Can James Talarico Convince Democrats He’s the Fighter They Need?

If you ask a bunch of James Talarico supporters when they first heard about the 36-year-old Democratic candidate for US Senate, more often than not they will begin to describe a video. It was on TikTok or YouTube or Instagram. It was sent to them by a friend, or a family member—maybe even someone from out of state.

When I dropped by a rally last December, at a shopping center wedding venue on the north side of San Antonio, voter after voter told me a variation of the same story. Fred Spartz heard about Talarico from his son in Spokane, who told him to “get on the internet and look at this guy.” Cindy Padilla found out about him from her daughter, Julie, who saw a speech on TikTok about keeping religion out of schools. Roy Johnson saw a clip of Talarico talking to Joe Rogan, who had invited the state representative and aspiring pastor on his podcast after a sermon about Christian nationalism on a phone in the green room of his Austin comedy club. Almost everyone I talked to, at a certain point, would refer me to one clip in particular. It was an exchange he had with a Republican colleague two years ago. You’ve probably seen it too.

“They were trying to pass this Ten Commandments rule here in Texas,” explained a retired financial advisor named Ron Smith, referring to a new law that requires all public-school classrooms to display Moses’ divine tablets. “But they were doing it on the Sabbath day.”

Rebekah Cessna, the daughter of a Baptist minister from Tennessee, recalled Talarico’s response almost verbatim: “He said, ‘Would you be willing to postpone this so we can respect the Lord’s Day?”” she recalled. She started sending his sermons to her family back home.

“I said, ‘That’s the man I’ve been looking for.’”

In a party grasping for attention and ideas, Talarico has broken through like few others of his stature, by denouncing billionaires and theocrats in the overtly Christian language of a social-justice seminarian. He’s received a shout-out from Barack Obama, and charmed everyone from Ezra Klein to Rogan to the hosts of The View. CBS, fearing the wrath of Trump’s FCC, recently banned his interview with Stephen Colbert from the airwaves. Their straight-to-YouTube sit-down picked up nine million views. The race in Texas represents one of the party’s best pickup opportunities on a difficult Senate map. With President Donald Trump’s approval ratings cratering, Sen. John Cornyn on the ropes, and the scandal-plagued attorney general Ken Paxton waiting in the wings, polls suggest the former public school teacher has as good of a chance of winning a statewide office as almost any Texas Democrat this century—if he can make it to November.

Talarico’s precociousness can also seem like a familiar type. He’s shared advisors with Pete Buttigieg, the polyglot Episcopalian from South Bend who charmed voters twice his age while positioning himself as a champion of the “religious left.” In lieu of business Norwegian, Talarico peppers his sermons and interviews with an eclectic mix of thinkers—Jenny Odell, Dorothy Sayers, the Sufi mystic Hafez. He worked a hard job for a short time, went to Harvard, and ran for office at an alarmingly young age. Talarico’s high school theater teacher asked him for a letter of recommendation. He is humble and polite and talks reverently about his mom. James Talarico is a nice young man.

Alex Denny of Fort Worth holds a sign in support of James Talarico during a rally at UT Dallas on February 26, 2026 in Richardson, Texas. Talarico is facing off against Jasmine Crockett in Tuesday’s democratic senate primary.Richard Rodriguez/Getty

Many of his fellow Democrats consider Talarico’s faith-based appeal to unity a not-so-secret weapon: Kill them with kindness, and secure a Senate majority that can stop Donald Trump in his tracks. But Talarico is not the only Democrat in Tuesday’s primary with a knack for attention, and his is not the only vision of what it takes to win. A few hours after Talarico finished smiling for photos in San Antonio, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Dallas Democrat famous for her own, more Old Testament exchanges with Republican colleagues, entered the race with a radically different message. Talarico’s style of politics could change the direction of the Democratic Party. But first, the peacemaker will have to prove that he can throw a punch.

Talarico was born in Round Rock, a city of about 100,000 north of Austin, but it would be just as fair to say that he grew up at St. Andrew’s. He has described his biological father as a “21-year-old high school dropout whose drinking problem sometimes led to violence.” After one such episode, when Talarico was an infant, his mother took him to live in a spare room at the hotel where she worked, until they found a home for themselves—a cramped apartment where the only spot for a nursery was a closet.

St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin was a place where the family could start anew. His mother served as a deacon and married Mark Talarico, a church elder. Young James was baptised there, and played Nintendo with the pastor, Dr. Jim Rigby. As he grew older, Talarico taught Vacation Bible School and put on Biblically-themed shows with puppets he made with a friend. (“Jimmy’s Puppets,” or “Juppets” for short.) In a 2018 speech at St. Andrew’s, Talarico described “leaning against my mother as she sang her favorite hymn, ‘Morning has broken,’” and “drifting in and out of sleep, gazing up at the refracted sunlight in the stained glass of the roof.” Of Rigby, he said simply: “He was my dad’s old drinking buddy, he was my mother’s favorite person, and he was my personal hero.”

Rigby was also a rebel, and the St. Andrew’s of Talarico’s youth was ruptured by a series of controversies over the pastor’s social-justice vision. In 2004, he was put on trial by a church governing body for performing dozens of same-sex marriages at the University of Texas. About 150 members quit when Rigby flouted the denomination’s rules and hired LGBT ministers. The church has evolved with the times; when Talarico gave that 2018 speech, an undocumented family whose asylum claim had been rejected was living down the hall.

This knack for challenging authority stemmed from a belief that Christianity had strayed from the teachings of the early church, and been corrupted by moralizers, literalists, and nationalists. People were judging others “by the flesh,” Rigby told me, instead of recognizing their “humanness” as Paul counseled.

“When I heard him preach the first time,” Rigby told me, “I felt I could die—like the torch had been passed and that at least one person understood what I’ve been trying to do.”

Talarico’s sermons and podcast clips are littered with the flotsam of a seminary course catalogue, but they’re suffused as well with what he learned in the pews. His home church is the kind of place where you might think of Jesus as a feminist, and the splitting of the loaves as a parable of wealth—where power is something you’re taught not to crave but to share. Talarico once told an interviewer he had banned the word “troll” in his office because it was “just another way of stripping away each other’s humanness.” Above all, you can hear its influence in how Talarico talks about the relationship between his religion and his politics.

“The powers that be have been taming Christianity, domesticating it, diluting it into something more palatable—pro-war, pro-wealth, pro-white supremacy,” he argued two years ago, in a sermon that’s been viewed nearly two million times. What started as a “countercultural movement” became a “tranquilized, privatized, weaponized religion.”

“When I heard him preach the first time,” Rigby told me, “I felt I could die—like the torch had been passed and that at least one person understood what I’ve been trying to do.”

Talarico has always been the kind of young person, earnest and ambitious, who makes older people melt. In high school, he excelled at debate (“looks good on a college resume,” he wrote in his yearbook) and played Aslan in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. At the University of Texas, he was the model of a particular kind of Obama-era idealism. The second tweet he ever sent was about watching the West Wing. He worked on voter registration drives, managed the student body president’s campaign, testified at the legislature about higher-education funding, and put law school on hold for a two-year stint teaching sixth grade with Teach for America.

“A lot of different folks have different opinions about it, and there’s certainly some problematic aspects of the organization,” Talarico said on a podcast in 2022, about the Peace Corps-style program that sends recent college graduates into poor school districts. But the dynamics that make TFA problematic also made it formative: Dropping a white kid from Round Rock into a Mexican-American neighborhood in San Antonio without any relevant teaching experience will not save the world—but he might learn some things about how it works.

On the Facebook page for his language arts class—“Mr. Talarico’s Freedom Zone”—you can catch a glimpse of an energetic and overworked twentysomething, trying to engage his kids. He used the song “Firework” by Katy Perry to show how to diagram sentences, and coached students on how to fill out a red-and-blue map on election night.

“Happy Spring Break, Free Thinkers! I’m going to spend my week relaxing and reading ‘All The King’s Men’ by Robert Penn Warren,” Talarico wrote that April. “The book is about an idealistic politician who becomes greedy and corrupted by success. Comment on this post and let me know what you’re reading over Spring Break!”

Rhodes Elementary has offered, in Talarico’s campaigns, a sort of secular foundation to go with his religious one. He has talked of encountering 12-year-olds “in the 21st Century in the state of Texas who couldn’t read,” and of juggling 47 kids in one class. It was a “radicalizing experience,” he told Rogan, that nudged him toward a career where he could do better by his kids.

After the 2016 election, as he weighed a run for the Texas legislature, Talarico sought Rigby’s advice. He wanted to know if it was possible to be an ethical politician. “He was very concerned that he could still be prophetic,” he told me. “There are compromises that have to take place at that level. He could be prophetic in his speeches, but whenever you’re talking about real power, you don’t get the pure abstractions of good and evil. It’s like you’re negotiating and balancing and trying to do the best of the good and minimize the evil.”

Not long after, when Talarico launched his campaign, he talked about his experience as a teacher and the inspiration he’d drawn from his mother. But he also extended an olive branch. Talarico promised to vote for a Republican speaker, Joe Straus, who had resisted his party’s Christian nationalist faction—a pledge, he noted, that had drawn criticism from one of his opponents.

“He said I was compromising my values,” Talarico said. “Well I’ve got news for him: Compromise is one of my values.”

The essential appeal of Talarico, then and now, is that people see in him something they believe is missing: morality in an age of malice; humility at a time of hubris; an old direction in a new form. “Is it just me or does he have Barack’s smile?” someone asked on Twitter, not long after he launched his first campaign—to which Talarico replied with a .gif of Obama. State Rep. Diego Bernal told the room in San Antonio that his first reaction to meeting his colleague was, “Who is this baby JFK?’” His first floor speech quoted John Steinbeck. “The sense I got was not necessarily that the people of this district wanted something new,” Talarico told a reporter during a live-streamed 25-mile walk across the district in 2018—a replay of an earlier walk that resulted in him throwing up five times, and slipping into a near-comatose state from diabetic ketoacidosis. “I think they wanted something a little old-fashioned.”

“Something is happening in Texas,” the campaign’s social media posts say—calibrated just so, right down to the filters and the stagecraft and the uplifting piano. The vibe feels both undeniably real and deliberate: It’s Morning-has-broken in America. In 2016, Talarico wrote that he was thinking about Robert F. Kennedy’s remarks in Indianapolis in 1968, when the Democratic senator announced the death of Martin Luther King Jr.: “What we need in the United States is not division, what we need in the United States is not violence…but love and compassion towards one another.”

“Earlier today, Republican activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed,” Talarico informed a crowd last October. “Charlie Kirk was a child of God; he was our sibling, our brother.” He urged “a politics of love…that can heal what’s broken in this country.”

Talarico’s precociousness can also seem like a familiar type. He shares advisors with Pete Buttigieg, the polyglot Episcopalian from South Bend who charmed voters twice his age while positioning himself as a champion of the “religious left.”

Talarico won that first race by 2,500 votes in a district that Trump previously carried—one of 12 Democrats to flip seats in the lower chamber that fall, as a blue wave smashed through an overly aggressive Republican gerrymander. Early in his first term, Rigby invited him to speak at St. Andrew’s. Talarico, who would soon begin taking classes at a local seminary, zeroed in on how Trumpism corrodes the soul. But he also challenged how Democrats’ response to it.

Talarico confessed to making “morally compromised decisions” in a “dirty and noble” job. Democratic leaders, he said, had “routinely danced with the Devil”—from Bill Clinton’s mass incarceration and bank deregulation, to Obama’s mass deportations and drone strikes. “Our most progressive candidates still use the same violent and bullying rhetoric that we claim to be against,” he continued. “In a 20-minute interview last year, Sen. Elizabeth Warren used the word ‘fight’ once a minute. Our progressive leaders and activists use gun metaphors, war imagery, and dehumanizing language about our opponents all the time.”

“Every time we return hate for hate, bullying for bullying, brutality for brutality, we all become less human,” he said. In his office, Talarico explained, staff were instructed “to avoid violent words or dehumanizing rhetoric”—including “fight, battle, or troll.”

Over the course of four terms in the minority, Talarico has attached his name to a handful of key initiatives, and helped push through a law, inspired by his near-death experience, that capped the cost of insulin. Texas Monthly named him to its list of best legislators during his second term. (It also compared him to “Encyclopedia Brown.”) But his defining influence may be the one you’ve seen—a seemingly endless succession of moments, in which he calmly deconstructs Republican talking points. There was the run-in with Pete Hegseth. The debate about furries. And most famously, l’affaire d’10 Commandments.

Texas state Rep. James Talarico, D-Austin, a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate speaks to media after he voted in Austin, Texas, Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2026. (Eric Gay/AP

Scott Braddock, editor of the Quorum Report, an authoritative source on the doings in the Texas legislature, invited me to think of the caucus’ different members as pieces of a chess board. “Some of the pieces are doers, some of the pieces are talkers, some of them are more to the left, some of them are more to the center,” he said. “Talarico has started as a left-wing talker and he has moved to a more moderate talker.”

This knack for the spotlight has at times grated some of his Democratic colleagues. Perhaps the clearest source of tension has centered on his handling of the caucus’ decision to break quorum. In the first 24 hours of quorum-break last August, Talarico boasted that he’d done 25 interviews from his Illinois hotel room. When I reached out for a story of my own, I found myself talking to a former Buttigieg advisor—hardly the norm for a state representative. Talarico ultimately stayed away longer than almost anyone else. But the quorum-break in 2021, when Democrats tried to block voter suppression laws, was a different story.

In an op-ed he later published in the Texas Signal, Talarico wrote that he spent his days in DC walking around the Lincoln Memorial, contemplating the American idea. The protest, and the exchange he which he asked Hegseth to acknowledge that Joe Biden had won the 2020 election, helped make Talarico a star. But a few hours after taking part in a caucus-wide meeting in DC, Talarico and three Democrats stunned some of their colleagues by returning to the state capitol. Republicans gaveled-in later that day. They “sold us out,” state Rep. Ana-Maria Ramos said at the time. “JUST WOW!” tweeted her colleague, then-state Rep. Jasmine Crockett. Talarico argued that they’d accomplished what they’d left the state to do by raising the salience of voting rights in DC. Drawn out of his competitive old district in the ensuing redistricting process, he moved to a new safely blue district that was majority non-white. The website Talarico Facts, a repository of opposition research frequently cited by Crockett allies, accused the legislator of taking a seat that could have gone to a Black candidate.

It’s a race that can’t be won with mere civility and that Talarico will not advance out of without some adjustments of his own… Democratic voters aren’t feeling so pastoral right now.

Ramos told me that before Crockett entered the Senate race, she’d actually been supporting Talarico. But the manner in which the quorum break ended caused a rift at the time. Afterwards, Crockett—whose media hits during the DC sojourn helped make her a rising star, too—co-founded the Texas House Progressive Caucus with a few dozen other quorum-breakers to offer a more aggressive posture in the legislature.

The dispute gets at a dynamic that Talarico can’t talk himself out of. The talking, in fact, only makes it worse. It is the sense in some corners that there is something a little too neat about his rise. That he is a young man in a hurry, recycling other people’s message. After a digital creator alleged that Talarico had called former Rep. Colin Allred, the party’s 2024 Senate nominee, a “mediocre Black man”—Talarico said he called Allred a mediocre candidate—Allred, accused Talarico of stealing valor from Black Democrats, such as Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, who have been modeling progressive Christianity for far longer. Crockett, who said last year she feared the party would close ranks in 2028 around “the safest white boy,” recently attacked Talarico for “running from” his ties to Lis Smith—a former Buttigieg advisor. (Smith has said she has “done some work” for Talarico but is not actively involved in the Senate race.)

There is a familiar bait and switch with a lot of buzzy Democratic candidates—that something about their identity will unlock a prodigal base that has strayed and needs merely to be shown the way in a language they understand. These candidates, as Crockett alluded to, are invariably white and male. They come from not just hometowns but symbols—a Braddock, Pennsylvania; a South Bend, Indiana; a place called Hope. They sing lamentations about lost direction, and then win or lose with the same coalition as everyone else. It’s reasonable to ask whether someone like this has the answers—and why someone like this is always the answer.

Conservative Texas Christians, after all, are familiar with the kinds of teachings you hear in Austin at St. Andrew’s. They do not go to St. Andrew’s, and many of them seem to loathe Austin. The recent evidence suggests many of them would rather dance with the Devil than a church-going Democrat, let alone a seminarian who says “God is non-binary.” Trump does not have the temerity to tell them they are wrong. Talarico, one Republican state representative said on X last fall, “twists [Christianity] to sound sweet to the ears for his own glorification and contorts Jesus to fit a nuanced feel-good justification for sin.”

But if the yearning Talarico taps into wasn’t real, your relatives would not have sent you his videos. For decades, Democrats have longed for messengers, real and imaginary, who can defuse the power of the Christian right. At the apex of the Moral Majority, Aaron Sorkin wrote the West Wing’s Jeb Bartlett as a spiritual foil who quoted Leviticus chapter-and-verse to hypocritical Bible-thumpers. George W. Bush’s real-life successor wrote a bestselling memoir named for the sermon that changed his life. The West Wing, for its part, ended with the only fantasy more persistent than beating a bunch of theocrats at Bible Bonkers—a Democrat rising from obscurity and turning Texas blue.

Jasmine Crockett attends the 2026 MLK Unity Parade on January 19, 2026 in Houston, Texas. Marcus Ingram/Getty

What’s notable about the wrangling over Talarico’s record is that policy and job performance are largely disconnected from the primary, in a way that feels both new and foreboding. The Democratic Party’s conflicts in 2018 and 2020 were shaped by differences over health care. In more recent years they have been proxy battles over Israel. The state of play in Texas is more visceral: Talarico and Crockett are two candidates, separated by a common algorithm, clashing over what kind of authenticity voters really want.

If Talarico represents a West Wing-style fantasy, Crockett’s style is a bit more, well—you’ve seen those clips, too. Her version of the Ten Commandments clip came in 2024, when she called Marjorie Taylor Greene a “bleach blonde, bad built, butch body.” (That is not in the Paulian Epistles.) Crockett told Vanity Fair after Kamala Harris’ loss that Latino immigrant voters suffered from “almost like a slave mentality” that she considered “insane,” while comparing them to other demographics. (“I’ve not run into that with the Asian community.”) Talarico launched his campaign by standing on top of an old pickup truck in front of a church; Crockett launched hers by smiling at the camera over audio of Trump calling her names.

Republicans have a clear preference. NOTUS reported that the National Republican Senatorial Committee helped nudge Crockett into the race last year by commissioning polls that showed her leading prospective primary opponents. In February, desperate to save Cornyn, the NRSC released polling that showed Paxton trailing Talarico head-to-head. Crockett was underwater against both; against Cornyn, it wasn’t all that close. The congresswoman has argued that attempting to peel off Republicans, in a state that has not elected a Democrat statewide since the release of Netscape, is unnecessary: “All we’ve ever needed to do was increase voter participation and voter turnout on our side.” (Texas Monthly calls this idea “the biggest lie in Texas politics.”)

But Crockett’s style resonates with a base tired of going high when they go low—that wants a party that will stand up for itself and stick it to ‘em. The Democratic frontrunner, Ramos recently stated, is a “street fighter who will punch the system in the face.” One of the most recent surveys of the primary, from the University of Texas, showed her leading Talarico by double digits.

It’s a race that can’t be won with mere civility and that Talarico will not advance out of without some adjustments of his own. Talarico has been described as a “choir boy” too often to count. He “was always a peacemaker in preschool,” Rigby told me. “This is not a time for sheep, it’s a time for shepherds,” the legislator said in that first race. Democratic voters aren’t feeling so pastoral right now. In San Antonio, he hit upon the themes that shapes his politics: His mother’s strength and his students’ light; corrupt billionaires and false prophets. But if you listened closely, you could detect a slight concession to the kind of politics he once decried—another compromise in a dirty and noble trade.

“They’re comfortable on the coasts and comfortable with the status quo, but there’s something about living in a red state that makes you scrappy,” he said of Democratic leaders.

“We know how to fight.”

Continue Reading…

Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose Trump’s Strikes on Iran

Just one in four Americans supports the Trump administration’s ongoing strikes on Iran, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Sunday.

The disapproval rating was 43 percent, while 29 percent said they were not sure.

About half of respondents—including one in four Republicans—said the president was too open to using military force. The poll surveyed 1,282 US adults starting on Saturday, following news breaking of the strikes.

Even before the attacks, Trump’s handling of Iran was unpopular. Back in January, a Reuters/Ipsos found that only 33 percent of Americans approved of the president’s policy with Iran, while 43 percent disapproved.

For comparison, in the seven months prior to the US invasion of Iraq, a Gallup poll found that somewhere between 52 and 63 percent of Americans favored an invasion. And in the days following the beginning of the war, Gallup found that 72 percent supported the military action. Although these numbers are based on Gallup polling, the both surveys come from samples of over 1,000 US adults and, similarly, note a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

As my colleague Katie Herchenroeder noted on Saturday, there have been massive demonstrations around the world against the US and Israeli strikes against Iran, and United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the attacks at a UN Security Council meeting. Congress is expected to vote on a war powers resolution this week in an attempt to stop the strikes.

Continue Reading…

What a War Powers Resolution Vote on Iran Actually Means

Key members of Congress are calling for a vote on a war powers resolution on Monday to stop the Trump administration from continuing its illegal military assault against Iran without congressional authorization.

The strikes, which began early Saturday, have been widespread, reportedly killed over 100 schoolchildren in Minab, a city in southern Iran, as well as Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran has retaliated, targeting US bases and allies in the region. Three US service members were killed in action on Sunday morning.

The White House reportedly notified some members of the House and Senate Armed Service committees only after the strikes had already begun. Article 1 of the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the power to declare war, and the War Powers Act all0ws Congress to halt unauthorized military action by requiring troop withdrawal within 60 to 90 days.

The House of Representatives’ bipartisan resolution, led by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), would require Trump “to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran…unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.”

Trump has launched an illegal regime change war in Iran with American lives at risk. Congress must convene on Monday to vote on @RepThomasMassie & my WPR to stop this. Every member of Congress should go on record this weekend on how they will vote. pic.twitter.com/tlRi3Vz849

— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) February 28, 2026

But in practice, Congress’s power is limited to halt Trump’s military actions, given that any resolution could be vetoed by the president and would require a two-thirds congressional majority to overturn. Even if the resolution on Iran does pass, it will likely be by a narrow margin, since Republican leadership, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), have backed the US and Israeli strikes. In January, Senate Republicans blocked a similar war powers resolution after Trump’s attacks on Venezuela.

As a result, any vote on a war powers resolution would be largely symbolic. But members of Congress say the vote is important anyway to make clear their stance on the war. “The Constitution requires a vote, and your Representative needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war,” Massie wrote on X on Saturday.

Continue Reading…

US Government Is Accelerating Coral Reef Collapse, Scientists Warn

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

Ritidian Point, at the northern tip of Guam, is home to an ancient limestone forest with panoramic vistas of warm Pacific waters. Stand here in early spring and you might just be lucky enough to witness a breaching humpback whale as they migrate past. But listen and you’ll be struck by the cacophony of the island’s live-fire testing range.

Widely referred to as the “tip of the spear” in the American arsenal, Guam—which is smaller than New York City but home to a military community of nearly 23,000—is a dichotomy of majestic nature and military might.

The real powerhouse of the Pacific exists not on land but just below the water’s surface in its biological resilience, which is now threatened by the Pentagon’s quest for strategic deterrence. The weapons that miss their target on the testing range will soon find a different one, sinking down to the most diverse coral reef of any U.S. jurisdiction. A battle between the two is now emerging.

The U.S. government is accelerating coral reef collapse around Guam, alleges a team of international researchers in a letter released this month in Science. They warn administration pressures to prioritize national security—through dredging projects, increased military infrastructure and live firing ranges—will cause harm to endangered habitats.

In 2023, a marine heatwave in Florida resulted in a roughly 98 percent mortality rate of elkhorn and staghorn colonies.

Additionally, a fundamental misunderstanding of coral taxonomy in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is exacerbating the ecological harm to fisheries and reefs. Without intervention, these Pacific habitats now risk the same “functional extinction” experienced in Florida.

“The United States government seems to be softening conservation policies in ways that allow companies and the military to avoid regulation,” said Colin Anthony, a doctoral fellow at the University of Tokyo and the paper’s lead author.

For a time last summer, conservation seemed ascendant. In July, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rejected a Navy request to expand exempt military zones in northern Guam, citing conservation benefits outweighing national security concerns at Ritidian Point. On the same day, NOAA finalized a rule designating critical habitat for five threatened coral species across 92 square miles of the Pacific, including in Guam and American Samoa.

However, the victories were short-lived. Following President Trump’s issuance of Executive Order 14154—“Unleashing American Energy”—on his first day in office in January 2025, federal agencies were pressured to remove any “undue burdens” on energy production and security. In November 2025, NOAA followed up by proposing expanded authority to bypass critical habitat regulations.

The provisions sought to remove language that required decision-making to be made “without reference to possible economic or other impacts.” Researchers have warned this prioritizes short-term economic interests over science and opens up vulnerable marine preserves to deep-sea mining, fishing and military expansion.

NOAA’s proposed changes also look to reclassify the “environmental baseline,” meaning the Navy could treat a degraded reef not as a problem to be addressed but as the fixed starting point. Baking in decades of ecological harm effectively insulates activity from ESA scrutiny and allows the Navy to cite “national security” as a blanket justification for any new projects, even if they fall in endangered marine habitats.

Additionally, owing to a “conservation gap” in ESA policy, reef-building corals are disappearing faster than scientists can identify them. Guidelines require clear categorization of species to determine their endangered status, however, corals are “phenotypically plastic,” meaning they change their features depending on light, water flow or depth.

Unlike land animals, it is difficult for researchers to neatly categorize species based on reproduction compatibility. Scientists must instead acquire genetic material and decide on a set of identifiable traits for a species that can sometimes span the entirety of the Pacific Ocean.

“Many of the corals in the Indo-Pacific, such as those in Guam, have not been taxonomically verified via DNA barcoding,” said Laurie Raymundo, a biology professor and director of the University of Guam Marine Laboratory. Although DNA analysis is now the norm, it is costly and time-consuming, meaning endemic species could disappear before ever being documented.

“Unlike Florida, for the Pacific, it’s not too late. We still have corals. They’re recoverable, especially if appropriate policy is implemented.”

Chief among them are Acropora corals, a foundation species that build the structural framework of many reefs. Though all arborescent Acropora corals—those with tree-like branches—from Guam and the wider Pacific are classified as “Endangered” on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, many remain unprotected under the ESA.

Guam lost between 34 percent and 37 percent of its live coral between 2013 and 2017 due to repeated heatwaves, low tides and infectious diseases. While the island has escaped bleaching episodes since, future heatwaves could prove similarly fatal. “Each year, we brace ourselves for the next one,” said Raymundo, who highlighted how difficult a time it is to be a conservation biologist in the region.

Staghorn Acropora corals also tend to grow in massive thickets hundreds of meters in diameter. Often composed of a single genotype, these corals are unable to self-fertilize and therefore have very little chance of new settlements.

The researchers’ urgency stems from the recent collapse of similar corals in Florida. In 2023, a marine heatwave resulted in a roughly 98 percent mortality rate of elkhorn and staghorn colonies. Now declared “functionally extinct,” these corals do not exist in sufficient numbers in the state’s waters to provide effective coastal protection or thriving habitats for marine life.

“The problem is, if you’re the US military, anything you do can be cited as being for national security,” said Anthony. “Even if the appropriate process would just be an extra round of ecological surveys to make sure everything is done with the best intention to avoid unnecessary harm.”

Indigenous Chamorro people on Guam—who can trace their roots back over 3,000 years—have also not forgotten the environmental harm caused by the military’s past use of PCBs, PFAS and dieldrin.

“I do see signs of anger and frustration among communities impacted by the need of a few to make money,” said Raymundo, highlighting how small island nations contribute little to climate change but are at the forefront of the impacts. “Too often we see that economic gain does not translate into food, health and education security for the majority of people.”

Some outer-lying islands in the region have already lost homes and can no longer grow crops due to salt water intrusion. Meanwhile, in January 2026, NOAA launched a survey to map over 30,000 square miles of waters off American Samoa for critical mineral reserves. A move described as the federal agency “shifting from science to prospecting,” by the New York Times.

Researchers are calling for NOAA to reverse its ESA proposals and extend protections to the Acropora genus, regardless of specific species. They argue this would bypass taxonomic uncertainty, simplify surveys and ensure increased levels of protection.

They note that the ESA already allows for the inclusion of specific populations or sub-species—like the Cook Inlet beluga whale or the southern resident killer whale—and so call for the same logic to be applied before Guam’s rich marine ecosystem goes the way of Florida’s.

“Florida has become a glimpse into the future for the Pacific Ocean,” said Anthony. “Unlike Florida, for the Pacific, it’s not too late. We still have corals. They’re recoverable, especially if appropriate policy is implemented.”

Continue Reading…

Photos: The World Responds to War

As the death toll reportedly rises in Iran and violence spreads through the Middle East, people around the world are responding to the war launched Saturday by the United States and Israel. Confusion, fear, celebration, destruction, and protest have defined the last 12 hours.

Here are some of the scenes unfolding across the globe:

Iran

Smoke rises on the skyline after an explosion in Tehran, Iran, Saturday, Feb. 28, 2026.AP

Rescue workers and residents search through the rubble in the aftermath of a strike that, according to Iranian state media, killed dozens at a girls’ elementary school in Minab, Iran.Iranian Students’ News Agency/AP

A group of demonstrators wave Iranian flags in support of the government and against US and Israeli strikes in Tehran on Saturday.Vahid Salemi/AP

Motorists make their way along a street in Tehran.ATTA KENARE / AFP via Getty

United States

A screen grab from a video released by President Donald Trump, announcing combat operations against IranPresident Trump Via Truth Social/Anadolu via Getty

A “March 4 Democracy” protest in Washington, DC, on February 28Ken Cedeno / AFP via Getty

Israel

People take shelter in Jerusalem as Iran launches missiles and drones in the wake of US-Israeli attacks.Mostafa Alkharouf/Anadolu via Getty

An intercept missile tracks and chases an incoming Iranian missile, as seen over Jerusalem rooftops.Nir Alon/ZUMA

Around the World

Syrian children inspect the wreckage of an Iranian rocket that was reportedly intercepted by Israeli forces in the countryside of Quneitra, near the Golan Heights, close to the town of Ghadir al-Bustan.Bakr ALKASEM / AFP via Getty

French President Emmanuel Macron addresses a government meeting in Paris. He called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council , saying the escalation “must stop.”Anna KURTH / POOL / AFP via Getty

Long lines formed at gas stations across Beirut, the capital of Lebanon.Houssam Shbaro/Anadolu via Getty

Berlin: At a demonstration, a man wears a cap with the slogan “Make Iran Great Again.”Christophe Gateau/picture alliance via Getty

Protesters opposing the attack on Iran chant slogans and wave placards and flags in London.Guy Smallman/Getty

Palestinians crowd into markets in Khan Younis to buy goods, fearing price hikes following the outbreak of another war.Abed Rahim Khatib/picture alliance via Getty

Continue Reading…

“Massive” War Launched by a Man With No Plan. Again.

In the wee hours of Saturday morning, President Donald Trump announced he had launched a war against Iran. He insisted that Iran posed a direct threat to the United States. He detailed its past acts of aggression. He claimed he had tried to reach a deal with Tehran to end its nuclear program. He warned the public that American soldiers might die as a result of this attack. He noted that the aim of this war was to end the Iranian regime and urged the people of Iran to rise up and “take over your government.”

What Trump did not say was that he had a plan.

It’s easy for an American president to bomb a country. It’s much tougher to figure out what to do in the aftermath. Trump, who initiated this attack with Israel without seeking congressional authorization (as the Constitution requires), clearly engaged in little, if any, preparation for what comes following this “massive” operation, as he termed it.

Trump appears to be winging it, letting loose the dogs of war and then seeing what the hell happens.

For years, Trump has demonstrated that he often sees no need for plans. He vowed repeatedly during the 2024 campaign that he could end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. But he had no plan to do so. In his first term as president, he said he could deliver cheaper and better health care. But he proposed no plan for that. He also said he would rebuild American infrastructure and, again, put forward no plan. He tends to act impulsively, believing chaos and discord can be exploited by a masterful negotiator, as he sees himself.

Yet one of the most obvious lessons of the past 25 years is that warring requires planning—not just for the initial assault but for what occurs afterward. The best example is the Iraq War. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld had no idea what to do after the invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime. In the violent chaos that ensued for years afterward, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died, ISIS arose, regional instability reigned—and Iran consolidated power.

It’s not that the brighter bulbs of the Bush-Cheney administration did not see the need to prep for the post-invasion period. As Michael Isikoff and I reported in Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, in the months prior to the war—when it was evident Bush was committed to attacking Iraq—there were several well-executed projects focused on what would need to be done after Saddam was forcibly removed from power.

A small Pentagon unit examined this question, assuming a high level of violence would continue after Saddam was deposed. Its analysts concluded that an enormous number of US troops would be required to provide security throughout the country—a greater amount than those being sent to Iraq for the invasion.

Separately, the Army deputy chief of staff for operations and plans asked the War College’s Strategic Studies Institute to examine post-war questions, and it produced a report identifying numerous challenges for any occupation. The paper tallied 135 post-invasion tasks that would have to be accomplished to reestablish an Iraqi state. This included securing the borders, setting up local governments, protecting religious sites, maintaining power systems, opening hospitals, and disarming militias. A big concern was what to do about the Iraqi Army. This paper recommended not disbanding it. (The Bush-Cheney crowd did dismantle the army, a move that fueled vicious sectarian violence.) “Massive resources need to be focused on this [post-occupation] effort,” the report said.

The State Department, too, tried to do the responsible thing. A year before the invasion, it established the Future of Iraq project. This operation had 17 working groups, full of Iraqi exiles (lawyers, engineers, academics, and businesspeople), that considered all the steps necessary to remake a post-Saddam Iraq: reorganizing the military and police, creating a new legal system, restructuring the economy, and repairing the nation’s water and electric power system, among many other tasks.

The Bush-Cheney White House wasn’t interested in any of these exercises. In one pre-invasion meeting of the National Security Council, Bush asked Gen. Tommy Franks, the CENTCOM commander in charge of the invasion, about security in Iraq after Saddam’s ouster. Who would maintain law and order? he inquired. Franks said he had that covered: The US would keep the peace, and each major Iraqi town and village would have a “lord mayor”—an appointed US military officer who would be in charge of preserving civic order and administering basic services.

That was an idiotic concept. Worse, there was not even a true plan to designate and install these “lord mayors.” This seemed to be just Franks’ own fanciful notion. No such exercise was even attempted following the invasion. The lack of a post-Saddam game plan led to a debacle.

The Iraq War case illustrates both how much work it took to devise post-war plans and the disastrous results that came from the Bush-Cheney gang eschewing these preparations for the aftermath.

There’s no sign that the Trump administration has spent months—or even days— working out what should be done after this military operation. Instead, his Pentagon spent the hours leading up to the attack feuding with an American AI company, various “woke” universities, and Scouting America. Trump appears to be winging it, letting loose the dogs of war and then seeing what the hell happens.

There’s another Bush-related episode that casts a shadow on Trump’s actions. In his statement, Trump egged on the Iranian people to rebel against the mullahs, declaring: “America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach.”

This sounded familiar. At the end of the Persian Gulf War that President George H.W. Bush launched in 1991 to drive Saddam’s forces out of Kuwait, the elder Bush called for “the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands to force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.” Many Iraqis took this as a signal that the United States would support them if they mounted a revolution, and they did so. Bush did nothing to assist these rebels, and to quell this uprising Saddam slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Trump appears to be following the bad examples of both Bushes. There are no preparations for what to do if he succeeds in driving the ayatollahs out of power and no strategy for protecting the opposition should it heed Trump’s call and face a further violent crackdown.

Trump has no plan for Iran. Just blow shit up, kill some people, and hope for the best. Tehran, for all its horrific transgressions (including its recent killing of thousands of protesters), did not pose an immediate threat to the United States. Perhaps military action against this regime could be justified. But there was ample time to seek congressional authorization and an international alliance for a regime-change war. Instead, Trump proceeded with an unconstitutional action without readying for what is to follow. It is the war of a Mad King.

Continue Reading…

War: US and Israel Attack Iran

The United States and Israel launched a massive military assault against Iran on Saturday—a steep and sudden escalation following negotiations between the US and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program. Iran has retaliated, targeting American bases and US-allied countries across the region.

It’s unclear how many people have been killed so far. Iran’s state-run Islamic Republic News Agency, or IRNA, has reported significant casualties, including dozens killed at a girl’s school during a US-Israel strike; the New York Times said that it was unable to immediately verify that report. According to the United Arab Emirates, one person was killed by falling debris from an Iranian ballistic missile.

In an 8-minute video posted to Truth Social early Saturday, President Donald Trump confirmed the attacks, calling the Iranian regime a “vicious group of very hard, terrible people.” He described the operation as “major combat activities” and said his administration had taken steps to minimize risk to US forces in the region. But, he added, “the lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties. That often happens in war.”

Trump urged the Iranian people to “take over their government” following the attacks. Anti-government protests in the nation have been taking place for months, and the regime has responded with a brutal crackdown. According to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency, Iranian forces had killed more than 7,000 people as of February 11; tens of thousands more have been arrested.

Trump referred to those atrocities in his video Saturday. He also blamed Iran for the failed nuclear negotiations, claiming, “They rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can’t take it anymore.”

Badr Albusaidi, the Omani foreign minister who was mediating negotiations before the attacks, said Saturday that he was “dismayed.”

“Active and serious negotiations have yet again been undermined. Neither the interests of the United States nor the cause of global peace are well served by this,” Albusaidi wrote on social media. “And I pray for the innocents who will suffer. I urge the United States not to get sucked in further. This is not your war.”

The response from global leaders allied with the US was mixed.

Canada and Australia backed the campaign against Iran. Britain, France, and Germany issued a joint statement, saying they were critical of Iran’s nuclear policies and “the appalling violence and repression against its own people.” But that trio of countries stopped short of explicitly supporting the strikes. “We did not participate in these strikes, but are in close contact with our international partners, including the United States, Israel, and partners in the region,” the statement said. “We reiterate our commitment to regional stability and to the protection of civilian life.”

As US and Israeli strikes continued and Iranian forces launched their own attacks, civilians around the region rushed to whatever safe space they could find. An engineer living in Tehran described the fear in a text message to the New York Times: “My children are crying and scared. We are huddling in the bathroom. We don’t know what to do. This is terrifying.”

Continue Reading…

Would You Pay $49 a Month to Drink Recycled Wastewater?

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

One day, you’ll appreciate drinking recycled toilet water.

Urban populations are growing as water supplies are dwindling, often due to worsening droughts. In response, some communities are treating wastewater, rendering it perfectly safe for consumption. It is so pure, in fact, that if a treatment facility doesn’t add enough of the minerals the filtering process strips out, it could do serious damage to the human body. And trust me—it tastes great, too.

Cities throughout the American West are already recycling water, easing pressures on dwindling supplies. Now here’s a thought experiment: How much would you pay on your utility bill for the privilege of reused water, if it meant avoiding shortages and rationing in the future?

A recent survey offers one answer. Residents of communities of fewer than 10,000 people said they’d be willing to drop an average of $49 to do so. That money would underwrite water reuse programs, including rain capture systems. “I do think it is a bipartisan issue,” said Todd Guilfoos, an economist at the University of Rhode Island and co-author of the new paper. “It’s often just cheaper than some of the other available solutions.”

Wastewater recycling is not some far-out, prohibitively complicated technology. Western states are already doing a lot of it: A study published last year found that Nevada reuses 85 percent of its water, and Arizona 52 percent. Water agencies do this with reverse osmosis, passing the liquid through fine membranes to filter out solids before blasting it with UV light, which destroys any microbes. On a smaller scale, apartment buildings can house their own treatment infrastructure, cycling water back into units for nonpotable use, like flushing toilets.

Glasses depicting raw sewage, plant effluent filtered and recycled water are displayed at an advanced water purification facility in 2015 in Los Angeles, California.Bob Riha, Jr. / Getty via Grist

On the municipal level, though, it’s expensive to build such facilities and run them continuously—it takes a lot of energy, for instance, to force water through those membranes. For a small community, charging each household $49 per month wouldn’t be quite enough to get a system up and running. “While that might be enough for operating, that doesn’t include what it would cost to actually build whatever water reuse infrastructure that you would need,” Guilfoos said. That’s when a town can turn to federal or state grants, or maybe utilize municipal bonds, to break ground. “I think communities need a little bit of a bump, actually, to get there,” Guilfoos added. “I think usually it’s in the face of some crises that these things end up getting built.”

Those crises are piling up across the US. Droughts are forcing some rural areas to pump more and more H2O from aquifers, depleting them. Tapped unsustainably, these underground supplies can collapse like an empty water bottle, making the land above sink, a phenomenon known as subsidence. This is a particularly pernicious problem in agricultural regions—California’s San Joaquin Valley has sunk up to 28 feet in recent decades, to offer just one example.

$49 a month could fund bioswales—ditches full of vegetation that not only collect stormwater, but provide habitat for native plants and pollinators. “

If supplies dwindle, a small community would have no choice but to ration water. Getting more efficient about using what we have can help, like encouraging the adoption of thriftier toilets and spraying less on lawns, as Las Vegas has done. (Those thirsty patches of green are in general an environmental mess, beyond their use of water.) But to truly get more sustainable, a community will have to recycle the H2O it has no choice but to use.

What’s interesting about this study, says Michael Kiparsky, director of the Wheeler Water Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, is the apparent overcoming of the “yuck factor.” “There’s a visceral reaction to drinking reused water, particularly reused wastewater, that’s totally understandable,” said Kiparsky, who wasn’t involved in the research. “But over time, that has faded as the notion of reusing water to augment water supplies, including for drinking water, has become increasingly legitimized.”

At the same time, simple infrastructural improvements can capture heaps of another supply that’s readily wasted: rain. That $49 a month could fund bioswales, for instance—ditches full of vegetation that not only collect stormwater, but provide habitat for native plants and pollinators. Cities like Los Angeles are making themselves more “spongy” in this way, with roadside plots of land that collect runoff in subterranean tanks. Elsewhere, architects are building “agrihoods” around working farms that store precipitation to hydrate their crops through the summer.

In the American West, farmers are also having to contend with water whiplash, meaning years of plenty followed by years of desiccation. Generally speaking, rain is falling more heavily because a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, increasing the bounty. But so too does climate change exacerbate droughts, making wastewater reuse especially welcome on farms. “All of this makes the water supply less certain in any given year, and more volatile from year to year,” said Tom Corringham, a research economist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who wasn’t involved in the new paper. “So any strategies that we can find that can smooth out the water cycle are beneficial.”

In addition to recycling wastewater, farmers are recharging the aquifers beneath their feet: When rains fall heavily, and there’s a surplus of water, channels divert fluid into “spreading grounds”—basically big dirt bowls built into the landscape. That allows precipitation to percolate back into the ground, reducing loss from evaporation, replacing what’s been drawn out, and helping avoid land subsidence. Then, when needed, a farm can pump the water back out of the ground, in which case it doesn’t need to draw from, say, a dam, leaving more water for others to use.

Together with wastewater reuse, aquifer recharge can help bolster the water system for the climatically perilous years ahead. As metropolises like Mexico City and Cape Town run the risk of running out of water, drinking recycled wastewater will be a whole lot more appealing than losing hydration entirely.

Continue Reading…

Teaching Kids to Read: How One School District Gets It Right

The schools in Steubenville, Ohio, are doing something unusual—in fact, it’s almost unheard of. In a country where nearly 40 percent of fourth graders struggle to read at even a basic level, Steubenville has succeeded in teaching virtually all of its students to read well.

According to data from the Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University, Steubenville has routinely scored in the top 10 percent or better of schools nationwide for third-grade reading, sometimes scoring as high as the top 1 percent.

In study after study for decades, researchers have found that districts serving low-income families almost always have lower test scores than districts in more affluent places. Yet Steubenville bucks that trend.

“It was astonishing to me how amazing that elementary school was,” said Karin Chenoweth, who wrote about Steubenville in her book How It’s Being Done: Urgent Lessons From Unexpected Schools.

This week on Reveal, reporter Emily Hanford shares the latest from the hit APM Reports podcast Sold a Story. We’ll learn how Steubenville became a model of reading success—and how a new law in Ohio put it all at risk.

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

Continue Reading…

“They Want Me to Hide or Leave or Disappear”

Avery Rowland starts almost all of her days by posting a TikTok video beginning with “good morning” and, often, explaining the latest anti-transgender action from her state’s Republican supermajority.

“Today is a rough day here in Kansas,” Rowland, who grew up in the state and is now running for a state representative seat, began her TikTok on Thursday. “My license got invalidated.”

Rowland is one of the hundreds of transgender Kansans now tasked with replacing their driver’s licenses after a new state law went into effect this week that invalidates preexisting IDs with gender markers that do not match someone’s sex assigned at birth. The law applies to new IDs moving forward, too. It also invalidates the birth certificates of people who changed the document’s gender marker. If a driver is caught on the road with an old ID, they’ll be required to surrender it. In Kansas, driving without a license could result in fines and, in specific cases, end in jail time.

@kanstransan

I will not comply with an unjust law. #kansas #transgender #lgbtqia #love #kindness

♬ original sound – Avery Rowland

The new law, known as SB 244, also mandates people entering government-owned buildings to use the restrooms, showers, and locker rooms that correspond with sex assigned at birth. In an escalation from some other state laws, it deputizes people to accuse others, allowing anyone to claim someone used the restroom not allowed under the law and sue for damages of $1,000. Two transgender Kansans sued to strike down the law and pause the state’s enforcement on Friday.

“The persecution is the point,” Rep. Abi Boatman, a Wichita Democrat and the only transgender member of the legislature, told The Kansas City Star. Boatman, like other Kansans who had changed a gender marker on their identification, received a letter in the mail this week noting that their license would be invalid. The law doesn’t include a grace period for changing IDs and also doesn’t provide funding, forcing individuals to pay the cost of the new driver’s license.

The law was rushed. Republicans used a “gut and go” maneuver. Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed the bill, but the legislature quickly overrode the decision.

“They want me to hide or leave or disappear, not to be visible and active in public society,” Rowland told me. She’s running in this year’s midterm for the Kansas House of Representatives to represent District 2 as a Democrat.

I spoke with Rowland about the law and going toe-to-toe with the state’s Republican lawmakers.

Could you walk me through this morning?

My work is a 25 mile commute, so I didn’t feel comfortable driving without a valid license. I went to the county courthouse because it was only a mile drive, and I felt I could do that safely.

I went in and I pulled some shenanigans. I looked up yesterday what is needed for a lost driver’s license, which was two proofs of ID and proof of residency. I talked to the clerk, a very kind, nice young lady, and I said, ‘I lost my license. I misplaced it, I need to replace it.’ And she did the whole thing, took a picture, and handed me a brand new paper printout license and it said female. And I thought, ‘hmm interesting.’ Then I pulled out the letter from my purse that says, ‘Avery Rowland, your valid license has been invalidated.’ I played kind of dumb, saying, ‘I don’t quite know what it means. What do I need to do?’

She looked at it, and she had no clue what to do. So she had to go call the state office, and then they changed it on their side in the computer from female to male, and then reprinted it. She was confused when I handed her the letter, because my passport says female, I very much look like a female, because I am a woman. It’s confusing.

Have legislators done a good enough job at informing their constituents that their IDs have been invalidated?

We are a Republican supermajority. So unless you live in a Democrat district, what do they give a shit about telling you that your license is invalidated? They obviously didn’t care enough to stop this legislation. I don’t expect a single peep out of it, other than ‘We’re keeping men out of the women’s restroom!’ from the Republicans. ‘Yay! We won! We kept the men out!’ I don’t expect a single word of ‘Hey, this is what you need to do.’

You’re not expecting a ‘Know Your Rights’ infographic.

Hell no.

This law also includes imposing these new limits on bathroom access.

The bathroom bounties. That’s a huge one that scares a lot of people. It’s not just the ideas. This is the fact that you can get a fine and be arrested for using the restroom, and people can sue. Nobody in Kansas knows how it’s going to be enforced.

Do you expect to see, as we’ve seen elsewhere, situations where people are asked to ‘prove’ which bathroom they can go to?

I think a lot of people will not comply with the law. If you pass, you’re going to use the restroom you’re going to use. But, there will be malicious compliance. And Kansas is a right to carry state. Kansas is a stand your ground state. So who knows what’s going to happen.

Are you scared?

Am I scared for myself? No.

Are you scared for others?

I’m scared for the gender nonconforming college kids, the teenagers and the adults who will never pass as cis without lots and lots of surgery, the folks who are obviously trans. Because trans is beautiful and you should have the right to live openly and authentically. And those people are being denied that. I’m being denied that as well, but we all are.

How much of your decision to run for office was based in this increasingly hostile environment for trans people in your state?

Essentially all of it. I’ve known since I was a little kid that I wanted to be a legislator of some sort. I got to visit Washington, DC, as a kid and I thought ‘Oh, this would be so cool to speak for people.’ It’s not just running for me, it’s for marginalized Kansans. Right now, I work for the state. I do food stamp processing. I work with the poorest of the poor. It’s about helping everybody. Kansas came into the Union as a free state 165 years ago and we should be a free state for everybody, not just cishet white Republican men.

This law doesn’t just impact IDs going forward, as some other states have done, but reverses validity of current documentation. What do you make of this escalation?

They have nothing. The Republicans have nothing. They cannot legislate, they cannot lead, they cannot govern. All they have are societal issues that they think are a wedge and that’s what they go after because they have nothing of substance. Because transgender folks are approximately 1 percent of the population, who’s going to miss us?

The Kansas GOP is just running roughshod: move fast and break stuff. They’re going just as fast as they can and ramming terrible bills through the state. And a lot of it’s performative, and this feels very much performative, because I imagine most of them don’t really care.

I don’t expect more transgender legislation this session. I do expect other states to go. ‘Hey, look what Kansas did.’ Now, there’ll be lawsuits. There’ll be lawsuits out the wazoo in Kansas and all the way up to the federal level.

There’s a general sense of confusion. It’s enacted; it’s rolled back; it’s going to this court. Maybe for a little bit, it’ll be allowed, but then who knows. What impact does this confusion have on Kansans?

It causes so much stress and anxiety of not knowing what’s going to happen—the turmoil of being in a whirlwind, in a Kansas tornado. Really, none of it matters. We’re trying to sort the fly shit from the pepper. It just blends in. You got to keep your eye on the prize and a bigger goal of freedom for everybody.

Can you tell me about choosing to stay?

The morning after Trump got elected the second time, we looked at all our options. We have enough privilege that we could leave if we wanted to. It wouldn’t be nice or fun, but we could get out. I said, ‘No.’ My wife desperately wanted to leave, still does. She’s not happy with me. But no, I want to fight for Kansas. I want to fight for the rights of queer people. If I weren’t staying to fight for that, I would go somewhere safe.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Continue Reading…

Jesse Jackson Told Me Why He Really Ran for President

Word of the Reverend Jesse Louis Jackson’s death last week transported me back to the summer of 1987, when I was the editor of Mother Jones, and met him in person for the first time at the start of his second campaign for the presidency. One of his generation’s greatest orators, he blended Bible verses and calls for social justice like Dr. King. Invocations of self-affirmation, though, were distinctly Jesse. On Sesame Street he once taught a multiracial group of children to shout: “I AM SOMEBODY.” The son of an impoverished single mother from South Carolina, Jackson was a key figure in the struggle for racial equality by the time he was 23. Two decades later, he turned that slogan on himself by launching an improbable bid to run the country.

If you’d seen him thundering before massive crowds on television or in person during the ’60s and ’70s, as I had, you never forgot his booming baritone and rhythmic wordplay. So when I met him at his headquarters on the South Side of Chicago, Jackson was a familiar figure. At 6’4”, he towered over me, with the bruiser build of his father, a onetime boxer, and broad shoulders of the football player he’d been in college. That was the first impression—larger than life—no surprise. But the sound of his offstage voice was muted and even whispery, hard for my tape recorder to pick up. He was blunt about the business at hand. “What are we doing?” he rasped.

Related

Read Foster's 1987 cover story, "He Thinks He Can Win"

In the weeks ahead, Jackson would prove the most challenging subject for a profile I ever encountered. He had a skeptical squint and used it strategically, with long pauses and silence that telegraphed he wasn’t yet sure this interlocutor was worth his trouble. “That’s not fair! That’s not fair!” he grumbled when pressed on the wisdom of attacking the very media companies whose airwaves he needed to carry his campaign message to voters. “I have an analysis of the role the media play in the power structure of this country. Our press is privately owned by wealthy people who have substantial investments in the world economy. And they have power without accountability. Any publisher can make a political judgment and unleash the hounds. That power is real.” When I asked another question he didn’t like on our way to the airport, he began his reply, took a catnap midway, and roused himself at the terminal to finish—less gruff, without ever losing the thread. As we spent more time together—in town cars; on a flight from San Francisco to New York; and at many events—he seemed to unwrap himself, layer by layer, a little like the pastor portrayed in Purpose, the Pulitzer Prize–winning play more than loosely based on his sometimes tumultuous family life.

Jackson wasn’t the first Black person to mount a nationwide campaign for president. Shirley Chisholm, bold and brilliant, ran for the Democratic nomination in 1972. In 1984, he’d upped the ante, though, earning about 3.3 million votes, nearly one-in-five Democratic primary voters. He outlasted five famous officeholders, including a former nominee for president; an astronaut who became a senator from Ohio; the former governor of Florida; a well-known senator from South Carolina; and Sen. Alan Cranston, a political powerhouse from California. Former Vice President Walter Mondale won the nomination, but got flattened by President Ronald Reagan’s reelection apparatus in the general election.

Jesse Jackson delivers a speech during his 1984 presidential campaign in Chicago. Walter Mondale eventually won the nomination, but got flattened by Ronald Reagan in the general election.David Hume Kennerly/Getty

It still irritated Jackson four years later that his first run should be referred to as a failure, just as he would bristle years later that his second run was also dismissed as a “failed campaign.” The biggest challenge he faced was turning an audacious move into something perceived as plausible. He had never been elected to anything before. (This was Before Times, when a candidate for president thought experience in public office mattered.) With just one Black senator out of 100, the field remained tilted against the very notion of Black eligibility for generations. (Four decades later there are five.) The first primary of the season, then, took place in the realm of the imagination.

Against that backdrop, coverage of his second campaign orbited around speculation about his underlying motivations. Headlines for stories ran along these lines:

JESSE JACKSON
“What Does He Really Want?”

That was the headline we also used at Mother Jones when we put the accompanying story on the cover. “To win,” he kept repeating at campaign events. “Not as in place well, not as in good showing, not as in making a difference! Not nothing like that! As in win. We can win!” He knew his job as a candidate was to deny any doubts, but of course he carried them. Even one of his friends considered the presidential run a vanity project, telling Jackson he had zero chance. (He predicted, accurately, that all the other candidates would coalesce around an elected officeholder when they dropped out.)

“We can win!”

His status as a celebrity proved doubled-edged. Jackson drew high-wattage attention, which kept an underfunded campaign in the news, but celebrity treatment also yielded superficial coverage. On the flight, I watched this dynamic play out, listening as Jackson and his top aide labored over a major address he would give the next day. That speech heralded a set of detailed proposals he called “New Internationalism.” It was anti-protectionist and pro-worker, calling for a new global effort to prevent union-busting worldwide and to punish corporations for divesting in the U.S. He favored a nuclear freeze; reversal of Reagan’s tax cuts for the top 10 percent; revival of New Deal–era Public Works Administration and farm programs; reparations for slavery; a single-payer health care system; a 15 percent cut in military spending; ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment; and establishment of a Palestinian state—proposals that also proved ahead of their time.

Our October 1987 cover story by Mother Jones editor Douglas Foster profiled Jesse Jackson as he mounted his 1988 presidential campaign./Mother Jones

After his powerful address to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People convention, he looked spent but reassured that he’d made clear his candidacy was no vanity project. Early the following morning, though, Jackson looked low ebb. A story about Sen. Joe Biden, one of his early primary adversaries, was on the front page of the New York Times and a shorter piece about his appearance at the NAACP convention was buried deep inside the paper. “I gave a major address about the uneven playing field that American workers are forced to play on, caused because multinational corporations have incentives to move capital abroad and no incentives to reinvest, redevelop and retrain workers,” he pointed out. “Yet the coverage was: ‘He came, they cheered, they sang, they prayed, he got rousing applause.’” That experience only deepened his skepticism about the willingness of journalists to treat him fairly.

“To make progress we have to forgive each other, redeem each other, and focus on common ground.”

“Why do you speak so much about the farm crisis?” I asked on the way back to the airport for his flight to Chicago. “Because I know that can turn its back on the family farmer, it’s open season on everybody,” he replied. That led to a kind of meditative free association about what had happened on the campaign trail so far. In Wisconsin, he mused, he’d seen posters for his campaign on porches where the Confederate flag also flew. I must have looked jolted, thinking of the physical attacks he and Dr. King withstood by people waving that flag. The sight of his own face beside the Confederate flag had not unsettled him. “A sense of gratification, a sense of vindication. A sense of joy,” Jackson explained. “To make progress we have to forgive each other, redeem each other, and focus on common ground.”

For a year he kept up the same kind of schedule and ended up earning nearly 7 million votes in 1988, more than twice what he achieved four years earlier, but short of the 8 million to 10 million votes he calculated he would need to become the nominee. His chief adversaries had been white men with distinguished careers in elected office—an eventual majority leader in the House of Representatives, three senators, and Gov. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. (Dukakis was nominated but then lost in a rout to Vice President George H.W. Bush.) Jackson showed up at the nominating convention, looking buoyant and sounding like a victor. He closed his speech there by thundering: “We must never surrender. America will get better and better. Keep hope alive!”

“I know what my job is. It’s to bang on the door. Kick at the door. Bang on the door harder and push harder still. Someday, someone else will walk through it.”

Twenty years later, on election night in November 2008, we stood in Chicago’s Grant Park, waiting for the Obama family to appear so a newly elected president—the first Black chief executive—could claim his victory. Nearby, Reverend Jackson clutched a small American flag and wept unashamedly. Watching him, I was carried back to the weeks we spent together on the campaign trail in 1987. During our final conversation on the road, in an unusually guarded off-the-record moment, Jackson admitted: “I know what my job is. It’s to bang on the door. Kick at the door. Bang on the door harder and push harder still. Someday, someone else will walk through it.”

Many of his contemporaries preceded him in death, too many of them assassinated in their prime. It’s a little miracle that Jackson, the target of so many threats, managed to play such a pivotal role in politics through six decades and survived into his 80s. When I moved to Chicago 20 years ago, it was easy to find an aging Jesse Jackson. If you joined, or reported on, any protest about injustice, odds were that you would bump into him. A rare neurological disease called supranuclear palsy left him wobbly on his feet and nearly mute for years. Critics, as always, considered him a showboat addicted to the limelight. Who cares? He showed up over and over in the right places anyway, even when there was little coverage.

“He was the free-est Black man I ever met,” Deborah Douglas, a Chicago journalist and friend of the family, told me. “And he outlived so many who were gunning to take him down.” For that last decade of his life, Jackson no longer mesmerized crowds with his boyish baritone. Whispers faded to a distant mumble. He marched as far as he could each time, then stood at the edge of the crowd, looking as if he was holding auditions for a successor. Whenever some emerging talent launched into a particularly effective peroration, he marked it with a tight smile and quick nod. Jesse Louis Jackson, still somebody, could see there was a new generation stepping up to speak in his place.

Continue Reading…

Trump Media’s Stock Price Is Falling Even Faster Than His Poll Numbers

Donald Trump’s media corporation told investors on Friday that it is considering spinning off his Truth Social platform into its own company—a move that comes after years of struggling to make money from the business. The president founded Trump Media and Technology Group in 2021, portraying it as a giant-killer that would one day displace the major social media platforms, streaming platforms like Netflix, and Amazon’s AWS web hosting platform—all of which the then-former president declared to be too woke.

So far, the company has achieved none of those things and has instead bounced from investment idea to investment idea—stockpiling Bitcoin, launching MAGA-themed financial products, and even announcing plans to merge with a fusion energy company and beginning to build power plants. This month, the company’s share price has flirted with all-time lows.

Trump’s company is expected to announce it’s fourth quarter earnings soon. Judging from the numbers it produced through the first three quarters of last year, the results could be unimpressive. In September, Trump Media said that it had pulled in only about $2.6 million in revenue in the first nine months of the year. And this time last year, the company reported losing $400.9 million in 2024—it attributed those losses in part to difficulties in going public that it blamed on the Biden administration. Meanwhile, the company reported just $3.6 million in revenue for all of 2024. For context, a well-run McDonald’s franchise averages a roughly similar level of revenue.

These numbers are not totally surprising. The company’s core product—Truth Social—is almost entirely reliant on one super-user: the president. To say the platform is rarely used besides Trump’s postings is an understatement. Last May, the platform reportedly had just 359,000 active users. For comparison, X has roughly 600 million active users. Left-leaning social media startup BlueSky, often derided for its relatively small user base, has around 3.5 million active users.

Trump Media and Technology Group doesn’t have much else in the way of products, which is not the way things were supposed to go. When it launched in 2021, the founders imagined the company would have $1.8 billion in revenue by this point and 69 million active users on Truth Social. They also envisioned a streaming service to rival Netflix and Amazon Prime. The streaming platform does exist, but Truth+ hardly compares to its competitors. The content selection is anemic and largely consists of videos that are available for free elsewhere—the most-watched list on the platform recently included an Elon Musk hagiography and a documentary about the Illuminati, both of which are available on YouTube. In the original investment pitch, the streaming business was supposed to have more than 32 million users by now.

With the original plans seemingly not materializing, the company has attempted other strategies. Earlier this year, it announced it would begin accumulating bitcoin, in an attempt to build a “bitcoin treasury”—essentially tying part of the company’s value to the then-increasing value of bitcoin. After purchasing more than 11,000 bitcoins for a total of $1.2 billion in September, the company initially saw its investment pay off. The price of bitcoin rose, and the company’s stockpile at one point was worth roughly $173 million more than what it had paid. But the price of bitcoin began collapsing in the fall. Trump Media sold off some of its bitcoin in late December; the rest is now worth about $658 million—a loss of roughly $428 million.

Trump still owns approximately 59 percent the company—a stake worth about $1.63 billion. But on paper, at least, those shares were once worth a whole lot more. The company began its life on the stock market in 2021 with a share price of $10 but quickly soared to nearly $100, before falling precipitously. It rebounded to above $60 in March 2024, as Trump was campaigning for president. It is currently languishing below $11 per share, and briefly dipped under $10 several times in the past week.

So an investor who bought Trump Media when it launched and has hung onto the shares since then has, at best, broken even. Unless, that is, they were able to purchase shares at a discount. Trump received his shares for free, meaning that as long as the shares are worth anything, he’ll make a profit.

Continue Reading…

Agriculture Is Consuming Grasslands and Wetlands at Alarming Rates

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

Agriculture is widely known to be the biggest driver of forest destruction globally, especially in sprawling, high-profile ecosystems like the Amazon rainforest.

But new research published this week finds that non-forest ecosystems—the world’s grasslands, savannas, and wetlands—are being devoured for agriculture at nearly four times the rate as forests. As with forests, the primary driver is livestock.

“The takeaway from this is that livestock and dairy play an outsized role in the loss of our non-forest ecosystems.”

“The goal of this research was really just to understand where in the world this is happening,” said Elise Mazur, a researcher with the Land and Carbon Lab at the World Resources Institute and one of the report’s authors. “We know where deforestation is occurring. But we were less sure about where non-forest ecosystems are being lost.”

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is a unique attempt to analyze which types of agriculture are forcing the conversion of natural ecosystems on a global scale, and then to attribute that conversion to demand for specific commodities.

Making that link is critical. Grasslands occupy more of the world’s surface than any other ice-free land, and store a significant chunk of terrestrial carbon—about 34 percent compared to 39 percent for forests. Researchers say they are the most at-risk ecosystems on Earth and yet get relatively little policy attention relative to forests, largely because their disappearance and the causes behind it are not as well understood. Wetlands are being converted to crop and pastureland at about half the rate of dry lands, the researchers found, but are especially important climate sinks.

The new study, which looked at the period from 2005 to 2020, found that, as with forests, the biggest driver of grassland loss is livestock production—from both conversion into pasture for grazing and cropland for growing feed. About half of all non-forest conversion is to pasture, 27 percent to cropland for food and 17 percent into cropland to grow feed for animals, including corn and soybeans.

“When you add together how much conversion there is to pasture and to cropland that’s being used for animal feed, that’s the majority of the conversion,” Mazur said. “The takeaway from this is that livestock and dairy play an outsized role in the loss of our non-forest ecosystems when compared to other commodities or foods.”

The researchers found that feed for livestock accounted for more than one-third of the overall cropland conversion globally, yet in certain growing regions, including Brazil, Argentina, the United States and China, that percentage reached more than 50 percent. More than 30 percent of those crops were destined for export, driven by demand for livestock-based food elsewhere.

“Forests and non-forest ecosystems need to be addressed together.”

The researchers found that biofuels, including ethanol and biodiesel, were major drivers of grassland loss, especially in countries with high demand linked to policy incentives, like the Renewable Fuel Standard in the US. So while just over 12 percent of global non-forest land was converted to cropland for biofuels, that percentage rose to 28 percent in the US., mostly in the prairies of the upper Midwest.

Globally, food consumption accounted for 54 percent of cropland-driven land conversion, meaning much of the world’s finite arable land mass is not being used directly for calories.

The team behind the report, which also included experts from the Rainforest Alliance and Germany’s Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, looked at extensive land-use change datasets, then used models to allocate the change to particular types of agriculture. Finally, they analyzed trade data to determine how market demand contributed to the conversion.

Land-use datasets, historically, have been unable to adequately distinguish pasture from cropland, mostly because one is often converted to the other and existing measurements aren’t sensitive enough to determine the difference. That has meant previous research either focused just on conversion to cropland or failed to capture the distinction between pasture and cropland or the contribution of particular agricultural commodities to either.

Mazur says her hope is that policy makers and companies that depend on agricultural commodities start to incorporate grassland conversion into conservation targets. Some voluntary initiatives, including the Soy Moratorium in Brazil, were credited with reducing deforestation there, but also pushed agricultural expansion into the neighboring Cerrado, a vast savanna.

“Both forests and non-forest ecosystems need to be addressed together,” Mazur said. “If you only look at one, it can push the conversion to another ecosystem. We want to make sure that any policy or voluntary targets address all natural ecosystems.”

Continue Reading…

How Trump Will Fill His Gulags

The United States has welcomed refugees fleeing persecution under the same law for 45 years, following a tradition dating back to World War II. Through an orderly process, applicants for refugee status undergo extensive federal vetting before arriving. A year after entering the US, they can apply for a green card, and barring any issues, receive one. But late last year, the administration quietly changed the rules.

People protected by the laws are suddenly subject to arrest and detainment.

On January 9, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began putting its changes to work, seeking out and detaining lawful refugees who have broken no laws and followed DHS’ processes to the letter. One moment they were law-abiding refugees, the next many were arrested, shackled, and interrogated. DHS calls it Operation Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening (PARRIS), and its first targets are some 5,600 lawful refugees in Minnesota. Nationwide, the new rule means some 100,000 refugees could be locked up—and alongside another, even broader, change initiated by the Trump administration, it suggests that the government’s plan to fill the warehouses it is buying and converting to detention centers rest on ignoring the laws that control its operations.

On January 28, John Tunheim, a federal district judge in Minneapolis, ordered DHS to stop detaining refugees under the new policy in Minnesota as the case proceeds, finding it is likely illegal. It is also a particular brand of authoritarian. The idea of the dual state, developed by Jewish-German labor lawyer Ernst Fraenkel in the 1930s to explain the legal system of the Third Reich, describes an authoritarian state divided into two realms: the normative state and the prerogative state. In the former, the rules are followed and the laws upheld. In the latter, the state simply imposes its will, and no law or right or freedom can protect its victims. Frankel described how most Germans in the 1930s lived in the normative state where life and commerce continued to feel normal, while Jews, political dissidents, and other disfavored groups were in the prerogative state, subject to the violent recriminations of the regime. The regime is able to accomplish the goals of the prerogative state because most people lived in the normal of the normative state.

The Trump administration’s treatment of refugees and other immigrants echoes the dual-state model. People who were protected by the laws are suddenly subject to arrest and detainment, possibly for a long time. The scaffolding of their rights is collapsing, and they are now subject to the dark underbelly of Trump’s lawless detention regime.

“ICE is the face of a prerogative state, emerging or actual,” Evan Bernick, a constitutional law professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law, explained to me last year. “It swoops in, it ignores safeguards, you can’t escape it.”

Courts in a burgeoning dual state are left to either push back or validate an unlawful policy. To justify the PARRIS detentions, DHS lawyerspoint to a section of the 1980 Refugee Act which allows them to take refugees into custody in order to assess their eligibility for a green card. In a new memo released this month to bolster its case, DHS claims that that is an open-ended authority to detain refugees for days, months, or even years as they are vetted again. In his initial order, Tunheim disagreed: “On the plain reading of these statutes, the Court concludes that none of these provisions authorize the prolonged detention” of the plaintiffs. The authority the government cites, Tunheim found, simply isn’t there.

Tunheim also found the government’s argument would lead to absurd results. Because the law “makes refugees ineligible for adjustment [to lawful permanent resident status] until one year after entry, Defendants’ interpretation would subject every refugee to detention, unless USCIS conducted the inspection and examination precisely at the one-year mark,” he wrote. “That outcome is nonsensical and would cause many unadjusted refugees to celebrate their one-year anniversary in this country in a jail cell.” This is obviously not what the law requires. But the administration is asking the courts to apply the judicial stamp of approval to its cruel and absurd policy anyway.

This is not the first instance in which the administration has announced new interpretations of decades-old statutes in order to fill its new detention facilities. In a tortured reinterpretation of a 1996 immigration law, the Trump administration announced in July that anyone who entered the country without permission, no matter how long ago, must be detained without bond for as long as it takes for the government to get their removal order—a process that can take years. As with the new refugee policy, the detention policy makes a hash of the statute. It dares the courts—which have almost uniformly ruled that a bond hearing is required—to interpret a law in a nonsensical and gratuitously cruel fashion. As of early January, some 300 federal judges had found the policy illegal; only around 30 have agreed with the government.

This month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the administration’s July policy. Suddenly, people who at any point entered the country without permission are subject to months or years of detention if they are in the three states within the circuit: Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. In these states, the grounds for release in federal court have now shrunk considerably. Moreover, engaging a lawyer to file a case is a tall order for the millions of people who could be locked up under the policy.

The Fifth Circuit decision came from a three-judge panel in the nation’s most reactionary appeals court, which Trump appointees have turned into a proving ground for far-right and MAGA-aligned priorities. “Congress did not secretly require two million noncitizens to be detained without bond,” Judge Dana Douglas, a Biden appointee on the circuit, wrote in dissent, “when nothing like this had ever been done before, and the whole history of American immigration law suggested it would not be.” Indeed, her colleagues’ ruling didn’t just change the law but, for millions of people now at risk of detainment without bond, effectively nullified it.

To attain detention numbers, the administration must suddenly claim that their own rules no longer apply.

Douglas also hinted at the slippery authoritarian slope of the government’s policy, the way in which it will pull more and more people, and eventually citizens, into its lawless vortex: “With only a little imagination, the government’s and the majority’s reading means that anyone present in this country at any time must carry the precise kinds of identification they would otherwise have only carried to the border for international travel, lest they be mistaken for an inadmissible noncitizen,” she wrote. “The majority seems to be unable to imagine what it might mean to be detained within the United States without the appropriate proof of admissibility, and, without a bond hearing, to require the services of a federal habeas corpus lawyer to show that one is entitled to release and deserves to see the outside of a detention center again.”

A key facet of a dual state is that the normative state is not truly safe. At any moment, one can fall from its protections into the prerogative zone. Racial minorities are certainly more likely to lose their rights in a system that will slowly suck more people into its lawless operations.

In the short term, the decision will incentivize the government to whisk people to the 5th Circuit as soon as they are apprehended, beyond the reach of all the district court judges around the country who have found the policy illegal. But at some point—and it may be soon—the Supreme Court will have to decide whether to help the administration push millions into its growing network of concentration camps, or whether it will call out a blatantly illegal policy. As Bernick warned, “A Supreme Court that gets out of the way” of ICE, “where the state is at its most brutal, and tries to manage everything else as normal, is a dual state Supreme Court.”

Trump campaigned for president on deporting violent wrong-doers. But as both of these new detention programs demonstrate, the administration’s ambition to fill warehouses with millions of humans can only be achieved by locking up people without criminal records. As of November, just five percent of ICE detainees had committed a violent crime. To attain their numbers, the administration must suddenly claim that their own rules no longer apply.

The effect of the mandatory detention policy now sanctioned by the 5th Circuit is to detain people who could otherwise be allowed freedom while removal proceedings take place. According to a brief submitted in the case by the American Immigration Council, a legal and advocacy group, tens of thousands have likely already been the victims of this new policy in recent months. These include people without any criminal history and adults who have been in the US a long time and have deep ties to their community, including children whom they care for and support.

DHS is detaining people who are coming in for immigration appointments, meaning they are specifically targeting people who are already following government orders. This alsoincludes Dreamers, people brought here as children who gave their information to the government in exchange for lawful presence in the country. The government is likewise locking up young people who had assurances against deportation because they crossed the border alone or were abused or abandoned by their parents. Suddenly, all these groups who entered into an agreement of protection from deportation with the government—what is called “deferred action”—are being locked up despite the government’s own rules to the contrary.

Suddenly deprived of the protection of the law, the immigrants and refugees whose detention has been ushered in by these new DHS policies do not enter a civilized detention program, but one that operates with life-threatening cruelty. Accounts from inside detention centers detail conditions of torture. People are fed little, and what they do receive is often moldy, or seems, as a detainee in New Jersey described it in a lawsuit, “identical to cat food.” People with serious health conditions are denied medications. At a detention center in Dilley, Texas, children enter healthy, then soon fall ill, and then are denied care. In Illinois, a woman was detained two weeks after giving birth via cesarean section; while her newborn daughter was away in a hospital NICU, she slept on a bench without access to a breast pump or pain medication. A Cuban man detained at a tent camp in El Paso died in what ICE claimed was “medical distress” but the county medical examiner determined was homicide.

These conditions are so dangerous that people give up and agree to leave the country rather than waste away, making the torture a form of coercion forcing people to give up their legal rights. “People are being deprived of due process already because detention is so coercive,” says Rebecca Cassler, an attorney at the American Immigration Council. “You don’t have access to a lawyer. In many cases, your family might not know where you are for a couple weeks. You’re not getting enough food, you’re not getting medical attention.”

Dual states are characterized by “systematically a domain of lawlessness and systematically a domain of lawfulness,” explains Aziz Huq, a University of Chicago constitutional law professor writing a book about the theory. “You only get that when you have a multiplicity of measures that move people across the line from the world of legality to the world of lawlessness.”

“People are being deprived of due process already.”

It seems clear that, whether or not Trump will fully achieve this, his administration is trying to create a domain of lawlessness around immigration enforcement. ICE ignores constitutional constraints as a matter of policy, operating as a thuggish paramilitary force. The Trump administration wants to trap more and more people in its immigration enforcement apparatus—and keep them there. A Supreme Court that has allowed this legal black hole to expand is aiding in such a state’s creation. And almost certainly, the nation’s highest court will be asked to decide the fate of Trump’s new mandatory detention policy, and likely its novel refugee policy as well.

The Supreme Court has already stepped in to essentially pause constitutional protections that have gotten in the way of the administration’s immigration crackdown. Last June, it allowed the government to proceed with deporting immigrants with final removal orders to so-called “third countries”—a country that is not their home country or another designated in the removal order—even though the law requires a different outcome and the Constitution requires due process, allowing the immigrants to object that they might be tortured in the new country. On Wednesday, a district court judge in Massachusetts issued a ruling against the policy, which means it will wind its way back to the Supreme Court in the coming months. But he stayed the ruling pending appeal, meaning people can still be sent to third countries without an opportunity to object, and where they are likely to be imprisoned, tortured, killed, or returned to their home country for a similar fate.

And last September, the Supreme Court allowed ICE to continue a policy of racial profiling in its detention sweeps and stops, even though the court has repeatedly ruled against the use of race in government policy. Notably, the decision expanded ICE’s terror to US citizens and others people lawfully present, based solely on how they look or talk.

These policies, alongside the new mandatory detention policies, track Trump’s attempts to carve certain disfavored groups out of the protection of the law since his first day back in office. On January 20, 2025, he issued an executive order denying citizenship to certain people born on US soil, despite the clear language of the Constitution’s birthright citizenship clause. In the face of more than a century of near-unanimous consensus, the administration simply declared that the law wasn’t what it said.

On April 1, the highest court will hear arguments over that executive order, which attempts to revoke birthright citizenship for thousands by fiat; to take a class of people clearly entitled to all the protections of citizenship and turn them into a stateless underclass. As Trump attempts to ethnically cleanse the nation through a lawless detention and deportation regime, the birthright citizenship case is one especially high profile test, among many more to come, of what the administration will be allowed to get away with. The contours of a dual state are coming into view, one in which anyone targeted by Trump’s deportation and detention program have no rights that can save them.

Continue Reading…

Trump’s War on National Park Signs Is Even Dumber Than You Think

Last fall, an informational sign vanished from a patch of grass across from Chevy Chase Circle in Northwest Washington, DC. The placard—installed in 2022 by the National Park Service after much discussion—described the career of Sen. Francis Newlands, who represented Nevada in Congress for a quarter century and championed irrigation projects in the American west.

In early November, without any announcement from the Park Service, neighbors noticed that the sign was gone. “It just disappeared one day,” said Stephanie Rigaux, a local historian whose Facebook post about the removal is one of the few records of the incident.

The Interior Department, which runs the National Park Service, wouldn’t answer my questions about what happened to the sign. But the mystery doesn’t seem hard to crack. It was evidently a casualty of Donald Trump’s campaign to bar the government from presenting American history in “a negative light.”

“It just disappeared one day.”

The timeline is instructive. In 1932, Congress approved naming a fountain in the circle, which sits on federal land, after Newlands. Ninety years later, in the wake of a nationwide racial reckoning, the Biden administration’s National Park Service installed the offending sign in an effort to add some context regarding Newlands’ legacy. It noted that in addition to his legislative accomplishments, Newlands was a white supremacist who advocated denying citizenship and voting rights to people of color.

Then last March, President Donald Trump issued an executive order instructing government agencies to purge “improper ideology” and “divisive narratives” from federal lands and museums and to ensure that those sites are “uplifting.” The Trump administration appears to have determined that the Newlands sign violated that policy.

Chevy Chase Circle is far from alone. Last May, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum moved to implement Trump’s order, directing the Park Service to scrutinize more than 400 national parks, monuments, battlefields, and historic sites—as well as federally controlled DC green space—for insufficiently patriotic material. The Park Service is removing and altering signs, exhibits, and other media deemed to be “non-conformant” with Trump’s wishes. So far the department has reviewed more than 2,000 pieces of media, according to a person with knowledge of the effort, and has ordered the removal or alteration of at least a few hundred signs and exhibits.

The Interior Department is keeping the precise figures under wraps, and it declined to provide specifics about why the material being targeted is objectionable. “Because this work is still underway, there is no finalized or comprehensive list of changes, and it would be premature to speculate about specific wordage, images, or exhibit content that may or may not be revised,” a spokesperson said.

The Trump administration, that is, is attempting to remove public information in secret.

“It’s left everybody who is concerned about this in the dark,” Alan Spears, senior director at the non-profit National Parks Conservation Association, told Mother Jones. “There is no transparency. We don’t know where these sign removals are going to happen.”

The Trump administration plans to remove this sign from Fort Laramie National Historic Site in Wyoming because it references the persecution of American Indians.Charles E. Rankin/Historical Marker Database

As Trump’s clandestine censorship campaign proceeds, displays that focus on persecution and environmental degradation have become particular targets. But the Park Service is also planning to remove signs that merely acknowledge the existence of controversy or conflict.

At Fort Laramie National Historic Site in Wyoming, the National Park Service plans to alter or remove a sign, titled “A Father’s Grief … A Soldier’s Honor,” that sits alongside a burial marker for Mni Akuwin, the daughter of Lakota chief Spotted Tail. The placard consists mostly of quotes from Army Colonel Henry Maynadier describing a funeral service he arranged at the fort for Mni Akuwin, who had died a few months earlier. The elaborate funeral, which Maynadier reported had moved Spotted Tail to tears, likely helped secure a peace deal with the tribe.

A Park Service official told me that the sign had been flagged by the Interior Department due to a line it quotes from a letter Maynadier sent his wife. Maynadier wrote that after the funeral service, “I can never be willing to see these people, swindled, ill-treated and abused as they have been.” (You can read the full text of the sign here.)

“How stupid can we get?”

Charles Rankin, a longtime editor and historian of the American West who has written about Mni Akuwin’s funeral, finds the decision galling. “That signage celebrates the fact that these people, over her grave, came together,” Rankin said in an interview. “It celebrates reconciliation. How stupid can we get?”

At Montana’s Glacier National Park, the Park Service is preparing to remove signs telling visitors why the eponymous glaciers are shrinking, as well as placards about declining air quality. The agency has taken down a season of a podcast, called Headwaters, that was produced by park employees. And Interior has ordered employees to remove or alter a film about the park shown to visitors. Written guidance from the department said the changes are necessary due to “scientific inaccuraries [sic]” in the film, but it did not specify what is supposedly incorrect.

Glacier is also removing a sign that attributes a sharp increase in wildfires in the American west to “hotter and drier conditions,” as well as a sign that describes the “controversy” over the hunting of wolves. The department did not explain those decisions.

The Trump administration has targeted signs explaining the impacts of climate change.National Park Service

The department was more forthcoming with its reasoning for replacing a different sign at Glacier. That placard, titled “Blame It on the Grain,” describes the construction of a dam that created a reservoir in the eastern part of the park to support farming. “Rename it something else,” Interior guidance sent to the park says. ”’Blame’ has negative tone to it, when the actual reality is the dam was created to help support American Agriculture and feed America’s growing population.”

The Interior Department ordered Glacier National Park to rename this sign because of its “negative tone.”National Park Service

Some of the administration’s efforts to implement Trump’s order—such as the removal of exhibits in Philadelphia about people enslaved by George Washington and of panels citing the effects of climate change at Acadia National Park and Fort Sumter—have already drawn attention and outrage. On February 16, federal District Court Judge Cynthia Rufe ordered the Park Service to restore the Philadelphia exhibits. Rufe said the removal violated agreements requiring the city’s consent, and compared the Trump administration to the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984. (After restoration began, a federal appeals court gave the administration a partial stay, freezing the exhibits as they are while the court considers the case.)

Still, NPS is moving ahead with sign removals at an industrial scale. The process, launched with Trump’s executive order in March, accelerated in May when Burgum issued a memo implementing the president’s plans at the Park Service and other Interior agencies. The memo instructed NPS to “remove content” that “inappropriately disparages Americans past or living (including persons living in colonial times).” Burgum also ordered the removal of information regarding natural features of the American landscape if it “emphasizes matters unrelated to the beauty, abundance or grandeur of said natural feature.”

Burgum did not elaborate on that latter instruction. But current and former parks employees described it as ill-advised, and baffling, since applying it literally would require removal of many signs providing basic scientific information. At Muir Woods National Monument in California, for example, the agency recently covered a sign explaining how carbon emissions harm redwoods. And Big Bend National Park in Texas plans to remove signs related to geology, prehistoric times, and fossils, according to the Washington Post.

What remains might not be especially enlightening. “You don’t really need an exhibit at a historic viewpoint to say, “Hey, that really looks good,” said Bill Hayden, Glacier’s former head of interpretation.

In June, Park Service staffers across the country were instructed to post QR codes and signs encouraging visitors to report any material they felt should be altered. Burgum also ordered the heads of national parks units to submit for review their own lists of signs or other media that might run afoul of Trump’s executive order. The Interior Department sent back decisions in September and then made additional rulings in January.

Current and past parks employees derided these commands. “I think it’s stupid,” said Hayden. “The goal was to explain the nature and cultural resources to the visiting public—and a lot of those concepts and ideas are not just readily apparent to someone stopping on the side of the road and looking at something.”

The Trump administration’s attempt to remove exhibits about slavery from Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia have sparked a legal battle.Michael Yanow/NurPhoto/Getty

Responding to widespread criticism, an Interior spokesperson said that the department’s review “is not about removing history or advancing any single political ideology. It is a collaborative process designed to ensure that the full and accurate history of America is presented, grounded in professional standards and inclusive of multiple perspectives, including those of tribal nations.”

But Park Service employees, who spoke to Mother Jones on the condition of anonymity, described this process, as it has played out nationally, as haphazard, top-down, and far from collaborative.

“It’s childishly unprofessional,” said one current NPS employee involved with producing public material. “It’s not like a serious engagement with the process, or an attempt to educate the public about science or our world.”

This sign at Glacier National Park describing controversy over wolves is too controversial for the Trump administration.National Park Service

Employees said the Interior Department’s instructions are vague, leaving senior career officials, who in many cases are worried about their jobs amid mass firings of government workers, to decide how much self-censorship to engage in.

The department’s demands “paralyzed a lot of the parks, because there was no guidance,” one employee said.

According to material obtained by Mother Jones, some park units, like Yellowstone, submitted few or no signs for review by Interior Department officials in Washington. But some other park superintendents generated extensive lists of potentially non-compliant signs. Department officials designated many of those submissions for removal, often without explaining their reasoning, park employees said.

Mother Jones obtained a spreadsheet summarizing the Interior Department’s review of submissions from 33 sites in NPS’ Intermountain Region, which includes some of the most-visited parks. Of 81 submissions, the department said 46 should be altered or removed. The document does not include the department’s reasoning beyond declaring the items to be in “non-conformance” with Burgum’s order. Those include the signs slated for removal at Glacier, the Fort Laramie sign, the Big Bend signage related to dinosaurs and geology, and a panel at Wyoming’s Grand Teton National Park describing the role of a cavalry captain who explored the region in an 1870 massacre of Blackfeet Native Americans.

“We are being undermined by a clown show of greedy billionaire priorities that are not of service to the parks or country.”

Park service employees described the sign removals as part of a string of interference from Washington that has crushed NPS morale.

“We are being undermined by a clown show of greedy billionaire priorities that are not of service to the parks or country,” one employee said.

A former NPS employee who was laid off last year characterized the department’s management style as “bullying and demoralizing,” carried out “in an idiotic and not thought-through way.”

The Park Service had lost around a quarter of its workforce by July of last year, due to firings and other causes, according to the National Parks Conservation Association. And attrition continues as the agency struggles to replace departing staff, employees said.

The Interior Department meanwhile is moving to increase its control over various park service communications. The department has shifted hundreds of employees in public outreach jobs into what it calls a “Consolidated Office of Communications.” Last month, it imposed “a strategic pause” on website updates by NPS staffers as it installed a system in which department officials sign off on new online content. And it recently announced that the department’s press staff will review publication of all social media produced by national parks, according to employees and internal material shared with Mother Jones. “Social media needs to be reviewed and published by someone trained and educated and aligned with NPS and the department as a whole,” Elizabeth Peace, a senior public affairs specialist at the Interior Department, said during a January 15 call with Park Service employees.

NPS employees have even received directions on how to respond to questions about sign removals. Internal guidance instructs them not to “reference media stories, leaked documents or internal reviews”; suggests they “redirect calmly and consistently”; and says that they “do NOT need to engage in conversation about individual signs or parks, which signs are from [Burgum’s order] vs weather or damage. The comms team will take those.”

The department’s communications team did not answer my questions about individual signs and parks. In response to a detailed list of queries, a spokesperson wrote: “Mother Jones is a failing liberal blog that has this story completely wrong. This blog is too small and insignificant to waste our time correcting them when we are focused on implementing the agenda of President Trump – the most iconic and accomplished President in the history of our great nation.”

The iconic president’s war on park signs isn’t slowing down. Many of the removals the Interior Department has ordered in colder locations will not be executed until spring. In guidance sent to NPS employees in January, Burgum said the department is still reviewing material and instructed parks “to work with regional offices to review next steps for their non-conformant media items.” Interior Department officials have recently visited sites throughout the Park Service’s Washington, DC, region, according to an NPS employee, generating worries they will demand additional alterations.

The sign describing the legacy of Sen. Francis Newlands disappeared from National Park property in November.Devry Becker Jones/Historical Marker Database

This chaotic process, current and former agency employees said, contrasts with the deliberative efforts through which the signs and exhibits were originally created. The Newlands sign, for instance, was installed in 2022, the culmination of a multi-year project. Its design and brief narrative were influenced by an expert group convened in 2020, following nearly a decade of debate over public calls to rename the fountain.

The sign disappeared, however, without notice. The removal came during the government shutdown last year, when federal employees were furloughed, raising the question of who actually dislodged it. An NPS employee told Mother Jones that Frank Lands, the Park Service’s deputy director for operations—the top career employee at the agency—personally removed the sign to comply with White House wishes.

Lands, whom I contacted directly, didn’t respond to my questions about this claim. An Interior Department spokesperson said only that the agency “does not comment on specific personnel,” and wouldn’t even confirm that the department was responsible for the sign’s removal.

That is how the United States government is implementing a presidential directive to “restore Federal sites dedicated to history.” The administration appears to have removed a carefully created piece of public information—with no announcement or explanation for why Americans should not be informed that a prominent US senator was a racist.

Now, where the sign once stood, all that remains are two small holes in the ground.

Continue Reading…

DHS Abducts Columbia Student From College Housing

Federal immigration agents detained aColumbia University student on Thursday morning after reportedly gaining access to university housing by falsely claiming they were looking for a missing person, according to Claire Shipman, Columbia’s acting president.

The Department of Homeland Security went after Ellie Aghayeva, a senior majoring in neuroscience and political science, according to a statement released by her friends to a faculty organization, the American Association of University Professors. The statement said that Aghayeva, who is from Azerbaijan, is an international student with a visa.

Aghayeva posted a photo of what appears to be her sitting in a car on her Instagram story Thursday morning with an overlay of text: “Dhs illegally arrested me. Please help.”

Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal wrote on X that federal agents “used a phony missing persons bulletin for a 5 year old girl” when they “purposefully deceived campus housing/security to gain entry to the student’s apartment.”

Shipman, in her statement, said the university was “working to gather more details.” New York outlet The City is reporting that Aghayeva has already filed a habeas corpus petition asking a federal judge to order her release.

Barricades are installed in front of Columbia University in New York after federal agents detained a student o Thursday.Ryan Murphy/Getty

Aghayeva was detained the morning after an “ICE Off Campus” protest demanding that Columbia “establish stronger protections for international students and declare itself a sanctuary campus,” according to the Columbia Daily Spectator.

The detainment also comes close to a year after Mahmoud Khalil, the Palestinian activist and legal permanent resident who had just graduated from Columbia, was detained by plainclothes officers in university housing. Khalil became one of the highest-profile detainees in the Trump administration’s ongoing campaign against non-US citizens and students who displayed pro-Palestinian views. Khalil was released from detention over the summer, but is still actively fighting deportation.

Related

Mahmoud Khalil, Finally Free, Speaks Out

It’s not clear whether Aghayeva has any connection to the Columbia encampments or campus protests against ICE.

In a joint statement Thursday, New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin and council member Shaun Abreu, whose district includes Columbia, wrote: “ICE has no place in our schools and universities. These activities do not make our city or country safer, but rather drive mistrust and danger.”

Aghayeva, who has more than 100,000 followers on Instagram, often posts influencer-style videos about studying and her dedication to schoolwork. In a video she posted in August of last year, she compiled a supercut of her studying in the library with the caption, “Studying is hard but my parents sacrificed everything across the ocean for me to be here. They deserve a successful daughter.”

Continue Reading…

The Trump Administration’s Favorite Nuclear Startup Has Ties to Russia and Epstein

At 26, Isaiah Taylor hadaccomplished more than most people do by the time they’re twice his age. The founder of Valar Atomics, a Southern California-based company that aims to make small-scale nuclear reactors, Taylor, a father of four, has government contracts, invitations to Mar-a-Lago, and investments from some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley venture capital. His goal is nothing less than to usher the United States into an era of nuclear power domination—becoming the next Elon Musk while he’s at it. “We do not appreciate SpaceX enough,” he tweeted last year. “If it were not for a single highly motivated American startup, China would be preparing to simply own outer space. Now they’re playing catch-up. I plan to make Valar Atomics the equivalent for energy.”

The political winds appear to be at his back. “Unleashing nuclear energy is how we will power American artificial intelligence,” posted US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright on X last year. “Nuclear energy provides the constant energy needed to power data centers and release the full potential of American innovation.” Last September, the DOE named Valar as one of four companies to participate in a pilot program to build nuclear fuel lines; two months later, the company became the first-ever venture-backed startup to reach the nuclear milestone of splitting atoms using its own reactor.“This moment marks the dawn of a new era in American nuclear engineering—one defined by speed, scale, and private-sector execution with closer federal partnership,” Taylor said of the achievement in a press release. Max Ukropina, Valar Atomics’ Head of Projects, added, “America should be thrilled but wanting more.”

Taylor’s trajectory has been as unconventional as it is meteoric. The high-school dropout’s path to success included a controversial Christian nationalist church and an assist from a Russian-American power broker with ties to both the Kremlin and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein—but practically no experience with nuclear energy. Nuclear experts have raised red flags about both the feasibility of Valar’s goals and its safety claims—but those concerns do not appear to faze Taylor, who went on the offense last year, entering Valar into a lawsuit against the US government over what it considers a prohibitively restrictive interpretation of US nuclear safety rules. As Taylor put it in a tweet last November, “Civilization is an inconceivably precious thing. But the way to keep it alive is by continually treating it as a frontier, not covering everything in bubble wrap.”

“Civilization is an inconceivably precious thing. But the way to keep it alive is by continually treating it as a frontier, not covering everything in bubble wrap.”

But those rules have not stopped the Trump administration from working with Valar—earlier this month, the US government announced a partnership with the company to test its reactor for government use. “President Trump promised the American people that he would unleash American energy dominance,” US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright enthused about the partnership with Valar on X. “This is the next chapter for U.S. energy.”

Since the advent of nuclear energy in 1942, the field has been controversial, largely because of high-profile accidents such as the disasters at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima. Tight safety regulations make large-scale reactors expensive and cumbersome to build, and people don’t exactly jump at the chance to host one in their neighborhood.

Taylor founded Valar to address these barriers—smaller, more nimble reactors, he reasoned, would be both safer and more convenient. While the larger, traditional reactors typically produce enough power to fuel up to a million homes continuously, Taylor’s units are much more modest, big enough to power only about 5,000 homes.

Small-scale nuclear reactors like the ones that Taylor aims to build are not new—in fact, during the Cold War, both the United States and Russia used them to power satellites. Building them on land, however, has always proved prohibitively expensive; it’s much more cost-efficient to build one big reactor than a series of small ones, explains Nick Touran, a nuclear engineer who runs the informational site whatisnuclear.com. But that thinking is beginning to change: Small reactors could come in handy for AI data centers and also on remote military bases, where shipping fuel is both expensive and dangerous. In theory, small, portable reactors could act like batteries, powering a data center or a base for years without the need for more fuel.

The handful of nuclear experts I spoke with all acknowledged that small reactors would be desirable, but they weren’t sure Valar could manage to make them both cost-effective and scalable. “It’s not a new technology, but nobody’s been able to make it successful in electricity markets,” said Allison Macfarlane, a former chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission who currently heads the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia. She referred to Taylor and other nuclear start-up founders as “nuke bros” who “don’t know what they don’t know.” Touran said he thought it was possible for Valar to make good progress on small reactors, but he had his doubts that they would succeed in making them profitable. “I think high risk, high reward,” he said. “It’s unlikely to be economically competitive, in my opinion.”

The long odds don’t seem to bother Taylor, who sees himself as fitting in the grand tradition of an old-fashioned rags-to-riches American story. In a 2024 post on X, Taylor described growing up poor in Kentucky and teaching himself to code on the family computer before he was even in high school. When he was 12, he wrote, his father promised to buy him a laptop if he would agree to pay his own way through college. Taylor took him up on the offer and proceeded to drop out of high school. By 16, he claimed that he was “making six figures.” By 17, he had moved with his family to Moscow, Idaho, where he started an auto-repair shop while living on his friend’s couch. “The business was deep in the red and barely hanging on,” he recalled in the post on X. But he persevered, and eventually the shop succeeded. “My software career did well too,” he wrote. “Life is more comfortable now, monetarily. I still work like a dog, but I don’t think about the next rent payment as much as I did.”

Small-town Idaho may seem like a strange place for an ambitious young coder, but he stayed there for a compelling reason. As Taylor explained on X in 2023, he lived in Moscow “in order to be part of a medium-sized church community.” That community was the fiefdom founded by Doug Wilson, the self-proclaimed Christian nationalist pastor of Moscow’s Christ Church. In a 2023 tweet, Taylor described Wilson as “a huge influence on me regarding wealth.” In an email to Mother Jones, Wilson said he first met a teenage Taylor when his family relocated to Moscow; Wilson described Taylor as “a go-getter.” Taylor didn’t respond to our request for comment on his relationship with Wilson and other details of this story.

Wilson has attracted widespread media attention for his controversial statements, including his remark to CNN last year that “women are the kind of people that people come out of.” As I wrote in 2024:

He has argued that the master-slave dynamic was “a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence,” called the trope of the dominant man and a submissive woman “an erotic necessity,” and opined that women never should have been given the right to vote. When I asked him about his most provocative statements, he compared himself to a chef who cooks with jalapeño peppers: “Some of my enemies online have combed through my writings, have gathered up all the jalapeños, and put them on one Ritz cracker,” he told me.

While running the auto repair shop, coding, attending Wilson’s church, and starting a family, Taylor spent the next six years on “nights and weekends of research,” he told the tech publication Infinite Frontiers in 2024, he decided to tackle the problem of making nuclear power profitable—large reactors often scare off investors because they can cost billions to build and can take more than a decade to come online. Taylor says his interest in nuclear power runs in the family; his great-grandfather, Ward Schaap, worked on the Manhattan Project as a nuclear physicist. In 2023, Taylor founded Valar Atomics in the Southern California defense tech hub of El Segundo. Although Taylor hasn’t explained publicly why he chose the name, in JRR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings series, the Valar are angelic guardians who helped create the world and control nature.

In El Segundo’s macho scene of young, conservative Christian founders, Taylor fit right in. With his friend Augustus Doricko, founder of another buzzy El Segundo startup, the cloud-seeding company Rainmaker, he began attending a nearby church in the denomination Wilson founded. On social media, Taylor sometimes posts scripture—for Christmas last year, a bible verse about the birth of Jesus appeared on the Valar house account, accompanied by a photo of its nuclear reactor prototypes wearing Santa hats.

In El Segundo, Taylor quickly scored connections to an exclusive network of high-powered tech investors. He secured a pre**–**seed round of $1.5 million from the firm Riot Ventures, and just over a year later, in 2025, he announced a seed round of $19 million, with funding from Silicon Valley power players such as investor and author Balaji Srinivasan. Later that year, he obtained a $130 million funding round.

Isaiah Taylor, CEO of Valar Atomics, left, speaks as Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, center, and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, listen, at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, on Feb. 15. Matthew Daly/AP

And here is where the story departs from the more familiar tech entrepreneur-scores-a-big-win narrative, with an unusual Venn diagram of Taylor’s professional, religious, and personal interests converging on an unexpected protagonist.A co-leader of that round was Day One Ventures, a firm that says it aims to “back early-stage companies with customer obsession in their DNA.” Day One’s founder, visionary leader, and sole general partner is Masha Bucher, a one-time pro-Putin Russian political activist-turned Jeffery Epstein publicist-turned Silicon Valley kingmaker.

Before Bucher came to the United States in 2014, she still lived in Russia and was an enthusiastic supporter of Putin. There is a well-circulated 2009 photo of her as a teenager kissing Putin on the cheek; it became the subject of the 2011 documentary Putin’s Kiss. It’s unclear how she landed a gig doing publicity for convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein in 2017, but her name comes up several times in the recently released batch of files of Epstein’s communications. On one occasion in 2017, when she still had her original last name, Drokova, she asked Epstein to connect her with “adequate Russian oligarchs.” In 2018 Epstein wrote in an email to Bucher that her friend had “told me about the project she is doing researching a really bad guy that gets children for sex sent to his island…she almost fainted when I told her that person is me.” He asked her for nude photos of herself 11 days before he was arrested for the second time in 2019. Bucher, who did not respond to our request for comment,has claimed that she was never paid by Epstein for the work she did.

Bucher apparently already had some of those connections to wealthy Russians that she had asked Epstein to arrange—and in fact, she introduced Epstein to one of them. Her first boss in the world of tech venture capitalism was Serguei Beloussov, who later changed his name to Serg Bell. “Connecting you here,” she wrote to Epstein and Bell in 2018. “You both are one [sic] of the most intelligent and fun people I met in my life. Super smart and special.”

Bucher worked for Bell at two firms Bell had cofounded: Runa Capital and Acronis. In 2022, Bell was one of a handful of Russian expats living in the US who were tracked by the US government for allegedly attempting to export US tech developments to Russia. The government did not find evidence of a security breach, but it did bar Acronis from sensitive government contracts last year. (Bell recently told the Washington Post that he never worked for Epstein, and that he advised others against doing business with him; he has also disavowed his Russian connections.)

“I gave up my Russian passport years ago, can’t return without risking my freedom, and have publicly opposed the Putin regime.”

According to reporting by the Washington Post, early fundraising materials for Day One Ventures show Bucher boasting of her connections to Russian billionaires Alexander Mamut and Vladimir Yevtushenkov, though she later denied writing the fundraising materials and has said she never took money from Russian oligarchs. She has said she left the pro-Putin youth movement Nashi in 2010, and she recently posted on X that was branded a traitor by Russian state media in 2017. “I gave up my Russian passport years ago, can’t return without risking my freedom, and have publicly opposed the Putin regime,” she wrote. Yet sleuths on X have found evidence that those statements may not be true. Reporting by Russian-British investigative journalist Maria Pevchikh shows Bucher speaking at a pro-Putin event in 2019, years after she claimed to have disavowed him. According to records obtained by Pevchikh, she still holds a valid Russian passport, though she told the Washington Post in 2022, “I deeply regret ever joining Nashi and supporting Putin and his government.”

Bucher, who has also invested in Taylor’s friend Doricko’s company, seems to be more than just a funder for the companies she supports. A Day One pitch deck boasts that the firm is “actively involved in its portfolio companies and play a real, tangible role in helping them grow.” In an interview last year with TechCrunch, Bucher said her goal in founding the firm was to provide not only funding but also PR help to the companies she invested in. She also appears to enjoy a close relationship with Valar executives, posting photos of herself on social media attending parties with them. While Doricko cut ties with Bucher after the most recent Epstein disclosures, Taylor has done no such thing.

Bucher said that Taylor himself drew her to Valar. “I can’t think of a better founder,” she told TechCrunch. The decisions she would trust him with, she added, are “literally life-and-death.”

Not everyone is as bullish as Bucher about Valar’s prospects—nuclear experts have raised serious questions about the safety of the company’s technology and the qualifications of its leadership. In April 2025, Taylor boasted in a post on the Valar website that the company’s spent fuel was so safe that holding it in one’s bare hands for five minutes would result in a dose equivalent only to that of a CT scan. On X, Touran, the nuclear engineer, challenged the claim. “This statement cannot possibly be true,” he wrote. “Any nuclear reactor of the power you’re referring to makes spent fuel [that] would give a person a fatal dose within a few seconds if they were to hold a handful of spent fuel.” Another nuclear engineer, Gavin Ridley, chimed in with his own calculation: He found that Valar’s spent fuel would deliver a lethal dose in 85 milliseconds of direct contact. Taylor posted in response, “I will follow up with a detailed writeup tonight or tomorrow, back to back today. Should be fun…” He never did.

Although there are now some seasoned nuclear engineers in the company’s leadership, some of the top brass appear to have as little nuclear experience as Taylor. Kip Mock, a fellow member of Wilson’s Idaho church and a co-founder of Taylor’s auto repair shop, is now Valar’s head of operations. Another church member, Elijah Froh, serves as Valar’s director of business operations. (A story last year by the Utah Investigative Journalism Project revealed that Mock accidentally set Froh on fire in 2021 when he poured old diesel into a wood-burning stove and caused an explosion.)

Questions about safety apparently have not deterred Taylor, who appears to be as determined as ever to forge ahead. Last April, Valar announced it was joining several other companies and a handful of states in filing a lawsuit against the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission over what they claim is an overly broad interpretation of safety regulations around testing nuclear reactors. In a post about the lawsuit, Taylor argued that the rules should allow Valar to test its reactor prototype, the Ward One. “Operating Ward One in a remote testing area within the United States would not pose a threat to the health and safety of the public or impact national security based on any reasonable accident scenario,” wrote Taylor. “However, because the NRC has failed to implement rules which would exempt this small test reactor from full NRC regulations, we are building and testing this reactor in the Philippines instead.” Mock, Taylor’s employee who accidentally set his buddy on fire in Idaho is heading the Philippines project. Taylor told Business Insider that the company planned to move “really fast” on it. Separately, last May, the state of Utah, a fellow plaintiff in the lawsuit, announced that it had won a “tight race”—through its Operation Gigawatt program aimed at attracting nuclear companies—with other states to host Valar’s first test reactor for the DOE.

The Trump administration is on board with nuclear, too. In an executive order last May, Trump vowed to have three test reactors up and running by July 4th of this year. In a recent interview with podcaster Shawn Ryan, Taylor called that goal “unbelievably exciting.” Last fall, the Trump administration quietly pushed through a suite of major changes to the laws that govern US nuclear facilities. The new rules, which weren’t made public but were only shared with companies with government contracts, dramatically loosened requirements around safety, accidents, and environmental protections, according to reporting by NPR.

In his interview with Ryan, Taylor lavished praise on Trump and his administration. “You have to give President Trump credit for that in bringing this unbelievably talented, motivated group of people together,” he said. “Listen, I think this Trump administration is going to usher in the nuclear golden age.”

“Listen, I think this Trump administration is going to usher in the nuclear golden age.”

His enthusiasm turned out to be warranted. Earlier this month, the Trump administration announced that it had chosen Valar’s reactor for a contract with the Department of War and the Department of Energy. On February 15, the reactor was transported on a special flight from March Air Reserve in Riverside County, California, to Hill Air Force Base in Utah. “The successful delivery and installation of this reactor will unlock significant possibilities for the future of energy resilience and strategic independence for our nation’s defense,” a DOW press release stated. “This event is a testament to the ingenuity of the American spirit and a critical advancement in securing our nation’s freedom and strength for generations to come.”

Continue Reading…

Trump May Force Banks to Demand Your Papers. Survivors of Abuse Will Pay.

The Trump administration is considering an executive order that would compel banks to collect citizenship information from customers, new and existing, who want to maintain service in the United States, according to new reporting from the Wall Street Journal.

This potential escalation in the administration’s campaign against non-US citizens wouldalso add more hurdles for victims of domestic abuse who are trying to leave their unsafe circumstances—whether they’re citizens or not.

While banks are required to collect some personal information to protect themselves from fraud, “banks don’t routinely share that information with the government,” and there “is no prohibition on banks opening accounts for noncitizens,” per the Journal.

White House spokesman Kush Desai told the Journal that “Any reporting about potential policymaking that has not been officially announced by the White House is baseless speculation.” But banks, the paper reports, are “alarmed.”

It’s unclear what exactly the administration would demand from banks and their users, though the action could impact those who are in the country legally but aren’t citizens and those without access to key documentation that could prove citizenship—a category that includes many survivors of intimate partner violence, up to 99 percent of whom also experience some kind of financial abuse. Teal Inzunza, associate vice president of justice initiatives at the Urban Resource Institute in New York, works with survivors of domestic violence. Financial abuse, she told me, can look like “withholding documentation.”

“An abusive partner will hold somebody’s ID, their passport, their immigration information, as a form of power and control in an abusive relationship,” she said. If the Trump administration were to require banks to confirm citizenship, Inzunza continued, it would “add another layer of difficulty for survivors and immigrants to access a necessary part of our economy” and “will make getting a bank account nearly impossible for many of them.”

Having access to an independent bank account for those experiencing financial and domestic abuse can be paramount for making a plan to leave. Proof of income is often required to secure housing; courts discerning custody agreements want parents to illustrate that they can financially support children; employers might ask for a direct deposit form or banking information; getting access to a vehicle may require a bank account or credit information. It’s also safer for survivors to siphon money away into a bank account than to depend on hoarding cash in the same home as their abuser.

Even if President Donald Trump doesn’t move forward with an executive order, others in the GOP may take up the cause. After the Journal’s initial reporting on Tuesday, Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas was quick to show his support for the potential bank requirement. “I strongly support President Trump taking action to prevent illegal migrants from accessing our banking system,” he wrote on X, adding that he “will be introducing legislation on this issue shortly.” Cotton also shared a letter that he wrote to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in October of last year, urging the department head to “undertake a comprehensive review” to prevent “illegal aliens” from accessing US banks. The senator wrote that “we are permitting illegal aliens to establish financial roots and integrate economically.”

As Trump and his administration continue to detain tens of thousands of non-US citizens, an already complicated reality for immigrant survivors of abuse has become even more fearful.

In January of 2025, the Department of Homeland Security announced it was rescinding protections for “sensitive zones,” which can include domestic violence shelters. In the spring of 2025, The Alliance for Immigrant Survivors surveyed over 170 advocates and attorneys nationwide. When asked, more than three in four advocates reported that the immigrant survivors they work with have concerns about contacting the police. As The Marshall Project noted, several victims of domestic violence were killed by their abusers last summer after reportedly not reaching out to law enforcement because they feared deportation.

Because of the imminent fear of violence, victims often need to flee quickly—sometimes bringing very little with them. Needing those documents to prove legal status, should the banking rules change, could mean trying to get an abuser to hand them over or paying large sums to have them replaced. Gaining access to documents can be complicated and dangerous, especially, Inzunza said, if “your abusive partner is holding those hostage.”

Continue Reading…

Nurul Amin Shah Alam, Blind Rohingya Refugee Dumped by Border Patrol, Dies in Cold

On Tuesday evening, Nurul Amin Shah Alam, a Blind, seriously ill Rohingya refugee from Burma who does not speak English, was found dead in Buffalo—five days after Border Patrol dropped him off on a street corner without notifying his family, who had moved away from the area. He was 56.

The story of Shah Alam’s arrest in February of last year, as reported by the Investigative Post, reads as a situation all too familiar for disabled people who interact with the police—particularly disabled people of color. His original violent arrest, by police who apparently saw his walking stick as a weapon—and who, like the Border Patrol officers who dumped him, apparently made no attempt to reckon with his disability, his inability to speak English, or his mental state—set off a chain of events that ended in his death.

In need of a walking stick, he managed to find his way down the block to a shop that sold curtain rods, where he purchased one. Curtain rod in hand, Shah Alam strolled his Black Rock neighborhood until the weather turned colder, [his attorney Benjamin] Macaluso said. He attempted to walk home, but, confused, ended up at a stranger’s house instead.

He found himself on a woman’s porch just as she was letting her dog out, Macaluso said.

“He comes from a place where people don’t keep dogs,” Macaluso said. “The dog’s freaking out. He’s freaking out. She calls the police and says there’s an unidentified Black man in my driveway.”

When Buffalo police arrived, Macaluso said, they ordered him to drop his curtain rod. But Shah Alam was not able to understand them—or even see them clearly. After not complying with repeated orders, the two officers Tasered him, tackled and beat him, Macaluso said.

Shah Alam took a plea deal earlier this month, which led to his release. His attorney Macaluso and his family, newly back in town, spent Friday through Sunday looking for Shah Alam. “He cannot use a phone,” Macaluso told Investigative Post. “He doesn’t know his address, he doesn’t know phone numbers, he can’t communicate, he can’t see. And they just left him.”

A missing persons case was opened by the Buffalo Police Department on Sunday, but the Buffalo Police Department closed it the following day, operating on the incorrect assumption that Shah Alam was in ICE detention.

House Rep. Tim Kennedy (D-N.Y.) has called for an investigation into Shah Alam’s death. “Mr. Alam should be alive and with his loved ones today. Instead, after days of fear and uncertainty, his family is now grieving an unimaginable loss,” Kennedy said, according to news station WIVB. “There must be a full and transparent investigation at the local, state, and federal levels. The public and Mr. Alam’s family deserve answers immediately.”

Continue Reading…

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…

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…

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.

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.

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.

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…

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…

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…

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…

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…

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…

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…

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…

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…