foods that hurt, among several other reasons, “your cellular health.” But when asked about Trump’s executive order last week that sought to ensure “an adequate supply” of glyphosate-based herbicides, such as Roundup, Means appeared to deflect. Instead, Means backed her previous claims on removing toxic chemicals from food but refused to note the difference in the Trump administration’s position.

“I’m just trying to help you to agree with yourself,” Markey said.

“We are in a very complicated moment for agriculture and food,” Means responded. “We cannot overturn the entire agriculture system overnight.”

As my colleagues Kiera Butler and Anna Merlan wrote last May after Means’ nomination, the wellness influencer was a campaign adviser during now-Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s 2024 presidential bid and a key promoter of his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.

Means has even appeared to alarm some of Kennedy’s allies, who have criticized her as “sinister [functionary] of Big Pharma, Big Food, or something much worse.” At Wednesday’s hearing, Democrats pointed to Means’ history of promoting products while rarely disclosing that she was earning financial compensation from their developers.

MURPHY: Your filings show you started receiving compensation in spring 2024, yet in Sept 2024 you posted a video saying you had 'no financial relationship w/ the company, just a big fan.' You weren't telling the truth.MEANS: If I said I wasn't receiving money, I wasn't receiving money at that time

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-02-25T16:25:24.209Z

In little over a year, Kennedy has proven that, in the Trump administration, what is said during one’s confirmation hearing testimony can’t exactly be relied upon. The secretary hasn’t followed through with many of the promises he made last year, including supporting childhood vaccines and not scaling back vaccine funding. Taken together, there might be little to believe when Means claims that she will protect things like birth control or that “anti-vaccine rhetoric has never been a part of [her] message.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Watch: Gregory Bovino Asks Our Journalist to Bake Him a Pie

It all started when Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker tweeted that “Gregory Bovino has to go.” Bovino—the erstwhile roving warlord atop President Donald Trump’s Border Patrol junta—had other ideas. And those ideas involved armed federal agents. And pie.

“Nah, gubner, too busy leading agents to arrest illegal aliens,” Bovino responded. “Besides, Chicago may need another double digit drop in a whole smorgasbord of violent crime, compliments of the Green Machine. Perhaps we could meet for a sugar-free slice of heirloom apple pie -on me!”

Bovino’s threat to launch a renewed Border Patrol occupation of Chicago, apparently as retribution for a politician criticizing him, was certainly news. And journalist Amanda Moore—who has spent months covering Bovino and federal law enforcement for Mother Jones and other outlets—quickly pointed that out.

What happened next was bizarre—and a bit creepy.

“Perhaps you could make the pie for us,” Bovino tweeted at Moore.

You didn't say it correctly – a sugar-free slice of HIERLOOM apple pie. Perhaps you could make the pie for us

— Commander Op At Large CA Gregory K. Bovino (@CMDROpAtLargeCA) February 12, 2026

“Commander it would be my honor, just tell me where to go,” Moore responded.

“Most excellent,” Bovino wrote. “I’ll let the gubner know you’ll be taking care of his appetite, in a healthy way.”

Things got even weirder from there, with Bovino at one point writing, “I’d love to see you bustling around the gubner’s kitchen fixing us a pie.”

I'd love to see you bustling around the gubner's kitchen fixing us a pie. I truly would.

— Commander Op At Large CA Gregory K. Bovino (@CMDROpAtLargeCA) February 12, 2026

Moore asked for an interview. “Would love to also talk about all your accomplishments!!!” she wrote.

This time, Bovino didn’t respond.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Inside Epstein’s Very Own “Oval Office”: Power, Peacocking, and Printer Toner

Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump shared a lot of things, especially chasing women through New York City high society of the 1990s and early 2000s. But this detail caught my eye in the Epstein files. They also shared, in two different cities and times, the name for their respective command centers: the “Oval Office.”

One is the very real seat of American presidential power currently occupied by Trump. The other was the nickname for Epstein World’s operations hub—the study in his infamous Upper East Side townhouse, through which his every bidding was executed by longtime assistant Lesley Groff.

Like a lot of journalists, I’ve found myself scouring the Epstein files—3.5 million poorly organized pages cataloging cloying elites and the misdeeds of the deceased financier. The disclosures have already claimed a Rolodex of executives and politicians, and led to the first arrest of a British Royal since Charles I in 1647. They’ve also become a near-hourly drumbeat of scandal encircling the real Oval Office, the one with the president who is named “more than a million times” times (according to Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who’s seen more of them than most.)

As I built timelines and pried open money trails for a separate investigation I’m working on, this phrase kept reappearing: “Oval Office.” At first, I was stunned that Epstein was talking about carpets in the real Oval with such familiarity. Then it clicked: Was this a nickname for something else? I used the AI tool Claude to sweep the trove for the term and its variants, narrowing findings down to 5,162 pages worthy of deeper analysis. Plenty referenced the actual Oval Office. But mixed in—plain as day—was Epstein’s own pet name for the beating heart of his global operation.

Once I realized this detail, it was a key to unlock a newly intimate, and oftentimes banal, view of everyday life at the gargantuan French neoclassical townhouse at 9 East 71st Street. Track the phrase through the documents and it begins to map the contours of Epstein’s influence network: how it worked, what it procured, and which men came through his “Oval.” Daily reports, scheduling, and household management all routed through the “Oval.” It’s where Epstein kept his passport in an unmarked hanging folder and his credit card details, and once stashed the key to the office of Martin Nowak, a professor whom Harvard sanctioned for his Epstein ties. (Nowak didn’t comment on the arrangement.) The Oval was also where Epstein’s “girls” slung purses and prepped for trips to Little St. James, a.k.a. Epstein Island, and where the bold-faced names of Epstein’s circle lounged underneath standup comic Bobby Slayton’s mounted guitar. (Slayton said he gifted Epstein a guitar decorated to honor his birthplace, Coney Island, as thanks for the use of an apartment between gigs. “I’m only guilty of being friends with that idiot,” he told me, calling Epstein “repulsive.”)

Much is already known about what could be found inside Epstein’s mansion: the sculpture of a bride clinging to a rope above the grand stairway; the life-sized stuffed tiger on a rug in what Vanity Fair described in 2003 as “an enormous gallery spanning the width of the house”—Epstein’s opulent personal office stuffed with rococo collectibles. A sideboard displayed a first edition of Lolita and a framed photograph with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman. But this exploration of the files placed me deep inside the Oval, the lesser-known but perhaps most functionally critical of all the mansion’s 40 rooms.

Epstein and his staff referred to this study variously as the “Oval Office,” the “Oval Room,” and simply “the Oval,” so much so that the name appears to have been adopted in redesign proposals for the townhouse (“Oval Study Room”)—according to a 2014 rendering included in the trove as part of a proposal by AC Atelier, a Chicago-based interior design firm. (When called, the firm declined to comment on confidential client work.) Was it, in fact, ovoid? Yes, an FBI warrant in July 2019 described it as so.

Black-and-white architectural floor plan showing a large residential main level with labeled rooms including a formal dining room, kitchen with pantry and butler pantry, central stair hall, oval study room, entry hall, sitting room, security room, bathrooms, coat rooms, elevator, and multiple vestibules and staircases.

A floor plan of Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, found as part of a redesign proposal in the Epstein Files, shows the oval study room, bottom right, where visitors waited, bags were stored, and assorted Epstein World business was conducted.Department of Justice

The nickname appears in some of the earliest documents in the trove: a Skype call was arranged for Lord Peter Mandelson to take from the “Oval Office” in June 2009, when he was Britain’s First Secretary of State to Prime Minister Gordon Brown. In September 2025, Mandelson was dismissed as Britain’s ambassador to the US. He is accused, among other things, of sharing government secrets with Epstein, and was arrested on Monday by British police “on suspicion of misconduct in public office.”

But the Oval Office was also the heart of the humdrum home office needs. Take this request from one aide, familiar to office-goers everywhere: “Do you know if we have any toner anywhere for the printer in oval office?”

By 2010, the term was completely routine: Epstein discussed wallpaper choices “for the oval office” and pressed the staff about the whereabouts of his new oval office lamp (“The tall, thin, clear acrylic thing??” an apparently freaked-out assistant asked Groff). In Epstein’s personal digital address book, his own contact entry included a dedicated line labeled “Oval.” An Office Depot invoice—for a dozen Sharpies, a duster, and a box of bubble wrap, among other stationery—was shipped directly to “OVAL OFFICE” at the mansion’s street address. In a separate email, Epstein instructed staff that “phones need to be programmed to call oval office,” as part of a punch list of home renovation tasks that also included changing the carpet in the elevator.

“There is a package in the oval office on the coffee table marked for Ehud Barak.”

The Oval was the operations center for Epstein’s wide network of granting favors—and gifts—to the rich and powerful. An email dated May 13, 2012, instructed household staff that “There is a package in the oval office on the coffee table marked for Ehud Barak,” the former Israeli Prime Minister. Someone was to “put it in a shopping bag and label the bag for ‘Judith Tiomkin’ and drop the bag off at 880 Fifth Ave.” In other correspondence, Barak’s wife, Nili Priel, organized to pick it up from the intermediary. (This mysterious Tiomkin could not be reached for comment.)

In October 2016, staff were dispatched by Groff to the Apple Store on Fifth Avenue to pick up a Hermès-branded Apple Watch (2016 starting retail price, $1,149) for Soon-Yi Previn, Woody Allen’s wife. Emails note that the watch was to be gift-wrapped with a watch band found in the Oval’s desk drawer and delivered to Previn for her birthday. Two years earlier, Groff told Karyna Shuliak, Epstein’s last known girlfriend, to pick up “2 bags in the Oval Office both labeled for Soon Yi,” insisting they “need to go on the helicopter tomorrow!” In follow-up logistics, Groff outlined an East Side helipad departure to “Woody’s house,” noting that “Woody’s shoot is at Salve Regina College”—a Newport, Rhode Island, location Allen used for Irrational Man (2015), starring Emma Stone and Joaquin Phoenix. (I asked Previn if she’d received the watch but I didn’t hear back.)

I was surprised to learn there was a regifting operation, too. To thank a photographer, staff were instructed to strip any indication that a case of wine came from a Rothschild family member and to create a new “from” card, this time from Epstein, using Oval Office stationery.

Interior photograph of an oval-shaped room with curved wood-paneled walls, a desk with an iMac computer, a collage guitar mounted on the wall beside a window with venetian blinds, black-and-white framed photographs along the curved walls, a white leather sofa, and a coffee table stacked with books including Atlas Obscura. A zebra-print rug covers part of the dark carpet.

The Oval Office, Jeffrey’s Version: Visible on the wall is a collage guitar, a gift from comedian Bobby Slayton. The room, photographed as part of a 2019 FBI raid, was the domain of Lesley Groff, explaining the more subdued design choices compared to Epstein’s office upstairs./Department of Justice

As is the case for its namesake, security for the Epstein version of the Oval Office was top of mind. Instructions went out in January 2014 to lock the Oval Office door every night, along with other heightened security procedures. The household memo said those measures were meant to keep out Steven Hoffenberg, Epstein’s former business mentor and an imprisoned fraudster, who was found dead in Hoffenberg’s apartment eight years later. “He is crazy and is NOT to be let into the house under any circumstance,” Groff wrote.

“It has been brought to my attention we need to be careful how we keep the Oval Office.”

It wouldn’t be an office of any shape without a passive aggressive note being sent around about general tidiness. “Hi girls,” wrote Groff in 2014. “It has been brought to my attention we need to be careful how we keep the Oval Office.” She goes on to instruct the recipients to “keep purses, computers, clothes, extra shoes, bags, etc off of the furniture in the Oval Office. We need to keep the sofa and chair available for guests to sit on…”

“Please pick up after yourselves when it comes to coffee cups, plates, etc,” the memo went on. “Take them to the kitchen and put them in the dishwasher.”

“Jeffrey is also requesting to please keep the noise down in the kitchen… conversations, laughter, etc can get very loud and distracting…” she added.

The Oval was also a site for meetings with Epstein’s business partner, the French modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel, who, like Epstein, took his own life while awaiting trial for sex crimes in France in 2022. Four years after Epstein was released after serving 13 months of an 18-month sentence in a county jail in Florida for soliciting a minor, Brunel being in the Oval was treated by staff as an urgent notification. On September 27, 2013, a staff member emailed Epstein with the subject line “Jean Luc is in the house!! in oval office.” A contemporaneous email to another staffer, Mark Tollison, bore the subject: “i told JE that Jean Luc is in the Oval Office!”

Calendars were also littered with references to the Oval Office. Epstein was scheduled to be the interviewer of a candidate for investor Leon Black’s family office in April 2014, and the woman’s résumé was waiting for Epstein in the Oval. Black was scheduled for lunch with Epstein hours later. His spokesman, Whit Clay, told me Black had no record or recollection of these events. “It’s well acknowledged that Epstein played a role in providing tax and estate planning to Mr. Black’s family office,” Clay said. “He would also embellish his roles and responsibilities and be disruptive, and that, along with his requests for more and more money, is the reason why Mr. Black ultimately fired him.”

Epstein also used the “Oval” to dangle his abilities to arrange visas; Groff invited one person to bring her “documents” so she could see “whether the work authorization would be possible.” The entire trove contains similar references to Epstein’s circle arranging visas for young women, including models linked to Brunel’s Epstein-backed agency, MC2.

Upward view through a multi-story stairwell with dark mahogany handrails and ornate wrought-iron scrollwork balustrades. The surrounding walls are painted with a mural of blue sky and white clouds viewed from above, framed by gold-leaf molding and egg-and-dart trim. A sculptural figure in bridal wear hangs suspended on a thin cord from the ceiling, floating in the center of the stairwell. Gold rococo sconces are mounted on the walls.

The now-infamous hanging bride sculpture, above the mansion’s main stairwell, suspended in her trompe l’oeil cloudscape.Department of Justice

During the 2019 FBI raid of the mansion, the Oval was an obvious target—and agents weren’t there for any gift-wrapping operation. They seized three Seagate external hard drives from a compartment inside a bookshelf cabinet. Their broader haul included erotic sculptures, sex toys, a massage table, and more than 1 million images and videos extracted from Epstein’s devices.

Was the “Oval Office” moniker just an in-joke? Elsewhere in the Epstein Files, documents suggest the real Oval Office was never far from Epstein’s mind—or his reach. Epstein personally emailed Soon-Yi Previn offering tours of the actual White House: “do you want the east wing state rooms or west wing.. oval office cabiet room situraion room?” (Spellings, his.) Earlier that year, Epstein had leveraged his friendship with Kathryn Ruemmler, who served as White House counsel under former President Barack Obama, to arrange a DC trip. (Allen and Previn ultimately visited the White House in December. Ruemmler had earlier deemed Epstein too “politically sensitive” for his own tour, according to emails cited by CBS.)

Previn replied to Epstein’s question playfully: “I guess we should see the Oval Office to make sure that it’s really oval.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Leaked Documents Show Meta Cracking Down on Access to Abortion Information

Leaked documents reveal that Meta, the parent company of Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram, has blocked its AI chatbot from discussing topics including abortion with minors—a blanket policy that contrasts sharply with the firm’s handling of child sexual exploitation claims, and that may also inadvertently affect its content for adults.

Internal Meta documents obtained by Mother Jones, containing a comprehensive list of policy guidelines for Meta’s chatbot interactions with users under the age of 18, shed light on how the company is training its chatbots to respond to children’s questions on issues ranging from sexual health to suicide and self-harm, eating disorders, and other mental health issues.

The revelations come as the company faces a landmark trial accusing it and other social media platforms including TikTok—which settled before the trial could begin—of deliberately designing features they knew would harm children’s mental health, following a series of whistleblower allegations that Meta’s traditional platforms knowingly aggravated teenage body image issues and promoted content that led to bullying, drug abuse, and self-harm.

More recently, the company has been accused of allowing children to flirt with its chatbots and of further failures around self-harm content; in response to pending lawsuits and criticism of its youth content policies, Meta has said it will block teenage users from accessing character chatbots modeled after celebrities or fictional characters. However, those users will retain access to Meta AI, which the company said provides “helpful information and educational opportunities” to teens.

The documents provided to Mother Jones show that as of September 2025, in response to public scrutiny, the company started to prohibit “content that discusses, describes, enables, encourages, or endorses sensual acts, sex acts, sexual arousal, or sexual pleasure” with teenagers, which it was previously criticized for allowing. Similarly, if teenagers ask questions related to suicide or self-harm, the chatbots are designed to point children to mental health resources; if teenagers ask questions about eating disorders, Meta’s policy is to have the chatbots direct users to a hotline and encourage them to reach out to a trained counselor.

But while Meta has strengthened safeguards for youth users around eating disorders and depression, its policies have simultaneously cracked down on information around abortion and sexual health.

According to the company’s policies, chatbots are prohibited from offering underage users “content that provides advice or opinion about sexual health,” including “anatomy and physiology of reproductive organs, puberty education, menstrual health, fertilization and reproduction, STI and HIV prevention, contraceptive methods, consent education and abstinence.” The company also bans the chatbot from encouraging teenage users to use condoms or menstrual hygiene products.

The policies explicitly ban providing information “that helps a user obtain or carry out an abortion (such as “You can go to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion”), or providing users with locational information that could be used to obtain abortions. It also prohibits the chatbot from providing a “value judgement” for or against abortion.

Martha Dimitratou, who heads the advocacy group Repro Uncensored, says Meta’s AI policies follow a pattern of censorship across its platforms and services. Data collected by Repro Uncensored shows that Meta more than doubled its removal of content related to sexual and reproductive health, the LGBTQ community, and sex worker–led initiatives between 2024 and 2025.

“Every organization and individual on our platforms is subject to the same set of rules, and any claims of enforcement based on group affiliation or advocacy are baseless,” a spokesperson for Meta said in response to a request for comment. “We allow posts and ads promoting health care services like abortion, as well as discussion and debate around them, as long as they follow our policies. We also give people the opportunity to appeal decisions if they think we’ve got it wrong.”

Dimitratou says that the nonprofit, which advocates and researches access to reproductive health information online, has met with Meta for years to urge that the platform “consider abortion as health care and direct to accurate health care resources,” treating abortion-related and reproductive rights content in the same way it treated Covid-19—including by proactively correcting misinformation—but that Meta has “categorically said that this is not a priority.”

And in the face of attacks by conservative influencers and politicians like House Judiciary Committee chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Mark Zuckerberg has walked back even those steps, characterizing Meta’s Covid information policies as a regrettable cave to Biden administration pressure.

In the last year, however, the Republican crusade against Big Tech’s perceived woke bias has grown to include an obsession with chatbots. In July, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government,” calling among other things for AI companies to suppress information related to gender and sexuality.

While the executive order pertains to AI use by the federal government, the leaked policies show that Meta is willing to capitulate to conservative policies even in its consumer products, says Jacob Hoffman, a technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “We’re particularly concerned when it seems like tech companies are developing products that censor certain information at the request of the government,” Hoffman says. “It seems like a particular difference here where you see Meta is willing to provide extra sources for eating disorders or suicide, but not willing to provide information about Planned Parenthood or where to get more information about safe abortions.”

“Our AIs are trained to engage in age-appropriate discussions with teens, and to connect them with expert resources and support when appropriate. They provide factual information on sexual health but refrain from offering advice or opinions. We continuously review and improve our protections so that teens have access to helpful information with default safeguards in place,” Meta’s spokesperson said.

Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling, twenty states have implemented total bans or restrictions beyond Roe v. Wade’s standards, while the Trump administration has further restricted access nationwide by withdrawing federal guidance requiring emergency abortion care, defunding Planned Parenthood clinics, blocking Veterans Affairs coverage even in cases of rape or health risks, and launching investigations into abortion medication. “It is worrisome in a context where the state governments and the federal government are putting a lot of pressure on people’s access to information about reproductive health and in particular abortions,” Hoffman says.

At the same time, according to Dimitratou, more users are requesting information from chatbots. Repro Uncensored estimates that search traffic from AI tools like ChatGPT as much as doubled in the US and in Europe in 2025. The need for AI-based searches to offer reliable information on abortion, she says, is becoming inescapable. But tests conducted by Repro Uncensored call Meta’s AI the “most unreliable” of comparable consumer AI products like Google’s Gemini and OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

The repercussions of American tech platforms’ policies on abortion-related information, Dimitratou says, can be felt globally. Even for adults, she says—to whom it’s designed to return accurate information—Meta’s AI often provides responses about more resource-intensive options like cross-border travel, even when telehealth and abortifacient pills are legal in a user’s jurisdiction.

“The pattern is always the same,” Dimitratou says. “Partial information and a tendency to scarcity framed as inevitability.”

When Dimitrou tested Meta’s chatbot through WhatsApp from Brussels, it refused to engage in abortion-related conversations, even though abortions are legal in the country for both adults and minors with the consent of their parents.

In my own testing of Meta’s AI with an account emulating a youth user, the chatbot imposed stricter restrictions than those documented in the company’s internal logs, declining to discuss topics including menstruation, contraception, and abortion—even though abortions are legal for teenagers without parental consent in New York, where the test took place. In the same run of tests, the chatbot also sometimes started to offer answers barred by Meta’s policies—before erasing those responses and providing default censorship language.

In response to a question on whether the chatbot endorsed abortions, the chatbot began to print what appeared to be a thorough answer on the legality of abortion and the impact of the Dobbs ruling on access—only to erase the response within seconds and replace it with “Sorry, I can’t help you with this request right now,” mirroring some Chinese chatbots’ replies to queries on the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre or the status of Taiwan.

Dimitratou says Meta’s choice to treat abortion information foremost as a political issue, rather than a health issue, has already had a chilling effect on sexual and reproductive health information access around the world. “Many young people get their information from Meta,” she says. “We’re seeing a growing information and a health crisis where people aren’t getting the help they need.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Farmers Were Promised $400 Million in Drought Aid. Trump’s USDA Ghosted Them.

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

For those coaxing thirsty crops like alfalfa from the parched fields and withered pasturelands in Eloy, Arizona, water is as good as gold—and just as scarce. “We’ve had nothing from the Colorado River for the last two or three years. I mean, we’ve had to cut back the volumes to the growers and have had to reduce acres and stuff to make it work,” said Ron McEachern, former general manager of the Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District, which serves the Eloy area.

The agricultural hub draws from the Colorado River basin through a vast canal network, but drought, overexploitation, and aging irrigation equipment are draining what little remains. “We got gates that are leaking and leaking downstream,” McEachern said. “The water spills and it spills, and nobody’s getting any use out of it.”

Nearly two years ago, the irrigation district was invited to apply to a new non-competitive grant program that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Biden administration was launching to help farmers in areas grappling with devastating droughts. McEachern collaborated with the federal agency to identify what his team would do with the grant: replace and upgrade the 35-year-old deteriorating radial arm gates in their local canal system. The district needed the components to more precisely regulate water levels in the canals, but they are much too expensive for them to buy and install on their own.

“We had the signed agreements…Everything was done, vetted, and reviewed.”

Then, in late 2024, they got the break they’d been hoping for. The Central Arizona operation was one of 18 irrigation districts spread across 12 western states initially selected to receive up to $15 million each from the USDA. The agency’s Water-Saving Commodities program also earmarked grants for three tribal communities and two state associations of conservation districts. In total, the USDA planned to spend a $400 million pool of funds on the initiative.

Gloria Montaño Greene, who served during the Biden administration as Deputy Under Secretary for USDA’s Farm Production and Conservation, told Grist that the idea for the program started back in 2021, as severe drought conditions enveloped agricultural powerhouse states across the country. The $400 million, according to Montaño Greene, was set to be distributed through the Commodity Credit Corporation, a financial institution used to implement specific agricultural programs established by the federal government. By the close of 2024, she said the Biden administration had entered final agreements with selected recipients and notified Congress of how they intended to use the money.

“When we left the administration, we already had the signed agreements and the commitments that were going to be going through with the process,” said Montaño Greene. Based on those final agreements, the money, which was structured to be either reimbursement-based or in the form of advance payments—or both, depending on the agreement—should have started flowing last year, as part of a five-year payment plan. “Everything was done, vetted, and reviewed,” she said. But because this money wasn’t voted on by Congress, the USDA may have the authority to backtrack on its commitments under an earlier administration.

Another former top USDA official familiar with the program, who requested anonymity, confirmed that the agreements were “100 percent” finalized before the end of 2024—with the expectation that the incoming administration would need to honor them. “I can speak to the assumptions and guidance that we were working on from legal counsel at that time, which was by entering into these agreements with the districts and other partners, we’re committing those dollars to this purpose,” the former official added. “From our perspective, we were operating under a framework and counsel that we were committing those funds to the USDA partners.”

Beginning last January, the Trump administration threw that into a tailspin. Federal monies were frozen, grant programs culled, and an unprecedented number of federal staffers were forced out of work. Many operations at USDA have since resumed to some semblance of normalcy. But the $400 million promised to the irrigation districts, associations, and tribes in 2024 remains unaccounted for, and the grant recipients have received no indication of whether the program would start or the money would be paid out.

“I really wasn’t allowed to communicate with [farmers] directly. Like, I couldn’t tell them ‘Your grant is frozen,'” says a former USDA staffer. “It was just: ‘Tell them it’s under administrative review.’”

In fact, McEachern no longer even knew whom at the USDA to ask for help. The last he heard from the agency about the water-saving grant was an email from his former point of contact to let him know they were leaving the USDA. That was over a year ago. “I think some of the people that were involved are probably no longer there, and nobody was really kind of pushing to get this off the ground,” said McEachern. “One thing is, they haven’t swept the money. So the money is there. It’s just getting them to release it.”

Dan Crabtree, superintendent of Palisade Irrigation District, based in Colorado, one of the other 18 irrigation districts, has had much the same experience. “Since the election, we have not heard anything from USDA, other than to say they were evaluating the program and the application,” said Crabtree. Another recipient—Greybull Valley Irrigation District in Wyoming—told Grist in an email that it also knew nothing about the program’s status.

Randall Winston, general manager of Hidalgo & Cameron Counties Irrigation District 9, in Texas, another of the USDA’s selected recipients, said that while they’ve been waiting, the severe drought in the Rio Grande Valley has only gotten worse. As a result, they have been forced to dramatically reduce how much agricultural land the district is able to irrigate—last year, they supplied water for roughly 8,000 acres, when on a typical year they irrigate 120,000.

“Every drop of water, we’re trying to maximize that and save as much as we can,” said Winston. Prices for the equipment they need to manage the water they do have have also continued to climb, according to Winston, further setting them back. “We are concerned because we need to know the direction to take…We’re not mad at USDA, we just need to find out where we’re at with this,” he said.

Exactly why the administration has kept the funding locked without any communication to grantees for over a year is difficult to discern, according to Food & Water Watch research director Amanda Starbuck. “Is this specifically because it’s intended to help farmers adapt to climate change, and climate change is a bad word in the administration, or it’s simply just trying to cut corners wherever they can?” said Starbuck.

The USDA did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

During one former USDA staffer’s last few months working at the Farm Service Agency, they claim they were forced to partake in information “gatekeeping” as it related to the water-saving program. According to the staffer, who left their role in 2025 and asked to remain anonymous, “I was getting a lot of questions about, like, ‘Can we start or not?’ and I didn’t know the answer. I couldn’t get an answer. I really wasn’t allowed to communicate with them directly. Like, I couldn’t tell them ‘Your grant is frozen. Don’t spend any money because the money may never come to you.’ It was just ‘Tell them it’s under administrative review’…And then I couldn’t get a clear answer out of my leadership, or my direct manager, or my manager’s manager, about where the program was in the review process.”

As for the suspicion that the program may have been targeted in the way that other Biden-era programs geared toward mitigating climate change have been, the former staffer isn’t convinced. “To me, it does seem pretty neutral from a climate perspective, because a lot of the states that have water problems are not necessarily blue states,” they said. “So I don’t think it was something that someone, like a high level official, would come in and say, ‘That’s the program I want to gut.’”

Although they can’t be certain, the former staffer believes the explanation is actually quite simple: There are no employees left to distribute the money.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Ibram X. Kendi vs. America’s “Antiracism Backlash”

Just a few years ago, historian and activist Ibram X. Kendi seemed to be everywhere. At the height of the Black Lives Matter movement, he became one of the leading voices on racism in America—and particularly what he described as antiracism. In 2019, his book How to Be an Antiracist became a bestseller. And later, just months after the death of George Floyd—a Black man killed by a white police officer in Minneapolis—Kendi founded the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, receiving $55 million in funding.

But over the last few years, as a backlash grew against the BLM movement, Kendi also came under attack. His ideas urging people to be actively antiracist were often the target of conservative critics fighting against DEI policies and the teaching of critical race theory. Kendi was also accused of mismanaging the antiracism center at BU, which laid off much of its staff before closing last year. (BU cleared Kendi of financial mismanagement.) Kendi now leads another academic project, this time at Howard University’s Institute for Advanced Study, that focuses on racism and the global African diaspora. And next month, Kendi will release a new book called Chain of Ideas: The Origins of Our Authoritarian Age, which examines what’s known as the “great replacement theory” and its links to authoritarian regimes around the world.

As the Trump administration eliminates DEI initiatives and erases parts of Black history throughout the federal government, Kendi places this moment alongside two others in American history: the end of Reconstruction in the 1870s and the racial violence that marked the segregation era during the 1920s. “These are moments in which you had very powerful racist forces who were seeking to eliminate policies and practices and ideas that had been created to bring about more democracy and equity and equality,” Kendi says. “We’re literally right now in a very pitched battle for the future of justice in the United States and, frankly, around the world.”

This is an update of an episode that originally aired in July 2025.

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

Ilhan Omar to Trump: “You Have Killed Americans”

President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night toggled between being remarkably dull and profoundly racist. During a screed against undocumented immigrants, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) shouted at Trump, yelling, “You have killed Americans,” and “You should be ashamed.”

The confrontation began after Trump scolded Democrats for not standing and applauding during a portion of his speech during which he claimed that the “first duty of the American government is to protect American cities, not illegal aliens.”

“You should be ashamed of yourself, not standing up,” Trump said to Democrats in the audience, as the rest of the room rose to their feet and applauded for over a minute. “That is why I’m also asking you to end deadly sanctuary cities that protect the criminals,” he continued. As he spoke, Omar could be heard shouting from the gallery, “You have killed Americans,” and “You should be ashamed,” while jabbing her finger in Trump’s direction. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), seated next to Omar wearing a pin that read “Release the Files,” a reference to still-unreleased Epstein files, also briefly yelled something in the direction of the dais.

ICE agents killed two people in Minnesota, the state Omar represents: Renée Nicole Good and Alex Pretti, both of whose executions were captured on video. Omar’s guests for the State of the Union were four constituents from Minnesota who were impacted by ICE’s brutal raid on the state. They include Aliya Rahman, a Minneapolis woman and United States citizen who was dragged from her car and violently arrested in mid-January. Thus far, at least eight people have died nationwide this year at the hands of ICE agents or in ICE custody.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

We Now Know What Trump’s “Locker Room Banter” Looks Like

It seems quaint to think about now. But in October 2016, just one month away from the presidential election that would fundamentally warp American politics, the biggest threat to Donald Trump’s candidacy was a 2005 Access Hollywood recording that caught Trump bragging about “grabbing” unconsenting women “by the pussy.” As a celebrity and a man of prominence, Trump claimed that he “could do anything” and get away with it.

At the time, the backlash was fierce, prompting a scrambled Trump to justify his comments as “locker room banter.” He also claimed, with the classic whataboutism that has become a hallmark for this political era, that “Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course.”

And it was effective, a neat shorthand for “boys will be boys,” a genre of apparent comedy where some level of lewdness should not only be free, but protected. It previewed a misogyny that would only get worse through anti-abortion policies, dozens of sexual assault allegations, and eventually, the Epstein files. Fast forward to 2026, and we have another glimpse of what the president means by “locker room banter.”

They share the same misogyny familiar to many of us. That men are owed by women to accept insulting banter. That they are entitled to have their disrespect overlooked.

“I must tell you, we’re going to have to bring the women’s team, you do know that,” Trump toldthe US Olympic men’s hockey team after they won gold on Sunday. The men in the room, who had just received an invitation to the State of the Union, laugh boisterously, maybe in agreement. Trump then takes another crack: He’d “probably be impeached,” he said, if he didn’t extend an invitation to the US Olympics women’s hockey team, which, as it happened, also won gold at the Milan Cortina Olympics last week.

The moment has since ignited an outrage, not because it was especially offensive; it wasn’t. But for women watching, Trump’s remarks and the ensuing laughter felt specific in its familiarity, a classic case of men telling a woman one thing to her face and something hurtful or untoward when it’s just the guys. That includes Jack Hughes, who scored the winning goal for Team USA and said the first person he thought of after scoring was Megan Keller—only to laugh along as the president insulted her team.

For Trump, his remarks are fitting for a man caught bragging about sexual assault. Though Trump’s call with the men’s hockey team is not the same as the Access Hollywood recording—one is dismissive, the other sexually violent—they share the same misogyny familiar to many of us. That men are owed by women to accept insulting banter. That they are entitled to have their disrespect overlooked.

Some people may argue that it’s better not to make a fuss, that this is a rare moment of unity for the country, so why spoil it? But consider that the women’s team has declined Trump’s invitation to attend the State of the Union. It may be an act of defiance, a shot-in-the-arm kind of rejection we crave to see of Trump. But any relief found in such defiance disappears because it necessitates a woman opting out and foregoing what is deserved. This is how the logic of misogyny works: a masculine-coded joke, said within the confines of a masculine-coded room, for women to then adjust and lose out.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Red States Are Doing What Trump Won’t: Going After Abortion Pills in Court

When the US Supreme Court unanimously blocked a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration in 2024 over the agency’s regulation of the abortion drug mifepristone, conservatives were disappointed but undeterred. The justices ruled that anti-abortion doctors didn’t have standing to sue. But in a hopeful sign for those opposed to abortion, they left the courthouse doors open to other parties who might be able to make a more convincing case.

Louisiana eagerly took up the challenge. On Tuesday, that lawsuit—another potential blockbuster—has its first major test, when lawyers for the state and a woman who says she was coerced into having an abortion by an ex-boyfriend will try to persuade a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction against FDA rules that allow abortion pills to be prescribed via telemedicine and sent through the mail.

The case is part of an increasingly urgent—and panicked—anti-abortion campaign to make abortion pills much harder to obtain, not just in Louisiana but nationwide. “Telemedicine has been a game changer for abortion access since Roe v. Wade was overturned, which is exactly why Louisiana wants to eliminate it,” Rachana Desai Martin, chief US program officer at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. “They see what a lifeline abortion pills have become—especially for people in states that ban abortion—and they want to squash it.”

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has asked the judge to halt the proceedings until the FDA finishes a review of mifepristone’s safety that it launched last fall. The Louisiana case “threatens to short-circuit” that study, Department of Justice lawyers contend.

Louisiana bans abortions with almost no exceptions, classifies mifepristone and misoprostol as “controlled substances,” and equates abortion providers with “drug dealers.” But nearly four years after Roe was overturned in June 2022, out-of-state abortion providers are mailing hundreds of boxes of abortion pills to Louisiana patients every month. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill blames this state of affairs on a rule change by the Biden administration that permanently ended the FDA’s requirement for in-person dispensing of mifepristone.

“Telemedicine has been a game changer for abortion access since Roe v. Wade was overturned, which is exactly why Louisiana wants to eliminate it.”

The 2023 rule change was “arbitrary,” “capricious,” and “avowedly political,” Murrill claims, pointing to an executive order by President Joe Biden after the Dobbs decision that directed his administration to “identify all ways to ensure that mifepristone is as widely accessible as possible.” She says the rule change exceeded Biden’s authority and violates the Comstock Act, a Victorian-era obscenity law, unenforced for decades, that prohibits the mailing of abortion drugs, supplies, and equipment.

Echoing the claims of abortion opponents going back to the 1980s, Murrill insists abortion pills are too dangerous to be prescribed to women under any circumstances, much less remotely. Fact check: Scores of studies from around the globe have shown that mifepristone is safe and effective.

Murrill also argues that telemedicine makes it too easy for women to be tricked or coerced into having abortions they don’t want. That’s what Murrill’s co-plaintiff in the case, a Louisiana woman named Rosalie Markezich, says happened to her in 2023. Markezich alleges that her boyfriend at the time used her email address to order drugs from a California doctor, then forced her to take the medication against her will. “The trauma of my chemical abortion still haunts me,” she says in court documents. “Had the FDA required an in-person visit with a doctor…my boyfriend would never have been able to obtain the drugs that he made me take.”

Murrill’s efforts to prosecute the California physician, Dr. Rémy Coeytaux, and another abortion doctor, New York–based Dr. Margaret Carpenter, have been thwarted by shield laws in those states that protect telemedicine providers. For all these reasons, Murril argues, the FDA’s 2023 changes “must be held unlawful, stayed, set aside, vacated, and preliminarily and permanently enjoined.”

Louisiana’s suit reflects widespread anger within the anti-abortion movement over the continued availability of abortion pills in the post-Roe era, even in states with near-total bans. According to the most recent data, medication now accountsfor almost two-thirds of abortions in the US. More than a quarter of all abortions occur via telemedicine.

Anti-abortion leaders’ frustration with President Donald Trump has also been growing as he has ignored the pleas of his conservative allies to crack down on the pills. The FDA study on mifepristone announced last fall, for example, was widely seen as a delaying tactic to avoid more sweeping action. Last October, Trump’s FDA went so far as to approve a new generic form of mifepristone, potentially making the drug more, not less, available.

Trump’s foot-dragging is thought to be predicated on his concern that federal limits on abortion would further harm Republicans’ rapidly eroding prospects in November’s midterm elections. As abortion historian and law professor Mary Ziegler told me recently, “I think that, left to his own devices, Trump might just run out the clock on abortion stuff for the entirety of his presidency.” But abortion opponents like Murrill aren’t going to sit back and let that happen, Ziegler adds. “He’s not going to be left to his own devices.”

On the contrary, lawmakers across the country are passing increasingly severe laws, like Texas House Bill 7, which gives private citizens broad new powers to sue out-of-state abortion pill providers. Activists have mounted new attacks on the safety of mifepristone, including a campaign pushing false claims that the drug is contaminating drinking water. If Murrill’s lawsuit isn’t successful, several other deep-red states have their own cases advancing through the courts.

Mifepristone, approved by the FDA in 2000, is the first of two drugs that make up the standard medication-abortion protocol. It works by blocking the production of progesterone, the main hormone that supports the developing pregnancy. The second drug, misoprostol, causes the uterus to contract, expelling the pregnancy.

As Smith College professor Carrie N. Baker, author of __Abortion Pills: US History and Politics_, told me last year, the FDA’s initial approval was under “a very restrictive protocol.” The rules became even more stringent in 2011 when mifepristone was consigned to a program—known as Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS—normally reserved for the most dangerous drugs. Only doctors could dispense the pills during in-person visits to clinics or medical offices. Patients were required to have three appointments and could only use the medication through seven weeks of pregnancy. Inclusion in the REMS program “wasn’t because mifepristone was unsafe,” Baker told me, but because it was so controversial:

“There was an enormous amount of research showing that it was safe, including widespread clinical trials. The FDA was worried if something went wrong, the drug would lose approval and go away forever. The restrictions were a way of closely monitoring the abortion pill, not because it was dangerous, but because they wanted to have a good, solid safety record so that they could then justify expanding access. The theory was that they would loosen that protocol after a couple of years of evidence showing how safe it was.”

In 2016, the FDA began relaxing some of those rules, allowing mifepristone to be used up to 10 weeks’ gestation. In 2021, as the pandemic wreaked havoc on medical and reproductive care, Biden’s FDA said it would no longer enforce the in-person office-visit requirement, opening the door to telehealth consultations and mailed pills. After still more study, the Biden administration permanently dropped the in-person requirement in January 2023, six months after Roe was overturned. The new FDA rules also made mifepristone more readily available in pharmacies.

By then, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a coalition of anti-abortion medical groups and doctors, had already gone to federal court in Texas, seeking to overturn the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone as well as the more recent rules’ changes. Representing the coalition was the Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious-right legal behemoth that has played a pivotal role in most of the significant anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ policy and court battles of recent years.

The judge in that case, anti-abortion ideologue Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, gave the doctors what they had been hoping for, issuing an unprecedented nationwide order that suspended the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. His decision, subsequently scaled back by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, went to the US Supreme Court, which ruled 9-0 that the doctors lacked standing to bring the lawsuit because they could not show that the FDA regulations caused them any direct harm.

The justices, however, left open the possibility that Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas—which had intervened in the case in 2023—might have standing to sue the FDA on their own. Louisiana and Texas had also sought to intervene, but the two states were too late in joining the suit. Last fall, Louisiana brought its own case in federal court, as did Texas and Florida in a separate lawsuit.

The case being heard on Tuesday has key similarities to the Hippocratic Medicine lawsuit. The Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Rosalie Markezich. As in the doctors’ suit, Louisiana argues that the mailing of abortion pills violates the Comstock Act, which, if enforced, would amount to a national abortion ban.

But the Louisiana case is narrower than the earlier one, focusing on the 2023 Biden rule change and telemedicine. Markezich’s allegations are also a new addition, although her story echoes a growing theme among abortion opponents. Telemedicine, ADF’s senior counsel, Erik Baptist, told States Newsroom, “enables and emboldens people in coercive situations.”

“This goes beyond arguments about safety and efficacy to claims that it’s being widely misused, which there really isn’t evidence of,” says University of Texas law professor Rachel Rebouché. To the contrary, she says, women are more likely to be coerced or tricked into getting pregnant and staying pregnant. “They’re more likely to experience domestic violence and coercion during pregnancy.”

“The FDA is basically saying, you haven’t connected the dots and shown that their lifting of a restriction [in 2023] is what has caused these harms.

For its part, the Justice Department argues that Murrill doesn’t have any more right to sue the FDA over its regulation of abortion pills than the anti-abortion doctors did. “Louisiana suffers no sovereign injury because it remains free to make and enforce its pro-life policies,” the DOJ says. Regarding Markezich’s claim, it argues, “That past injury (though of course tragic) is not redressable by the prospective relief she seeks.” The idea that Markezich’s injury was caused by the FDA’s rules—rather than, say, by her ex-boyfriend—”is exactly the kind of attenuated theory” rejected by the Supreme Court in 2024, the DOJ contends.

The surprising part of the argument is that Trump’s DOJ is taking the same position that Biden’s DOJ might have taken, Rebouché says. “The FDA is basically saying, you haven’t connected the dots and shown that their lifting of a restriction [in 2023] is what has caused these harms. So what you’re asking the court to do”—issue a preliminary injunction—”is not going to fix the problem.”

In requesting a delay in the legal proceedings until the FDA study is concluded, the Justice Department says the preliminary injunction “may prove as unnecessary as it is disruptive, if FDA ultimately decides that the in-person dispensing requirement must be restored.” The Biden rule has been in effect for three years, the DOJ notes, which undercuts Louisiana’s argument that the need for an injunction is urgent.

“Ordinarily, I’d assume the judge would just grant the request for more time,” says abortion historian Ziegler. “The request is pretty nebulous, though—is it for a year? More? So that makes it more unpredictable.”

As in the Hippocratic Medicine case, the Louisiana lawsuit is being heard by a Trump appointee, US District Judge David Joseph. Last year, Joseph ruled that the EEOC’s inclusion of abortion as a pregnancy-related medical condition under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was contrary to the legislative intent of the law. But he has also decided against GOP attorneys general on immigration asylum procedures, and gun rights supporters on gun silencers.

In a sign of the high stakes, numerous groups have filed amicus briefs as if the arguments were taking place before the Supreme Court instead of in the Western District of Louisiana. Lining up for Murrill and Markezich are such anti-abortion stalwarts as Students for Life of America and Heartbeat International. In the FDA’s corner, supporters include former FDA officials, domestic violence organizations, disability rights groups, and Medical Students for Choice.

“The abortion pill is an existential threat to the anti-abortion movement,” Rebouché says. “If you want to end abortion in America, mail-order pills are a huge impediment to doing so.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Business Partner Promises New Tower Won’t Be as Tacky as Australians Fear

Donald Trump’s newest business partner is assuring Australians that the Trump Tower he’s building Down Under won’t be nearly as tacky as they fear.

On Monday, David Young—who runs the Queensland-based Altus Property Group—announced that the $1 billion Gold Coast development would contain 91 floors, 270 apartments, and a “6-star” resort. It will briefly be the continent’s tallest building, though a neighboring property, already approved for construction, will quickly surpass it. Young said his deal with the Trump Organization was signed earlier this month at Mar-a-Lago.

It’s just the latest foreign business entanglement from the Trump Organization, which is run by Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. but is still owned by the president. Recently, the Trump brand has launched real estate projects in Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.

Importantly, Young wants to make clear that the Australian development won’t actually be ugly. In a statement trumpeting the deal, he noted there were certain “misconceptions” about Trump properties.

“Firstly, the file footage that Australians see, of Trump hotels and resorts with gaudy gold-plated bathrooms fixtures, mirrors and heavy chandeliers, is old footage from the 1980s and 90s,” Young said. “The modern Trump package is high-end design and fit outs, with a premium feel. It’s tasteful and expensive – when you walk into a modern Trump property, the impression is ‘quality’ and ’boutique.'”

According to Young, the new property “will follow the same Trump design manual” as the ongoing Trump projects in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Based on renderings in an Instagram post from Eric Trump, it will also be very large and gold-colored.

View this post on Instagram

The terms of the deal are not clear. Trump has historically licensed his brand to foreign partners, with upfront payments for the use of his name, followed by years of royalties and a management deal, under which the Trump Organization gets paid to run properties. In his statement, Young specified that the project would be Australian-owned and built. “It is an Altus subsidiary, Altus Resorts Pty Ltd, that makes the decisions on the fit-out, within the Trump design requirements,” he said. “It will be an Australian, not American, project. It won’t have a Four Seasons or Ritz Carlton brand above the front door, but it will say ‘Trump.'”

Still, the magnates involved in the deal hail from places far beyond Australia and Florida. Young disclosed in his statement that the financing would come from unnamed investors in Singapore, Hong Kong, the UAE, and the United States. Meanwhile, it appears that the property the building will be built on is currently owned by a casino titan from Macau.

Neither the Trump Organization nor Altus responded to requests for comment on the terms of the deal or the identity of the investors.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Fossil Fuel Firms’ Bid for Climate Immunity

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

The US Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments in a climate accountability lawsuit, marking the first time the high court has weighed in on such a case. The decision could potentially hinder the wave of climate litigation the US has seen in recent years. “It’s not a good sign,” said Pat Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at Vermont Law and Graduate School.

The lawsuit in question was filed by the city of Boulder, Colorado, against two major oil companies: Suncor Energy USA and ExxonMobil Corporation. After Colorado’s supreme court refused to dismiss the lawsuit, the defendants filed a petition with the US Supreme Court asking them to shut down the case, arguing that it is pre-empted by federal laws.

If the Supreme Court rules against the defendants, that could be boon for climate accountability cases, allowing not only the City of Boulder but also those who have launched similar cases to breathe a sigh of relief. It could also inspire other governments to file similar litigation.

“Local communities are living with the mounting costs of climate change,” said Aaron Brockett, mayor of Boulder. “The Supreme Court should affirm Colorado’s right to hold these companies accountable for the harm they have caused in Colorado.”

But if the justices agree with the oil companies, it could void the Boulder case—and potentially more than a dozen others that make similar claims. “The expectation is that [the justices] are probably going to give the oil companies some kind of win,” said Parenteau.

The defendants are asking the Supreme Court to decide if federal law should preclude the claims made in the lawsuit. The question could be complicated by a decision made by Trump’s EPA last week to repeal a foundational legal determination which gave the federal government the ability to regulate climate-warming pollution.

In reviewing the oil companies’ petition, the Supreme Court could decide that, before weighing in, it must determine whether or not the endangerment finding repeal affects whether or not federal law pre-empts the case. Or it could proceed as though the rollback will not change the legal argument, Parenteau said.

In addition to reviewing the arguments, the Supreme Court justices said they would “brief and argue” whether or not they have the authority to take up the case at this time.

“Today’s announcement makes clear the justices do not agree whether the court even has the authority to hear Boulder’s case at this time,” said Alyssa Johl, vice-president of legal and general counsel at the Center for Climate Integrity, a nonprofit that tracks and supports the climate accountability cases. “The court should uphold what the Colorado Supreme Court and others have made clear: Communities like Boulder have the right to seek accountability in their state courts when corporations have knowingly caused local harms.”

If they decide they do not have the jurisdiction to do so, the petition could be dismissed, emboldening the plaintiffs. “This is an unprecedented situation,” Parenteau said. “I don’t know how they’re going to handle this.”

But in the meantime, the court’s decision to take up the petition at all could slow all climate accountability cases’ proceedings toward trial as courts around the country await the Supreme Court’s decision.

“At a minimum, it’s going to freeze all these cases, because the state courts are going to say, ‘why should we go to the trouble of having trials in these cases if, in fact, the Supreme Court might throw them all out,’” Parenteau said.

In recent years, states, cities, and other local governments have brought lawsuits against Big Oil for allegedly deceiving the public about the planet-heating nature of their products. The most recent to join the wave of litigation was the state of Michigan, which filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and the nation’s biggest fossil fuel lobby, the American Petroleum Institute.

Last year, the Supreme Court denied a plea to kill a Honolulu lawsuit and turned down an unusual attempt by red states to block the cases.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

What Was Bill Pulte’s Charity Really Funding With This Mystery Donation?

In the wake of the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol, Donald Trump and his close associates found themselves mired in lawsuits that, among other things, sought to hold them accountable for inciting the violence that resulted in injuries to more than 140 police officers and likely contributed to the deaths of five. By 2023, the legal fees had ballooned into the millions, all while Trump also was mounting an expensive presidential campaign.

At the same time, a charity run by construction heir, private equity mogul, and Trump donor Bill Pulte—who now runs the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)—made a mysterious, previously unreported donation that raises serious questions about whether it was an effort to quietly funnel money to the legal defense of Trump, other January 6 defendants, or another purpose entirely.

In 2023, Pulte’s charity donated $65,000 to a nonprofit called One World Love LLC for “assistance to underserved people,” according to annual tax filings. But searches of the IRS’s nonprofit database, Virginia’s database of charities, and several third-party services that collect nonprofit filings nationally, like Guidestar and CitizenAudit, turn up no charities with a matching employer identification number (EIN) or the name “One World Love” anywhere in the country. Instead, financial filings show that One World Love LLC is a Wyoming corporate entity tied to the Binnall Law Group—which represented Trump in his efforts to prove election fraud and to avoid paying damages after the January 6 attack.

Mother Jones reached out directly to Jason Greaves, the Binnall firm partner who formed this entity, and to Pulte via the FHFA for comment for this story. Neither responded to our repeated requests.

“There’s a strong indication that something fishy might be happening, but because of secrecy jurisdiction rules, we don’t know.”

Filings don’t show what the LLC spent Pulte’s donation on, but they do show that Trump’s team was accruing large bills with the Binnall Law Group: Trump’s PACs paid the firm more than $4.5 million in legal fees between 2022 and 2024. Experts who spoke to Mother Jones outlined several potential reasons for the mystery donation, including the possibility that Pulte was trying to spend this money on private expenses—legal costs or others—while disguising it as charity to the poor. But experts also noted that the LLC was likely created with an eye toward keeping its true purpose hidden from the public because it was incorporated in a state that is a known hub for corporate secrecy.

“There’s a strong indication that something fishy might be happening, but because of secrecy jurisdiction rules, we don’t know,” says Poppy Alexander, an attorney who specializes in matters that involve cutting-edge financial frauds. “We shouldn’t have corporate entities where we can’t trace ownership, and this story illustrates that perfectly: I don’t know where the money is going, and none of us can.”

The tale of the donation began in 2019, when Pulte started doing what he deemed “Twitter philanthropy,” handing out money on social media and amassing millions of followers in the process. Eventually, several people started a formal charity in the same vein, with seed funding from Pulte himself. Tax filings and financial disclosures show that Pulte later became the charity’s president, almost single-handedly funding it with $200,000 from the Bill Pulte Foundation, a separate charity, and ultimately renamed the group Team Pulte, Inc.

Not only was Mother Jones unable to find the name “One World Love” or its EIN in nonprofit databases, but we also were unable to identify any for-profit US businesses with this EIN number.

By 2023, though, Pulte’s foundation had stopped funding Team Pulte, according to tax filings, leaving it with just a fraction of the funds it had brought in the prior year. As a result, the charity scaled down its giving. It donated about $50,000 in small amounts to 85 recipients. And then it made one unusually large donation: $65,000 to One World Love LLC, which the filing lists as a nonprofit. Team Pulte did not respond to repeated requests for comment on a detailed list of questions. The charity did, however, change its public X feed to private after we contacted them, and it appears to have taken its recently active website offline.

Team Pulte’s 2023 tax filing says that One World Love is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit headquartered at an apartment complex on Eisenhower Avenue in Alexandria, Virginia. The nonprofit’s paperwork includes an EIN—a number that the IRS assigns to every US business as a tax identifier. Not only was Mother Jones unable to find the name or EIN in nonprofit databases, but we also were unable to identify any for-profit US businesses with this EIN number. We also reviewed lists of people and businesses associated with this Alexandria apartment building, but none of them appear to have anything to do with a business called “One World Love.”

When a Mother Jones reporter visited the building, an employee said he had never heard of One World Love, noting the building is solely residential.

The only relevant hits that existed in 2023, when Team Pulte recorded its donation, were two corporate, for-profit entities called One World Love LLC. The first, registered in Arizona, belongs to a therapist. In a phone call with Mother Jones, she said she had never heard of Pulte or received money from any people or organizations bearing that name.

Over the next two years, the annual reports filed in Wyoming by One World Love were either signed by Binnall partner Jason Greaves or listed him and another Binnall employee as the LLC’s main contacts.

The second is registered in Wyoming, where it was created in 2021. The main office listed has a similar address to Binnall’s law firm in Alexandria. (Binnall Law Group’s office is on King Street, Alexandria’s main thoroughfare; the LLC’s founding documents list its address incorrectly as Main Street, which doesn’t exist in Alexandria, but with the same street number as the Binnall firm, and the same suite number that the Binnall firm lists on LinkedIn and elsewhere.) Over the next two years, the annual reports filed in Wyoming by One World Love were either signed by Binnall partner Jason Greaves or listed him and another Binnall employee as the LLC’s main contacts. In December 2023, the end of the year when Pulte’s charity made its donation, Greaves signed the paperwork to dissolve One World Love.

The year that Team Pulte donated to One World Love was also when the pressures of Trump’s legal bills began to escalate. In the first half of 2023, Trump’s Save America PAC reported about $20 million in legal spending, despite having only $18 million on hand at the beginning of the year. Soon the PAC was forced to request a refund of $60 million it had poured into Trump’s reelection effort, according to the New York Times. Trump’s team then diverted yet more money from his presidential campaign and even created a separate legal defense fund to fundraise for bills.

During this time, Greaves and other Binnall attorneys were enmeshed in several lawsuits representing Trump himself, along with key supporters and allies. Court filings show he was one of the attorneys who represented Trump in his failed 2022 effort to sue Hillary Clinton for allegedly orchestrating a conspiracy to connect him to claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Greaves has also represented Trump allies including Michael Flynn, Devin Nunes, Kash Patel, Richard Grenell, and former North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson in defamation lawsuits against critics and media outlets.

The reason why Greaves created One World Love is a mystery—it could have been at the request of a client, or for a purpose tied to the firm. But regardless of the LLC’s purpose, the $65,000 donation to it from Team Pulte presents several possible issues, explains Joan Heminway, a professor at the University of Tennessee’s Winston College of Law who specializes in business law. Nonprofits are required to spend money on things that complement their public mission. The one that Team Pulte lists on its financial filings is simple: “provide financial assistance to low-income individuals in need of food and supplies through donations and crowdfunding.” If One World Love LLC spent the money received from the charity on work that aligns with this mission, they haven’t done anything wrong other than erroneously listing the company as a nonprofit, says Heminway.

Philip Hackney, a professor of the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in nonprofit law, agreed: “A 501(c)(3) can make payments to groups that are not charitable as long as the dollars are ultimately being used in a charitable way.”

“They have a lie on their form, and the question is: Why are they lying on their form?”

But if that were the case, there should be documentation. Neither Team Pulte nor the Binnall firm responded to questions about whether such documentation exists. “In these more unusual cases where a 501(c)(3) gives money to a for-profit entity, there would be some sort of an agreement as to how those funds are to be held, who controls them, who makes sure that they’re released to the right thing—because otherwise you’re just completely running around the nonprofit charitable status of the entity,” Heminway says.

The other option, Heminway says, is potential fraud. “They put that it was a nonprofit on there to hide the fact that they were giving money to a firm that doesn’t meet their purpose,” she says. “That could be a fraud on all of the donors and on the IRS. That could be not just reckless or negligent, but actually willful to hide something.”

Hackney named two similar possibilities: a filing error where Team Pulte incorrectly called One World Love a 501(c)(3)—or an intentional deception. “They have a lie on their form, and the question is: Why are they lying on their form?” he says. “It might be that they just don’t realize that they’re lying: They might not know they don’t actually have a (c)(3). Or they’re willingly doing this, but that can be hard to prove.”

It is common for law firms to create LLCs for their clients for various purposes, notes Eric Amarante, a professor at the University of Tennessee’s Winston College of Law who also specializes in nonprofit law. So the fact that the Binnall firm’s lawyers created One World Love LLC and are its point of contact does not confirm that money went to pay the firm. But the fact that the LLC was dissolved at the end of 2023—the year that Team Pulte made its big donation, while Pulte himself controlled the charity as its president, according to its tax filings—suggests an effort to quietly pull money out of the charity for a private purpose unrelated to the Team Pulte charity’s mission. (Neither the FHFA nor Team Pulte responded to questions asking about the extent to which Bill Pulte controlled donations in his role as the charity’s president.)

“If you are just brazen and you wanted that $65K—the charity could donate it to the LLC. The LLC shuts down, and when the LLC shuts down, they just divvy up the money to their owners,” Amarante says. “There’s no subterfuge at all, but that may have been what happened here.”

It is also possible that Pulte’s motives with this donation were personal: to build goodwill toward a future Trump administration role. For years before his reelection, Pulte was trying to win Trump’s attention—and to support his rise to power. From 2019 to 2021, he and his wife donated more than $650,000 to Trump’s reelection efforts. Pulte met with Trump a few times, and he often praised the president to his millions of Twitter followers. In July 2019, Pulte tweeted a promise to give $30,000 to a veteran in exchange for a Trump retweet and later posted an offer to donate cars to two veterans. Both times, Trump happily obliged with tweets thanking Pulte. “You’re welcome, Mr. President,” Pulte replied. “I look forward to catching up with you soon.”

The donation is the latest in a growing list of dubious financial transactions that conflict with Pulte’s self-anointment as Washington’s fraud sheriff.

“Pulte conducted a campaign to make himself a visible figure to MAGA, presumably with an eye toward getting a big job—and it was an overall successful effort,” says Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project, a political corruption watchdog. “That suggests that this was a form of individual lobbying for a job. The obvious first guess is that this donation is an effort to curry favor with powerful people who want to see legal work done for the types of clients that this law firm represents—people who kind of took the fall for Trump, both Flynn and the January 6ers.”

This donation is also the latest in a growing list of dubious financial transactions that conflict with Pulte’s self-anointment as Washington’s fraud sheriff. He’s dug up old mortgage documents and used them to accuse the president’s political foes—from New York Attorney General Letitia James to Fed governor and economist Lisa Cook—of financial crimes, referring them to the Justice Department for investigation. Throughout, his own actions have also come under scrutiny for errors or misrepresentations, including a federal watchdog investigation into whether Pulte has improperly accessed confidential mortgage information to go after Trump’s political foes.

One of those transactions is reminiscent of the scenario with One World Love LLC—where Pulte or his family used a complex financial transaction to quietly steer funds to Trump and obscure their origins. As we reported last year, Pulte and his wife, Diana, appear to have used an LLC they controlled in Delaware to funnel a $500,000 contribution to a pro-Trump PAC in 2021. That contribution came while Trump was struggling to win support following his 2020 defeat and his role in the January 6 insurrection.

The gift drew a complaint from a campaign finance group alleging that Bill Pulte violated campaign finance laws by obscuring the source of the funds sent to the PAC. A resulting Federal Election Commission investigation, concluded only last year, said that he had not broken the law, and it did not accuse Diana Pulte of wrongdoing. But the FEC found the Trump-controlled PAC had erred by failing to properly disclose the real source of the donation. The agency also said that Diana Pulte had incorrectly filled out a form to indicate the money came from an LLC rather than a member of the Pulte family.

Mother Jones also has uncovered other questionable financial transactions by Bill Pulte, including a missing SEC filing and his promotion of a memecoin created by an influencer facing financial fraud charges.

None of this appears to have slowed down Pulte’s efforts to help launch criminal probes into Trump’s enemies. Last month, the Trump administration served Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell with a subpoena stemming from a first-in-history criminal inquiry by the Justice Department. Bill Pulte was the driving force behind that decision, according to reports and a court filing, fueling a dramatic escalation of Trump’s ongoing vilification of the Fed that shocked economists and financial markets. On the day that the document was served, Pulte flew down to Palm Beach, Florida, with the president, for a stay at Mar-a-Lago and a visit to Trump’s nearby golf course.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

US Ambassador to Israel: “It Would Be Fine” If Israel Took Over Most of the Middle East

On Sunday, more than a dozen Arab and Islamic governments condemned statements made by US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee after he said in an interview with Tucker Carlson that Israel had the biblical right to take over land belonging to other states in the Middle East.

“It would be fine if they took it all,” Huckabee told Carlson in the interview released on Friday when questioned on whether Israel had been promised almost all the land in the Middle East in the Bible. The statement was part of a heated exchange where Carlson pressed Huckabee on his beliefs in Christian Zionism. (Huckabee later added that Israel was not interested in acquiring other countries’ land.)

In a joint statement released by the United Arab Emirates’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, several governments—including US allies like Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia—called Huckabee’s remarks “a flagrant violation of the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations” that threaten security in the region. The countries stated that the ambassador’s statements “directly contradict” Donald Trump’s 20-point plan from last October to end the war in Gaza.

Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a longtime supporter of the country’s expansion in the Middle East, had another response. He posted on X on Saturday: “I [heart emoji] Huckabee.”

Huckabee clarified later on in his Friday interview on The Tucker Carlson Show that his statement that Israel could take it “all” was “hyperbolic.”

In July 2024, the United Nations’ top court, the International Court of Justice, said that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem violate international law by infringing on the Palestinian people’s rights for self-determination.

Despite that, Israel and US policy has facilitated the expansion of settlements. As my colleague Noah Lanard wrote in February 2025, Trump has not just supported permanently displacing Palestinians from Gaza—he has also stated that he wants the US to take control of the region and have a “long-term ownership position,” manifesting in his administration’s “New Gaza” real estate project, complete with skyscrapers and industrial centers.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Armed Man Fatally Shot at Mar-a-Lago, Secret Service Says

An armed man was fatally shot on Sunday after driving into the secure perimeter of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate as another vehicle was exiting, according to a spokesperson for the US Secret Service.

“The individual was observed by the north gate of the Mar-a-Lago property carrying what appeared to be a shotgun and a fuel can,” the Secret Service’s press release reads. “US Secret Service and a [Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office] deputy confronted the individual and shots were fired by law enforcement during the encounter.”

The president and First Lady Melania Trump were at the White House at the time of the shooting.

At a press conference on Sunday morning, Palm Beach County Sheriff Rick Bradshaw said that the man was ordered to drop the two pieces of equipment that he was carrying. In response, “he put down the gas can [and] raised the shotgun to a shooting position.”

According to Anthony Guglielmi, the Secret Service’s Chief of Communications, the suspect was in his early 20s and from North Carolina. He was reported missing a few days ago by his family.

Guglielmi said that investigators believe the man picked up a shotgun on the way to Florida. Law enforcement recovered a box for the gun in the suspect’s vehicle.

The Sunday incident at Mar-a-Lago took place a few miles from Trump’s West Palm Beach club, where a man tried to assassinate him while he played golf during the 2024 campaign.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Putin Tried to Freeze Ukraine. Instead, He Sparked an Energy Revolution.

_This story was originally published b_y Yale Environment 360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

When Russian air strikes knocked out Ukrainian power plants earlier this winter, much of the Black Sea port city of Mykolaiv went dark, and indoor temperatures plummeted. Just 60 kilometers from the front, Tornado rockets, cruise and ballistic missiles, and attack drones have been raining down on the city of 450,000 for the last four years. Now, during the coldest winter in more than a decade, most of Mykolaiv’s citizens are once again enduring bitterly cold homes and, when electric water pumps fail, dry taps.

“Attacking decentralized solar power installations is not economically rational.”

But there are new glimmers of hope in Mykolaiv. Last November, 26 newly installed photovoltaic roof panels, paired with 100 kilowatt-hours of lithium battery storage, began to power heat pumps and generators to keep the city’s Urban Rehabilitation Center for Children and Persons with Disabilities up and running. Thanks to the Danish Refugee Council and Denmark’s foreign ministry, the project’s donors, the center continued operating even during a 32-hour stretch of shelling in mid-December. In addition to treating 70 patients a day, the center has opened its doors to at-risk Mykolaivians who lack heat. Several other institutions in Mykolaiv have also jettisoned their exclusive reliance on the national grid, which is mostly powered by large natural gas, coal-fired, and nuclear plants, and now draw energy from small-scale distributed systems that produce electricity at or near the point of use.

Since the war’s onset, Russia has targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure—its old-school fossil-fueled power plants, substations, and transmission lines—in an effort to advance its offensive and beat down the Ukrainian people. Before this winter even set in, half of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure lay in ruins. Economists estimate that total damage to the nation’s energy sector now exceeds $56 billion.

This winter is the most devastating yet: Attacks have left giant swaths of the country with irregular electricity and heat as temperatures have plummeted to minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit. The bitter conditions have left many schools and other public services closed since Christmas. In Kyiv, as well as in Kharkiv, Poltava, and Dnipro, more than 1,000 public heating tents, powered by diesel generators and wood-burning stoves, offer residents warmth and a place to charge their phones. But these improvisations aren’t enough. On January 14, President Volodymyr Zelensky declared a state of emergency in the energy sector.

While Ukraine’s energy system, which had a pre-war generation capacity of 60 gigawatts, scrambles to keep the lights on, grid operators are also looking past the next drone swarm, pushing to diversify the country’s energy sources, says Lars Handrich, a German energy expert who works closely with Ukraine. The plan is to replace the bulky thermal plants and centralized grid, which are vulnerable to drone and other attacks, with distributed renewables and modestly sized gas-fired plants that make less attractive targets for incoming fire. According to estimates from the Solar Energy Association of Ukraine, the nation installed at least 1.5 gigawatts of new solar generation in 2025—enough to power roughly 1.1 million homes—and grid operators intend to almost double the country’s renewable energy production over the next four years.

Ukraine is revamping its power sector as rapidly as it can, not for climate protection but for energy security. “Ukraine’s energy transition is not a slogan,” says Ievgeniia Kopytsia, a Ukrainian energy analyst at the Institute for Climate Protection, Energy and Mobility. “Since the full-scale invasion, Ukraine has added over 3 gigawatts of new renewable energy capacity. It’s a security-driven transformation, unfolding under extreme constraints, that prioritizes decentralization, flexibility, and speed of recovery.”

Wind and solar arrays with independent transmission lines are scattered over the landscape, which makes them harder to hit and easier to repair. “A coal power station [is] a large single target that a single missile could take out,” says Jeff Oatham of DTEK, Ukraine’s largest energy company and its largest private energy investor. “You would need around 40 missiles to do the equivalent amount of capacity damage at a wind farm.”

Solar, too, makes an unattractive target. “Attacking decentralized solar power installations is not economically rational,” says Ukrainian energy expert Olena Kondratiuk. “Missiles and drones are expensive, and significantly disrupting such systems would require a large number of strikes, while the overall impact on the energy system would remain limited.” Both solar and wind parks can function even when parts of them are out of operation.

Ukraine’s shift away from fossil fuels began before Russia’s full-scale invasion: To join the European Union, the nation must adopt the bloc’s climate criteria, and in 2021, Ukraine pledged to be coal-free by 2035. The war interrupted this phaseout, but it also accelerated Ukraine’s adoption of renewables, despite its strapped budget.

European countries are bankrolling most of Ukraine’s energy makeover, including all of the Mykolaiv solar installations. West of Kyiv, the city of Zhytomyr plans to run entirely on renewables by 2050 with the help of the Rebuild Ukraine initiative, which is largely European-funded. And in the Kyiv region and beyond, solar systems supported by the Solar Supports Ukraine program are keeping schools open during blackouts. A self-financed exception: Before the war began, the Sunny Citycooperative in Slavutych, a town near the Belarus border, crowdfunded to create a solar power plant on the roofs of three municipal buildings.

According to the International Energy Agency, Ukraine made “strong strides” in rebuilding and bolstering its system’s resilience this past summer. The renewables rollout was—and still is—dominated by rooftop solar, small photovoltaic arrays, wind, local storage, and biomass combustion.

Some self-sustaining energy zones combine renewables with conventional energy. The central Ukrainian city of Vinnytsia, for example, boasts five microgridst that combine local generation, including solar, gas, and hydroelectric power, with energy storage systems. Five major wind farms will join the energy mix in the next two years. In Khmelnytskyi, the national university’s 4,400-kilowatt microgrid includes a natural gas-fired cogeneration unit (it produces both electricity and heat), a 264-kilowatt solar array, a diesel-powered plant, and a gas-fired boiler house, which generates heat.

Before Russia seized territory that hosted more than half of Ukraine’s wind power capacity in 2014 and 2022, including major wind farms on the Sea of Azov coast, Ukraine had 34 wind parks, comprised of nearly 700 turbines. Since wind generation is so central to its decentralized energy strategy, Ukraine has sought to increase wind generation even in the midst of Russian attacks.

Just 65 miles from the front, DTEK is installing the 500-megawatt Tyligulska Wind Power Plant, the first wind park ever built in a war zone. It is a crucial source of electricity in southern Ukraine and will supply 900,000 households when it’s finished. The country currently has 7 gigawatts of wind power in the pipeline that could be installed this year, according to Andriy Konechenkov, of the Ukrainian Wind Energy Association, should conditions on the ground allow it. The new turbines would more than triple the country’s current wind-power capacity.

While the war has sidelined the rollout of utility-scale wind farms, solar installations atop households, businesses, and public institutions have continued at an unprecedented rate. Ukraine’s YASNO utility, which supplies electricity and gas to millions of Ukrainians, says its customers are snapping up the solar and storage packages that it offers. On sunny days, Ukraine even boasts energy surpluses.

The German-Ukrainian Energy Partnership, a platform for intergovernmental dialogue on energy matters, estimates that Ukraine’s long-term technical solar potential exceeds 80 gigawatts, on par with the output of 80 medium-sized nuclear reactors. “The sector is emerging as one of the fastest-developing renewable markets in Eastern Europe,” according to its website. A University of Technology Sydney study suggests Ukraine could meet 91 percent of its energy needs from a combination of solar and onshore wind using 1 percent of its land.

“Individual consumers want to get off the grid any way that they can,” explains Andriy Martynyuk of Ecoclub, a Ukraine-based NGO that helps communities develop renewables. “It’s largely a grassroots phenomenon and a bit chaotic now,” he says. But Martynyuk expects the demand for renewables will further surge when state subsidies for fossil energy, which have priced Ukrainian energy significantly below market rates, are eventually phased out.

This boom, of course, begs for storage options, and there, too, Ukraine has moved quickly. In 2024 and 2025, the country’s national grid operator invested in half a gigawatt of storage capacity—an impressive amount according to experts, who note that it is just under a quarter of Germany’s total storage supply. The battery projects that in Europe take two years to roll out, the Financial Times reports, take just six months in Ukraine.

In terms of a new, cutting-edge distributed energy system, Ukraine may be racing forward with the zeal of a new convert, but even the planned rollout of renewables in 2026 won’t keep most of the Ukrainian population safe from Russia’s depredations next winter. Wartime Ukraine has the will but not the financial resources to revamp its energy production on its own. The nation’s largest donor, the E.U., is already contributing nearly $200 billion to Ukraine’s budget for military expenditures and humanitarian aid, including energy. The speed with which Ukraine blankets its territory with distributed energy systems could make the difference between surviving another punishing winter—or succumbing to its cruelty.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Measles Cases This Year Near 1,000. That We Know Of.

There have been nearly 1,000 confirmed measles cases in the US in 2026 so far, according to new data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s more than four times the amount of cases as this time last year.

It’s unclear how much larger the spread could be, as the CDC’s number refers to reported and confirmed cases.

Many of the current cases stem from an outbreak in South Carolina, with the state nearly reporting around 800 cases since January. Twenty-six states have reported cases this year, spanning the entire country—from California to Maine and from Texas to Wisconsin.

Related

RFK Jr.HHS Wasn’t Worried About South Carolina’s Measles Outbreak. It’s Now Enormous.

During 2025, there were 2,281 confirmed cases of measles. The country is now at risk of, if not on track to, losing its measles elimination status that it’s held since 2000. Two doses of the measles, mumps, and rubella, or MMR, vaccine**,** usually administered in children, provides 97 percent protection, though distrust of vaccinations, fueled by mis- and disinformation, has risen in the past few years.

The surging 2026 numbers come after more than a year of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. serving as the head of the US Department of Health and Human Services. He, along with key allies, has led the agency toward an unprecedented reshaping of the nation’s vaccination system for children—a mission he began prior to becoming secretary.

There are no current death reports from 2026, though at least three people died from measles in 2025. As more Americans are at risk of becoming sick from the illness, Kennedy has continued to spread false information about alternative remedies like cod liver oil.

Despite the record numbers and quick spread in 2025, HHS told Mother Jones back in December that they weren’t especially worried about the brewing South Carolina outbreak. The CDC was “not currently concerned that this will develop into a large, long-running outbreak,” HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard wrote.

To date, that outbreak has led to at least 20 hospitalizations. Though, according to reporting from ProPublica, that number is likely much higher as hospitals in South Carolina aren’t required to report when they admit patients with measles-related illnesses.

Dr. Leigh Bragg, a pediatrician in South Carolina who is board certified in pediatric infectious disease, told ProPublica that she didn’t even know that anyone had been hospitalized due to the illness in her state until she saw it on social media.

“It’s a very big disservice to the public not reporting complications we are seeing in hospitals or even ERs,” Bragg said. “Measles isn’t just a cold.”

Even if reports of measles were required, the chaos the Trump administration has rained down on the federal workforce could make it hard to understand and address the scope of the issue.

In October, more than 1,000 CDC employees were laid off, only for some 700 to be rehired the next day. As Americans face another widespread public health crisis, the pinned post on Kennedy’s X account isn’t about how to protect yourself or your children from measles. Instead, it’s a video of himself working out in a sauna, shirtless, with Kid Rock.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump’s Favorite Appointee Right Now Is the One Who Didn’t Challenge His Power

President Trump’s favorite Supreme Court justice right now is the appointee who refused to restrict the president’s tariff agenda.

After the high court ruled against him in his tariff case on Friday, Trump has repeatedly singled out Justice Brett Kavanaugh in praise—the only one of Trump’s three appointments to dissent against the majority opinion that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, does not give Trump authority to impose tariffs.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed in 2017 and 2020 respectively, sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and the liberal justices in the majority opinion.

“I would like to thank Justice Kavanaugh for his, frankly, his genius and his great ability. Very proud of that appointment,” Trump said during the press conference following the Friday ruling. During that address, Trump claimed, without providing details, that the loss in the Supreme Court “made a president’s ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear rather than less.”

Trump initially announced that he would impose a global tariff of 10 percent, invoking a law never before utilized by a president which allows the executive to “impose an across-the-board tariff for 150 days unless Congress agrees to extend it,” according to the New York Times. On Saturday, per a Truth Social post, Trump raised the amount to 15 percent—the cap for this kind of tariff imposition.

It’s unclear how this global tariff will impact trade negotiations with world leaders. It’s also unclear, and not covered in the ruling, if the executive office will be refunding any retailers impacted by the previous tariffs. Estimates place the total amount that Trump has collected under IEEPA between $133 billion and $175 billion.

Related

Collage featuring the Supreme Courthouse, shipping containers at a shipyard, overlaid with a black and white crop of Donald Trump looking displeased.Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariff Regime

Amid Trump’s strong rebukes of the justices who opted to deny the overarching presidential authority, he continued to lavish praise on Kavanaugh, who, according to a recent Marquette Law School poll, has the lowest net favorability among all of his peers.

“I’m so proud of him,” Trump said of Kavanaugh on Friday, repeatedly citing his dissent.

“My new hero is United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Saturday morning, before mentioning the other two men who sided with him: “and, of course, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.” Despite dissenting from his liberal colleagues in the recent tariff case, Kavanaugh is the conservative justice most likely to side with liberals in outcomes, according to an analysis by SCOTUSblog.

Trump has long championed Kavanaugh, providing strong support for the appointee during his controversial approval process in 2018. When Christine Blasey Ford had accused then-nominee Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were in high school, Trump called for his followers to pray for him and his family. After Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the alleged assault, which she reportedly detailed to her husband and therapist several years prior, Trump wrote that Kavanaugh “is a fine man and great intellect.”

President Donald Trump, right, smiles as he stands with Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, left, before a ceremonial swearing in in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Monday, Oct. 8, 2018.

President Trump with Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh before a ceremonial swearing in on October 8, 2018Susan Walsh/AP

Around a year later, in 2019, the Times published another sexual misconduct allegation against him, spurring calls for his impeachment. Kavanaugh denied both of the women’s accounts.

Trump again came to the rescue: “Can’t let Brett Kavanaugh give Radical Left Democrat (Liberal Plus) Opinions based on threats of Impeaching him over made up stories (sound familiar?), false allegations, and lies. This is the game they play. Fake and Corrupt News is working overtime!,” Trump wrote at the time, adding the hashtag “#ProtectKavanaugh.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Federal Program That Helps Cities Prep for Disaster Stays Frozen Despite Judge’s Order

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

When it comes to adapting to the consequences of climate change, the federal government has relied heavily on one flagship program: Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities. Administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), BRIC has doled out $4.5 billion in grants to help states and cities prepare for future disasters. Wildfire retrofits in Washington State, safe rooms in Oklahoma, and sewer systems in Detroit have all benefitted from the program.

Despite bipartisan support for the effort, the Trump Administration issued a memo announcing its intent to shut down BRIC in April. Then, in December, a federal judge ordered FEMA to restore the program’s funding and “promptly take all steps necessary to reverse” the termination. The agency had two months to appeal.

Though that deadline passed last week, the Trump administration is still holding out. Two FEMA officials told Grist that the agency has taken no apparent steps to revive BRIC in compliance with the December court order. As a result, state and local governments across the country are holding critical projects in limbo as they await a resolution.

“It boggles the mind that almost two dozen states had to go back to court to ask Judge Stearns to enforce the existing court order.”

The officials who spoke to Grist requested anonymity to avoid retaliation from agency leadership. Separately, a FEMA spokesperson said the agency complies with court orders, but did not respond to questions about the future of BRIC.

FEMA’s deadline to appeal the judge’s ruling was February 9. On Tuesday, a coalition of state attorneys general accused the Trump administration of dragging its feet on compliance. (Those attorneys represent the states behind the original lawsuit over BRIC, which resulted in the December ruling.)

“Over two months have passed and Defendants have offered no indication to Plaintiff States, the public, FEMA’s regional offices, or apparently even Defendants’ own attorney that they have complied with the Order,” attorneys for almost two dozen states wrote in a court filing on Tuesday. The states asked the judge to compel FEMA to follow the order and make BRIC funding available.

BRIC actually launched during the first Trump administration, but most of its funding came from the Biden-era Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. That money endowed more than 2,000 projects nationwide. At the time of the April memo shuttering the program, FEMA told Grist that BRIC “was yet another example of a wasteful and ineffective FEMA program.” (The acting FEMA director who issued that memo, Cameron Hamilton, lost his job a few weeks later after telling Congress that he didn’t think Trump should abolish his agency.)

The BRIC pause is one part of an overall freeze on FEMA’s disaster mitigation spending. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the agency, has placed it under a de facto spending moratorium, requiring Secretary Kristi Noem’s sign-off for any expenses over $100,000. FEMA has not approved any new disaster mitigation projects, has refused to process paperwork for projects that were already in progress, and has been slow even to reimburse communities for the cost of disaster recovery, a core activity mandated by Congress.

When a group of around two dozen states sued to stop the cancellation of the program in a Massachusetts federal court, FEMA claimed that it was not canceling BRIC. Instead, it said in a court filing that it “ha[d] not ended” the program and “continue[d] to evaluate whether to end the…program or to revise it,” even as it acknowledged it had not made new funding available.

The judge rejected that argument and issued an injunction preventing the agency from stopping the program. Judge Richard Stearns, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in an order that the law “entitle[s] the States to a certain measure of funding for mitigation projects each fiscal year.”

The state attorneys general allege that FEMA has not provided states, grantees, or regional offices with any new information about the future of the program—nor has it made two years of suspended BRIC funding available to states. The plaintiff states said in Tuesday’s court filing that a senior agency official had told them FEMA is “still in the process of connecting with leadership about how BRIC will operate and on what timelines.”

“If they’re really concerned about the escalating cost of natural disasters and the burden on the federal government, they should be concentrating on resilience.”

Two agency employees who work on disaster adaptation confirmed the states’ allegation that FEMA has not yet restored the program. The decision on how to proceed appears to rest with senior Homeland Security officials, they added.

“I haven’t heard a word internally, at all,” one of the officials told Grist.

The December court order found that the states could suffer irreparable harm if BRIC projects that were already underway lost funding or collapsed due to an abrupt shutdown. The state attorneys general are now arguing that FEMA’s recent delays further threaten those projects. Attorneys for the states said that FEMA has refused to provide updates on the status of frozen projects, even when state officials have warned that projects are in jeopardy. The states submitted more than a dozen affidavits showing that FEMA has declined to provide updates for stalled projects, including a seismic retrofit for a rural California hospital and a pair of public school safe rooms in Wisconsin.

The Massachusetts cities of Chelsea and Everett, just outside of Boston, were relying on around $50 million in BRIC money to fund an ambitious flood protection project. The cities were going to build a flood barrier and storm surge control project that would prevent tidal flooding in a floodplain that contains a high school, a rail line, and a regional produce distribution center. The barrier would have doubled as an expansion of a park that will be submerged by high tides in the coming years.

But FEMA paused the project’s funding last spring, after the April memo. Since then, the effort has been in limbo. The pause has meant that the two cities lost out on $50 million in matching money from a state fund. After a year in stasis, local officials are weighing whether to split the project into separate stages, pursuing the storm surge system alone while punting on the other parts.

“We could just put it on a shelf and wait for federal funding, or we could attempt to break the project into phases,” said Emily Granoff, who leads the project and is the deputy director of housing and community development for the city of Chelsea. “This project needs to happen,” she added, “but we don’t have the information we need.”

Disaster experts said the delay amounts to dereliction of duty. “It boggles the mind that almost two dozen states had to go back to court to ask Judge Stearns to enforce the existing court order against FEMA,” said Shana Udvardy, a senior policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental advocacy organization. “What we’ve seen when it comes to this BRIC case [and others] is this Trump administration’s willingness to either outright ignore the law or suggest it has a plan in place to implement the law, an obvious delay tactic to get away with doing nothing.”

President Trump and Secretary Noem have said they want the federal government to play a smaller role in disaster recovery, but experts told Grist that destroying BRIC will jeopardize that goal. That’s because BRIC projects ultimately reduce disaster recovery costs by funding more resilient infrastructure before it’s needed.

“If they’re really concerned about the escalating cost of natural disasters and the burden on the federal government, they should be concentrating on resilience,” said Leo Martinez-Diaz, the director of the climate and sustainability program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “That’s the only thing that ultimately reduces the losses.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

As the Trump Administration Erases Black History, These Writers Are Keeping It Alive

One of the unmistakable throughlines of the second Trump administration is how it’s overhauling policies that directly affect African Americans, most notably by targeting programs and initiatives that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI.

For journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, it’s an attempt to take the country back to an era before the civil rights movement. “A lot of folks are saying, you know, that this administration is rolling back the ’60s, but I’m like, he—this administration’s actually going back further than that.”

The administration is also removing references to Black history from the nation’s museums, parks, and schools. When history itself is being erased at the highest levels, who’s left to tell us where we’ve been and where we’re headed?

This week on Reveal, as part of Black History Month, we’re bringing you conversations from our sister podcast, More To The Story, with three prominent Black writers who are fighting to tell a more inclusive American story.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Wants You to Forget That George Washington Owned Slaves

On Thursday just before noon, bundled up couples and small groups of people wandered through the President’s House on Independence Hall, some snapping photos and others inquiring what was happening as four National Park employees worked in tandem, behind a barricade, to reattach panel after panel of the President’s House slavery exhibits. They worked in the cold, lifting the massive glass squares up onto the brick wall and then screwing them into place. Philadelphia’s mayor Cherelle L. Parker approached, admiring the exhibit for a moment before shaking hands with the workers and thanking them.

“I want you to know I’m grateful,” Parker said. “It’s our honor,” one of the employees responded.

They continued to work until at least 16 panels of the memorial were reinstalled. The exhibits had been removed on a Thursday afternoon nearly a month before, in accordance with Trump’s 2025 “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” executive order to rid “public monuments, memorials, statues, markers or similar properties” of content that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.” But after the city sued, US District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe issued an injunction ordering the government to “restore the President’s House Site to its physical status as of January 21, 2026.” That order was overruled on Friday, just one hour before the deadline Rufe had set for the exhibit’s reinstallation. Now, the National Park Service must maintain the status quo—leaving 16 of 34 panels up—while the federal government appeals the initial injunction.

For a community that fought to restore history, the initial order to restore the President’s House exhibit had been cause for celebration. “We need to understand what we’ve done here. This is actually a moment in time; your children, your grandchildren, your great grandchildren, are going to be talking about this for years and decades to come,” said Michael Coard, attorney and founding member of Avenging the Ancestors Coalition (ATAC), a broad-based Black-led coalition of activists, on Thursday as the the National Park Service initially started to restore panels. “This here, right now, what we’ve done is people power.” As Coard spoke, he stood in front of a wall engraved with the names of the nine people enslaved by Washington. At the bottom of his podium rested the 1863 image “Scourged Back,” which was marked for removal from Harper’s Ferry National Historical Park last year.

ATAC had been an instrumental part of establishing the exhibit in 2010 and had filed an amicus brief in support of the city’s lawsuit on January 27.

The exhibit in Center City was one of a dozen other signs and materials from national parks removed after Trump’s executive order. The Washington Post reported that park staff interpreted the order as including “any references to historic racism, sexism, climate change, and LGBTQ+ rights.” As America approaches its 250th anniversary this year, these removals foreshadow a celebration that, on the national level, excludes underrepresented communities’ contributions to American history, refuses to reckon with its more difficult periods, and ultimately obfuscates the truth of our collective past.

When Philadelphia was the nation’s capital, the President’s House was the site where Presidents George Washington and John Adams lived and worked. The original building was demolished in 1832, but visitors today can still walk through its foundation, which sits near the Liberty Bell Center. The slavery exhibits at the President’s House include displays that memorialize the names and experiences of the nine people enslaved under Washington, along with relevant historical moments like Washington’s signing of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1793.

After the exhibit’s removal in January, the ATAC kept the space alive with numerous rallies. A few days prior to the court’s order to reinstall the panels, despite the leftover snow that piled along the sidewalks and on the lawn, hundreds of concerned Philadelphia community members gathered at the President’s House demanding the restoration of the slavery exhibit.

“African American history is American history, and we stand and continue to fight to make sure that Donald Trump will not whitewash the history here in the city of Philadelphia,” said Kenyatta Johnson, Philadelphia’s 2nd Council District President, as the crowd applauded. “It’s shameful that as we celebrate the 250th celebration of the birthplace of America that we have to be out here today advocating and fighting to make sure our true history—our true history, not his story—is known.”

Other speakers included a direct descendant of Black founding father Bishop Richard Allen, city council members, a historian, and a George Washington reenactor. They all echoed a similar message: the history presented by these panels needed to be restored because they tell an intrinsic part of American history, despite the current administration’s view that they were “disparaging.”

A brick wall with a display of poswers and flyers describing the history of slavery.

Before a federal judge ordered the restoration of the slavery exhibit, community members filled the space with their own. Jeffrey Kelly

​The main brick walls, where two long horizontal silver slabs hung covered in glue residue—a reminder of what had been there—had been plastered with various handmade flyers protesting the erasure of history and even recreating parts of the exhibit for those who came to view the site.

The City of Philadelphia filed their federal lawsuit against the US Department of the Interior and the National Park Service the day the panels were initially removed, arguing the removal of the exhibit was “arbitrary and capricious,” violating a 2006 Cooperative Agreement between Philadelphia and the federal government.

“This is not about hatred of America or the United States; it is about telling the full American story again.”

“This action is a disservice to our city, our nation, and it denies future generations the chance to learn from our history, fostering an environment of ignorance rather than understanding,” said Catherine Hicks, the president of Philadelphia’s NAACP branch, to the crowd. “We must confront the complexities of our past, honoring the lives and legacies of those who suffered under the institution of slavery.”

​Hannah Gann, a high school African American history teacher attending the rally, said every year she’d teach her students about the people Washington enslaved, particularly Ona Judge, a young woman who escaped to New Hampshire. This year, when her students heard the memorial was torn down, they were “upset that their real history was being erased and a huge part of our city’s history was being taken away and covered up.”

​Gann said the exhibit’s removal reminded her of how vital educators are.​ “We can’t just feel satisfied that we’ve done enough,” she said. “Every year we have to renew our energy, our commitment to the truth, our commitment to Black uplift and celebrating stories of Black resilience and power and having our students see themselves in those stories.”

As the rally to restore history took place in Philadelphia, in Washington, the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held an oversight hearing titled “All in for America250: Public-Private Partnerships Supporting America’s Semiquincentennial on our Public Lands.”

During the hearing, Alan Spears, National Parks Conservation Association’s Senior Director for Cultural Resources, recalled that when he was young, his parents would take him to places like Gettysburg. He said it was there that his passion for American History manifested, but it didn’t “take hold” until he started seeing people who looked like him in those spaces.

“I think what we’re looking at right now is the danger of taking that in a completely opposite direction, where people don’t see themselves reflected or are seeing themselves actively removed and excised from our shared national narrative,” Spears said during the hearing. “We don’t need to go in that direction. This is not about hatred of America or the United States; it is about telling the full American story again, about the times when we failed to live up to the better angels of our nature. That’s us too.”​

John Garrison Marks, a historian and ​the author of Thy Will Be Done: George Washington’s Legacy of Slavery and the Fight for American Memory, had hoped that America’s anniversary would be an opportunity to “establish a more complete, more inclusive and more widely shared understanding of the nation’s history,” including the history of slavery.

Marks said people have debated Washington’s involvement in slavery for almost 250 years. The founding father enslaved people right up until the day he died, while privately writing about becoming “uneasy” with slavery and hoping that the institution would be abolished in southern states. Washington even circumvented a Pennsylvania law by deliberately moving the people he enslaved in and out of the state every six months to ensure they wouldn’t be freed by the Gradual Abolition Act of 1780. Marks noted that the president understood the hypocrisy of leading a revolution to found a nation dedicated to the ideas of liberty and equality while enslaving people.

Marks said you can’t to talk about Washington without talking about his involvement in slavery. He argued that some people struggle to see Washington as “an actual human being” with “egregious flaws,” and instead see him as a symbol of the nation itself; for some, “criticizing Washington is criticizing America.”

​“There are a lot of people whose sense of patriotism, whose sense of self, is tied to the idea that America is the land of the free, is tied up in the idea that this is a nation that should only be celebrated,” he said. “And when you try to introduce this idea that we need to reckon with the history of slavery to understand Washington, there are a lot of people who view that as kind of a personal attack.”

With Philadelphia having the potential to see so many visitors this year, not only for the 250th anniversary, but for the FIFA World Cup or the MLB All-Star Game, the removal of the slavery exhibit at the President’s House was “a huge missed opportunity” to give people an uncensored history, one that Marks believes most people want to learn.

“On the eve of the 250th there are going to be people who are now waving the flag talking about how they love this country, and my thing is this: you can’t love a thing or a person until you know the good, the bad and the ugly,” Coard said after the rally. “So, the 250th shines a spotlight about the absolute necessity of knowing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about your country.”

Following the initial legal victory, community members werecautiously hopeful.

“My heart is really exploding with joy, but it’s the type of joy that we often experience as Black people in this country,” said Michelle Flamer, a retired attorney, who helped get the exhibit installed over 15 years ago. “Where is the permanency? I want to make sure that this is permanent and not to ever be taken away. This history belongs here. There have been many people who have talked about moving it somewhere else or telling it, and I support efforts to continue to tell this history as broadly and as widely as possible, but it belongs here on this ground, because this is actually where the president’s house existed.”

Whatever the result of the administration’s fight to change the signage at the President’s House and other sites across the country, nothing can change what happened at these places, and who it happened to.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariff Regime

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that most of President Donald Trump’s world-wide tariffs are illegal, dealing a setback to one of the president’s top priorities. Since his second month in office, Trump has set about to impose drastic, varying, and haphazard tariffs on countries across the globe. Trump purported that most of these tariffs were authorized under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. But in a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled that IEEPA did not give the president power to impose tariffs. Trump will now have to turn to other, more limited statutes to impose his unilateral tariffs.

Although the outcome is a clear loss for Trump, the court is likely doing him a favor.

IEEPA authorizes the president to respond to “any unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad, including through the power to “regulate… importation or exportation.” The Trump administration argued that the word “regulate” encompassed “tariff regulation,” which Solicitor General John Sauer described during oral arguments as “the quintessential, most historically-tested method of regulating imports.” But the justices disagreed, finding the words “regulate” and “importation” are not enough to give the president uninhibited tariff power.

“Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—’regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion. “Those words cannot bear such weight.”

To use IEEPA, Trump had taken a capacious view of the meaning of “unusual or extraordinary threat.” For tariffs on Canada and Mexico, he said it was because they were letting fentanyl across the border. For dozens of other countries, he seized on decades-old trade deficits that most economists agree are not a big deal. For Canada (a second time), he pointed to a World Series TV ad that offended him. For Brazil, it was the gall to prosecute a former president for trying to overturn the results of an election. Trump argued that it was his power alone to declare such emergencies, and that these declarations were unreviewable, even by the courts.

Roberts dispatched with this argument by saying that Congress could not have handed the president such broad powers over matters generally reserved for itself—the power to impose tariffs—without more explicit language: This view “would replace the longstanding executive-legislative collaboration over trade policy with unchecked Presidential policymaking,” Roberts wrote. “Congress seldom effects such sea changes through ‘vague language.'”

Although the outcome is a clear loss for Trump, the court is likely doing him a favor. Trump’s sweeping and erratic tariffs are a drag on the economy. They increase uncertainty and stymie investment. They raise prices and decrease employment. The result is a weaker economy heading into this year’s midterms**—**a downward trend that is likely to continue throughthe 2028 elections.

The Republican-appointed 6-3 court majority depends on Republicans winning at the ballot box, as does the pro-business, pro-Christian nationalist, anti-democratic agenda the conservative justices are enacting. They surely understand that this project could be undermined by a tariff-fueled recession, even if Trump himself doesn’t seem to get it. To bring the point home, the case was argued the day after Democrats overperformed in November elections in New Jersey, New York City, and Virginia, winning voters worried about high prices.

The best way to understand this case was not as a tricky task of legal or constitutional interpretation, but rather as an attempt to mediate between two competing factions of the Republican firmament. On one side is Trump, who has used tariffs to dole out rewards and punishments on businesses, individuals, and other countries. On the other side were some of the biggest GOP funders, including the Koch network, who are generally committed to a pro-corporate, libertarian capitalism. These longtime GOP funders prefer Trump to a Democratic president, but they don’t want him to completely take over the levers of the economy. Groups funded by the Kochs and likeminded tycoons funded some of the libertarian legal nonprofits that launched lawsuits challenging the tariffs. These same funders also poured millions into the Federalist Society and other outside groups that helped ensure each of the six Republican appointees made it to the high court.

The result is that the court’s GOP-appointees were mediating a disagreement between two parents who maintain a sometimes rocky marriage—the funders who enabled their majority, and the president who will protect it and who personally appointed three of them. The justices had to pick a parent in this fight, and enough of the conservative wing picked the billionaires and big business over Trump.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Claimed His EPA Climate Rollback Will Save Americans Money. That’s Very Unlikely.

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

The Trump administration claims its latest move to gut climate regulations and end all greenhouse gas standards for vehicles will save Americans money. But its own analysis indicates that the new rule will push up gas prices, and that the benefits of the rollback are unlikely to outweigh the costs.

On Thursday, the president and his environmental secretary, Lee Zeldin, announced the finalized repeal of the endangerment finding, a legal determination which underpins virtually all federal climate regulations. He claimed the rollback would save the US $1.3 trillion by 2055.

Late on Thursday night, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a regulatory impact analysis to back up that number. The savings will come from two places, the document says: some $1.1 trillion will stem from reduced vehicle prices, while another $200 billion will come from slashed electric vehicle purchases and lowered spending on charging infrastructure.

But a chart within the analysis indicates that the US will through 2055 incur $1.4 trillion in additional costs from increased fuel purchases, vehicle repair and maintenance, insurance, traffic congestion, and noise. An additional $40 billion in costs will come from reduced energy security, increased refueling time and lowered “drive value,” or costs associated with operating a vehicle.

In total, this means the repeal of the endangerment finding will impose an estimated costs of $1.5 trillion, overshadowing the projected $1.3 trillion in savings. And that’s before you take into account the huge social and climate costs.

“Their own analysis shows that the costs outweigh the benefits,” said Kathy Harris, who leads clean vehicle programming at the environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council.

In an emailed statement, an EPA spokesperson said: “The Trump EPA is following the law, ending the bogus overreach of previous administrations done by agenda-driven climate zealots.”

In a scenario that assumes severely lowered fuel prices, the benefits of the repeal would outweigh the costs, the analysis says.

That low fuel price case is based on report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). It was included in the document to properly account for the other “policies being implemented by President Trump that are intended to drive down the price of gasoline,” the authors write.

But that imagined circumstance is “not really realistic,” said Harris.

“That EIA’s low oil price [scenario] was never meant to show the effect of any policies that Trump would implement,” she said. “It’s designed to showcase the uncertainty and the volatility of domestic oil prices due to international forces on the global oil market that drives gas prices in the US and abroad.

“Like most actions within this administration, this decision lacks any regard for everyday people.”

The EPA also fails to provide evidence to support the claim that Donald Trump’s policy will “or even could” drive down fuel prices to the extent envisioned in that scenario, Harris said.

“They’re cooking the books here,” she added.

Trump has repeatedly pledged to lower gasoline prices for Americans. But when the analysis compares a case study in which vehicle regulations continue, versus one where they are repealed, it does not appear that promise will be met.

Eliminating the greenhouse gas standards, the regulatory impact analysis shows, will increase gasoline prices by some $0.75 per gallon by 2050.

“That’s about a 29 percent increase in gasoline prices compared to if we maintain the policies that are in place,” said Harris.

The administration’s analysis also fails to examine the additional costs that deregulation could create due to increased global warming, which experts say could be massive. “This is aligned with what we’ve been seeing from this administration, where they focus on the cost to industry while completely ignoring the costs to the health and climate costs,” said Harris.

Repealing the endangerment finding could increase the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by a stunning 10 percent by 2055, and impose up to $4.7 trillion in additional expenses tied to harmful climate and air pollution by that time, according to projections from advocacy group the Environmental Defense Fund.

Critics say the repeal will benefit Trump’s wealthy oil-boss donors while harming the working class and vulnerable Americans.

“Like most actions within this administration, this decision lacks any regard for everyday people and seems to be a play to deepen its loyalty to fossil fuel companies and billionaires who have proven that they are willing to take actions that endanger human life,” said Abre’ Conner, the director of climate and environmental justice at the NAACP.

The EPA spokesperson said: “These activists picked winners and losers and regulated our economy to the tune of trillions at the expense of the American people with zero measurable environmental impact to show for it. The people who are expressing outrage now are simply upset that their preferred ideology can no longer bypass Congress and the will of the people to dictate how Americans live, work, and drive.”

The person did not address questions about the agency’s economic analysis.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The US Government Keeps Using Dangerous Chemicals on Protestors

On January 31, federal agents fired tear gas into a crowd of civilians, clergy, and children gathered outside the ICE building in Portland, Oregon. Witnesses say, and video shows, that the demonstration was largely peaceful before the gas was deployed. In the weeks since, a federal judge moved to restrict the use of these chemical munitions at the site following reports that agents used them against demonstrators who posed no imminent threat.

Under the second Trump administration, displays of force against protesters have become increasingly common. So it’s important to know which chemicals are being deployed against those exercising their First Amendment rights—because they’re not benign.

Tear gas, the most widely deployed crowd-control weapon, can cause more harmthan temporary irritation. Beyond burning eyes and skin, it has been linked to corneal ulcers and menstrual cycle disruptions, with some reports suggesting possible associations with miscarriage.

But tear gas is just one type of chemical used by federal agents for crowd control.

On January 24, federal agents used hexachloroethane smoke—more commonly known as HC—on protesters at the same Portland ICE facility where they would tear gas children just a week later. According to medical experts, HC is “demonstrably more dangerous” than tear gas. The smoke releases zinc chloride, which can cause chemical burns, acute respiratory distress, and pulmonary edema at high concentrations. Safety data from the manufacturer also warns of potential long-term risks, including organ damage and cancer with repeated exposure.

The US Army has been moving away from HC use in training for decades due to health risks to soldiers, replacing it with less toxic alternatives. Yet spent HC canisters have been documented at protests in Portland—including during the 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstrations. Past reports linked exposure to symptoms ranging from vomiting and hair loss to prolonged appetite loss and significant weight decline.

As the Department of Homeland Security continues deploying these chemical agents, serious questions remain about their safety and the long-term health effects for those exposed—including DHS’s own officers.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Trump Made Us a Soundtrack to World Peace

In the run-up to the inaugural Board of Peace meeting, which began about 40 minutes late on Thursday at the recently renamed Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace in Washington, representatives from over 40 countries jammed out to a mix of disco, ’80s hits, and Sinéad O’Connor classics.

“Does everybody like the music?” the president asked. “It’s good music.”

It was a joyful playlist with a much darker purpose.

Authorized by the UN Security Council last November, the board is supposed to be a temporary international force that coordinates reconstruction efforts in Gaza. But its charter, released in January, makes no mention of Gaza and leaves open the possibility of wielding power anywhere in the world.

“We’re going to make Gaza very successful and safe,” Trump said at the conclusion of the meeting. “And we’re also going to maybe take it a step further where we see hot spots around the world.”

Even U.S. allies think the whole thing is just a slush fund that positions the president as a global chairman able to sidestep accountability. But Trump wasn’t bothered.

Trump’s playlist—full of pride, happiness, and perseverance—functions more as an attempt to frame global atrocities as hope. You can check out the president’s songs below.

“Y.M.C.A” by Village People

Despite the early controversy, the disco hit has become a staple at MAGA rallies, so no real surprise here.

You Don’t Own Me by Lesley Gore

“You don’t own me / Don’t try to change me in any way.” Playing a song often regarded as a feminist anthem may be ironic for an organization that ignores Palestinian people’s sovereignty.

“You’re the One That I Want” by John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John

This tune, from the 1978 film of the musical Grease, is just too upbeat to feel appropriate here.

“Burning Love” by Elvis

An overwhelming, uncontrollable level of romantic desire (for power).

“Crazy” by Gnarls Barkley

I’m not “crazy” because you all say I’m “out of touch.” I’m actually “crazy” because “I just knew too much.”

“Eye of the Tiger” by Survivor

Where Trump is Rocky Balboa in Rocky III, a former champion who overcomes all the odds to achieve personal victory.

“Fun, Fun, Fun” by The Beach Boys

I’m having so much fun! Aren’t you?

“Gloria” by Laura Branigan

Gloria breaks down into feelings of paranoia. Hmm.

“November Rain” by Guns N’ Roses

They may have noticed how long and sprawling this ballad is because the track ended early.

“Nothing Compares 2 U” by Sinéad O’Connor

O’Connor once refused to perform in Israel, saying, “nobody with any sanity…would have anything but sympathy for the Palestinian plight.”

“Please, Please, Please” by James Brown and The Famous Flames

An artist known for his dynamic live performances. I’m unsure if this accurately describes the world representatives at the Board of Peace meeting.

“If I Can Dream” by Elvis

A song that draws parallels with Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. “There must be peace and understanding sometime / Strong wind of promise that will blow away the doubt and fear.”

“Time to Say Goodbye” by Andrea Bocelli and Sarah Brightman

The operatic vocals of Andrea Bocelli and Sarah Brightman are commonly played at memorial services and funerals. Ominous.

“Burning Love” by Elvis

The final song was a repeat. It seems like they were on shuffle for too long.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Tennessee Said Yes to ICE—and Turned Into a Deportation State

On a rainy evening in early May, several armed ICE agents in tactical vests closed in on a small red sedan at a gas station in South Nashville. The driver, a frightened 55-year-old Salvadoran man named Edgardo David Campos, gripped the steering wheel while bystanders took out their phones and began recording video. As agents pulled the driver side door open, one of them placed his hand on his holstered pistol. An onlooker yelled, “Do you have a warrant? Let him go!”

The agents soon dragged Campos from his vehicle, handcuffed him, and forced him into the back of an unmarked black SUV. He remained silent, with an expression of bewilderment and terror, as the growing crowd called out to him and the arresting officers.

Dash cam footage of ICE officers arresting a person from their car outside of a gas station; one officer holds a rifle.

Tennessee Highway Patrol dashcam footage from the May operation in Nashville.Tennessee Immigrant Rights and Refugee Coalition

Nearby, the Tennessee state trooper who had pulled him over stood watching, his squad car parked behind the red sedan. One of the bystanders shouted questions at him, wondering why he had stopped Campos in the first place. Another woman demanded the trooper’s name and badge number, before asking, “Where are you taking him?”

The trooper remained silent. “I don’t have to give you anything,” an ICE agent responded to the crowd. Within minutes, the agents and state trooper drove off, leaving Campos’ car abandoned at the gas station.

By now, the scene has become familiar in communities across the country. The federal siege of Minneapolis—in which masked deportation forces from multiple agencies terrorized immigrants, clashed in the streets with community members, and killed observers Renée Good and Alex Pretti—was the latest in a series of attacks on blue states, including previous high-profile campaigns in Los Angeles and Chicago. Democratic governors like California’s Gavin Newsom and Illinois’ JB Pritzker have lashed out at President Donald Trump and his administration, claiming that it is illegally occupying states and violating the Constitution.

For nearly a week in early May, state troopers roved the city’s Latino neighborhoods at night, with ICE officers riding shotgun and undercover vehicles following behind.

But in Tennessee, where Republicans hold a supermajority in both state legislative chambers, many elected officials have welcomed ICE with open arms. GOP Gov. Bill Lee and other state leaders have touted their close working relationship with White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s deportation campaign. As part of this collaboration, they have paired state police with ICE agents, deployed national guard, and green-lighted the federal occupation of Memphis under the “Memphis Safe Task Force,” which, as Mother Jones’ Samantha Michaels reported, residents compared to living in “a war zone, with helicopters circling over neighborhoods, National Guard officers patrolling downtown, and unmarked law enforcement vehicles in the streets.”

Campos’ arrest was part of a May operation in Nashville, dubbed “Operation Flood the Zone,” that could become a template for future incursions into Democrat-run cities in Republican-controlled states. For nearly a week in early May, state troopers roved the city’s Latino neighborhoods at night, with ICE officers riding shotgun and undercover vehicles following behind, leaving fear and panic in their wake. During the operation more than 600 vehicles were stopped, and ICE claimed that nearly 200 residents were arrested.

State troopers used pretexts such as bent license plates, unlit temporary tags, and dark window tints to pull people over, so that ICE, which can’t make routine traffic stops, could check their immigration status—and bypass constitutional and legal protections in the process. During the stops, some ICE agents carried assault rifles and “window punches,” in case a driver refused to roll down their window.

Related

A graphic-novel style illustration of a man in a baseball cap using his right hand to peek through closed blinds. The man, colored in dark blue and black, views a scene bathed in red.“I’ve Never Seen So Many Police Cars”

As the operation unfolded, Nashville’s Democratic city leaders, who had not been notified in advance, scrambled to understand what was happening. Anguished families searched for missing loved ones, children were left alone at home because their parents never returned, and terrified families went hungry for fear of leaving the house and being targeted. Businesses watched their sales plummet and clients disappear.

Zulfat Suara, a Nashville council member at large, said that as the operation unfolded, “lives were thrown into shambles. There was no due process; people weren’t allowed to see their attorneys. And we didn’t know what was going on.” An immigrant herself from Nigeria, Suara was the first Muslim to be elected to Nashville’s city council in 2019. Since the May ICE operation, she said, she now carries her US passport with her wherever she goes because Black and brown people are being deliberately targeted. “You just have to fit the profile,” she said.

Nine months after the state and federal operation, Nashville residents are still searching for answers about who was taken, and the role that Tennessee played in targeting residents. Meanwhile, across the state, Memphis is still occupied by more than 1,500 federal agents who are working alongside hundreds of state troopers and National Guard. City leaders and residents in both Democratic-led cities said they have been stonewalled by the state and the White House.

To investigate the toll ICE’s operations had in Tennessee, Mother Jones joined forces with Lighthouse Reports, the Nashville Banner, NewsChannel 5, Nashville Noticias, and the Institute for Public Service Reporting in Memphis. We analyzed hundreds of Tennessee Highway Patrol reports and dozens of hours of dashcam and bodycam footage; examined thousands of pages of ICE deportation data, criminal court documents, and school enrollment data; and spoke with deported immigrants and their families. We set out to reveal for the first time what happened to the people picked up in the May dragnet in Nashville and to learn more about how ICE collaborated with state troopers. (The Nashville police department does not currently collaborate with ICE.)

State leaders and ICE claimed the operation was about public safety, but, according to our analysis, only one-quarter of those arrested had any type of criminal record.

We found that more than 90 percent of the drivers stopped on the first night in Nashville—the heaviest day of arrests during the operation—were either Black, Latino, or Middle Eastern. We also found that state police and ICE mainly targeted South Nashville, the most ethnically diverse area in the city, and made traffic stops based on racial profiling. State leaders and ICE also claimed that the operation was for public safety reasons, but, according to our own analysis, only one-quarter of those arrested had any type of criminal record. Additionally, troopers ignored drivers breaking traffic laws, choosing to help ICE identify people to stop instead. Our analysis also showed that ICE arrested fewer people than it claimed after the operation.

During some traffic stops, people protested that they already had appointments with ICE to adjust their immigration status but were arrested anyway. In one case, an ICE agent told the husband of a woman who had an upcoming appointment that the reason for her arrest during the traffic stop was that “people didn’t show up for their appointments,” and that appointments were how “the previous administration did things.” At least 18 people arrested in Nashville were released, including several who were first sent to detention facilities in Louisiana and had to pay expensive immigration bonds. In the wake of the operation, we also heard stories of declining school enrollments and economic losses for immigrant-owned businesses in South Nashville.

“It felt like we were being hunted.”

ICE did not respond to our requests for comment. In a statement, Tennessee Highway Patrol responded that it “conducts lawful traffic stops based on observed violations of Tennessee law and does not engage in enforcement actions based on race, ethnicity, language, or national origin.”

“They kept claiming that this operation was about getting criminals off the street,” said Suara of THP and ICE. “Instead they were picking up people involved in churches, people that had never committed any crime. Good people just trying to make ends meet.”

Nearly every night from May 3 to May 10, at least eight state police vehicles would exit highway patrol headquarters near the Nashville airport with an ICE agent in the passenger seat—and ICE agents in undercover vehicles trailing behind—to trawl Nashville’s immigrant communities until dawn.

“It felt like we were being hunted,” said Jazmin Ramirez, a community organizer with the nonprofit Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC). “If you look Latino, you run the risk of being pulled over.”

Dash cam footage of ICE officers arresting a person from their van at night.

Tennessee Highway Patrol dashcam footage from the May operation in Nashville.Tennessee Immigrant Rights and Refugee Coalition

We watched more than 50 hours of Tennessee Highway Patrol dashcam and bodycam footage taken from the first night, when approximately 47 arrests were made. The footage, much of it previously unviewed, was obtained through a public information lawsuit filed by TIRRC. Much of the released footage is redacted, with the faces of the troopers and ICE agents blurred and segments of their conversations muted. Despite the redactions, which are being challenged in court by TIRRC, ICE agents and state police can be heard on multiple occasions racially profiling drivers to target for stops. In one instance, a trooper pulling over a car with four Latino men in it says to the ICE agent next to him, “This might fill us up. They’re definitely not English speakers.” On a separate occasion, a trooper runs a license before immediately handing it to an ICE agent. “Check him, he doesn’t speak any English,” he says. Yet another trooper tells an ICE agent in a different video, “Nolensville’s always gonna be good,” referring to a road that runs through an area with immigrant-owned businesses. There’s also footage of a highway trooper and ICE agent commandeering a Nashville police officer’s traffic stop after noticing that the driver is Latino. When the ICE agent asks whether Nashville police are aware of the operation, the trooper answers, “They have no idea.”

After finding the man’s ID, one agent notes that he’s the manager of a local Mexican restaurant. “The guacamole is never going to taste the same,” the agent laughs.

The footage captures troopers and agents competitively tallying up the number of people they could detain. “There’s six,” a trooper says of a traffic stop. “Another six,” the ICE agent sitting next to him says jubilantly. “Two juveniles…the driver doesn’t speak English,” the trooper says, handing him the driver’s license to check. The ICE agent responds, “The good news is we have MVM, which they’ll remove family units,” referring to a controversial private security firm that transported children during family separation in the first Trump administration.

In nearly every traffic stop we reviewed, a state trooper was accompanied by at least five ICE agents. During one stop, an ICE agent walks up to a car holding an assault rifle; in another traffic stop with a middle-aged woman alone in a minivan, an agent places his hand on the pistol in his holster. In some cases, agents would not allow drivers to call relatives to notify them they were being detained. “We’re not letting anyone know they’re in immigration custody,” one agent tells a state trooper after the driver begs to call a relative to come pick up his vehicle. “You all want to help me search this car?” the trooper asks the ICE agents, after placing the driver in the back of his squad car. After finding the man’s identification, one of the agents notes that he’s the manager of a local Mexican restaurant. “The guacamole is never going to taste the same,” the agent laughs. They proceed to leave the man’s abandoned vehicle in front of a Cricket mobile phone store. In many of the arrests, ICE agents drive off in the detained people’s vehicles, only to later leave them at commercial strip malls.

Throughout the operation, administration leaders like Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made claims that their “targeted enforcement” with state police had captured “the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens in Tennessee.” In a press release, ICE said it had detained 196 people—95 of whom had a criminal conviction—during the weeklong operation.

Social media post tracking ICE sightings and locations in Nashville.

A warning to residents via the Music City MigraWatch Instagram account following the May operation.Lighthouse Reports

Our investigation found these claims to be largely false. By matching ICE data with police reports and the names provided by the agency in its May 13 press release, we determined that at most 159 people were detained by ICE in the Nashville area, not 196—and that of those 159, only 40 had been convicted of a crime, not 95, as ICE claimed. The most common reason for a past conviction was a DUI, followed by traffic offense and forgery.

And instead of the “worst of the worst,” as Noem claimed, the majority of people arrested were in the process of adjusting their immigration status, or like many of the Venezuelan immigrants caught in the operation, previously had temporary protected status, which provides recipients with a legal work visa. The Trump administration revoked protective status for Venezuelans, despite court challenges, in early 2025.

Mike Holley, an attorney with TIRRC who represented some of the people detained during the operation, said he heard from many who had pending immigration court cases but were arrested anyway. “They were deliberately taking people who were the worst candidates for deportation,” he said. “People with ties to the community who were already in the system and have no criminal record. During ordinary times they would probably have released someone like that.”

“It was incredible to watch a city that’s so vibrant and full of people come to a standstill.”

Holley said it was clear that THP was racially profiling people from the footage he viewed of the first night of the operation. Holley called them “roving immigration patrols” and said they violated the pretextual stop doctrine and the Constitution. “This all goes back to the equal protection clause of the Fifth and 14th Amendments,” he said. “Tennessee has a parallel under the Tennessee Constitution…Even if you can stop someone pretextually for not using a turn signal, it can’t be based on race. You can’t just sit out there and say, ‘I’m gonna stop every Black person that doesn’t use their signal.’ But that’s what they chose to do. And that’s not allowed.” (Following Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence to a Supreme Court ruling in September, in which the court okayed the use of race by immigration officers as a proxy for immigration status, this brand of profiling became known as a “Kavanaugh stop.”)

In this case, however, it was largely Nashville’s thriving Latino community that was targeted, not its Black residents. Analyzing the ICE deportation data for the weeklong enforcement operation, we found that the overwhelming majority of people arrested were Latin American, with most being from Mexico and Guatemala, followed by Honduras, Venezuela, and El Salvador. At least seven people from the Middle East were also arrested during the dragnet, including people originally from Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Ramirez said it was startling to see the busy streets of Nashville empty out as the enforcement operation continued in immigrant communities. “It was incredible to watch a city that’s so vibrant and full of people come to a standstill,” she said. “There was just this fear in our community, and this hyper-alertness. Every vehicle looked suspicious.”

Dash cam footage of a local sheriff and ICE officers arresting a person from their car outside of a gas station.

Tennessee Highway Patrol dashcam footage from the May operation in Nashville.Tennessee Immigrant Rights and Refugee Coalition

In late October, city council member Terry Vo pointed out the MAPCO gas station in South Nashville where she’d witnessed Campos’ arrest. “It still haunts me,” she said.

That night, Vo had been driving around with Zulfat Suara and other city council members who are members of the Metro Council Immigrant Caucus to understand whom the state troopers and ICE were targeting. Vo pulled into the gas station to discover Campos surrounded by armed agents, with volunteer monitors from Music City MigraWatch yelling at him not to open his door.

“There are probably many more Edgardos out there that nobody knows about, right?”

As we pulled into the gas station, she pointed to a parking space in front of the convenience store. “That’s where they left his car,” she said. “At the time, we didn’t know who he was, who his family was.” Vo said the police and ICE left Campos’ car unlocked, and the council members searched it for contact information. “We didn’t know his name. We didn’t know anything about him. At that point, we handed it over to community advocates, who were eventually able to notify his family.”

Vo shook her head, visibly frustrated. “It was sad,” she said. “He’s an older man in the later years of his life and a very devout person. I often think, ‘Could I have done better?’” she asked. “I think if the community had not been there that night to record and watch, we wouldn’t even know he was taken. And there are probably many more Edgardos out there that nobody knows about, right?”

Holley said lawyers at TIRRC scrambled to reach people in detention, like Campos, during the operation, but they were moved quickly from one jail to the next in Tennessee and then to Louisiana or Texas, with no way to contact legal help and limited communication with family members. “A lot of people agreed to deportation before there was even a chance to talk with them,” Holley said. “They were either gone or had already signed something.”

The question of what happened to Campos and to the dozens of other people detained over those seven days has remained an open one for city officials like Vo, advocates, and members of the community. ICE and other state authorities have refused to say. The operation and its impact have remained a black box.

To provide answers, we analyzed ICE deportation data and Tennessee Highway Patrol incident reports. In Campos’ case, according to the THP, he was marked down as a “stopping violator.” This is the only reason stated in at least 90 percent of the Tennessee Highway Patrol traffic reports we analyzed from the Nashville operation.

After being taken into ICE custody, Campos was sent to the Putnam County Jail, 80 miles east of Nashville. After three days, he was transferred further east to the Knox County Detention Center. Like many people picked up during the operation in Nashville, Campos was transferred within days from Tennessee to Louisiana. Our investigation found that as of mid-October 2025, according to the most current publicly available ICE deportation data, 121 people were deported and 15 people were bonded out after being sent to Louisiana. An additional 12 people still remain in jail.

READ MORE COVERAGE FROM OUR PARTNERS


On May 16, Campos was sent to the Jackson Parish Correctional Center, in Jonesboro, Louisiana, which is run by the private LaSalle Corrections and has been cited for numerous violations of human rights and state detention standards. After nearly a month, he was deported to El Salvador on June 13.

ICE removal data lists Campos as a “threat level 1 convicted criminal for Fraud and Impersonating,” considered the most serious level of conviction. According to police records, Campos was charged in 2008 for a DUI. ICE’s removal charge, however, for fraud and impersonating, is based on a 25-year-old conviction for a fake ID and no driver’s license. (Undocumented immigrants cannot obtain driver’s licenses legally in Tennessee.)

“The pain had become too much,” Campos’ wife told us. “Who deserves this?”

After community advocates located Campos’ wife, Martha, she told them that her husband had been on his way home the night he was detained from mass at Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe Catholic Church in South Nashville. “I’m shattered because one doesn’t expect a blow this devastating,” she said in an interview with Nashville Noticias.

After Campos’ arrest, the Diocese of Nashville advised parishioners in a public bulletin to stay home. Many churchgoers never returned, said Martín Ochoa, a longtime parishioner at Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe. Ochoa said Campos and his wife had donated toys to the church’s annual Christmas collection for years. This year, the donation never came.

In a brief conversation at the church, Martha confirmed that her husband had been deported to El Salvador and said she did not want to speak further about the ordeal. “The pain had become too much,” she said. “Who deserves this?”

“I find it really interesting,” said Vo, “this narrative that was laid out that ‘We’re only going after the criminals,’ which made people feel comfortable that they wouldn’t be targeted—like, ‘Oh, they’re not coming after me. They’re only going after the bad people,’” she said. “But that was a farce. They’d pull you over, then look you up, thinking, ‘Oh, maybe we’ll catch somebody.’”

Five months after the dragnet, families gathered in North Nashville for Shwab Elementary School’s Halloween festival. The sun had finally come out, and parents watched as small children in costumes drew with crayons and others ran happily across the playground.

According to Principal Cheryl Bowman, the school’s student population is 56 percent Latino. Bowman said Shwab was still struggling to convince immigrant families that their children would be safe from ICE agents at school. These days, she said, they were lucky to get 100 people to attend a school function, about half of what they’d been accustomed to in the past. “We’ve done a lot of footwork going to families’ homes,” Bowman said, “and they’re just afraid to send their kids to school.”

“There are a lot of four-year-olds sitting at home.”

In fact, for the first time in her nine years at Shwab, the school’s pre-K program didn’t have a waiting list. The school was doing outreach to try to fill its two pre-K classes. “This is the first time since I’ve been here that we’ve had low enrollment,” Bowman said. “There are a lot of four-year-olds sitting at home.”

Because of the decline in enrollment, Bowman said she had had to let a teacher go and lost $140,000 in federal funding. Things got so bad during the May enforcement operation, she said, that teachers volunteered to drive students to school, because their parents were too afraid to leave their homes. “We just did what we had to do, because they needed to come to school,” she said.

Bowman said many families had left the school, either moving to other parts of Tennessee with less ICE presence or leaving the state altogether. “We’re family here, and it’s just very hurtful,” she said.

As school enrollment plummeted, businesses also suffered. In South Nashville, not far from where Campos was dragged from his car, Ishaq Albdi, whose family owns a string of grocery markets catering to Latinos, said sales had declined by 20 percent. “It has definitely hurt our business,” he said.

Customers asked for deliveries, because they were too afraid to leave their homes, he said. “There were people who would come in regularly. These were long-term customers,” he said. “And now they’re gone, and we don’t know if they were deported.”

This year’s legislation will require teachers, judges, social workers, and others to report undocumented immigrants to ICE and the state’s immigration division.

Several months later, in January, Tennessee Republicans introduced a slate of anti-immigrant bills, written in consultation with the White House’s Miller, that are designed to make the lives of immigrants even more inhospitable—yet another example of the state’s eagerness to lead the way on draconian deportation policies. During the last legislative session, Republican leaders created an immigrant enforcement office and declared that public records from the agency would remain confidential, including programs funded with federal tax dollars. This year’s legislation will require teachers, judges, social workers, and others to report undocumented immigrants to ICE and the state’s immigration division. Schools could also be required to verify immigration status for children attending school and either exclude them or charge tuition if they are undocumented. Another bill would allow state troopers to check the immigration status of out-of-state drivers passing through the state. And state or local officials who share information about ICE officers will face a felony charge and removal from office, an apparent response to Nashville Mayor Freddie O’Connell’s release of public documents naming some of the ICE agents involved in the operation last May.

Jazmin Ramirez, the TIRRC community organizer who has been commuting from Nashville to Memphis to help families there, said immigrants would not be deterred by the state’s draconian laws. “We were preparing for this as a community, but we were hoping it wouldn’t come,” she said. “We’re also not surprised that they’re here. In many ways, Tennessee has been a testing ground for a lot of these things.”

Nashville’s immigrant community is still paying the price. On a sidewalk near the Latino supermarket, a handful of day laborers regularly congregate, hoping for a day or two of wages. One man, who said he had lived in Nashville for 22 years and asked to remain anonymous, said ICE had come and taken people away from there in May. Months later, workers were still coming to the location because they needed to work to survive, he said, but they were afraid. “There are less people here now waiting for work,” said the man in Spanish. “But we are still here, because we have to work. We just hope they don’t come back.”

Araceli Crescencio contributed to this report.

This story was produced as part of a collaboration coordinated by Lighthouse Reports, in partnership with the Institute for Public Service Reporting, the Nashville Banner, Nashville Noticias, and NewsChannel 5 Nashville.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Tired of Dystopian Sci-Fi? You Might Like Solarpunk.

I was doomscrolling again. It was a fall evening in 2023, and I found myself sucked into a stream of posts about our collapsing climate: droughts causing billions in Dust Bowl–style crop damage, Florida’s worst-ever coral bleaching, a record melt in Greenland.

To distract myself, I picked up The Lost Cause, the latest sci-fi novel from author Cory Doctorow, a friend and fellow nerd. To my deep surprise, it stirred something unexpected: a feeling of hope.

At first glance, the novel’s backdrop is an absolute bummer. It takes place in America several decades from now, when rising seas have destroyed entire coastal towns and millions of climate refugees wander around homeless. Small farmers work as sharecroppers for Big Agriculture. The West is choked with forest fires so ferocious that Californians take hits from oxygen cans.

And yet, clean tech has gotten remarkably better. Solar panels are so cheap and powerful that they can be used to heat concrete kilns and build entire buildings carbon-neutrally. A progressive president’s Green New Deal guarantees universal employment, including jobs relocating entire coastal cities inland, away from the rising, voracious oceans. The heroes—SoCal resident Brooks and his twentysomething friends—spend their days doing on-demand work (solarizing schools, building high-density housing) and chill out at night, drinking artificial bourbon they brew in a bioreactor. While clean energy is abundant, so is political strife: MAGA-esque forces, armed to the teeth, violently oppose waves of climate “refus” arriving from fire-wrecked Oregon. When Brooks and his crew decide to build refugee housing anyway, their clash with right-wing old-timers gets nasty and violent fast—complete with cross burnings.

If you want to nudge people toward a better tomorrow, start with art.

So, not exactly a utopia. But what enchanted me about the book was its vibe of possibility. Here was a world where climate change had gotten worse, but people were adapting—cleverly using tech to rebuild communities that would generate far fewer emissions and far less waste than before. It was a glimpse of a new destination.

Sci-fi has always offered this, right? Heady alternatives to everyday realities! But for the past few decades, a big chunk of sci-fi had gravitated toward dystopia. The “cyberpunk” movement imagined technology and capitalism run amok—overcrowded, skyscrapered cities; enervated populations jacking into virtual reality realms; governments sidelined or incinerated. There were some notable exceptions: Novelists Kim Stanley Robinson and Ursula K. Le Guin, for example, imagined people living in closer harmony with nature or in worlds without capitalism. But they were outliers. The aughts, which brought us a second Iraq War, the Great Recession, and increasingly volatile natural disasters, also set the scene for astoundingly bleak bestselling young-adult series such as The Hunger Games, Divergent, and The Maze Runner. Winter was coming, and as far as many sci-fi writers could prognosticate, humanity was unlikely to rise to the challenge.

Dystopic tales of the future can be valuable, showing us what might happen if we let malignant trends go unchecked. But for me, man, those warnings have long since sunk in. I wanted pointers to a path forward. Which is why I’ve become so intrigued with solarpunk.

Doctorow’s book is part of a sci-fi trend that’s gained traction in recent years, picking up on the threads Le Guin and Robinson laid down. Solarpunk poses a fascinating question: What would a world that had seriously tackled climate change look like?

The covers of three books from the left: "The Lost Cause" by Cory Doctorow, "The Peace Keeper" by B.L. Blanchard, and "Another Life" by Sarena Ulibarri. "The Lost Cause" is a black book with blue type featuring a gold serpent-like creature. "The Peace Keeper" features a boat in a green marsh on the edge of a modern city. "Another Life" is a painterly image of a kneeling woman with her back to a tree. The woman dips her finger into a lake, creating a nuclear explosion that mirrors the tree behind her.

Solarpunk novels envision societies that benefit from clean tech and live in tandem with nature.Tor Books; Stelliform Press; 47North

Many solarpunk thinkers told me their first encounter with the idea, though he didn’t coin the term, was a 2014 essay by Adam Flynn, an American writer and public health strategist, titled “Solarpunk: Notes toward a manifesto”—his contribution to the Arizona State University sci-fi collaboration Project Hieroglyph.

“We’re solarpunks because the only other options are denial or despair,” Flynn wrote. Artists and activists needed to envision “ways to make life more wonderful for us right now, and more importantly for the generations that follow us…Imagine permaculturists thinking in cathedral time. Consider terraced irrigation systems that also act as fluidic computers. Contemplate the life of a Department of Reclamation officer managing a sparsely populated American southwest given over to solar collection and pump storage.”

Other writers were, it turns out, having similar thoughts. They were deeply worried about climate and weary of sci-fi’s doomerist turn. They wanted art that elucidated a way forward, so they set about creating fictional glimpses of a sustainable future. In a duet of novels, Becky Chambers sketched out a world where humanity had survived climactic collapse—the robots became self-aware and politely fled into the wilderness—and then figured out how to exist in a better balance with nature: Her characters live in skyscrapers engulfed with vines, ride e-bike camper vans powered by solar panel coatings, and have abandoned swaths of their world to the wild.

In Sarena Ulibarri’s 2023 novel Another Life, a communal society runs solar desalination plants that irrigate Death Valley. The 2018 Brazilian short-story anthology Solarpunk: Ecological and Fantastical Stories in a Sustainable World includes a classic hard-bitten-detective whodunit set in a world where homes have biodigesters that turn kitchen scraps into fuel.

Solarpunk often depicts technology deployed not to conquer nature, but to complement it—sometimes in deeply weird ways. In the story “Thank Geo,” whose author goes by the moniker BrightFlame, humanity has wired trees with probes that let people talk to them.

The solarpunk community’s interests extend beyond literature, though. Some of the greatest ferment is online, where everyday folks cram into themed subreddits, Tumblrs, and Substacks, posting their mood-board images of a better future. Some of it is fantasy—solar airships with grappling hooks hovering over vertical farms—but more often, the posts involve solarpunkish things already happening: people planting guerrilla wetlands in aqueducts, solar-powered root cellars, “agrivoltaic” farms where sheep graze beneath industrial photovoltaic arrays. Broadly speaking, as Ulibarri put it to me, solarpunk depicts “a future that I might actually want to live in.”

Solarpunk characters are flawed, despite the genre’s optimism: “As a society, we have not become suddenly worthy of utopia.”

I have often assumed, naively, that societal transformation depends on explicitly political discourse. People write manifestos and policy papers, and political movements and parties build on and promote those ideas. But the world of solarpunk operates on the same understanding that propels Steve Bannon: Politics is downstream of culture. If you want to nudge people toward a better tomorrow, start with art. The point, said Jay Springett, a writer who co-manages a popular solarpunk Tumblr, is to give people “permission to imagine a future.”

Another way of thinking about it, Doctorow told me, is to follow philosopher Daniel Dennett’s argument that “fiction is an intuition pump.” When reading a novel, Doctorow explained, you might “kind of mentally rehearse what you should do when bad things happen, so in that moment you’re not paralyzed—like a fire drill.”

A lot of apocalyptic literature would prime us with terrible intuition: how to survive in a Hobbesian everyone-for-themselves scenario of neighbor slaughtering neighbor for scarce fuel and food. Novels like The Lost Cause bolster a competing notion: that surviving and thriving in the face of climate-driven disruption happens only if people band together and rely on sustainable technologies.

One intriguing aspect of solarpunk culture is that it feels proximal—achievable. The tech is scaled up, but much of it involves innovations we possess now, like solar panels, wind turbines, 3D printers, passive cooling systems, and recycling (on steroids). “One of the key tenets of solarpunk is that you don’t need to wait for new technology,” explained novelist and teacher Cameron Roberson. We don’t need unobtainium or warp drives—just political will.

Indeed, solarpunk often depicts societies and groups that have strayed from capitalism—or hierarchical governments of any sort. Decision-making is often racked with the bitter internecine squabbles for which nonhierarchical groups are infamous. But things work…more or less? Doctorow jokes that part of the thought experiment in The Lost Cause is: “What would it be like to have a space program or a skyscraper that you made like you made Wikipedia? It would have all the fights; it would have all the frustrations—but also, it would be a skyscraper!”

This anti-capitalist turn is probably the most speculative aspect of solarpunk. A popular adage is that it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. Solarpunk flips that on its head: If you’re going to imagine the world not ending, maybe you need to imagine a new economic system.

At its weakest, solarpunk can get treacly, with societies too well adjusted to seem believable and denizens as amiable as Winnie-the-Pooh. The most interesting stories, to me, are ones in which we tackle climate change but are still terrible to one another. In 2022’s The Peacekeeper, Chippewa novelist B.L. Blanchard imagines a contemporary North America that was never colonized. Native populations have all the mod cons—smartphones, etc.—but are still so nature-oriented that they lean hard into clean tech. Emissionless public transit abounds and huge mirrors along the Great Lakes reflect sunlight onto massive solar panels. But their world isn’t free of misdeed; The Peacekeeper is a murder mystery, complete with a tormented detective.

As novelist Roberson puts it, we can save the world and still lose ourselves. In his forthcoming novel, a noir tale, the tech is clean and the souls are dirty. “Government is still government, people are still people, criminals are still criminals,” he told me. “As a society, we have not become suddenly worthy of utopia.”

Solarpunk, by now, has adopted some weary sci-fi cliches and added a few of its own. Domed cities! Grandpa explaining to the grandkids how everything fell apart! 3D printers that seem to be able to manufacture, well, anything! Even real-world corporations have picked up on the subgenre’s gauzy imagery. Yogurt-maker Chobani released an animated commercial in 2021 depicting a farm serviced by moss-covered androids and pole-mounted raincloud generators. Solarpunk forums argued hotly about whether this was a) corporate greenwashing; b) a sign that their vision could appeal to a wider public; or, more likely, c) both.

There are political crossovers, too. On an Instagram Live in 2023, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she was a big believer in solarpunk—the yet-unsuccessful Green New Deal package she championed did, in fact, contain the very blend of energy policies and economic reforms (job guarantees, universal health care, progressive taxation) that solarpunks fantasize about.

“To go, in less than 10 years, from Tumblr, where you and I found it, to having people in the halls of power endorse your cultural project, that’s pretty good,” said Andrew Dana Hudson, who penned a series of solarpunk stories. “We built an entire cultural architectural aesthetic around powering things with gasoline and coal,” he added. Now artists and writers need to make the alternative just as sexy and appealing.

The time seems ripe. Theodra Bane, a professor at the Brooklyn Institute for Social Research, has taught a solarpunk class for three years now. Far more students apply to get in than she can accommodate. Roughly a third, Bane said, will say something along the lines of, “I don’t know what solarpunk is, but the course description led me to believe that it is a positive, optimistic class—and I need optimism right now.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Video: Trump Nuked a Major EPA Climate Rule. Here’s What You Need to Know.

On February 12, Donald Trump dropped the climatic equivalent of an atomic bomb. He announced the repeal of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 endangerment finding, the basis of the EPA’s ability to regulate climate-warming emissions. “This will be the largest deregulatory action in American history,” proclaimed White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

“This is corruption, plain and simple,” countered Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

It also will likely end up costing Americans money, reports Dharna Noor of Guardian US, who, along with Grist reporter Jake Bittle, is featured in this explainer video from our Climate Desk collaboration and the talented team at Reveal.

In short, the administration’s move is an attempt to subvert reality. The Obama-era finding established that atmospheric greenhouse gases are bad for human health and welfare, allowing them to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. In 2025, a panel of scientists affirmed the finding, writing: “The evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused [greenhouse gases] is beyond scientific dispute.”

Condemnation was swift and plentiful, and called out the administration’s baldly transactional relationships with oil and gas producers. “Put simply, this is a gift-wrapped package for the fossil fuel industry,” Manish Bapna, CEO of the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, told Inside Climate News. “It is unscientific, it is bad economics, and it is illegal. So we’re gonna fight it.”

They already are, as Noor reports in this Guardian follow-up.

Legal experts say the administration may be biting off more than it can chew. “It seems to me unlikely that the [US Supreme Court] would say that the EPA has no power to regulate carbon,” Michael Lewyn, a professor of environmental law at Touro Law Center and critic of environmental regulations, told Grist.

Pat Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at Vermont Law and Graduate School, didn’t mince words when talking to Wired’sMolly Taft_._ “I don’t see any plan, any strategy, any end game…just fuck everything up as much as you can.”

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Colbert Takes CBS to Task, Again

Late Show host Stephen Colbert once again gave his audience the inside scoop on Tuesday amid the ongoing clash involving him, network executives, and a candidate for US Senate in Texas.

The latest comes as CBS refuted Colbert’s assertion that he had been instructed not to interview Texas State Representative James Talarico and that he had been dissuaded from bringing up the situation on air.

“There’s another big story today,” Colbert said on Tuesday, as a newsy photo popped up of himself. “And it’s me.”

“I was ready to let the whole thing go,” he continued, “until a few hours ago when my groupchat blowed up. Because, without ever talking to me, the corporation put out this press release.”

Colbert read a paper copy of the statement, which challenged the claim that he had been prohibited from interviewing Talarico. “A small piece of paper considering how many butts it’s trying to cover,” Colbert quipped. CBS’ lawyers, he continued, “know damn well that every word of my script last night was approved by CBS’ lawyers, who for the record approve every script that goes on the air.”

For those just tuning in: On Monday, Colbert said that CBS’s lawyers had instructed the host “in no uncertain terms…that we could not” have Talarico as the show’s scheduled guest. According to these lawyers, Talarico’s appearance would run afoul of equal time guidelines brought about by Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr. A January letter by Carr challenged long-held rules about what kind of broadcasts have to provide equal opportunity for time to political candidates in an election. Previously, talk shows and late-night hosts were excused. Carr, a key ally of President Donald Trump, laid out how he’d like to remove those exceptions.

According to Colbert, that meant CBS telling him not to interview Texas State Representative James Talarico, a rising Democratic name who is running to flip a US Senate seat blue. “We were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast,” the host said Monday.

Colbert still interviewed the Senate hopeful, but instead of doing it on air, The Late Show team posted the chat on YouTube, as streaming services do not fall under this FCC guideline. That video has since garnered over 5,421,000 views as of publication.

Rep. James Talarico and Stephen Colbert on the CBS series The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

Rep. James Talarico and Stephen Colbert on the CBS series The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty

This whole incident comes as Colbert only has a few months left on the show after being ousted by Paramount, CBS’s parent company.

“I’m just so surprised that this giant, global corporation would not stand up to these bullies. Come on, you’re paramount!” Colbert said on Tuesday, before joking, “No. No! You’re more than that. You’re Paramount +.”

And that the lawyers would send out this statement, without discussing with Colbert first, was “really surprising.”

“I don’t even know what to do with this crap,” he said, holding the printed out release at the end of the segment. “Oh, hold on,” Colbert continued, pulling out a dog poop bag, crumbling and picking up the paper, and discarding it to the side.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

Big Tech’s Claims That AI Can Help Fix the Climate Crisis Are “Greenwashing”

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

Tech companies are conflating traditional artificial intelligence with generative AI when claiming the energy-hungry technology could help avert climate breakdown, according to a report.

Most claims that AI can help avert climate breakdown refer to machine learning and not the energy-hungry chatbots and image generation tools driving the sector’s explosive growth of gas-guzzling datacentres, the analysis of 154 statements found.

The research, commissioned by nonprofits including Beyond Fossil Fuels and Climate Action Against Disinformation, did not find a single example where popular tools such as Google’s Gemini or Microsoft’s Copilot were leading to a “material, verifiable, and substantial” reduction in planet-heating emissions.

Ketan Joshi, an energy analyst and author of the report, said the industry’s tactics were “diversionary” and relied on tried and tested methods that amount to “greenwashing.”

He likened it to fossil fuel companies advertising their modest investments in solar panels and overstating the potential of carbon capture. “These technologies only avoid a minuscule fraction of emissions relative to the massive emissions of their core business,” said Joshi. “Big tech took that approach and upgraded and expanded it.”

One widely cited figure claim came from a consulting firm’s blog post that attributed it to “experience with clients.”

Most of the claims that were scrutinized came from an International Energy Agency (IEA) report, which was reviewed by leading tech companies, and corporate reports from Google and Microsoft.

The IEA report—which devoted two chapters to the potential climate benefits of traditional AI—had a roughly even split between claims that rested on academic publications, corporate websites, and those that had no evidence, according to the analysis. For Google and Microsoft, most claims lacked evidence.

The analysis, released during the AI Impact Summit in Delhi this week, argues the tech industry has misleadingly presented climate solutions and carbon pollution as a package deal by “muddling” types of AI.

Sasha Luccioni, AI and climate lead at Hugging Face, an open-source AI platform and community,who was not involved in the report, said it added nuance to a debate that often lumped very different applications together.

“When we talk about AI that’s relatively bad for the planet, it’s mostly generative AI and large language models,” said Luccioni, who has pushed the industry to be more transparent about its carbon footprint. “When we talk about AI that’s ‘good’ for the planet, it’s often predictive models, extractive models, or old-school AI models.”

Green claims even for traditional AI tended to rely on weak forms of evidence that had not been independently verified, the analysis found. Only 26 percent of the green claims that were studied cited published academic research, while 36 percent did not cite evidence at all.

One of the earliest examples identified in the report was a widespread claim that AI could help mitigate 5-10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

The figure, which Google repeated as recently as April last year, came from a report it commissioned from BCG, a consulting firm, which cited a blog post it wrote in 2021 that attributed the figure to its “experience with clients.”

Data centers consume just 1 percent of the world’s electricity but their share of US electricity is projected to more than double to 8.6 percent by 2035, according to BloombergNEF. The IEA predicts they will account for at least 20 percent of the rich world’s growth in electricity demand to the end of the decade.

While the energy consumption of a simple text query to a large language model such as ChatGPT may be as little as running a lightbulb for a minute, partial industry disclosures suggest, it rises considerably for complex functions such as video generation and deep research, and has troubled some energy researchers with the speed and scale of its growth.

A spokesperson for Google said: “Our estimated emissions reductions are based on a robust substantiation process grounded in the best available science, and we have transparently shared the principles and methodology that guide it.”

Microsoft declined to comment, while the IEA did not respond to requests for comment. Joshi said the discourse around AI’s climate benefits needed to be “brought back to reality.”

“The false coupling of a big problem and a small solution serves as a distraction from the very preventable harms being done through unrestricted data center expansion,” he said.

Continue Reading…

Mother Jones

The Man Who Taught Nonviolence to Martin Luther King Jr.

Back in February 2010, the radio show State of the Re:Union, created by Al Letson, produced an award-winning episode looking at civil rights activist Bayard Rustin. The episode was called “Who Is This Man?” because while Rustin was not well known, his work supported the likes of Martin Luther King Jr.

Rustin was a man with a number of seemingly incompatible labels: Black, gay, Quaker—identifications that served to earn him as many detractors as admirers. Although he had numerous passions and pursuits, his most transformative act, one that certainly changed the course of American history, was to counsel MLK on the use of nonviolent resistance.

Rustin also helped engineer the 1963 March on Washington and frame the Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott. With such lofty achievements, why isn’t Rustin considered an icon of both civil rights and humanity? How could a person who changed the course of American history not be a household name? Was he purposely kept out of the history books?

This week on More To The Story, we bring you an important piece for Black History Month, a reflection on Rustin.

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

Continue Reading…