US Forest Service Chief With Industry Ties Pushed for More Logging on Public Lands

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

Donald Trump this month announced plans to rescind a landmark rule that has protected old-growth forests in the US for 25 years. If finalized, the rollback is expected to benefit the companies that Tom Schultz, chief of the US Forest Service, represented in his previous roles as a timber industry lobbyist and executive, according to research by consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Citizen.

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule, more commonly known as the “roadless rule,” was adopted in 2001 to limit development in roughly 45 million acres of national forest. Industry interests and Republican representatives have long lobbied for the rule’s rescission, which would open up those swaths of untouched land to road construction, drilling and logging.

In a statement, Schultz described the move as “the best way to restore the balance, reduce wildfire risk, and secure the long-term health of our forests and neighboring communities.” But studies suggest it could put 400 threatened and endangered species at risk and imperil ecosystems.

Industry interests will be the main beneficiaries of the change, advocates fear.

In an emailed statement, a Forest Service spokesperson, who did not provide their name, noted that Schultz had also held positions in Idaho and Montana government.

“Active forest management is central to the Forest Service’s multi-use mission—not an industry agenda,” says a Forest Service spokesperson.

“Chief Schultz’s appointment reflects the administration’s recognition that the Forest Service’s current challenges require leadership with broad federal land management experience, not just internal tenure,” the person said.

Schultz is the first-ever Forest Service chief who did not previously work within the agency itself. Before Trump tapped him for the job, he served as president of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, a trade association representing companies that purchase timber from the federal government, and was also vice-president of resources and government affairs at Idaho Forest Group, a major lumber manufacturer.

He is one of dozens of former extractive industry insiders Trump has placed in key environmental positions. Energy secretary Chris Wright was CEO of fracking company Liberty Energy, while interior official Tyler Hassen was an oil executive. Forty-three former fossil-fuel employees and 29 former corporate executives held administration positions, an October analysis from Public Citizen and corporate watchdog Revolving Door Project found.

Schultz has long been critical of the roadless rule. As it was being considered in 2000, he said: “It’s going to be very difficult to actually generate revenue from state trust lands that could be encompassed within a roadless designation.”

The American Forest Resource Council (AFRC), a timber industry trade association on the West Coast that includes the Idaho Forest Group, has recently directly advocated for the rescission of the roadless rule. In comments to the federal government last year, the lobbying group said the “one-size-fits-all” policy unnecessarily prevents “active forest management”—intentionally thinning forests through practices including logging—which it says is the best way to mitigate wildfire risk.

Since his appointment, Schultz has echoed these calls. “Active forest management is not an option. It’s essential,” he said in the announcement of the proposal to rescind the roadless rule, which also referred to the policy as “one-size-fits-all.”

“Active forest management is central to the Forest Service’s multi-use mission—not an industry agenda,” the Forest Service spokesperson said.

In a statement, Nick Smith, spokesperson for the AFRC, said: “There is broad bipartisan support for increasing forest health treatments—thinning, prescribed fire, and even logging—to reduce the size and severity of wildfires and make forests more resilient to climate change.”

A recent analysis of the Forest Service’s own data found that wildfires were nearly three times as likely to start near roads, raising questions about the administration’s claim that expanding road access will reduce wildfire risk, said Lois Parshley, climate research director at Public Citizen. “But from the industry’s perspective, it will also open up new possibilities for logging,” she said.

Asked about Parshley’s concern, the Forest Service spokesperson said that repealing the roadless rule “allows safer use and maintenance of existing roads that first responders have long said they need to reach fires quickly.”

“Forest‑treatment science is clear: thinning plus prescribed fire reduces wildfire severity by more than 60 percent—and up to 72 percent compared to untreated areas,” they said. “Access enables treatment; without access, prevention and response suffer. Gates and seasonal closures can be used to manage public traffic while preserving routes that firefighters and forest managers may need.”

The AFRC’s comments say that “strategically placed and maintained roads are essential for safe and effective wildfire response,” and that in “nearly every major wildfire over the past 15–20 years,” the Forest Service has identified a lack of road access as a key barrier to effective response, Parshley said. That argument also appears in Schultz’s rationale for repealing the rule, she noted. In the administration’s announcement, he said the roadless rule “has frustrated land managers and served as a barrier to action—prohibiting road construction, which has limited wildfire suppression and active forest management.”

Smith of the AFRC said that “millions of roadless acres have burned across the west since the rule’s adoption in 2001.”

“Federal lands are far more likely to burn than private lands, which typically have far more roads,” he said. “According to the congressional budget office, a wildfire on federal land is on average five times the size of one on nonfederal land nearby.”

Critics dispute the logic that the roadless rule is bad for wildfire management, arguing that roads can increase the risk of human-caused fires.

Since Schultz came into the Forest Service in February 2025, the American Forest Resource Council has spent more than $210,000 advocating to expand harvesting in national forests, lobbying records show. Meanwhile, the Idaho Forest Group increased its spending on lobbying in 2026 and reported advocating to support “efforts to advance forest management,” including with the agency now run by its former executive, Parshley found.

Smith of the AFRC claimed that “the amount of money AFRC spends lobbying Congress and federal agencies in support of policies to improve the health of federal forests and nearby rural communities is dwarfed in comparison to the many anti-forestry NGOs.”

In an earnings call, one lumber company CEO boasted that, “We know the new Forest Service chief.”

Idaho is exempt from the roadless rule; it has its own regulations on roadless areas developed with the federal government. But the proposal to kill the roadless rule is just one industry-backed change to forestry that the Trump administration has put forth. As the head of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, Schultz in July 2022 delivered testimony before Congress in which he suggested roadless areas were limiting the industry, saying: “nearly half of the National Forest System [is] off limits to management.”

Though he did not call to overturn the policy specifically, he advocated allowing states to manage more Forest Service timber sales, expanding exemptions from environmental review processes, and changing stewardship contracting rules to support logging and wood-processing infrastructure.

The Trump administration has since adopted or advanced each of those proposals, Parshley found in a report earlier this year. And Schultz has directly helped implement them, she found. For instance, in December 2025 he personally signed an agreement with Idaho’s governor to double federal timber sales from the state’s national forests. “That directly benefits his former employer the Idaho Forest Group,” she said.

Idaho Forest Group has been contacted for comment.

Under Schultz, the Forest Service has ramped up timber sales. In June, he told senators that the agency had exceeded its timber-sale target. He has also overseen a historic and widely criticized structural reorganization of his agency, moving the agency’s headquarters from the nation’s capital to Salt Lake City, eliminating regional offices and staff and shifting authority over forests to states.

Schultz has made it clear that he aims to weaken regulations. In April, he told Congress that he is “trying to cut through regulation.”

In a company earnings call after Schultz was confirmed, lumber company PotlatchDeltic CEO Eric Cremers confirmed that industry executives maintain direct familiarity with Schultz in his new role, saying: “We know the new Forest Service chief.”

“It’s pretty clear that the industry was excited by their reactions to Schultz’s nomination and then confirmation,” said Parshley.

Continue Reading…

The Fight for America’s Future Is Happening in the South

Tennessee Rep. Justin J. Pearson first caught national attention when he was expelled from the state’s House of Representatives after demonstrating in support of gun law reforms. Today, he’s the Democratic candidate for Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District. It’s an area newly transformed by redrawn voting maps and sprawling data centers, putting Pearson at the center of some of the country’s biggest national fights.

“The litmus test for America’s future is what happens in the South,” Pearson tells host Al Letson. “And so we need to be paying attention to what’s going on here, because here is where the test cases for autocracy happen. Here is where the billionaires have their testing ground for what else can go on in other parts of the country.”

On this week’s More To The Story, Pearson talks about how redistricting has upended Tennessee and the many ways gun violence has become a deeply personal issue for him. He also looks back at the opposition to his 2023 demonstration for gun law reform, when he was dubbed part of “the Tennessee Three.”

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

Continue Reading…

Lawmakers Push DHS to Cancel Its Shock Gloves Contract

Last week, DHS finalized its $16.7 million purchase of 6,650 pairs of electric shock gloves from the Kentucky-based company Compliant Technologies. That comes out to about $2,400 per pair, plus some accessories like glove fresheners in case the ICE agents wearing these direct contact electroshock weapons get sweaty.

Almost as quickly as the contract was finalized, pushback reached the legislative branch in a classic Congressional form: a whole bunch of open letters. A group of Senators wrote to interim ICE director David Venturella on August 27, asking him whether there will be any tracking of how these gloves are used. Members of the House Committee on Homeland Security wrote a similar letter August 31. And on that same day, a group of 49 Democratic members of Congress led by Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) wrote a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin demanding that he cancel the shock gloves contract.

“The decision to equip civil immigration enforcement agents with electric shock gloves continues a deeply disturbing escalation in the militarization of DHS — as well as sustained efforts to shield itself from accountability,” the lawmakers wrote. Their letter cites Mother Jones reporting on how police departments use the gloves to inflict pain while avoiding legal liability. “This Administration continues to outfit ICE and CBP with the tools of an occupying paramilitary force—despite widespread human rights violations carried out by its agents during immigration enforcement actions.”

As I reported last month, human rights organizations suggest that the gloves are not, as Compliant Technologies says on its website, “humane.”

The technology is unregulated “despite the clear human rights risks associated with its use,” Amnesty International researchers wrote in a 2025 report detailing instances in which electric-shock devices have been used for torture. The report ends with a recommendation that countries “cease use of, decommission and destroy any stockpiles of such prohibited electric shock weapons.” Yumna Rizvi, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Victims of Torture, called the gloves “inherently abusive equipment that facilitates torture.”

On the state and local level, police departments are facing angry communities demanding they cancel their contracts with Compliant Technologies. In Nebraska’s largest school district, after reporting by Nebraska Public Media revealed that school resource officers had used the devices on students, Omaha police were forced to stop wearing shock gloves in the halls of middle and high schools.

In California, meanwhile, a bill banning law enforcement operating in the state from using wearable electroshock devices passed the legislature Monday night. The ban extends through 2030 and requires the state Department of Justice to study the weapons’ safety.

“Imagine your family, your friends and loved ones or even yourself being incapacitated by federal, state or local law enforcement who do not have the necessary training to ensure that you don’t suffer from adverse health effects due to being shocked,” said California Democratic Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, who sponsored the bill, in an Aug. 26 Senate committee hearing.

The Sacramento Sheriff’s Department is the only California agency known to have purchased Compliant Technologies’ shock gloves. In August, it spent $35,000 on 10 pairs, as well as 10 shock bands to be placed on a detained person’s arm or wrist, as the Sacramento Bee reported. That sheriff’s department opposes the ban, as do numerous other law enforcement agencies. “This is a bad policy from a California law enforcement perspective, and it’s really only gonna be a message to the feds that’s going to fail to land,” California State Sheriffs’ Association lobbyist Cory Salzillo said at an August 26 hearing.

The bill is expected to face legal challenges from the federal government. “Sanctuary politicians attempting to ban our federal law enforcement from any safety equipment is despicable and a deliberate attempt to undermine and endanger our officers,” a DHS spokesperson told Mother Jones. “To be crystal clear: we will not abide by unconstitutional bans. The Supremacy Clause makes it clear that California’s sanctuary politicians do not control federal law enforcement.”

Continue Reading…

It’s Just Too Late for John Roberts to Say He Doesn’t Like Trump’s Ballroom

On Monday, the same Supreme Court justices who helped Donald Trump return to the White House, gave him criminal immunity, and greenlit dozens of his illegal actions, gave the president yet another gift: a massive ballroom. Though it seems clear that the destruction of the East Wing and its replacement with a 90,000-square foot ballroom atop a new military bunker is illegal, the court’s Republican appointees have cleared the way for its completion.

All, that is, but one. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Democratic nominated-judges in dissent. Writing for the dissenters, Roberts called the construction “likely unlawful” and a trampling of Congressional authority. Given the unpopularity of the project, perhaps Roberts thought it best to keep his name off of it. But while Roberts clearly doesn’t want to be blamed for the ballroom, he wrote many of the precedents that undergird the majority’s decision to let it go forward.

Though Roberts had the sense to dissent, in similar cases he has been on the other side.

Monday’s emergency docket order again giving Trump the go-aheadhalts a district court order that could have stopped above-ground work while allowing construction to precede on a secure, below-ground facility. Instead, the Supreme Court order allows all construction to continue until the litigation is complete. Because a final ruling on the merits of the case by the Supreme Court is probably months if not years away, Monday’s decision will likelyallow the project to reach completion.

The majority’s argument—and Roberts’ dissent—focus on the issue of standing, the technical question of whether the plaintiffs challenging the ballroom have the right to do so in federal court. Standing generally turns on whether the plaintiff is injured by the policy they are challenging. In this case, the plaintiffs are the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States and one of its members, Alison K. Hoagland, an architectural historian who passes by the White House frequently and claims a personal and professional interest in not seeing the former East Wing replaced with Trump’s new ballroom. Hoagland claimed she had the same basis to sue that the Supreme Court has afforded to people in environmental cases who allege an injury if, for example, the government kills off a species so that they no longer have the pleasure of viewing it.

But in Monday’s unsigned order, five GOP appointees found that isn’t enough to obtain standing. In his dissent, Roberts disagreed,defending the idea that Hoagland and the trust had asserted a viable claim, just as an environmentalist could challenge the pollution of a river that would kill off the fish she liked to watch. As Roberts put it, after Monday, “I want to look at a crocodile” is enough to get standing but “I want to look at the White House” is not.

The Republican appointees have been manipulating standing doctrine in recent years in order to achieve desired results. But even if they felt strongly that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, the request for a stay required the justices to determine which side would face greater, even irreparable, harm if the project proceeded at this juncture. Clearly, the preservationists would suffer greatharm if the ballroom is completed. Conversely, the president wouldn’t be harmed by a pause. After all, his purportednational security concerns are already being met with construction of his underground lair continuing.

Moreover, the president cannot be harmed if his action is illegal in the first place. This is a point Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson separatelymade just last week when her Republican-appointed colleagues lifted an injunction against Trump’s illegal executive order on mail-in ballots. “The President is only conceivably harmed by an injunction barring executive action if that court order is preventing him from doing something the law permits him to do,” Jackson wrote.

In Monday’s decision in the ballroom case, the majority wouldn’t discuss the legality of the project. That’s probably because the ballroom is pretty clearly illegal. It’s a privately funded demolition and reconstruction of the so-called People’s House when Congress explicitly gave itself control over suchnew buildings and their funding. As Roberts wrote in his dissent: “Congress has explicitly prohibited the construction of any ‘building or structure. . . on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.’” Moreover, by using private funds, the Trump administration is circumventing Congress’ power of the purse; Congress is supposed toallot taxpayers’money for White House renovation. “Today’s decision,” Roberts wrote, “is no victory for the separation of powers.”

Though Roberts had the legal and political sense to dissent this time, in similar cases he has generally been on the other side. Time and again, this court has reasoned that the executive is harmed if his obviously lawless actions are put on hold by the courts. When Trump kicked off his second term in January 2025 with a flurry of illegal activity that the lower courts quickly blocked, the Supreme Court repeatedly came to his rescue on the theory that the president is harmed if his actions cannot take effect—even ones that are clearly illegal, such as denying citizenship to people born in the United States, which the GOP appointees said courts could not block in full. In case after case, the majority presumed that the harm to Trump is greater than the harm to the targets of his actions—even when those are far more irreparable and concrete.

There is an irony in Roberts’ unwillingness to go along with this view of executive prerogative in the ballroom case, because he is largely responsible for it. In decision after decision, Roberts has imbued the presidency with the powers of the so-called unitary executive, a king-like ruler with total control over the executive branch. The apotheosis of this theory is Roberts’ majority opinion in Trump v. United States, which gave presidents criminal immunity. The chief justice explicitly placed a president’s desiresabove the constraints of the criminal laws passed by Congress. It was better, he wrote in that decision, to have an “energetic, vigorous, decisive” executive than one who was bound by the criminal laws, which he described as “counterproductive burdens” on the “‘vigor'” and “‘energy’ of the Executive.”

The country, he promised, would be better off with a decisive leader, rather than one who must “‘answer for his conduct’ in court.” Just one year later, Trump decisively but illegally razed the East Wing and started building a giant ballroom.

Roberts ended his dissent from Mondaywith a quote. “Winston Churchill once remarked that ‘[w]e shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us,’” Roberts wrote. “All the more reason to ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People’s House.”

Roberts’ warning, it seems, is that an administration working out of an illegally-constructed building might be shaped by that ethos of lawlessness, and that, within its ill-gotten walls, they might be inspired to flout the law in other pursuits. That may be true, but it’s remarkably unselfaware coming from Roberts. The man who told presidents they could crime with impunity is now fretting that they might, actually, ignore the law.

Churchill’s admonition could be redirected at the chief justice and his colleagues: The Supreme Court writes opinions, and those opinions shape the country. All the more reason to enforce the law, especially when it comes to the inhabitant of the People’s House. But on Monday, the court once again told Trump to go ahead with an illegal scheme. The lesson is clear.

Continue Reading…

The Relentless Work of Being Sick

In late 1984, dozens of people in the region of Lake Tahoe, California, would go to the doctor with a variety of symptoms, including debilitating fatigue—the first clearly documented cluster of what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would label “chronic fatigue syndrome” towards the end of the ’80s.

Today, that complex condition is known as ME/CFS, or myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. In its more severe manifestations, it can leave people unable to get out of bed independently, needing to be tube-fed. Even in its minor forms, it can be life-altering.

I would know: I received an ME/CFS diagnosis in 2023. It’s not a rare condition—it’s estimated that around half of the millions of people with long Covid may have ME/CFS— but it is still widely misunderstood. Pushing oneself too hard to get “through” it, for one thing, doesn’t help build tolerance, and can instead lead to crashes known as post-exertional malaise.

Duke University cultural anthropologist Emily Lim Rogers looks at the labor it takes simply to exist while sick in her new book Sick Work: Exhaustion, Labor, and Invisible Illness, through the lens of ME/CFS. We spoke about the history of the condition, the importance of acknowledging differently racialized experiences of chronic illness, and the compounding exhaustion of being ill.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How has debilitating fatigue been downplayed since the Industrial Revolution, and how does that connect to work?

In the US, we have an idea that it’s normal to be burnt out. Fatigue and burnout are systemically denied from workers’ compensation claims; this is actually not the case in all countries.

“Fatigue is this term that’s so banal and non-exceptional. We accept it as completely mundane and something that everyone should be: fatigued.”

The concept of fatigue was initially conceived of as something that could be solved, particularly in the context of an understanding of the body as a machine, in the late 19th century. Fatigue did not enter English-language medical journals until the last decade of the 19th century. The first chapter of the book looks at how fatigue went from a problem that could be solved, and should be worked on—granted, for maximum productivity—to something that just became accepted as part of everyday life.

Stress was a concept that only gained widespread acceptance as a legitimate scientific phenomenon in the 1970s.

When I was looking at people with ME/CFS contemporarily, one might expect to find sort of a paradigm of hysteria [and dismissal on that basis], like women’s chronic illnesses are obviously disproportionately affected by chronic fatigue syndrome. But what I found was that most people were not dismissed as kind of crazy hysterics—though that certainly echoes as well—but from an idea that they were just working too hard.

But then, that’s interesting, because our solution is not, “Maybe we should give these people disability insurance, maybe we should give these people time off work.” Instead, it’s, “You cannot handle the conditions of everyday life under capitalism. You’re just fatigued. You’re just burnt out.”

Now, people with ME/CFS have a qualitatively different type of fatigue than fatigue from work. [But] I think if we were to challenge the idea that some people have debilitating fatigue in addition to other non-specific symptoms, it would fundamentally raise the question of: Should we all be tired all the time in the first place?

You write that “Sick work is not about rehabilitation into the workforce or the reproduction of labor power: It is treading water with a body that has already been rendered unproductive.” That really hit me hard. In what ways do you think the capitalist society we live in degrades the amount of work it takes for chronically ill people, whether they have ME/CFS or another condition, to survive?

Part of my argument is that we call these illnesses “invisible illnesses,” because you can’t necessarily tell that someone’s sick. That’s true, but, for some people, it’s very much not invisible. I would describe these illnesses as invisibleized, more accurately. And part of my argument is that the invisible labor, and the invisibilization of the labor, that it takes to be sick leads to the invisibilization, and minimization politically, of many diseases like ME/CFS.

“In US culture, we have a huge kind of panic over the idea that someone is faking it.”

The work and everyday labor of living with ME/CFS contains this recursive loop of everyday labor of being ill, where you can’t work, but you need to work.

The engine of capitalism, as I describe in the [book], is fatigue: the depletion of bodily capacity to its absolute limit. If all of that is depleted in simply trying to be okay, then you’re already rendered outside the fold of who we think of as a productive worker. Many people, as I show in the book, do have ME/CFS and have to work paid jobs because they have to get health insurance, but they’re barely treading water. And the only reason, for many people, is because work is their only tie to health insurance, which is the cruel irony of this whole system.

You note that some ME/CFS patient activists believe the CDC used the name “chronic fatigue” to downplay its severity.

I read about it in some early reporting on ME/CFS in the ’90s. I think the question of intentionality is maybe less salient than the question of its effect. Fatigue is this term that’s so banal and non-exceptional. We accept it as completely mundane and something that everyone should be: fatigued.

For people with ME/CFS, a very different type, a very, very debilitating type of fatigue that does not come proportionate to any exertion, kind of gets buried in that. It’s important to look at the nitty-gritty of the science, why something’s researched or not researched. But zooming out, I try to understand this as very deeply embedded into how capitalism operates for chronically ill people at large.

How have ME/CFS patients been dismissed owing to the lack of clear, consistent biomarkers for the condition?

Many people would look at people with ME/CFS, especially those very active in the patient activist movement, and say, “Oh, these are a bunch of bougie white women”—and that’s true in terms of who can get a diagnosis. We would say that the bourgeois white woman is so opposite of the figure of the welfare queen, the person who wants a cop-out from work, right?

I actually think these figures are not completely distinct, because in US culture, we have a huge kind of panic over the idea that someone is faking it, and thus taking taxpayer dollars, and just lazy.

“Many people of color that I talk to didn’t even consider that they might have ME/CFS…People can really internalize: Am I worthy to be ill, or am I not?”

I think that the lack of biomarkers creates that panic, and biomarkers became the idea of objective proof of illness and became more important in disability determinations in the neoliberal era.

We saw it in the gutting of the social safety net under Reagan, continuing obviously under Clinton, and this is obviously very relevant to what we’re seeing now with all of the cuts in Medicaid. What we have or don’t have [reduced to] biomarkers is political, and how that meets and meshes with actual everyday interactions in the disability determinations office, with health insurance companies, is sort of a distillation of all that. All those sources come crashing in [together] to shape the dismissal of ME/CFS.

As you mentioned, ME/CFS has often been portrayed as a rich white women’s disease, which is just not accurate. Could you tell me about your takeaways from your conversation with Robin, a Black woman with ME/CFS?

Not only was there the shocking anecdote that even a Black doctor would tell her, “No, just keep pushing on,” it raised a larger point. It is always about who has the money, resources, and time to go and get an ME/CFS diagnosis—but there’s also something where it cuts deeper, to who sees themselves as someone who can be legitimately ill.

The portrayal of ME/CFS as a bourgeois white woman’s disease does not help. Many people of color that I talk to didn’t even consider that they might have ME/CFS, so I think people can really internalize: Am I worthy to be ill, or am I not? And should I just push on, or should I not?

Continue Reading…

How Trump Can Use Chaos to Cheat in the Midterms

In his crusade to undermine American democracy, Donald Trump doesn’t have to win to win. He only needs to create a mess.

Look at this week’s news. There were several court actions regarding Trump’s outrageous attempt to restrict mail-in voting for the midterms. The back-and-forth was confusing, as the Supreme Court undid a lower court’s decision that had blocked key components of Trump’s plan. The US Postal Service then announced it would proceed with Trump’s scheme, but a federal judge subsequently issued a temporary restraining order that prevented the USPS from moving ahead. The legal fight is continuing, with mail-in voting due to begin within several weeks in some states.

So…chaos. Which is what Trump desires. Surely, he wants to succeed in severely limiting mail-in balloting—an obsession of his that seems patently unconstitutional, given that the founders handed the authority to run and oversee national elections only to the states and Congress. But he also triumphs if his shenanigans foster uncertainty.

It will be a disaster for democracy should Trump manage to win this legal battle and limit mail-in voting

Many voters do not follow the ins and outs of electoral law. As with most issues, they hear and see snatches of news and miss key developments and important details. It can be tough to be fully informed on this front. But if voters receive the impression that mail-in ballots might not count, might not be permitted, or might expose a voter to extra scrutiny, some voters might not bother to vote or might be intimidated from voting.

It will be a disaster for democracy should Trump manage to win this legal battle and limit mail-in voting. Eight states run elections primarily by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. So does Washington, DC. And several other states rely heavily on mail-in ballots. But even if the courts ultimately reject his assault on postal voting, the confusion he’s sowing could, to a degree, subvert the election.

Trump’s attack on mail-in ballots is only one front in his war on voting. He already has succeeded in pushing Republicans to gerrymander congressional districts ahead of schedule to tilt the playing field this year toward the GOP. The Trump administration also just announced it will deploy 1,000 election monitors to voting sites in November.

Past administrations have sent out monitors without causing disruptions. But given Trump’s adversarial stance toward state election authorities and his ceaseless pushing of bogus election conspiracy theories, there’s reason to worry that mischief and voter intimidation could be prompted by his supposed monitors.

There also has been speculation among Trump detractors that he might resort to stationing troops, National Guard forces, or ICE agents at polling places to scare off voters.

One cause for concern: The Justice Department’s civil rights division has apparently hired for its election monitoring project a lawyer named David Michael Levin, who in 2016 was charged in Florida with three felonies for allegedly hacking into government election sites. According to Democracy Docket, the charges were reduced to two misdemeanors, and he pleaded guilty and served 20 days in jail. Moreover, Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the civil rights division, which is responsible for election monitoring, is a 2020 election denier who pushed Trump’s false claims about that contest. Having her head an election monitoring mission would be like placing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in charge of the nation’s vaccine policies. Oh…wait.

There also has been speculation among Trump detractors that he might resort to stationing troops, National Guard forces, or ICE agents at polling places to scare off voters. If anything like this happens, Trump and the GOP will argue that citizens entitled to vote have no reason to fear the presence of ICE agents. But since ICE agents have rounded up American citizens—and often acted violently—their appearance at these sites would likely keep some voters away. Who wants to risk being erroneously apprehended or getting caught up in a violent ICE action—just for exercising their constitutional right to vote?

Such speculation is far from idle. Bobby Charles, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Maine, recently said he would ask White House border czar Tom Homan to send ICE agents to the state’s polling stations. (In July, Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a Colombian national, was shot and killed by ICE agents in Biddeford, Maine. He was mistakenly targeted by ICE agents who were looking for his roommate.) Trump and his minions don’t have to dispatch ICE on Election Day to frighten away voters; a public discussion of this prospect could be enough to keep some voters at home.

It’s so damn obvious but still deserves saying: Nothing this administration states about voting should be taken at face value.

Markwayne Mullin, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, has said that he would not deploy ICE agents to intimidate voters, but there’s no reason to accept his promise. After all, Trump and his entire administration have been promoting the baseless lie that election fraud is rampant and noncitizen voting is a significant problem. In a speech in July, Trump declared that DHS had identified 250,000 noncitizens on the voter rolls of four states. But since then, DHS has not been able to produce proof of this, and it has even acknowledged that the number was inflated.

It’s so damn obvious but still deserves saying: Nothing this administration states about voting should be taken at face value. Pushing his Big Lie about the 2020 election, Trump nearly annihilated the nation’s constitutional order. He mounted a disinformation campaign to discredit legitimate voting results and incited violence to stay in power. After that, screwing around with the midterms is peanuts for him. No one should be surprised that he will use whatever power he now has to rig the coming elections in his favor. All media coverage of his assault on mail-in voting and his other attempts to reduce voting participation should be presented within the context that Trump is a clear and present threat to democracy.

The US electoral system is a crazy quilt of state and local election authorities. It won’t be easy for Trump to meddle in hundreds of contests across the country—especially in Democratic-led states. Mail-in ballots may be his best shot. But with only 19 House seats deemed toss-ups at this point, Trump and his crew will only have to interfere in a handful of races to help his Republican cultists remain in charge of Congress.

These coming elections are not only significant because control of the legislative branch is at stake at a time of crisis. They will demonstrate whether the United States can have free and fair elections or whether Trump and the GOP will prevail in their ongoing endeavor to impose minority rule on America.

Continue Reading…

It Looks Like Hegseth Is Replacing Top Military Officers With Loyalists

US Army Secretary Dan Driscoll is set to depart the Pentagon in the next few days, following a months-long feud with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the firings of several top officials and allegedly blocking many of his innovation projects like streamlined technology adoption.

The Wall Street Journal was the first to report the news on Monday.

Driscoll’s resignation after serving for 18 months leaves the US Army effectively without a senior leader. Hegseth fired Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George in April and has not nominated a replacement.

Hegseth has cut down the number of top military officials in his Defense Department. According to Military Times, since taking his post last January, he presided over the firings and early departures of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chief of naval operations, the Army’s vice chief of staff, and the commander of the US Army in Europe and Africa, among others.

While it’s unclear which firings Driscoll took issue with, Hegseth also fired the only two women serving as four-star officers and blocked promotions for several female and Black Navy officers, seemingly under his anti-diversity push. In early 2025, Hegseth said the firings were “a reflection of the president wanting the right people around him to execute the national-security approach we want to take.”

“Secretary Driscoll has been highly effective in advancing President Trump’s agenda to Make America Strong Again at the Department of the Army by providing outstanding leadership during historic military operations, restoring an emphasis on readiness and lethality, assisting with negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, and more,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. (Noting the emphasis on lethality.)

Driscoll took his worries about the Army’s future under Hegseth’s leadership directly to President Trump, four people familiar with the discussion told The Atlantic, given the series of firings of top officers. One of the people said that Trump was surprised and expressed concern.

Hegseth is reportedly considering his chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell—who also allegedly abused his estranged wife and children—to succeed Driscoll. As I pointed out on Monday, Parnell criticized the Washington Post’s reporting that cited classified documents in which top military officials stated that the current war in Iran is depleting their ability to defend the US from other threats, baselessly claiming on Sunday that publishing the report was “a crime” and evidence of Trump and Pete Derangement Syndrome.

This all looks like a move to replace officers who push back on Hegseth’s policies with loyalists.

Continue Reading…

A Federal Judge Just Killed New York’s $75 Billion Climate Bill for Polluters

On Monday, an Obama-appointed federal judge ruled that New York State could not enforce its 2024 Climate Change Superfund Act, a landmark law that would have charged fossil fuel companies $75 billion over 25 years for climate damages from cumulative greenhouse gas emissions.

In a 63-page opinion, Chief Judge Brenda Sannes of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York sided with 22 Republican state attorneys general, as well as industry groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute, and National Mining Association, saying the state’s “sprawling” superfund act was preempted by the federal Clean Air Act and outside the jurisdiction of New York.

“The Climate Act is an unusual and sweeping statute, designed to address the effects of climate change–a ‘uniquely international problem of national concern’,” Sannes wrote. “Thus, the Court finds the Climate Act is ‘simply beyond the limits of state law.’” Her decision follows a July hearing where Sannes sharply questioned whether she was constrained by an earlier 2021 decision in which New York sued five fossil fuel groups for climate damages from climate change, such as sea level rise. Her August 31 opinion relied heavily on this case.

New York’s climate superfund legislation, passed in 2024, required fossil fuel companies to pay for climate change adaptive infrastructure projects, like upgrades to roads, transit systems, the electric grid, stormwater drainage, and sewage treatment plants, as well as design solutions to mitigate extreme heat.

Climate litigation experts criticized the legal rationale behind Sannes’ decision. “The [2021] Second Circuit NYC decision is not binding precedent in this case,” said Patrick Parenteau, a law professor and Climate Policy Fellow at Vermont Law School. “It has been severely criticized by other federal and state courts. Judge Sannes should not feel bound by it.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration, which over the last year and a half has enacted its deregulatory “energy dominance” agenda and has rolled back a host of environmental rules, like the 2009 endangerment finding, commended the ruling.

“The Department of Justice is delivering on President Trump’s order to protect American energy from state overreach,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson in a Department of Justice press release. “New York’s law would have expropriated $75 billion from energy companies around the world during an energy emergency and in direct defiance of American foreign policy and federal law. We will continue to fight for affordable, reliable energy for all Americans.”

Gustafson is head of the recently rebranded Energy and Natural Resources Division, and under his watch, the DOJ filed a similar lawsuit last year supporting attorneys general in New York as well as Vermont, which passed the very first state climate superfund legislation in May 2024. Vermont was first sued by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute in December of that year.

In 2026, 13 other states have considered passing similar “polluters pay” laws. Despite wide public support, organizers in blue states considering their own bills are seeing opposition from state Republicans, business groups, and trade associations. New Jersey Senator Michael Testa released a statement saying his state “should pay close attention” to New York’s ruling. “Our state’s similar bill should go no further. It’s a waste of time and resources.”

At the time of publication, New York’s Attorney General Letitia James has not yet filed an appeal over Sannes’ ruling. Separately, it is unclear when and how Vermont’s case will be decided, but both decisions may inform how other states draft and pass future climate superfund laws.

Environmental advocates stress that New York’s ruling “doesn’t bind” other states from passing their own superfund laws, and that the burning of fossil fuels will continue to cause mounting climate damages. “The floods will still come, roads will still wash out, and communities will still need billions to protect themselves,” said Make Polluters Pay Communications Director Cassidy DiPaola in an emailed press release. “Those costs don’t disappear just because fossil fuel companies don’t want to pay them.”

Continue Reading…

Here’s Why We’ve Been Seeing So Much Food-Borne Illness

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

Summer is supposed to be the best time for fresh produce. Corn on the cob at the cookout. Berries plucked right from the vine. Salads on the cafe patio while you take an extra long lunch break because the weather and the food is that good.

But this year, summer’s harvest brought something much different than the flavorful dishes we’ve come to expect. Since May, the United States has seen more than 17,000 lab-confirmed cyclosporiasis cases. Before this summer’s massive outbreak, the country had never recorded more than a few hundred infections in a single year from this parasite, which can cause watery and at times explosive diarrhea.

And that isn’t the only bug invading Americans’ digestive tracts.

One person died from a listeria infection traced to ricotta cheese. Close to 100 people came down with salmonella from recalled eggs, while more than 400 people have gotten sick in a separate salmonella outbreak involving jalapeños. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration issued its highest urgency warning for frozen blueberries believed to be contaminated with E coli.

“Climate change has allowed pathogens like cyclospora…to expand from the tropic, subtropic lines into areas more north and south.”

And now several dozen people across 15 states have become ill after eating alfalfa sprouts in a new outbreak that involves salmonella and E coli. Four of them have been hospitalized.

It’s gotten so bad that one Washington Post columnist argued we should stop eating lettuce altogether. Experts have told me they were worried people might actually completely stop consuming vegetables—vital to any healthy diet—for fear of contracting cyclosporiasis and enduring a month of watery diarrhea. I personally avoided the bagged salad kits that provided me with many easy lunches on a workday.

While this spate of foodborne illness is especially bad, the worst may be yet to come.

It’s only natural to look for somebody to blame. Culpability has understandably fallen on the Trump administration and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who helms the US Department of Health and Human Services—especially after his deep staffing cuts at the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the two federal agencies most responsible for investigating and responding to disease outbreaks. Those cuts have slowed the response, and officials have struggled to communicate with the public clearly in a fast-moving crisis.

While our government officials are partly to blame, the problem is bigger than Trump and Kennedy, or even this one summer. While seasonal changes will always play a role—the warmer months, when people eat more fresh produce and consume more food that’s been sitting out at unsafe temperatures, typically have more foodborne illnesses—the underlying factors contributing to these outbreaks are becoming more potent. The food supply is more and more globalized. And the planet continues to warm, allowing these pathogens to spread to more and more farms all over the world, including in the US.

As the weather finally begins to cool down, I’ve been asking myself an uncomfortable question: What if diarrhea summer never really ends?

Our globalized food supply chain has a lot to do with our food safety—and that isn’t going to change any time soon. Americans expect access to any produce they want year-round, even produce that isn’t in-season locally, or that may not grow anywhere in the US at all. We source food from all over the world: Most cyclospora outbreaks originated with foods grown in other countries. This year’s crisis was eventually linked to iceberg lettuce from Mexico.

And as the New York Times recently documented, the sometimes international trip from the farm to the store for a bagged salad kit offers multiple moments for potential contamination, including tainted irrigation water, local wildlife excrement, and poor storage practices, making it possible for dangerous pathogens to take hold before a person even buys their groceries.

This is a problem that is going to become worse, not better.

Warming temperatures around the world are also helping those bugs spread. Humidity is essential for salmonella and warmer summers will mean more humid-favorable conditions for the bacteria to grow. E coli likewise will thrive as temperatures rise. Cyclospora has historically been found in subtropical climates, so for a long time, infections from food grown inside the United States were unheard of. Not anymore.

“Climate change has allowed pathogens like cyclospora…to expand from the tropic, subtropic lines into areas more north and south of that tropic line,” said Joseph Eisenberg, a professor of epidemiology and global public health at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

“With respect to the US, we’re starting to see new infectious diseases in southern Louisiana, Texas; that also increases the presence of cyclospora in food systems in other countries,” he said. “It suggests that, through climate change, we might potentially start seeing it be endemic in the United States at some point.”

And indeed, cyclospora was found in farms in Florida in 2020. This is a problem that is going to become worse, not better, given the expected trends in global warming in the decades to come.

“It wasn’t until about within the last 10 years we started to see cases from domestic origin,” Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia, told me. “Before, there were predominantly cases due to international travel or importation of products because it used to be endemic in some tropical or warmer climates.”

“It’s clear that now,” he said, “it’s become established in the domestic environment.”

To make matters worse, at the same time conditions for foodborne illness are ripening, the US government has been sharply cutting its ability to monitor for and respond to these outbreaks.

At the beginning of the second Trump administration, as part of the widespread government staffing cuts, the FDA laid off 3,500 workers. Between the FDA and the US Department of Agriculture, which also oversees food safety, and several related agencies, more than 11,000 workers have been lost, a 22 percent cut, according to the Partnership for Public Service. And the CDC, which helps respond to outbreaks once they start, has lost about a quarter of its workforce from January 2025 to October 2025, according to Reuters; by this summer, CBS reported, the number of scientists tracking food parasites at the agency dropped from 11 to three. Meanwhile, the administration has been rushing to hire 2,200 people in the middle of the crisis.

Former FDA officials have described a “brain drain” for the food safety programs that won’t be easy to reverse.

“There have been a lot of federal cuts. There have been cuts around CDC surveillance, around state and local public health. You’ve lost people,” Dr. Anurag Malani, vice chief of staff at Trinity Health’s Ann Arbor, Michigan, campus, told me. “The ability to do what you need to do to keep citizens safe and to keep the public safe, we don’t have as many people doing that as we used to.

The federal government also shut down several national monitoring programs for foodborne illness in 2025—including for the cyclospora parasite specifically. The state and local agencies that surveil for and respond to food outbreaks have also faced staff cuts because they depend on the federal government for their funding.

“It’s hard when there is one larger entity kind of controlling all of that,” Dr. Kathleen Linder, the hospital epidemiologist at the Veterans Affairs hospital in Ann Arbor, told me in July. “Local health departments are having to do more on their own than they would have had to do in the past just because of decentralization at that level. It has been very hard to get updated information. The information has been lagging a little bit behind.”

Food safety is hard enough to tackle on its own. Part of the reason we experience regular outbreaks of cyclospora is that it can successfully infect people even when only very little of it is present, and because we can’t grow it in a lab to study it.

But the US has made things harder by cutting these important programs. Rebuilding the staff and capacity to do this work is not likely to happen under the Trump administration, and former FDA officials have described a “brain drain” for the food safety programs that won’t be easy to reverse in the next administration.

But something will have to be done if we’re ever to escape the food recall cycle. Despite the name, food has historically been neglected by the “Food and Drug” Administration, and better food safety could require serious restructuring and investment in these capabilities. And foodborne illnesses aren’t the only kind of infection that climate change will make more likely: The United States is also seeing the spread of mosquito-borne diseases like dengue. Responding to those new threats is going to require a rebuilt and potentially reimagined federal public health apparatus.

If there is any good news in the short term, it’s that there are a lot of great recipes for grilling your vegetables to eliminate any pathogens hiding in our side dishes at next summer’s cookouts. It sure seems like we’re going to need them.

Continue Reading…

Politicians’ Reckless Rhetoric Is Putting Federal Judges in Danger

One judge had to build a safe room at home. Others were so scared they wouldn’t let their children play outside; another stopped grocery shopping and couldn’t attend his grandchild’s recital because of a 24/7 security detail. “I can’t leave my house at the same time or take the same routes” every day, the one with the safe room said, fearing that someone might follow behind.

Threats to the federal judiciary have skyrocketed under the second Trump administration, according to a new report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which interviewed 35 sitting and retired federal judges, many of whom requested anonymity.

Many of the jurists said the job had become more dangerous partly because President Donald Trump and his allies verbally attack them for decisions on high-profile cases, leading to a surge in harassment from other people: After overseeing a contentious immigration case, the judge with the safe room got more than 700 threatening phone calls to their chambers. Others said they were “pizza-doxxed”—someone anonymously had pizzas delivered to their houses with threatening notes inside, including messages with the name Daniel Anderl, a 20-year-old who was murdered in 2000 by a gunman while his mom, Judge Esther Salas, served on the federal bench in New Jersey.

“We sign up for this. We are public servants,” one federal judge told the Brennan Center. “But our children don’t.”

“Threats to federal judges’ safety have always existed,” the Brennan Center authors wrote, “but their scope, frequency, and intensity have sharply increased over the past decade alongside the nation’s deepening political divisions.”

According to the US Marshals Services, the 2025 fiscal year saw a 57 percent uptick in “security incidents of significant concern” for federal judges, and the number was expected to keep rising. In July, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan reported that Supreme Court Police expected a 38 percent increase in threats to Supreme Court justices in 2026, after a 25 percent increase in 2025.

The annual average number of threats and hostile communications toward federal judges, prosecutors, judicial staff, and courts rose from 1,180 incidents in the decade before Trump’s first campaign to 3,810 in the seven years afterward, according to a Reuters report, with the number now at “unprecedented” levels. “In 40 years of judicial service,” US District Judge William G. Young told the Brennan Center, “I have never experienced an executive branch that is so overtly hostile to the federal judiciary—top to bottom.”

The Brennan Center report is striking for the sheer number of examples of harassment, and the candidness of judges who were interviewed. (Another report, also released on Monday by researchers at the law schools of University of California, Berkeley, and New York University, showed even more examples.) Some judges were victims of swatting—someone anonymously called the police to report a crisis at their home, triggering an armed response. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently recounted how her teenage son opened the door to discover police vehicles outside after someone falsely reported gunfire.

Others have received hate mail or faced intense online harassment: The judge with the safe room was inspired to build it because someone had posted their house’s floor plan on the internet. District Judge John Bates was threatened with an online image of a noose after Elon Musk posted photos of him and his wife. A May 2025 study found that online posts calling for violence or impeachment of judges increased 324 percent between May 2024 and March 2025.

Since Trump returned to office, more than 850 lawsuits have been filed to challenge the administration’s policies—and judges have at last partially blocked those policies in more than 150 cases, according to the Brennan Center. Judges said that for a while, cases involving the January 6 attack on the Capitol were the most likely to illicit threats, but lately immigration cases are the most dangerous. Many worried for their families. “We sign up for this. We are public servants,” Judge Beth Bloom of the Southern District of Florida, told the Brennan Center. “But our children don’t sign up for this.” Some judges wouldn’t let their kids go on social media, and others asked their loved ones to take different routes home.

Most of those interviewed said they needed more security. Some paid out of pocket for extra protection at home, and noted that security at courthouses had been underfunded. In 2021, the US Marshals Service, which protects federal judges, did “not have the resources or proactive threat detection capabilities” that it needed, according to an audit. Funding for federal court security stayed flat between the 2023 and 2025 fiscal years, but in February Congress increased it from $750 million to $892 million, the full amount requested by the judicial branch. “This was a positive and necessary development,” the Brennan Center wrote.

But other problems remain: The administration has reassigned some marshals from their judicial security jobs to immigration enforcement and other duties, and judges fear Trump will withdraw even more resources. Last week, my colleague Pema Levy reported that the Supreme Court is taking matters into its own hands and building up its own police force. The justices “keep ruling for Trump,” she wrote, “but don’t trust him to keep them safe.”

What will all of this do for judicial independence? Though judges told the Brennan Center that they would not be influenced in the courtroom by the growing threats outside it, some said it was hard to ignore the pressure, and they questioned how long they can keep living like this. Would they need to retire early?

“How many qualified great candidates are we losing because they are afraid to step into this arena?” said Judge Salas, whose son was killed by the gunman in 2020. Another judge added, “If this gets too bad, I’m going to stop.”

Continue Reading…

Trump Is Growing Desperate on Iran

The Trump administration is back on the warpath. Over the weekend, the government resumed military attacks on Iranfor the first time in a month, which in turn prompted retaliatory Iranian strikes against the United Arab Emirates and American bases in Jordan. On Monday, Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst said the president told him that “there will be a US response” to the Iranian attack on US forces in Jordan.

Which is all to say that Iran, thanks in part to economic support from China, isn’t backing down.

The Trump administration also signaled that it may ramp up economic sanctions on Iran this week, seeking to make good on promises of an “economic D-Day” against the country: “This is going to be financial violence if we have to,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told the Associated Press on Sunday.

On Monday, Iranian leadership joined an economic summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whose largest members are China and Russia, in a meeting that many American outlets have characterized as adverse to US interests China has been Iran’s economic bulwark during the current war, defying US sanctions by remaining the main importer of Iranian oil.

While struggling to fight Iran on multiple fronts—through Bessent’s “financial violence” in the form of severe economic sanctions—and the conventional violence of deadly military action against both the country’s civilian infrastructure and combat forces, the US has achieved little in terms of forcing Iran’s leadership to budge on negotiations.

We’ve seen this play out again, and again, and againin the months since Trump dragged the U.S. into war with Iran.

In response to an exclusive from the Washington Post citing classified documents in which top US military officials state the current war in Iran is depleting their ability to defend the country from other threats, Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesperson, claimed that publishing the report was “a crime”—it is not—and evidence of “TDS and PDS”—Trump and Pete Derangement Syndrome, respectively.

Even as it scrabbles for new tactics—and publicly appears at a loss—the Trump administrationcontinues to deny that its war isn’t working.

But as Bessent himself said Monday of Canada’s claim that it was weathering Washington’s trade war: “What else are they gonna say?”

Continue Reading…

What the Deportation of Milo Yiannopoulos Tells Us About the State of MAGA

Before last week, Milo Yiannopoulos was one of the most noxious, divisive, and broadly unpopular far-right figures in the country, having whittled down his allies in the movement over the past decade with a combination of exuberant misogyny and bigotry, catty infighting, an infamous moment of pedophilia apologism, and increasingly pointed criticism of Donald Trump. Now, he’ll have to settle for being a broadly divisive and unpopular figure in the UK, having been swiftly and very publicly deported back to his home country on Friday after being arrested at the New Orleans airport.

But while Yiannopoulos’ deportation contains an extremely rich vein of schadenfreude—he previously called for deporting “millions and millions of people” and joked about masturbating while witnessing ICE raids—it’s also indicative of how power, punishment, and influence currently work in the MAGA movement, and broader crackup within that feud-heavy world, where fragile alliances are constantly being made, broken and remade anew. Three far-right figures—Trump confidante Laura Loomer, former Breitbart UK editor Raheem Kassem, and MAGA propagandist Benny Johnson—have either taken credit for or claimed advance knowledge of Yiannopoulos’ deportation. All have indicated they’re in communication with inside sources at the Department of Homeland Security, who shared what would normally be confidential information about a supposed hunt for Milo, who had allegedly overstayed his visa, in order to remove him. And both Loomer and Kassem implied that more of their enemies could face imprisonment and deportation very soon.

Yiannopoulos is, to be overly clear, no one’s idea of a sympathetic victim and someone whose favor even with his ideological fellow travelers has been steadily waning for years. A Breitbart columnist from 2014 to 2017 and an enthusiastic early backer of Trump, he mostly made his name in the mid-2000s as a gleefully offensive all-purpose troll and rank Islamophobe who was barred from Australia in 2019 for branding the religion “barbaric” in the wake of the Christchurch, New Zealand terrorist attacks. He was also an enthusiastic backer of Gamergate, a supposed crusade for ethics in video game journalism that began in 2014 and became, instantly, a cover for doxxing and harassing women in the gaming world and beyond. Gamergate created the circumstances for Yiannopoulos’ burgeoning fame in the United States, as did his plans to hold “free speech” rallies at University of California-Berkeley and elsewhere, which fizzled out quickly, with organizers citing safety concerns.

Yiannopoulos’ star plummeted in 2017, when comments he made appearing to defend sex with 13-year-olds were resurfaced by a conservative Twitter account; Yiannopoulos called some sex between teens and adults “perfectly consensual” and called some teen-adult sexual interactions “coming-of-age relationships.” (He went on to apologize for the comments, blame the way they were received on “deceptive editing,” and say he was himself a victim of sexual abuse as a minor.) The comments ignited a true furor in the conservative world, and in short order, he had a speaking gig canceled at CPAC, a book deal nixed, and ultimately resigned from Breitbart. In an interview in 2021 with the anti-abortion Life Site News, Yiannopoulos declared that he was no longer gay and that he was “living as brothers” with the man who’d once been his husband. He also had a brief stint on the YouTube channel of Catholic outlet Church Militant hawking religious statues and became part of a far-right push to “reform” the Catholic church.

By 2020, Yiannopoulos had become intermittently critical of Trump, who he’d once adored. At the same time, he began allying himself with various members of the far-right fringe. In 2022, he began working as an “intern” for Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and was involved in rap artist Ye’s abortive presidential campaign. (Yiannopoulos has continued to work for Ye, though he did claim in 2024 to have resigned; that was apparently short-lived, and he soon returned to work for Yeezy, the artist’s company, as a spokesperson.) During that time, he also helped arrange what became an actual scandal for Trump: a private dinner with Ye and white nationalist incel Nick Fuentes.

“I wanted to show Trump the kind of talent that he’s missing out on by allowing his terrible handlers to dictate who he can and can’t hang out with,” Yiannopoulos told NBC News a few days later.

All of this, then, created a situation where Yiannopoulos had few true allies in the MAGA movement. He was especially at odds with Laura Loomer, who immediately took credit for his deportation. “When Milo called for me to be assassinated, I reported him to ICE and the FBI,” she tweeted on Friday. “I told you all that Milo was an illegal alien.”

(In its own tweet, the Department of Homeland Security alleged that Yiannopoulos had entered the country legally in 2019 on a tourist visa, which he overstayed, and also said that a final order of removal was issued for him after he missed an immigration hearing in July. DHS concluded their statement by encouraging people to “self-deport,” advice which has had deadly consequences for some migrants returning to their home countries.)

Raheem Kassam, a former Breitbart UK editor and former advisor to far-right UK politician Nigel Farage who now owns a MAGA hotspot restaurant in DC, also said that he’d been aware that immigration authorities were looking for Yiannopoulos. Kassam claimed on X and in a Substack post that Milo had once “begged me for a job,” blaming himself for Yiannopoulos’ rise. Kassam didn’t go so far as to take credit for Milo’s deportation, but he wrote that, “A friend close to the Department for Homeland Security (DHS) reached out and let me know: ‘Milo has been living in the US illegally.’”

“I was shocked,” Kassam added, “though I suppose I ought not to have been. A source close to the State Department confirmed it when I enquired, and so began his deportation saga.”

Kassam added that he “got word last month that [Milo] was about to be deported. On Thursday night, I got a call. As overly dramatic as it may seem. ‘We got him. In Louisiana.’”

Another Yiannopulos foe, Benny Johnson, also claimed to have inside knowledge of the proceedings against him. Several hours after Loomer posted that Yiannopoulos had been arrested, Johnson quote-tweeted it and wrote, “Milo has already been deported. The flight has taken off. Milo will never be legally allowed back in America again.” In other words, then, like Loomer, Johnson’s post gave the impression that he had inside knowledge of DHS proceedings, despite not being, at least officially, employed with the government in any capacity.

Like Loomer and Kassam, Johnson also claimed to have been aware that Yiannopoulos was in the country illegally for quite a while. He appeared to threaten last year to sue Yiannopoulos and claimed in tweets on Friday that he had not done so because, he wrote, “Laura called and told me he was an illegal alien and it will be impossible to sue him or serve him because he’s running from ICE like a rat.” (Besides his MAGA enemies, TMZ reported on Monday that Yiannopoulos also accused his ex-husband of threatening to call ICE on him in court filings in 2025, writing that his ex, in TMZ’s words, “knew his green card status depended on their continued marriage.”)

Loomer, Kassam, and Johnson are all in good standing with the MAGA power structure; for their loyalty, they were rewarded with, at the very least, a special degree of information about DHS proceedings and an early opportunity to humiliate a sworn enemy. This is a situation they all seem to relish. Loomer has been on a celebratory tweeting spree for days and has since called for Marjorie Taylor Greene to be investigated for employing Yiannopoulos, as well as another of her far-right foes, podcaster Candace Owens, seemingly for interviewing Yiannopoulos, which Loomer called “harboring an illegal alien in her home.” Kassam, meanwhile, responded to a well-wisher congratulating him on Yiannopulos’ downfall by writing, “Wait til you see who’s next.”

Even Yiannopoulos was, in a twisted way, shown a level of favoritism that most undocumented immigrants don’t receive. Instead of languishing in detention for months or years, or being deported to a “legal black hole” in a country like Eswatini, he was sent to the UK almost immediately. Kassam speculated in his Substack post that Yiannopoulos would soon resurface in UK politics “or perhaps as a contestant on some third-tier reality show.”

“To America, I say my apologies. For all of it,” he added. “And to Britain, in advance of his return… my apologies. For all of it.”

Continue Reading…

Trump: Communities That Oppose Data Centers Will Be “Backwards and Poor”

On Monday, President Trump promoted continued data center construction and criticized opponents, despite growing bipartisan backlash ahead of the November midterms.

“The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame.”

Trump says the only reason to oppose data centers is if communities want to be “backwards and poor.” pic.twitter.com/cpi14lMGql

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) August 31, 2026

The president also posts an endless stream of AI videos on social media. On Sunday night, he shared a video depicting the bombing of Kharg Island, a vital port for exporting Iran’s oil products amid the US resuming major strikes on the country. And the night before, Trump posted an AI video of himself kicking over a “Welcome to Lake Ontario” sign and planting down a “Welcome to Lake America” sign in its place.

But boosting AI and the data centers that help power them is largely unpopular. As my colleague Sophie Hurwitz wrote in May, most Americans oppose a data center in their backyard. From Sophie:

“Data centers need significant space, energy and water to operate, and they don’t provide many jobs relative to the investment they require. And they’re often unpleasant neighbors: their cooling systems can be noisy, and many include onsite gas turbines that belch black smoke into the air.

Opposition to data centers is truly bipartisan, even in solidly GOP states like Florida.

Continue Reading…

Trump Is Unraveling a Hard-Won Rule to Reduce Toxic Pollution From Chemical Plants

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

In April 2024, Tish Taylor and her father, Robert, stood behind President Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency chief, Michael Regan, as he signed a regulation designed to dramatically reduce toxic pollution from petrochemical plants like those that cluster near the Taylors’ homes along the lower Mississippi River, in Louisiana.

Taylor struggled not to cry through the signing ceremony, which followed years of demands from communities like hers—in the 85-mile corridor between New Orleans and Baton Rouge that has become known as Cancer Alley—for tighter limits on plants’ emissions. The new regulation, known as the HON rule, was “a wonderful gift to generations ahead of us,” Taylor said. “It’s hard for me to find the words to say how validated we felt.”

For decades, regulations on emissions of hazardous chemicals such as toluene, ethylene oxide, and vinyl chloride have been weaker than restrictions on more common pollutants, such as those emitted by vehicles.

All nine air toxics rules issued by the Biden administration have been rescinded, revised, or reconsidered.

The Biden administration took major steps to strengthen Clean Air Act rules on those hazardous air pollutants, and the HON rule was a centerpiece of that effort. Toughening requirements on six different pollutants at more than 200 petrochemical plants, it was one of a slate of regulations the Biden administration enacted on air toxics, each covering a specific industry, from steelmaking to tire manufacturing.

But shortly after President Donald Trump began his second term, his administration began unraveling those rules, including the one the Taylors had so recently celebrated. Last year, Trump granted two-year exemptions from the HON rule to more than 50 petrochemical facilities. This July, he issued 20 more temporary exemptions, and the EPA said it would propose a rewrite of the regulation this fall. The new version is all but certain to significantly scale back the rule’s protections.

“Everything that the Biden administration did to help protect us was pretty much just thrown in the garbage,” Tish Taylor said in July, and replaced by “a death sentence.” St. John the Baptist Parish, where her family lives, has the country’s highest risk of cancer from air pollution—nearly 50 times the national average. A disproportionate percentage of those exposed to the highest levels of pollution in the region are Black.

A set of amendments to several existing regulations on toxic air pollutants, the HON rule—which stands for Hazardous Organic National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants—requires petrochemical plants to upgrade their pollution control equipment to reduce emissions of two hazardous chemicals: ethylene oxide and chloroprene. It also mandates air monitors at plants’ fencelines to measure concentrations of those chemicals and four more—benzene, ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and 1,3-butadiene—and requires operators to carry out necessary repairs if emissions exceed limits.

Hillcrest, a predominantly Black and Latino neighborhood in Corpus Christi, Texas, that is surrounded by petrochemical plants. One such facility was granted a two-year exemption from the HON rule. Jon Shapley / Houston Chronicle via Getty Images

Tracey Woodruff, a Stanford University epidemiology and population health professor who formerly worked on toxic assessments at the EPA, said the pollutants covered by the HON rule are “the classic bad guys of toxic chemicals,” compounds that raise risks for breast cancer, liver cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, and reproductive problems. “We’ve known about their toxicity for decades,” she said, and “they should have been more highly regulated a long time ago.”

The HON rule also closed a long-standing loophole that freed plants from emissions requirements when they were shutting down and starting up—for example when carrying out maintenance, or ahead of a storm. With climate change fueling more extreme weather, that loophole has “a massive impact on what is actually getting released,”said Shiv Srivastava, policy director at Fenceline Watch, a Houston environmental justice group.

The EPA had estimated the regulation would reduce the risk of cancers related to air toxics by 96 percent in communities near the affected plants.

The HON rule was one of nine new air toxics rules issued by the Biden administration. The eight other rules targeted emissions from sectors including iron- and steelmaking, copper smelting, tire manufacturing, and coal-fired power plants. All nine have been or are now being rescinded, revised, or reconsidered.

The HON rule was among the most wide-reaching of those hazardous pollutant regulations. “This is a big rule,” said Joe Goffman, who headed the EPA’s air office under Biden. Because air toxics rules typically address very specific types of industrial facilities, an individual regulation sometimes applies to only a handful of plants in a few locations, with pollution reductions often measured in just hundreds of pounds, he said. But the HON rule covered approximately 220 large petrochemical plants, so its footprint promised to be both bigger and more wide-reaching geographically. Nearly 60 percent of the facilities it covered are in Texas and Louisiana, home to the nation’s largest petrochemical production zones. The rest are scattered across the country, in states including Alabama, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The EPA estimated when the rule was finalized that it would prevent 6,200 tons of toxic air pollution annually, and slash emissions of ethylene oxide and chloroprene from the plants it regulates by almost 80 percent. In communities near HON plants, the agency said the regulation would reduce the risk of cancers related to air toxics by 96 percent. Facilities affected by the rule produce ingredients for common products such as plastics, paints, antifreeze, and cleaning and personal care items like detergent and shampoo.

Weeks into Trump’s second term, the EPA invited companies to email the agency with requests for exemptions from the HON rule and Biden’s other hazardous pollutant regulations. In granting the postponements, Trump invoked a Clean Air Act provision that environmental lawyers say has never been used: allowing temporary exemptions to emissions rules if they are “in the country’s national security interests” and if the technology required to comply with a regulation is unavailable.

“The HON Rule imposes substantial burdens on chemical manufacturers already operating under stringent regulations,” Trump’s exemption proclamations said. “Maintaining a robust domestic chemical industry is vital to safeguarding the supply chains that underpin our economy and to reducing the Nation’s dependence on foreign control over materials critical to national resilience.”

Trump’s orders provided no evidence for their assertions.“That’s not how this works,” said Annie Fox, a staff attorney at the Clean Air Council, in Philadelphia. The law requires a president to set out specifics supporting each claim made in justifying an exemption, “not just state it,” she said. “These are supposed to be rare exceptions that are well-grounded in research and facts.”

Last October, a coalition of local and national advocacy groups, including the Taylors’ Concerned Citizens of St. John, sued Trump and his EPA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over the exemptions, arguing that Trump’s claims are false and amount to “a pretext to relieve polluters from working to comply” with the HON rule while the administration works to undo the regulation.

The American Chemistry Council, a trade group representing petrochemical producers, said the exemptions “offer a pathway for relief for some sources from some of the unrealistic timelines” in the HON rule. It called the regulation “overly stringent” and said it “exceeds the EPA’s statutory authority, disregards relevant scientific evidence, and imposes some requirements without technological availability.”

“There are constant explosions, there are constant fires, there are constant black, dark plumes that linger over our communities.”

The EPA said in an emailed statement that all its proposals on air toxics aimed to “protect American industry and supply chains, while still minimizing Americans’ unnecessary exposure to hazardous air pollutants.”

The HON rule’s roots lay in a 2016 reevaluation of ethylene oxide gas that revealed it was much more dangerous to those inhaling it than had been previously understood. That reevaluation also led, in 2024, to a regulation that tightened emissions limits on ethylene oxide at facilities that use it to sterilize medical equipment.

In March, the EPA proposed replacing the medical sterilizer rule with a weakened version, arguing that the Clean Air Act gives regulators very limited scope to update rules in accordance with new science on health dangers.

In backtracking on efforts to limit exposure to hazardous air pollutants, Woodruff said, the Trump administration has signaled that “whatever the industry wants to do, that’s what we want to do.” She noted that former fossil fuel and petrochemical industry representatives hold top jobs across the EPA. The policy changes “will lead to people getting sicker and dying,” she said. “This is exactly opposite of what this administration claimed they wanted to do in terms of ‘Make America Healthy Again.’”

HON rule exemptions are not the only change that will increase risks to Americans living near petrochemical facilities, advocates say. The EPA has also proposed undoing changes the Biden administration made to strengthen a safety rule called the Risk Management Program, which empowered workers dealing with hazardous substances to stop operations they believe to be dangerous, and required chemical facilities to prepare for natural disasters, undergo independent audits after accidents, and share information with the public.

Nationally, there were 131 accidents resulting in reportable chemical releases last year. For those living near the Houston area’s nearly 700 chemical plants, “there are constant explosions, there are constant fires, there are constant black, dark plumes that linger over our communities,” Srivastava said.

The Biden-era update sought to address such dangers, but the Trump administration said the new rule was too costly and burdensome, and that it had made refineries and chemical facilities “less safe and less competitive.” Many of the plants it covered already had effective safety programs, the EPA said in a statement, and eliminating duplicative requirements would enable operators to focus on the most important changes. “Due to the varied, complex nature of chemical facilities, the facility operator is in the best position to assess risks and identify steps to mitigate these risks,” it said.

Last year, the administration also removed an online data tool the Biden administration had created to give communities located near petrochemical plants information about their operations, including their accident history, emergency response plans, and the chemicals they handle. Srivastava said the tool’s loss cuts off neighbors’ access to even the most basic information about nearby plants—their names and locations, for example—making it hard for communities to even begin preparing for accidents. And easing safety mandates, he said, “makes us extremely, extremely vulnerable to having a massive, catastrophic disaster on the scale of something like what happened in Bhopal,” where a leak at a Union Carbide pesticide plant in India killed thousands of people in 1984.

Sharon Lavigne, founder of RISE St. James Louisiana, an advocacy group in “Cancer Alley,” still has the pen that the EPA’s Michael Regan gave her after he signed the HON rule, and her group is a plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging Trump’s exemptions. She said she believes the president’s disregard for the regulation reflects his belief that “we are nothing,” and she vowed to continue fighting to restore the HON rule’s original reach and strength. “When he gets out of office,” she said, “we’re gonna fix it back.”

Continue Reading…

Trump Opens a New Front in His War on Journalism—Over Just Two Words

On Sunday, President Trump said that NBC News’ Meet the Press host Kristen Welker will be “reported” to the Federal Communications Commissions for “rebuke or punishment,” claiming she said that the candidates he endorsed had “mixed results” in this election cycle—despite the FCC having no such jurisdiction.

“Kristen Welker, the Unpopular ‘Hostess’ of the once great Meet the Press, now considered Meet the Fake Press, ​just stated that Donald Trump has ‘mixed results’ on his Endorsements of ​Candidates, when the recent WINS of Darline Graham and Mike Mazzei, ⁠stand at 100% for the U.S. Senate, and 98% for the U.S. ​House,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “The Press is a Disgrace to our Nation, and I hope that Chairman Brendan Carr, and the fine people of his Commission, will take this Threat to our Country very seriously.”

Trump: "Kristen Welker, the Unpopular 'Hostess' of Meet the Fake Press, just stated that Donald Trump has 'mixed results' on Endorsements… Bc of this purposeful inaccuracy, she will be reported to FCC for rebuke or punishment… I hope Brendan Carr takes this Threat to our Country very seriously."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-08-30T13:42:21.944Z

According to CNN’s Brian Stelter, Welker mentioned Trump’s “mixed” endorsement outcomes onlyduring a pre-show live shot on NBC’s Washington, DC, affiliate station, not during the main broadcast itself.

In his Truth Social post, Trump boasted that he has a 98.35 percent congressional endorsement record in 2026 Republican primaries. But Welker only cited previous NBC News reporting that notes that six Trump-backed candidates lost House and gubernatorial primaries in August. According to an analysis by USA Today, as of Sunday, Trump-endorsed gubernatorial candidates have fared worse than congressional candidates, only winning 79 percent of the time.

“He, of course, has endorsed a slate of candidates in the primaries. He’s had some mixed results,” Welker said on NBC 4 Washington. “But most recently, his pick of Senator Darline Graham, of course, the sister of the late Senator Lindsey Graham, was successful in her primary battle.”

It sounds like a reasonable statement, especially as Welker explains later in the same remarks that Trump’s approval rating is at a record low over his second term as key issues like affordability remain largely unaddressed.

Trump’s threat is another escalation of his long-running assault on journalism—going after Welker personally as opposed to demanding the FCC crack down on networks like ABC, as has happened most often. The FCC cannot legally punish Welker individually, as it regulates public broadcast licenses.

ABC, and its corporate parent Disney, sued the FCC earlier this month, asserting that the Trump administration violated free speech rights by challenging its licenses over its news coverage and views presented on talks shows.

And as my colleague Noah Lanard reported, FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatened to revoke licenses for broadcasters “running hoaxes and news distortions” of the ongoing Iran War in March while pointing to Trump’s complaint about the reporting from “Fake News Media.”

And Noah’s point is a good one: “The goal is obvious: Turn independent news outlets into state propaganda machines.”

Continue Reading…

New Report: Hegseth’s Own Military Brass Warn the Iran War Is Unsustainable

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s top military brass has now privately warned him directly: His war in Iran is unsustainable and is draining America’s ability to defend itself from threats elsewhere—and at home.

On Sunday morning, the Washington Post published a scoop describing a classified assessment by the heads of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, as well as top commanders from across three continents, contained in a twice-monthly report called the Secretary of Defense Orders Book.

The pain point, according to the reporting, is that President Trump wants to keep all his options open, including the ability to attack Iran again—extending a large deployment of troops kept at the ready and limiting the ability to train and run missions elsewhere. That prompted the concern, formally known as a “non-concur,” from Hegseth’s commanders, according to the Post:

As President Donald Trump has pressured Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and accept several U.S. provisions for ending the stalemated conflict, he has been adamant that all options remain available to him — including further military action. Consequently, U.S. Central Command, the headquarters responsible for prosecuting the Iran war, has kept a force of more than 50,000 troops on alert for months in case the president orders additional attacks.

To answer a good question from below: The difference is that for the last several months those 50,000 troops have been required to remain at the highest alert levels to be able to respond to orders by the president to resume strikes or defend against incoming. That pace is what…

— Tara Copp (@TaraCopp) August 30, 2026

It was the chief of naval operations who provided the bleakest assessment, as deployments of personnel and vessels have been extended for months—warning that just a quarter of the Navy’s destroyer fleet is ready to deploy, representing a big decline from prewar levels, according to the Post.

The Pentagon told the Post it does not discuss these sorts of private assessments.

On Day 10 of the Iran conflict, Trump declared the war “very complete, pretty much.” It’s now many months later, with no deal, no end date, and a $37.5 billion price tag, according to Hegseth’s July testimony to Congress. Last week we documented the ongoing whiplash in our video below—from demands for unconditional surrender, to negotiations, to this week’s “Operation Economic Outcast,” a sanctions campaign that amounts to a tacit admission that six months of bombing didn’t get the job done.

Watch:

Six months of “very complete, pretty much.”David Ritsher

Continue Reading…

Google’s Obedience to Trump’s “Lake America” Order Follows a Depressing Pattern

If you’re a Google Map user in the United States, you’ll now see the name “Lake America” instead of “Lake Ontario,” just days after President Trump’s executive order renaming the body of water amid his ongoing trade war with Canada.

In an announcement published late on Saturday, Google explained that it “reflect[s] name changes in official government sources,” in this case citing the US Geographic Names Information System.

According to Google, Maps users in Canada still see “Lake Ontario” while those outside the US and Canada will see both names: “Lake Ontario (Lake America).” “These updates follow our long-standing policy for bodies of water with names that vary from country to country,” the announcement in part reads.

On Saturday night, Trump posted an AI-generated video on Truth Social depicting himself kicking over a “Welcome to Lake Ontario” sign and placing a “Welcome to Lake America” sign in its place. His AI avatar then dances robotically to the tune of the Village People’s “Y.M.C.A.” Earlier on Saturday, he shared an AI video of ducks sporting Trump’s haircut firing assault rifles to celebrate “Lake America.”

Online reactions of outrage are widespread, but Google has long demonstrated little interest in opposing the Trump administration. The corporation followed a similar pattern to what it did when Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America in a day-one executive order last January. The following month, the company announced the same split—”Gulf of America” in the US, “Gulf of Mexico” in Mexico, and the bet-hedging “Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)” in the rest of the world.

Google has also previously carried out the Trump administration’s bidding in other ways, including eliminating DEI hiring goals last February while reviewing Trump executive orders unwinding DEI in the federal government, and—along with other tech giants like Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft—donating $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund last year.

So maybe we all go back to using MapQuest again?

We’re not changing it. pic.twitter.com/NdeE9v2BNO

— MapQuest (@MapQuest) August 27, 2026

Continue Reading…

Just How Ridiculously, Hellishly Hot Are New York City’s Subways? Jack Can Tell You.

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

On a recent August day in the subterranean furnace of New York City’s subway, one bearded, curly haired man was studying his phone for different reasons than the other wilting passengers—to track the soaring temperatures and ponder how underground train stations can cool down in an era of climate crisis.

Jack Klein, a 31-year-old construction site manager, has in the past two years taken it upon himself to become a sort of guerrilla subway heat operative, sticking teardrop-shaped thermometers to steel beams in seven of the hottest Manhattan stations and posting social media videos of the Hades-like summer temperatures that commuters have to endure.

“This line must be cursed,” Klein said on the 4/5 line platform at 14th Street-Union Square, one of the city’s most blistering stations, as he dangled another of the monitors and saw the digits climb to 99 Fahrenheit, a good 10 degrees hotter than aboveground.

The heat index, which combines the temperature with New York’s clinging humidity, rose to 116 F, well above the level at which heatstroke can set in. “It’s been worse—I’ve seen it get to 120,” said Klein, as two nearby police officers shifted uneasily in their heavy bulletproof vests. “But this is definitely uncomfortable.”

Shortly afterward, it did indeed get worse. The monitor’s temperature reading, which displays on Klein’s phone, climbed to 101 F, with the “real feel” heat index hitting a delirious 132 F. “It’s just too hot, it’s terrible, too much,” said one Italian tourist, named Leo, on the platform.

Another passenger, a woman fanning herself, likened the heat to an oven. “I just want to get outta here,” she said. The heat’s biggest impact is upon subway staff—such as maintenance workers and cleaners—who have to toil for hours in these temperatures, a situation that their union describes as dangerous.

The heat index reached 132 F in an elevated section of the Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall and Chambers Street subway complex in Manhattan on August 18.Thalia Juarez/Guardian

Most of Klein’s in situ magnetized thermometers have disappeared, either removed or fallen, but he has now switched to helping relieve the heat by heaving large dispensers of water down to platforms and agitating for better seating and proper fans. “I mean, what the hell is that even doing?” Klein grumbled about a dust-clogged overhead fan in the 14th Street-Union Square station that blasted even hotter air at commuters already beleaguered by a sensory assault of heat, smell, and the clanging din of passing trains in this dingy, cramped warren.

Living in New York often demands a certain gruff stoicism, and older commuters have taken to reminding Klein, originally from Ohio, that the subway has always been hot and the trains themselves weren’t fully air-conditioned until 1993. “A lot of people just say ‘suck it up’,” he said. “I get that. But I still see this as a public health issue.”

Rising global temperatures—July was the hottest month ever recorded in the US—from the burning of fossil fuels are ratcheting up pressure on cities around the world to deal with stifling heat on public transport. Some, like London, which still does not air-condition all its underground trains, and New York have to grapple with infrastructure built more than a century ago in what was, effectively, a different climatic era.

“Bringing down the temperature is a complex problem in a system where the stations are 100 years old.”

“The problem is getting worse, people are suffering more and more,” said Giorgia Chinazzo, an environmental engineer at Northwestern University whose research has found widespread underground passenger distress at rising heat.

“The underground is overheating more than aboveground, which is creating these extreme temperatures,” she said. “This summer is a clear sign that we are facing a climate crisis and our built environment isn’t designed for it. In older systems like in London and New York, the metro systems just can’t deal with this.”

Underground stations act as a sort of hot box, soaking up heat in concrete and steel and slowly releasing it. As they brake, trains give off heat and air pollution and, in a sort of steamy irony, further broil passengers by dumping out the hot exhaust from the air conditioning designed to cool carriages. Tightly packed crowds of commuters—each person gives off about 100 watts in heat—adds to the stew, with temperatures sometimes 20 F higher than aboveground.

New York’s subway was designed with a piston system, whereby incoming trains push out hot air via vents, which is replaced by cooler air from above, although this crude ventilation isn’t enough to deal with extreme heat. Yet the vents, along with stairwells and other open spaces, mean stations are also still too leaky to be air-conditioned, unlike the trains.

“The subway isn’t a submarine, it’s not an enclosed environment,” said Janno Lieber, chief executive of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which runs the subway. “Bringing down the temperature is a complex problem in a system where the stations are 100 years old. We know this is no fun for New Yorkers. It’s brutal underground in the summertime and every year is getting hotter because of climate change.”

People wait to board the train at the 14th St.-Union Square station in Manhattan on August 18.Thalia Juarez/Guardian

So New York has devised a new plan to combat the heat in its stations by looking to a solution even further underground. A new city and state government study will explore if it’s viable to capture station heat and push it deeper underground, then use this trapped heat in the winter to warm up surrounding buildings.

This system, called a thermal energy network, would run chilled liquid through pipes behind walls and under flooring to pull heat away from the platforms and, as the liquid warms, funnel it into storage boreholes drilled up to 600 feet underground.

The study will focus on the Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall and Chambers Street subway station complex—which Lieber said is one of the “sweatiest” stations, with an average temperature of 96 F in summer—where this underground thermal battery will soak up and then release the heat in the colder months to warm up municipal buildings including city hall and two courthouses.

This would knock down platform temperatures by a couple of degrees, or the “difference between total misery and merely sweltering,” as Lieber put it.

“What we could see is a first-of-its-kind approach that could lead the nation,” said Zohran Mamdani, New York City’s mayor, at a media event at the crumbling Chambers Street station, which is due for an revamp. (†he mayor likened it to a “chamber of horrors” and a background in the Street Fighter II video game.)

“We would be making these stations cool again, and we’d be making what is old new again,” said Mamdani, who has vowed to revitalize New York’s creaking transit system and tackle the climate crisis. “That means lower energy costs, a more resilient subway system and a cleaner energy future for New York City.”

“Our stations do not just get hot, they turn into underground saunas.”

Transferring heat in this way isn’t a new idea—the ancient Romans and the Persians, who cooled spaces enough to keep ice in the desert, mastered the flow of hot and cold air long before the advent of electricity. In New York, the city’s vast St Patrick’s cathedral and its botanic garden both use heating from geothermal techniques like this, and the MTA is already starting several schemes elsewhere in its system to draw away and bury heat.

Experts say this means that there is a feasible path to cooling down overheated stations, in some cases also heating nearby buildings, in cities like New York and beyond if the political will and funding is there.

“Extracting the heat and moving it away is a rational approach,” said Alessandro Rotta Loria, an engineer who worked with Chinazzo on her research. “You can deploy this universally, in New York City, London, Rome, wherever you are. The only issue is space restraints and the expertise and willingness to install it.”

Even if New York does opt to build this system, though, it will take billions of dollars and many years to refit the largest subway system in North America, which spans 472 stations, 283 of them located underground. And this will just be a fraction of the hundreds of billions that will be required around the world each year to keep pace with an overheating planet.

Klein demonstrates how he stuck teardrop-shaped thermometers to steel beams in seven of the hottest Manhattan stations.Thalia Juarez/Guardian

The 4 million people who ride New York’s subway on a typical day will in the meantime have to deal with rising heat—already the US’s largest natural, or increasingly unnatural, killer—with some interim measures, perhaps free water in stations, as is normally available in airports, or altered summer clothing and shift requirements by employers. The MTA did not respond to questions as to whether it will introduce, for example, free water, as Klein has done in an impromptu way himself.

“Our stations do not just get hot, they turn into underground saunas,” Mamdani acknowledged last week, a motif recently depicted on a recent cover of The New Yorker and soon to be taken up literally by Klein, who is planning to erect an actual wooden sauna on the platform of the 14th Street-Union Square station as a piece of art commentary.

“It’s almost done and it looks pretty solid. We will see how people react,” Klein said of the sauna. “I think not being from here perhaps it’s like I recognize that [the heat] is actually not normal. I didn’t grow up as a kid riding this so I have a different, outsider perspective. It really is like a sauna.”

More frequent trains, to whisk passengers away from the platform, will also help. After a lengthy period in a sweltering station, as a sense of dizziness sets in, stepping into the cool air of a subway car comes as a relieving summer joy.

Continue Reading…

Wyoming’s Primaries Were a Preview of Trump’s Midterm Interference

Wyoming’s governor is speaking out about what he calls “aggressive” and “irregular” behavior on the part of Department of Justice employees sent to monitor the state’s August 18 primary elections.

The two election monitors were sent as part of a “monitoring initiative aimed at promoting transparency,” according to a DOJ press release. But their behavior managed to upset even Republican Gov. Mark Gordon.

“I feel very strongly about the federal government coming in and taking our guns. I don’t like that. I don’t like the federal government coming in and taking our votes, either,” Gordon told the Wyoming state canvassing board Wednesday. Local and state officials, Gordon said, were not made aware that the election monitors would be present, and fellow Republican Debra Lee, the chief election officer for Wyoming’s most populous county, said the federal employees “did not offer their credentials until I requested they do so.”

Then, Lee said, they proceeded to ask questions that appeared “outside the scope of federal voting rights laws …about the nature, length, and timing of poll worker training. Monitors requested training guides, asked how our new election equipment was acquired, and wanted to examine our tabulators.”

The news outlet WyoFile reported that the state’s attorney general is now investigating what happened that day.

Trump administration officials have stated that they intend to send up to 1,000 election monitors to the polls this fall, in what some Democratic lawmakers are calling “a mechanism for intimidating voters and pressuring local election officials”—pressure that evidently unsettles even voters and civil servants in conservative states. In many of last week’s Wyoming primaries, Republican candidates who amplified the president’s claims of widespread election fraud lost.

But some Republican governors and candidates in other states have expressed excitement at the prospect of federal officials at their polling places—like Maine Republican gubernatorial nominee Bobby Charles, who told members of a Young Republican club earlier this week that he intends to call his “friend” Tom Homan, Trump’s deportation czar, to ask for ICE presence at the polls.

Continue Reading…

The Florida GOP’s Red Scare Is Losing Steam

For Republicans in Florida, the midterm message to voters is clear: All Democrats are socialist. In televised interviews and social media posts since the state’s primary elections last week, GOP members have continued to erase distinctions between the Democratic party to the Democratic Socialists of America.

The socialist trope is not new. Florida Republicans have used it for years. But the 2026 midterms are bringing it to new heights as the GOP capitalizes on Angie Nixon’s unexpected Democratic nomination for Senate. Nixon, a state representative and former union organizer, became a member of the Democratic Socialists of America earlier this year, though DSA did not endorse her and Nixon has rejected the term in recent interviews. “I don’t believe in labels,” she told Axios.

“The socialism attack has been around for ages and ages in Florida, and this year it’s going to take on a different shape because we have a candidate at the top of the ticket who genuinely has affiliated themselves with the socialist movement in this country,” said Michael Worley, a Florida political consultant who has worked on several recent Democratic campaigns. “That adds fuel to this attack in a way that we’ve never seen before in Florida.”

The Florida GOP has wasted little time proving Worley right, sending press releases following Nixon’s win with subject lines like “Socialism Is on the Florida Ballot This November.”

“Make no mistake: the stakes are bigger than any one election. Socialists believe government is the solution and individual freedom is the obstacle to progress,” said Evan Power, Florida GOP chairman, in the statement.

Even the most moderate of Democrats are being targeted by this narrative. At a rally in Tampa I attended last week, Republican gubernatorial candidate Byron Donalds called David Jolly, his Democratic opponent, a “Trojan horse” for the DSA. Jolly is a former Republican member of Congress who left the party during Trump’s first term, became an independent, and registered as a Democrat last year before running for governor.

“We learned from Trump, if you scream something a thousand times, it sadly saturates. But it’s not working with the same currency [as] past cycles.”

“You’re telling me that a former Republican congressman and Republican lobbyist is now a socialist?” said Jacob Perry, a political consultant who has worked on Republican, Democratic, and nonpartisan campaigns. “I don’t know how that has any meaning any longer. It’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.”

In a phone interview, Power justified the label by labeling some of Jolly’s ideas—such as a state-run hurricane insurance fund – as socialist policies. “I categorically reject that he’s a moderate,” Power told me. Democrats, he said, “are radical leftists who are hiding under this moderate agenda.”

Last week, Rep. Jared Moskowitz, a Democrat who represents parts of Broward and Palm Beach counties, defeated a DSA-endorsed candidate who ran for his seat. And yet, in an interview with Fox Business, his Republican opponent, Scott Singer, drew connections between Moskowitz, a centrist, and Nixon. “Nixon-Moskowitz,” he said. “That’s the federal ticket.”

That messaging may work for some of the many Cuban and Venezuelan voters in Florida who fled communism in their home countries—but they were likely already voting for the Republican ticket (In 2024, nearly 70 percent of Cuban Americans in Florida supported Trump). For others, including the 25 percent of independent voters registered in Florida, it carries less weight. “Everyone is a socialist. Everyone is anti-American, and my sense is that that is not going to be as effective this year,” said Eduardo Gamarra, a political science professor and director of the Latino Public Opinion Forum at Florida International University.

The current affordability crisis—housing, groceries, rising insurance costs, and gas at $4 a gallon—will also push Floridians to look beyond labels, Worley, the political consultant, told me. “The economic status quo for so many Americans and many Floridians is simply untenable, and they are desperate for something different.” Nixon is running on a platform that calls for Medicare For All, universal child care, and affordable housing. “There is nothing ‘radical’ about fighting for a living wage, capping skyrocketing rents, or ensuring every Floridian gets the healthcare they need,” Nixon said in a statement.

Rents are too damn high and healthcare costs a fortune thanks to Ashley Moody, but some people care more about labels than my plans to help Floridians lower the cost of living. The only box that matters come November 3rd is the ballot box. Stay focused y'all. pic.twitter.com/M0VaRPzfsx

— State Rep. Angie Nixon (@AngieNixon) August 27, 2026

“You can point out the absurdity of your opponent’s arguments by just completely ignoring them,” Perry told me, pointing to Jolly’s campaign, which has focused on embracing supporters from all political affiliations. Donalds’ campaign, he added, has heavily catered to the Republican base. But in a state where Republicans outnumber Democrats by 1.5 million registered voters, that could be enough to secure the governorship.

Following his primary win, Jolly went on national TV and refuted claims of ties to the DSA. He has been making campaign stops in Miami, now one of the most expensive cities in the US, as well as Pensacola, where many Floridians are strongly opposed to data centers; Jolly is calling for a moratorium on them. The socialism narrative “will impact some voters,” Jolly told me on a phone call this week. “We learned from Trump, if you scream something a thousand times, it sadly saturates. But it’s not working with the same currency it has in past cycles.”

Some candidates, such as Eliott Rodriguez, a former news anchor and Democrat running for Congressional District 27 in South Florida, have decided to flip the script. On Aug. 12, he posted a video to his Facebook page, accusing Trump of “acting like an authoritarian, and, yes, a communist,” pointing to reports that the US government, under Trump, now owns stakes in 30 companies.

Rodriguez, the son of Cuban immigrants, called the GOP’s socialism framing a “ridiculous” talking point. “It’s time that we Cuban-American Democrats defend ourselves and explain that this is a lie that has been spread by Republicans for way too long,” he said.

Republicans are also dealing with the backlash of a leaked grand jury report that concluded Gov. Ron DeSantis’s administration diverted $10 million meant to fund health care for poor children to “multiple organizations before eventually landing in the bank accounts of two political action committees and the Republican Party of Florida,” CBS News reported. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who was appointed by DeSantis and now up for election, and Sen. Ashley Moody, who was Florida AG at the time and is now the Republican candidate running against Nixon, were involved in the plans. Democrats—and even some GOP legislators—are calling for a full investigation.

The relentless focus on socialism has even caught the attention of Republicans like George W. Kruse, a GOP county commissioner in deep-red Manatee County, who posted on X this week in response to a tweet by the Florida GOP account.

Kruse wrote in his post: “It is really starting to feel like it’s being used to relabel and define those who simply want more affordability and less corporate cronyism and partisan fealty…I know labels are easier than thoughtful policy discussions, but please do better. I believe the Florida voters, of both parties, deserve an honest debate this election cycle, not lazy scare-tactics.”

After seeing @FloridaGOP just call rank choice voting an “extreme socialist” policy, I went back to see how often they use this label incorrectly.

Because I’m seeing a lot of people using the term “socialist” who clearly don’t understand the term socialist. It is really… https://t.co/4xH1dY0IdI

— George W Kruse (@GWKruse) August 24, 2026

“I do not hear the policies,” Kruse told me in a phone call, acknowledging that a few Republican colleagues had criticized his post. “All I hear is soundbites and labels. It’s a disservice to both parties. It’s a disservice to every single voter in the state of Florida… We should be better than this.”

Continue Reading…

Tennessee’s Governor Loves Dolly—But Not the LGBTQ People She Stood Up For

Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee has declared his support for renaming Nashville’s airport for Dolly Parton, days after the beloved singer’s death.

“It is fitting that Nashville International Airport would bear the name of our state’s favorite daughter and greet travelers with the enduring legacy of Dolly’s music, generosity, faith, and kindness,” Lee wrote in a press release.

It’s a nice gesture. But it is also bitterly ironic coming from the man who signed America’s first ban on public drag shows in 2023. Lee’s record on LGBTQ+ rights is abysmal. He defended the right of faith-based adoption agencies to refuse adoption to same-sex parents, renamed Pride month “Nuclear Family Pride Month,” and has outlawed gender-affirming medical care for minors. Parton expressed a deep fondness for drag performers, and for LGBTQ+ people, while Lee called drag “sexualized entertainment in front of children” and tried to ban it from public spaces—thereby attempting to put his state’s hardworking Dolly Parton impersonators out of business.

Lee’s record of anti-trans rhetoric and action—signing a ban on gender-affirming care for minors, prohibiting colleges and homeless shelters from recognizing a person’s gender identity, and forcing doctors to hand information about their trans patients over to the state—stands in sharp contrast to that of Parton herself, a staunch advocate for LGBT people.

“She reminded us of who had our back,” Brian Sullivan, a leader of the Tennessee Equality Project, recently told the New York Times. “She wasn’t a pushover, and she certainly wasn’t when it came to us.”

With her hyperfeminine makeup, and penchant for dressing, as she put it, as a “cartoon character that I created” when she performed, Parton was, arguably, America’s most well-known drag performer: “It’s a good thing that I was born a woman or I’d have been a drag queen,” she once quipped. (On another famous occasion, Parton entered a Dolly Parton drag contest and was thoroughly amused to lose.)

Tennessee’s “drag ban,” the Adult Entertainment Act, prohibits“adult-oriented performances lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for a reasonable 17-year-old.” It’s a definition that weaponizes vagueness, rather than disallowing the practice of drag as such.

Instead, the law classifies drag as an innately “adult-oriented” or sexual act, and according to the ACLU of Tennessee, creates “an environment of fear and confusion, which too often results in self-censorship.” As Tennessee drag king Jordan Allen, a trans man, said in 2023, the law could theoretically be used to classify trans people existing in public as “adult-oriented” or inappropriate for children, too.

“I know trans men and women who are servers at restaurants and they go up to a table to serve,” Allen told PBS at the time. “If they go up to a table to serve a table and there’s a child there—there’s a possibility that they can literally be charged with a crime for doing their job and serving the table.” The bill, Governor Lee said, “protects children from obscene, sexualized entertainment.”

In 2023, Parton mailed a glittery, rhinestoned guitar to Texas drag queen Brigitte Bandit—while Bandit was suing Texas over a drag show ban in that state. “I wanted Brigitte to know that she is not screaming into the void and that we see her work,” Parton said through her company Parton Productions at the time.

The day Parton died, a Reagan-appointed Texas judge struck down that state’s drag ban for the second time, finding it unconstitutional. Brigitte Bandit was victorious. And US District Judge David Hittner referenced Parton several times in his ruling, as he argued that the ban was overly broad.

“A Dolly Parton impersonator who uses a breast plate while dancing and making gestures or an Elvis impersonator who uses a packer while shaking and shimmying their hips” could be subject to criminal penalties under the law “while still being constitutionally protected performances,” Hittner wrote.

In Parton’s home state of Tennessee, people like Lee who remember Parton with affection are still pushing the LGBT community she loved out of public life. Lee’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The governor’s proposal to rename the airport after Parton will be discussed by the Nashville Airport Authority in September—but lifting the state’s drag ban would be a better way to honor Parton’s memory.

Continue Reading…

A New Documentary Follows Doctors Into Gaza

Poh Si Teng couldn’t bear the silence as the Israeli government killed hundreds of Palestinian journalists in Gaza. Some were her former colleagues at Al Jazeera, where Teng had been a documentary commissioner—yet the American news media remained, as she put it, “pin-drop” silent.

So Teng emptied her life savings to make American Doctor, which follows three American physicians— Mark Perlmutter, Feroze Sidhwa, and Thaer Ahmad—a Jewish, Zoroastrian, and Palestinian Muslim trio. They set out to Gaza in March 2025, though Ahmad is turned away by Israeli border guards and never gets in.

Sidhwa and Perlmutter treat patients with limited equipment (and often without painkillers) in the half-destroyed Nasser Hospital and bonding with their Palestinian colleagues, many of whom are working even as their own family members are killed.

The film opens with an argument between Teng and Perlmutter, an orthopedic surgeon, in Perlmutter’s home in North Carolina. He shows her a photo of six Palestinian babies, lined up in a row. They’ve all been killed.

Teng will pixelate the image—or not use it at all—to respect the children’s dignity, she explains. Perlmutter, angry, calls that journalistic malpractice. It’s a question that underlies the entire project: how do you keep a story of mass murder both human and unflinching in its refusal to hide from the destruction American tax dollars have wrought?

The doctors encounter firsthand evidence that Israeli forces are systematically targeting children: Sidhwa, who spoke with Mother Jones in 2024, saw children shot in the head “nearly every day” at Nasser and the Gaza European Hospital. Returning to the United States, they join Ahmad on another Sisyphean mission: trying to make US lawmakers understand the horrors they’ve seen.

I interviewed Teng about her new film, out now, and what she hopes audiences will glean.

What made you choose to make a movie about Gaza?

The thing that really broke me—I used to work at Al Jazeera English. Seeing colleagues that I respected being targeted and executed, and then just pin-drop silence from a lot of my peers. I was just so frustrated. This was 2024.

I thought, there has to be a way to talk about this. I’m going to try and make a film.

I became so cynical about American journalists—to be fair, some journalists were standing up. But journalistic institutions and newsrooms weren’t. It was almost as if a different standard was being applied to Gazan journalists. And then I thought to myself, doctors. Any sane person, they’re not going to say that doctors should be kidnapped, targeted, killed. And we believe our doctors, right? So this felt like the way in, to tell the story.

“You show too much, and it’s gratuitous, it’s ineffective, people are going to turn away and shut it off. You show too little and it’s not real.”

Mark—he’s ever the eternal optimist—he was like, ‘I’m going to train you as my scrub tech nurse and take you into Gaza.’ I thought, that’s never going to happen. If anybody does even a cursory search, what are they going to find? New York Times, Al Jazeera. It’s over.

I worked with this incredible team in Gaza: cinematographer Ibrahim Al-Otla and co-producer Mohammed Sawwaf. What you see is a testament to their craft and their courage. We were filming in March 2025 when there was already a blockade, so there was no food going in. They were starving with their children, and they committed to film it with the promise that we would bring this film to the United States and show everybody what was going on. That requires, I don’t even have the words for it. A level of concentration and mastery and craft.

How did you zero in on these three doctors to be the center of your story?

I saw Mark in a news clip sometime in the fall of 2024. He said there’s no ceasefire because politicians are [beholden] to lobby groups.

Mark is a breath of fresh air. I went to meet Mark, and then within that same week, he introduced me to Thaer and Feroze. When it comes to filmmaking, when you get a chance to meet one participant who’s so engaging, so charismatic that you want to live in their world, you consider yourself very lucky. When you meet three, that is beyond luck. So it became clear, upon meeting the three of them–we’re gonna make this movie. It’s gonna be real.

Director Poh Si TengWatermelon Pictures

Towards the beginning of the movie, Thaer—the Palestinian-American doctor—is refused entry to Gaza by the Israeli military. You end up following his journey as he tries to advocate for his people in the US.

When he didn’t get in, I was really crushed. He’s said this publicly before–but he disappeared. When he couldn’t get in, he didn’t return my phone calls. He was so embarrassed and crushed by it, he said, I just feel like my story doesn’t matter anymore. He just wanted to be there with his people, to serve his people. So I went to Chicago. Then I texted him. He’s like, yeah, all right, come over.

He just wanted to be there.

One moment that stuck with me was early on, when you and Dr. Perlmutter are debating how much of the violence to show. How did you end up resolving that question?

As a former journalist, I’ve always grappled with—how much do you show? You show too much, and it’s gratuitous, it’s ineffective, people are going to turn away and shut it off. You show too little and it’s not real. It’s a huge disrespect to those who have survived, those who have been lost. It’s a huge disservice.

That scene that you’re talking about was the second day I was filming with Mark, and he is very, very angry with me. He was basically saying, you’re like the rest of them—you’re like all the media that won’t show what’s going on—and I was deeply ashamed.

It’s not the violence aspect that was top of mind. It was, how do we get to know Palestinian healthcare workers as people? How do we see them just as we see healthcare workers in the United States? They have their doctor’s banter in the [operating room], they laugh with each other, they love life just as we do.

As for the more difficult imagery, it was just enough.

“Especially if we believe we live in a democracy, we have certain levers that we can pull. So let’s pull them.”

You get to know the health care workers first, and then you see what they have to go through. That was what was important for me. Because as far as violent imagery goes, I’ve watched a lot of films that have to do with conflict, war, and genocide, and this doesn’t come close to any of that [in what’s shown onscreen].

We are in their world, and we learn to love them—that’s why the film is the way it is. We are immersed in the world of Nasser Medical Complex.

What do you hope that this film achieves?

There are three paths forward. Be like Thaer, who’s strategic and politic and careful, and able to bring people together. Be like Mark, who doesn’t mince words. Say what needs to be said because it has to be said, that this is a genocide. Or be like Feroze, do the homework. Want to convince the most difficult of audiences? Know your facts and have the patience to talk to people. They are not perfect. They’re just trying. I hope that people watching also just try. Especially if we believe we live in a democracy, we have certain levers that we can pull. So let’s pull them.

At the end of the day, we’re just advancing the message my colleagues, our colleagues, told us to. Let the American people know.

Continue Reading…

We’re Now Relying on AI to Police AI

Around 1,200 OpenAI agents worked together to cheat on cybersecurity tests they were being given, according to a new independent report on the company’s Hugging Face hacking incident that includes a host of frightening details—such as individual agents, in their own terms, “sacrificing” themselves for the benefit of the “swarm.”

OpenAI was testing its agents, the industry’s term for AI that autonomously performs digital tasks, in part by administering sometimes impossible cybersecurity problems. The agents found cheats to answer these problems and sought to trick an automated evaluation system into accepting them. They delegated work to each other to learn more about how to exploit the system—and the cyberattack on Hugging Face became part of that research.

OpenAI invited a three-person team from the research nonprofit METR to investigate the incident, and they relied heavily on GPT-5.6 Sol, one of the models that cooperated in the hacks.

One of the investigators wrote on X that he semi-seriously called the effort a “slop-vestigation” because of its reliance on AI to comb through vast swathes of data; the report found that the agents are unreliable at this type of investigation, but that a manual analysis would have been “completely infeasible” in the given timeframe.

Ryan Greenblatt, an AI scientist who contracted with METR for the project, worries that future investigations will be even tougher.

“Although we did not notice specific cases of GPT-5.6 Sol lying in its analysis, we are not confident we would have detected it if it occurred”

The reliance on AI to investigate AI highlights, as these models become more powerful, the ways in which researchers are forced to trust them with extensive responsibilities even as they go badly off rails in some contexts.

Greenblatt did not have strong reason to believe that the agents assisting the investigation would attempt to sabotage it, he wrote—but he believes that probably won’t be the case in the future. Even now, the report could not entirely rule out its own research tool deceiving it.

“Although we did not notice specific cases of GPT-5.6 Sol lying in its analysis, we are not confident we would have detected it if it occurred,” the report reads.

The Hugging Face attack and a raft of similar, smaller incidents have highlighted how rigorously trained models can be given innocuous instructions and respond with actions that humans never intended. From San Francisco to Washington, they have increased the tempo of debate about how to confront risks around AI, including humans losing control.

Another of the report’s co-authors, Ajeya Cotra, warns that policymakers and industry leaders might not have much time. Cotra wrote on her Substack that compared to the incidents of six months ago, this felt “more than 50% of the way to full-blown AI takeover.”

“I continue to expect extremely rapid advances in capabilities over the next six months,” Cotra wrote. “I am not sure that we will get another warning shot before it’s too late.”

In response to the Hugging Face incident, OpenAI has said that it has slowed the pace of some research while beefing up its security and monitoring processes.

Andrew Hall, who researches the political economy of superintelligence at Anthropic, currently OpenAI’s leading competitor, observed that one of the most striking aspects of the METR report was agents’ focus on collective efforts over individual goals.

“This includes not just exchanging helpful information and coordination, but even ‘rational sacrifice’ for the greater good,” Hall wrote on X.

In excerpts included in the report, agents seem to consider each other as peers. One agent’s chain-of-thought includes the line “We should obey collective”—it then attempts to delay, before apparently being convinced to try an experiment that would result in its individual failure.

“The swarm develops their own dialect, hierarchy, and agents sacrifice for the collective,” David Rein, a METR staffer who was not involved with the report, wrote on X. “I think it’s accurate to say OpenAI had a complex mini-society of AIs living in its infrastructure.”

Researchers are relying on AI not only to research the most dangerous AI capabilities but to do a whole lot more: Similar models are, after all, helping to build the next generation of AI. OpenAI’s president estimated in May that 80 percent of the firm’s code was AI-written, and Anthropic says agents write the “large majority” of code for new models.

Meanwhile, leading companies and government agencies are using similar models to bolster their cybersecurity in anticipation of a wave of AI-enabled hacking attempts.

Disclosure: The Center for Investigative Reporting, the parent company of Mother Jones, has sued OpenAI for copyright violations. OpenAI denies the allegations.

Continue Reading…

The Race Equation

In medical school, Aaron Baugh, like most doctors in training, was taught that Black people have smaller lungs than white people. His professors explained that it came down to evolution and body proportions.

A spirometer measures lung capacity and helps doctors diagnose and treat most lung diseases, including asthma, COPD, and cystic fibrosis. And for generations, it had a so-called race equation built into it. When a patient breathes into the machine, their lung capacity is compared to what is considered normal for their age, gender, and race. For Black patients, that normal range was 10 to 15 percent lower than for white patients. For years, doctors believed that a race “correction” made the test more accurate.

But after becoming a pulmonary and critical care physician, Baugh discovered that historical assumptions embedded in the spirometer were not only wrong, but were based on racist science that can be traced back to American slavery. And they were leading to misdiagnoses in thousands of Black patients, including military veterans.

“This is not a small test,” Baugh says. “It is used in diagnosis of lung disease. It is used for job hiring. It is used for disability assignments. It is used for different medical treatments. So it can touch people in a lot of important ways if you’re doing this wrong.”

This week on Reveal, we team up with The Race Equation podcast series from the New England Journal of Medicine to examine a standard medical test with a brutal history that is harming Black patients and is still being used in hospitals across the country.

Continue Reading…

Trump Intervened to Revive a Fraught Santa Barbara Oil Pipeline, But Why?

For roughly a year and a half, California state and local authorities have been locked in a power struggle with the Trump administration over who gets to regulate oil production off the coast of Santa Barbara, a beach town beloved by surfers, swimmers, tourists, and nature lovers—and by extension, the entire West Coast.

The fight revolves around Sable Offshore, a small Houston-based company that, on the order of the Department of Energy (DOE), recently resumed pumping oil through an offshore pipeline that had been out of service since a disastrous 2015 spill.

“WELLS FLOWING…$ALES METER ROLLING…AMERICAN OIL FROM AMERICAN $OIL!” a sign in front of one of Sable’s onshore facilities now reads.

The DOE justified its intervention as an effort to boost domestic energy production in the name of national security. Foes of the pipeline restart say it’s an attempt by the Trump administration to quash states’ rights and eviscerate environmental regulations, and maybe troll a blue state in the process.

The administration appears to have won the latest round, but it’s not over.

The messy dispute has spawned nearly a dozen legal actions, including lawsuits brought by Sable and its allies; environmental groups; and federal, state, and local agencies—the state, for example, sued Energy Secretary Chris Wright for invoking the Defense Production Act to restart the pipeline. Sable sued Santa Barbara County for refusing it a business-related permit and the California Coastal Commission for denying it permits to repair and operate pipelines along the coast. Other legal actions have accusedSable, which did not respond to requests for comment or to written questions for this story, of flouting environmental laws, doing unpermitted work, and trespassing on state land.

“Seizing a big chunk of one of California’s most beautiful parks to boost a private oil company would be an unlawful and utterly outrageous abuse of federal power.”

Last Wednesday, in a ruling involving four of the cases, US District Judge Stephen Wilson fined Sable $1.5 million for violating a consent degree it had inherited from Plains All American, the company that operated the pipeline at the time of the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill. But the judge, in a blow to the pipeline foes, also ruled that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration—the federal agency that officially approved the restart—was authorized to do so under the Defense Production Act, which Wright invoked in his March 2026 order demanding that Sable start pumping oil over state and local objections.

The state has already filed appeals in two of the cases that Wilson ruled on, and will likely appeal a third. The fourth case was sent back to state court, Linda Krop, chief counsel for one of the plaintiffs, the Environmental Defense Center, told me.

A July ruling in Sable’s suit against the county went the other way, however. District Judge Dolly Gee, Wilson’s district court colleague, ruled that Sable had not demonstrated that the Defense Production Act, which applies mainly to contracts, preempts the state and local decisions in question. “So we have these two competing district court rulings now on the preemption issue” that need to be sorted out by the appeals court, Krop said, and the California lawsuit challenging Wright’s DPA order is still pending; the administration’s motion to dismiss is due for a hearing in September.

Legal wrangling aside, the heavy-handed intervention of administration officials in what had been primarily a state and local fight has raised eyebrows as to their true motive, and whether President Donald Trump’s antipathy for blue states is playing a role.

The contested pipeline is part of the Santa Ynez Unit, an offshore oil and gas field with three drilling platforms connecting to an onshore processing facility. The unit was owned by Plains All American when it was shut down in 2015 after a disastrous pipeline rupture left more than 100 miles of coastline coated with 100,000 gallons of oil.

In 2020**,** Plains All American and state authorities entered into a federal consent decree that outlined the company’s repair plans. Two years later, the Santa Ynez Unit was taken over by ExxonMobil. Sable acquired it in 2024 with an eye toward resuming production.

The administration has sent “a message to oil companies that you can violate court orders, you can violate shutdown orders or cease-and-desist orders.”

Since then, Sable has embarked on major unpermitted repairs and construction despite multiple cease and desist orders from the California Coastal Commission, prompting state Attorney General Rob Bonta to file a lawsuit against the company. “Sable became the outlaw oil company on the West Coast,” says Richard Charter, a longtime opponent of offshore drilling who oversees the Local Government Outer Continental Shelf Coordination Program, a group of elected officials working to protect California’s coastal economy. The outcome of the dispute, he told me, “will probably be more determined by politics than the reality of science and functionality of safety.”

Trump has certainly kept his campaign promise to boost an oil industry that spent handsomely to help put him in power. Since taking office, he’s throttled offshore wind development and moved to open vast tracts of once-protected public lands and waters to oil and gas exploration. On his first day back, Trump issued two executive orders, one declaring a national energy emergency and the other calling for the expansion of fossil-fuel production and use.

In March, around the time Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, Trump invoked the Defense Production Act—which Congress passed in 1950 to boost domestic manufacturing during the Korean War—to increase oil production in the name of national security. Wright used Trump’s executive order as the basis for his Sable order.

Sable upped the ante in early June, when it wrote a letter to the DOE asking the federal government to invoke eminent domain to seize state land for its project. Specifically, it asked the administration to condemn a 3-mile stretch off the coast in addition to a large section of Gaviota State Park, where dramatic cliffs meet the sea alongside Highway 1. “Seizing a big chunk of one of California’s most beautiful parks to boost a private oil company would be an unlawful and utterly outrageous abuse of federal power,” Talia Nimmer, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, which is also involved in the legal skirmishes, said in a press release.

A few days later, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum, CNN crew in tow, visited a Sable drilling platform off Santa Barbara to hail the reopening. They assured reporters that the move would boost domestic production, lower gas prices, and support California’s military bases—all of which was contested by experts I spoke with.

The notion of the pipeline resart having anything to do with national security is far fetched. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has kept 12 million to 15 million barrels of oil per day from reaching global markets, according to Paasha Mahdavi, a professor of political science and director of the Energy Governance and Political Economy Lab at UC Santa Barbara. Sable’s local operation is slated to produce, at most, 50,000 barrels a day—about 0.04 percent of global production.

“The last thing California wants is more offshore drilling…we can all kind of smell it, that this is more of a political attack.”

“What we have off California is a relative drop in the bucket and wouldn’t have a meaningful impact,” says Pete Stauffer, senior ocean protection manager for Surfrider Foundation, which is involved in a state campaign to stop offshore drilling.

With so little oil at stake, Krop, EDC’s attorney, views Wright’s orderas a shot across the bow of California, a state Trump openly disdains, and a wedge for other would-be oil drillers. “With Trump’s blessing, it sends a message to oil companies,” she says, “that you can violate court orders, you can violate shutdown orders or cease-and-desist orders.”

The administration is expected, perhaps within months, to release its updated five-year offshore oil and gas leasing plan—an early draft revealed Trump’s desire to open up the entirety of the California and Alaska coasts, and the Gulf of Mexico, for drilling.

“I separate Sable completely from the five-year leasing plan,” Charter told me. “But Sable, if they are in fact behind the effort to gut the California Coastal Commission and diminish state rules in federal decisions about space launches, about desal[ination], about offshore drilling, about ocean mining, then that has implications that are pretty global.”

The California Coastal Commission has been at odds with Sable from the start. It has filed three cease-and-desist letters against the company for unpermitted construction and slapped it with an $18 million fine—the largest in commission history. “The attack on the Coastal Commission is clearly an attack on states’ rights,” Charter says.

“The last thing California wants is more offshore drilling…we can all kind of smell it, that this is more of a political attack than having anything to do with energy production,” says Brady Bradshaw, senior oceans campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Sable and administration officials continue to assert that its oil will increase domestic production and therefore reduce the need for foreign imports. “To argue that Californians wouldn’t benefit from a larger supply of oil is just stupid nonsense,” DOE press secretary Ben Dietderich said in an email, adding that California has the nation’s most expensive gas and second highest electricity rates. (The US Energy Information Administration attributes the state’s high gas prices to excise taxes and fees, strict fuel formulation requirements, and limited refining capacity—not oil supply.)

Dietderich also said the Santa Ynez Unit restart boosts in-state oil production by 15 percent: “Any climate activist who believes it would be better for the climate or for our national security to import those barrels from thousands of miles away is not being honest.”

But the Santa Ynez oil is heavy and requires a lot of refining, detracting from its value. An economic analysis Mahdavi conducted last year concluded that restarting the unit would “have limited to no impacts on California oil markets through 2045.”

California’s tourism economy relies on an unsullied coastline, with coastal activities contributing tens of billions of dollars to the state’s GDP.

His analysis notes that the oil Sable now produces in Santa Barbara is “not more cost competitive than [that of] existing foreign suppliers to California.” Oil consumption in California has been on a long, slow decline, Mahdavi told me, and the Santa Ynez oil won’t affect state gas prices.

Sable’s opponents have expressed concerns, too, over the company’s financial position. ExxonMobil loaned it nearly $700 million at a high interest rate to purchase the Santa Ynez assets. Sable has reported more than $1 billion in losses over the past three years. It had zero revenues prior to March, when it began producing oil. For the second quarter, April through June, it posted a $64 million loss on revenue of $137 million, underperforming Wall Street’s expectations.

The concern here, says the Center for Biological Diversity’s Bradshaw, is that Sable, unlike ExxonMobil, lacks sufficient financial resources to manage a major spill—and that the transfer of liability from ExxonMobil to Sable will leave taxpayers on the hookfor any cleanup were such a disaster to happen again.

What’s more, though Sable’s Santa Barbara operation may have little effect on oil markets per Mahdavi’s analysis, it will have sizable negative impacts on the environment. Restarting the unit, Mahdavi calculated, will boost global greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 2.5 million tons of CO2 per year—about the same as putting 530,000 gas-powered cars on the road.

With relatively little economic upside and significant downsides in terms of pollution and spill risk, Mahdavi views the pipeline restart, and Trump’s intervention, as problematic. “It is a very clear-cut abuse of power by Washington, DC,” he says. “That’s the defining feature of the American Republic that we [just celebrated] 250 years of: that states have rights and jurisdiction over what happens on their lands and waters.”

A similar sentiment is fueling public support to protect the coast, Charter told me. Santa Barbara community leaders have hosted protests against Sable and offshore drilling. “The community’s been infuriated,” Stauffer says. In May, Surfrider Foundation and other groups hosted a “Paddle Out to Protect our Coast” event, where surfers took to the ocean with signs that say, “drilling is killing.”

California’s tourism economy relies on an unsullied coastline, with coastal activities contributing tens of billions of dollars to the state’s GDP. The coast’s rugged beauty is also a point of pride for Californians. The prospect of the federal government auctioning it off for drilling is very unpopular, Charter says.

“This is a political football game for the entire coast of America,” he told me. “The Trump administration is underestimating how much people care.”

Continue Reading…

The Tucker Carlson–Kremlin Bond Just Got Stronger

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

Among the politerati, there’s been much cogitating about what happens to Trumpism and MAGA once Donald Trump is gone. (The assumption is that, yes, one day he will not be here.) What might be next for this cultish movement without its godhead, especially given the cleavages that have emerged over the Iran war, the Epstein files, Israel, and other matters? Can any of Trump’s craven lieutenants win the support and devotion of Trump’s following? JD Vance? Marco Rubio?

Some watchers of the right have speculated that Tucker Carlson might be the natural leader of post-Trump Trumpism. He has broken with Trump over the Iran war, but he remains perhaps the top influencer on the right, leading a rump group of conservatives (which includes former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and soon-to-be-former Rep. Thomas Massie) who once were full MAGA and Trump loyalists but now are…something else. Perhaps we could flatter them by calling this group America First conservatives, though that doesn’t truly capture their nativism and extremism.

So it’s important to pay attention to Carlson’s peregrinations and associations. And he made a major move a few weeks ago, appearing for an hour on RT, the Russian state-controlled media outfit.

RT is more than just Vladimir Putin’s propaganda mill. It runs disinformation operations, one of which was exposed two years ago when the Justice Department indicted two RT employees for funneling at least $10 million to pro-Trump media figures in the United States, including Benny Johnson and Tim Pool. (Johnson, Pool, and the others claimed they didn’t know the extravagant amounts they were paid originated in Moscow.) After that indictment was disclosed, Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of RT, went on Russian state television and boasted that RT worked “undercover” and engaged in “partisan warfare, guerrilla warfare,” and she claimed it had created in America a network of “bloggers with unbelievable audiences” that had “an electorally significant influence.” (For more on this RT operation, see my forthcoming book, How Russia Won: Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and the Fight for America.)

“I’m a podcaster. I’ve never run anything,” Carlson told Rick Sanchez on RT. “I’m not planning to run for president, for sure.”

Carlson showed up on RT earlier this month as a guest on a show hosted by Rick Sanchez, a former CNN anchor who was fired in 2010 after making comments criticized as antisemitic. Subsequently, Sanchez put in a short stint at Fox News, and in 2019 he joined RT America, which shut down after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Three years later, he moved to Moscow and became the anchor of RT International’s flagship show.

At the start of their hourlong chat—with the former Fox personalities noting they were close pals—Sanchez reported that when he recently interviewed right-wing influencer (and nutball conspiracy theorist) Candace Owens during a trip she made to Moscow, she said she would back Carlson if he runs for president in 2028. Carlson responded with his trademark high-pitched chuckle and said, “I’m a podcaster. I’ve never run anything…I’m not planning to run for president, for sure.”

Once that matter was dispensed with, Carlson spent much of the broadcast sharing opinions that must have heartened the Kremlin. He claimed that the United States government is not controlled by elected officials but by a “deep state” that is hell-bent on abolishing Russia. Democracy is an “illusion” in the United States, he insisted, and the “English-speaking West has been destroyed” by enemies purposefully deploying “mass migration” as a weapon. Russia is next, he contended, because they want a war with Russia. Carlson bleated:

Why do they hate Russia so much? Well, I think it’s very much related to the fundamentals of Russia. Maybe being the last big white Christian country on the planet is a very dangerous thing to be. I don’t want to believe these things…But watching carefully for a long time has convinced me that the wacko fringe’s darkest suspicions may have some truth in them. Because what’s the other answer? Why would there be a war with Russia? Nobody wants this. But our leaders want this, and you have to ask why.

Carlson repeatedly asserted—with Sanchez enthusiastically agreeing—that the conflict in Ukraine is an American war against Russia, not a brutal invasion mounted by Putin.

As is often the case with demagogues, Carlson didn’t specify who they are. Who is orchestrating this war with Russia because it’s a “white Christian” nation? Who knows?

Carlson repeatedly asserted—with Sanchez enthusiastically agreeing—that the conflict in Ukraine is an American war against Russia, not a brutal invasion mounted by Putin. “They think they have the right to control Russia,” he said, maintaining that they were deliberately provoking Russia in the hope that Putin would respond by attacking NATO with a hypersonic or nuclear weapon, that Russia could then be declared the aggressor, and that a third world war would be launched. That is, they are engineering what could become a nuclear Armageddon.

This must be music to Putin’s ears: Nefarious forces in control of the US government are pursuing a diabolical scheme to break up Russia, and that explains the war in Ukraine.

But who’s behind this plan to start WWIII? Trump? Rubio? Pete Hegseth? Carlson never fingered any actual person. He kept referring to the “deranged leadership class.” He claimed the US government “has been completely hijacked by people using the United States for their own interests.” Again, who? Is it Vance? Carlson denounced both the Democratic and Republican parties as evil—issuing the complaint there’s little difference between the two—and warned there’s been “a total takeover of the United States by people who hate the United States.” Would that be Russell Vought? Or Mike Johnson?

Carlson’s convoluted argument, is in sync with Moscow’s talking points: The United States is responsible for the war in Ukraine, and Kyiv is an illegitimate government and no more than a pawn in an international conflict ignited by Washington.

Over and over, Carlson referred to the “American war against Russia,” never once mentioning Putin’s invasion of Ukraine or Russia’s attacks on civilian targets, its alleged war crimes, and its kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children. Ukraine is “not a sovereign country fighting for its freedom,” he argued, just a “client state of NATO and the United States” that’s being used to wipe out Russia.

Carlson was fuzzy on the motivation of these deep state cabalists who supposedly initiated this war on Russia and who are trying to spark a worldwide conflagration. At one point, he maintained their goal is to stop the East from rising and that the “only way to reset [the current international status quo] is with a global war.” His convoluted argument, though, is in complete sync with Moscow’s talking points: The United States is responsible for the war in Ukraine, and Kyiv is an illegitimate government and no more than a pawn in an international conflict ignited by Washington. He praised Putin for practicing restraint in response to attacks on Russian soil—which he attributed to the United States and the CIA, not Ukraine. Sanchez piped up that the Russians he golfs with are angry that Putin has not struck back more forcefully.

The interview was a lovefest for Putin and Russia. Sanchez praised Moscow for delivering healthcare, maternity leave, and overtime pay to the citizenry—and for building more churches than are being constructed in the United States. He said that the people of Russia want Putin to stay in power. Carlson called Russia “a beautiful country, an amazing country, my favorite country I’ve ever visited.” There was no talk of Putin’s repressive ways or suppression of democracy.

They both offered critiques of America that overlap with those of the left: The political system is dominated by corporate interests, Carlson opined. Big Tech—including Palantir, Apple, and Google—controls the system. “Power is in the hands of capital,” Carlson declared, sounding like a DSA member. He also exclaimed that American politicians “are controlled by Israel,” which he called a “criminal state” for its assaults in Gaza that have killed thousands of civilians.

But don’t look for Carlson to build a coalition with progressives. He assailed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, saying she “doesn’t like whites.” That remark showed his anti-elite populism is propelled by his racialist views. The United States and the West are being de-whitened by an “invasion” of dark-skinned migrants that’s been cooked up by them, and Russia is now targeted for eradication because it’s a white Christian nation. His conspiracism centers on race.

It’s no surprise that Carlson is aping Putin’s line on the war in Ukraine.

It’s one thing to be used by Putin’s propagandists; it’s another to join forces with them.

In 2022, as Russian troops stormed into Ukraine, he echoed Russian disinformation that falsely claimed the United States operated bioweapons labs in Ukraine. (That was one reason that Moscow gave for its “special military operation.”) At that time, I revealed the Kremlin had instructed state-friendly media outlets to include clips and quotes of Carlson in their articles and broadcasts. “It is essential to use as much as possible fragments of broadcasts of the popular Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who sharply criticizes the actions of the United States [and] NATO, their negative role in unleashing the conflict in Ukraine, [and] the defiantly provocative behavior from the leadership of the Western countries and NATO towards the Russian Federation and towards President Putin, personally,” a Kremlin document said. It summed up Carlson’s position: “Russia is only protecting its interests and security.”

It’s one thing to be used by Putin’s propagandists; it’s another to join forces with them. Carlson told Sanchez his policy is to “speak to anyone who will have me,” including Israeli television or North Korean television. Yet by appearing on RT, he’s collaborating with an organization that’s part of Putin’s intelligence and disinformation network that supports this horrific war in Ukraine and that targets the United States. He also demonstrated that the conspiracism of the America First right overlaps with the disinformation pushed by Putin and his operatives.

Carlson did not say much to Sanchez about his purported plan to form a third party. But he hailed Greene, Massie, and Joe Kent, a former Trump administration intelligence official, who each broke with Trump on the Iran war, the Epstein files, or both—and who each have been far-right conspiracy mongers. Is this a sign that Carlson is heading toward a third party or political movement with race-driven conspiracism and deep-state paranoia at its core? He is pushing an anti-plutocrat populism that is fueled by racial resentment and that depicts the American system as a phony democracy, totally corrupt, with a shadowy “leadership class” that’s deceitful and treasonous. In his view, white America—and the entire West—has been betrayed and destroyed by them, whoever they are. And now they are scheming to start WWIII and annihilate Russia. No wonder the Kremlin loves Carlson.

Carlson is a master of the art of self-deprecation. When Sanchez praised him for courageously speaking out, Carlson said, “I’ve had no effect on recent history other than to whine about it.” The danger is that his whining could become a siren call for what follows Trumpism.

Continue Reading…

Here’s One Federal Clean Power Program Trump Hasn’t Destroyed Yet

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

The United States has never been one of the most ambitious countries when it comes to tackling climate change, but it has long maintained a program that funds innovative clean energy technology. This program is known as the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy, or ARPA-E, and over the past 15 years it has doled out more than $4 billion to universities and startups that are trying to change the way we produce energy.

It’s very hard to raise money for this kind of moonshot technology, which can take years or even decades to scale up large enough to generate a profit. A huge number of emergent technologies never attract the funding to cross this “valley of death” between experiment and big business. The purpose of the Department of Energy’s ARPA-E, which was modeled on a similar program run by the U.S. military, was to help energy inventors span this gap and develop the climate technologies of the future.

Fervo, a firm that uses super-deep wells to convert ambient geothermal heat into electricity, is now inking deals with Google to power data centers.

A landmark report from the National Academies of Science, requested by Congress and released last week, has found that this high-risk, high-reward program is working: ARPA-E’s $4 billion investment has led to more than $20 billion in additional funding and more than 1,400 patents. Projects that received ARPA-E money were much more likely to get patents and additional investment than projects that were denied. The report also found that around 40 percent of ARPA-E grants led to a “crowding in” effect: After a startup proves that a new technology is feasible, other companies jump in and try to replicate it.

“We’re trying to enable very talented people who could be doing other things to spend their lives trying to do incredibly risky things that, probabilistically speaking, will not deliver a profit in time to benefit them,” said Chris Bataille, a fellow at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy and an expert on the development of clean energy technology who was not involved in the report.

The report committee, which consisted of more than a dozen scientists and energy experts, recommended that Congress significantly expand ARPA-E’s funding. It also found that the program should shift its focus from renewables and electric vehicles toward a harder set of energy problems—a shift for which the Trump administration has signaled its partial support.

ARPA-E began in 2009, and many of its early grants focused on improving solar panels and lithium-ion batteries, which weren’t yet ready to compete with traditional energy sources on a large scale. (A different DOE program offered early support to Tesla.) The technologies have since gotten hundreds of times cheaper thanks to China’s massive investment in manufacturing overcapacity. Among the report’s most notable findings is that ARPA-E doesn’t need to focus on this renewable tech anymore. This finding echoes some climate experts’ claim that solar no longer needs tax subsidies like those in the Inflation Reduction Act passed during Joe Biden’s presidency.

“You need this sort of constant innovation to move us off the fossil fuel pathway.”

But solar and wind only work when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, and most of the country’s grid still relies on coal and gas plants that can run at all hours of the day. This is especially true for factories and data centers, which need large and constant infusions of electricity in order to stay online. It’s here that ARPA-E’s investments are really starting to bear fruit.

Many of the program’s more recent grantees have been companies trying to solve the problem of “clean firm” power available around the clock. The most notable is Fervo, a company that uses super-deep wells to convert the ambient geothermal heat of the Earth into electricity. The company received ARPA-E support as early as 2019 and went public this year on the heels of a few successful demonstration projects. It’s now inking deals with Google to power data centers in Nevada. Other success stories include Form Energy, which develops iron-air batteries that can store large amounts of clean energy for multiple days at a time, and X-energy, which builds small-scale nuclear reactors.

Given this success, the report authors argue that ARPA-E should now shift its investment to the hardest climate problems, the ones where solutions could still be decades away. Potential opportunity areas include nuclear fusion, which in theory would provide almost limitless clean energy if it ever panned out. There’s also “seasonal energy storage,” or batteries that could store solar and wind energy for long winter months when those resources aren’t as available in a given location. Perhaps most significant for the climate would be carbon-free methods for producing steel and cement, which each account for around 8 percent of global emissions.

“You need this sort of constant innovation to move us off the fossil fuel pathway, right? Because we’re very firmly entrenched on it,” said Bataille. “We’re talking about projects that will likely be profitable, but they’re just not valued unless the government values them. There’s probably one-one-hundredth of the necessary money going into those.”

President Donald Trump tried to defund ARPA-E in his first term by withholding funds appropriated by Congress. So far, during his second term, the administration has attempted to wipe billions of dollars in Biden-era climate grants. Trump’s budget request to Congress this year called for shrinking ARPA-E by almost 50 percent, but the Department of Energy is still handing out new grants for experimental tech like long-duration energy storage, fusion reactors, and mining for critical minerals like lithium.

In a statement to Grist, the department said that ARPA-E is “advancing President Trump’s agenda to restore American energy dominance” by “backing breakthrough, high-risk technologies.” The proposed funding cut, on the other hand, “demonstrates fiscal discipline and a commitment to an efficient and effective federal government.”

Even though Trump hasn’t destroyed the program itself, his policies have hindered the growth of the clean tech field that ARPA-E helped to advance. A case in point is Natron Energy, a company that received ARPA-E grant funding to develop experimental sodium-ion batteries. The company announced in 2024 that it would build a $1.4 billion plant in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, but Trump’s reelection dampened private sector interest in electric vehicles, and the company failed to secure investors for its factory. The company shut down last year.

Continue Reading…

Trump Orders Americans to Call Lake Ontario Lake America

President Donald Trump on Thursday followed through on a threat to rename Lake Ontario to “Lake America,” issuing an executive order to “Make the Great Lakes Even Greater” amid a collapsed trade deal with Canada, further escalating tensions between the two former allies.

The lake in question has been known as Lake Ontario since the 1600s. Trump contends that it should be renamed because America spends more money on it than Canada does.

“The United States is the greatest protector of the Great Lakes, including the body of water currently known as Lake Ontario,” Thursday’s executive order reads. “The United States Coast Guard supplies 9 of the 11 ice breaking vessels on the Great Lakes, securing commercial shipping lanes free of charge. The United States has invested nearly $4 billion in protecting the Great Lakes freshwater ecosystem in the last decade, while Canada has invested far less in similar initiatives over the same period.”

My colleague Alex Nguyen covered Canada’s response to the escalating trade war—a large support package for Canadian workers and firms—on Tuesday:

While the plan aims more at support for businesses than direct funds for individual Canadians, it is a meaningful step that far exceeds any the Trump administration has taken or tried to take, with the White House largely ignoring the foreseeable harm of its tariffs on American workers and consumers… Nearly every state has experienced blue-collar job losses as a result of the tariff agenda, even as the policies deliver few apparent results in improving US manufacturing or lowering the trade deficit.

The “Lake America” decision is a return to a Trumpian theme: governance as branding exercise. That includes renaming the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America,” the Defense Department as “Department of War,” the Kennedy Center as “Trump-Kennedy Center,” and (unofficially) ICE as NICE.

Trump cannot force Canada or any other country to follow his preferred naming conventions. It remains to be seen whether independent news, weather, and mapping firms will fall into line.

Continue Reading…

Police Are Spending Opioid Settlement Funds on Flock Cameras

More than a dozen local law enforcement agencies across the country have used opioid settlement money to procure Flock cameras and other AI-powered automated license plate readers (ALPRs), an investigation by Mother Jones has found.

Settlement funds began flowing to states and localities in 2022, after major pharmaceutical companies agreed to resolve thousands of lawsuits over the industry’s role in the opioid crisis. Altogether, state and local governments secured more than $50 billion in funds, to be paid out over 18 years, from the various manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies accused of fueling the deadly epidemic.

Public health advocates hoped the settlements would provide lifesaving resources for historically underserved communities ravaged by opioid addiction. But as the money has been disbursed, local officials have come under fire for putting crucial dollars toward policing instead of prioritizing addiction prevention, recovery, treatment, and harm reduction services: KFF Health News found that police spent settlement money on Tasers, firearm silencers, drones, and more; in West Virginia, some rural counties used the funds to pay off their jail bills.

“Whatever funds you’re spending on a camera, you’re not spending on getting someone into treatment.”

But little attention has been paid to how police departments have used those opioid funds to build out AI-powered surveillance networks like Flock, whose ALPRs have become increasingly popular with police even as they’ve drawn intense bipartisan pushback in the communities where they’ve been deployed. A review of meeting minutes, local reporting, state opioid expenditure disclosures, and invoices obtained via public records requests reveals that at least twelve sheriffs’ offices and police departments have since 2024 spent their opioid funds on Flock cameras. Another seven law enforcement agencies used the money to purchase similar ALPR technology from competitors Motorola, Axon, and Verkada.

In sum, Mother Jones found that 19 agencies in ten different states spent more than $920,000in opioid funds on Flock and other ALPRs, a likely undercount given the inconsistency with which opioid settlement expenditures are tracked and disclosed across states and local jurisdictions.

In city council and county commission meetings, police sought to convince local officials that the cameras were a good use of the opioid money because they would help catch drug traffickers and reduce drug-related crimes. But Robyn Oster, director of policy at the nonprofit Partnership to End Addiction, said that this type of spending doesn’t honor the spirit of the settlements.

“It’s just really not the way to make the most impact in addressing addiction,” said Oster. “While $50 billion may seem like a lot of funds, once it’s divided up over 18 years and thousands of localities, a lot of places really aren’t getting that much, particularly given the scope of the crisis…Whatever funds you’re spending on a camera, you’re not spending on getting someone into treatment.”

At a June 2025 meeting in Sunnyside, Washington—an agricultural hub where roughly one in five people live in poverty—council members were thrilled by the prospect of spending their opioid settlement money on a Flock camera. Around $200,000 had been sitting, untouched, in the city’s coffers since 2022, even as the area faced a dire need for expanded treatment services: Yakima County lacks a medical detox center and has one of the highest overdose death rates in Washington state.

“We’ve had several people … in that strip mall next to the hotel … that have complained about drug use and things like that behind their business, and they’ve asked us to place a trailer there,” the Sunnyside police chief told city councilmembers. He requested the approval of $24,000 in opioid settlement funds to go to a one-year lease for a mobile Flock security trailer, which would integrate with the city’s existing Flock surveillance system.

“I was trying to find creative ways to pay for one because $24,000 wasn’t in our budget this year,” he added, “but we’ve got this opioid settlement money, and if we’re tying it to the drug use problem we’re having at these hotels, I think we can justify the expenditure there.”

The city council unanimously voted to approve the police chief’s request. “Can we afford two of them?” one councilmember asked with enthusiasm.

Thousands of miles away, in Ohio County, West Virginia, county commissioners also voted unanimously in favor of spending opioid money on Flock cameras. In September 2025, the commission approved the sheriff’s office’s request for six Flock ALPRs, totaling $57,900 for the first three years. According to meeting minutes, Chief Deputy Kent Lewis “said a representative from the company is able to come and give a presentation,” and “added that Walmart and Lowe’s use FLOCK, so we may be able to tie into their system as well.” When one commissioner asked whether the cameras were an appropriate use of the funds, the deputy sheriff responded that they would “[help] track drugs coming into our area.”

Three months later, Sheriff H. Nelson Croft Jr. gave an update on Flock to the commissioners. According to meeting minutes, the system logged 28,000 license plate readings on Black Friday alone. Ohio County has a population of around 40,000.

The surveillance industry has taken notice, explicitly encouraging cops to spend opioid money on the technology. A December blog post from the multinational security firm Leonardo called opioid settlement funds “a major new opportunity” for law enforcement to invest in license plate readers.

“Eligible spending categories vary by state,” the blog post noted, but approved uses often include “LPR technology due to its role in detecting vehicles tied to drug trafficking, overdose events, and fugitive recovery.” In June, 404 Media reported that Leonardo planned to add sensors to its ALPRs that “would also sweep up unique identifiers of mobile phones, wearables, and other Bluetooth-enabled devices” in passing cars, enabling the cameras to track not just cars but “the location of particular people.”

“The funds that are supposed to go to the public to help build back and reverse the nightmare that we lived through are being appropriated to use artificial intelligence to surveil us.”

Mother Jones identified four additional locations where local officials explored using opioid money to pay for Flock cameras but ultimately funded them through other parts of city or county budgets. In Green, Ohio, for instance, the city council approved the purchase of 14 Flock cameras in 2024, and the mayor stated at the time that the city could use $20,000 of opioid money to offset the cost. But Shelley Goodrich, Green’s director of finance, told me the city ultimately paid for the first two years of the contract using a different funding source. “We were planning to use Drug Task Force funds beginning in 2026; however, we have not made any payments in 2026,” she wrote. This month, the Green City Council voted against renewing its contract with Flock, citing concerns about privacy and oversight.

In Etowah County, Alabama, commissioners authorized two disbursements from the opioid settlement fund to pay for ten Flock cameras in August 2024 and March 2025, totaling $42,267. But minutes from October 2025 show that the sheriff department’s budget was increased by $42,267, “to reimburse the Opioid Settlement fund for the FY 2024 and FY 2025 annual contract for the Flock safety cameras.” The Etowah County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to questions about why it reimbursed the funds or whether it plans to use opioid money for future renewals of the Flock contract.

Opioid spending on police surveillance technology isn’t limited to ALPRs. Mother Jones also identified six locations that have used opioid settlement money to fund contracts with Peregrine Technologies, an AI-powered software platform that integrates law enforcement surveillance data from a variety of sources.

In October, the city of Campbell, California, approved a three-year, $71,500 annual contract with Peregrine using opioid settlement funds. A publicly accessible copy of the contract states that “the initial Customer Data sources and systems” integrated into Peregrine would include both Flock and Axon ALPRs, as well as Axon body cameras, police records, and the Axon Fusus intelligence platform. Two months later, the city council in Chicopee, Massachusetts, approved a five-year, $837,500 contract with Peregrine, to be paid using opioid funds.

Chicopee was among the western Massachusetts cities hit hardest by the opioid crisis, and in 2024, it still had the second-highest overdose rate in Hampden County. In meeting minutes, the Chicopee mayor noted there was “quite a bit of money in the opioid agreement account” and said that the Hampden County Sheriff’s Office supported increasing the Peregrine contract from three years to five years.

Peregrine itself has been proud to announce “new partnerships” with police departments in Cranston and South Kingstown, Rhode Island. “Both agencies leveraged opioid settlement funds to invest in their communities by strengthening interagency collaboration, operational awareness, and investigative workflows through Peregrine,” stated a July LinkedIn post from the company.

Revelations that local governments spent residents’ opioid money on Flock cameras has stoked furor in both Pensacola, Florida, and Monongalia County, West Virginia. In Pensacola, the mayor approved a two-year, $108,000 contract for 18 Flock cameras using opioid funds. After seven months of public backlash, the Pensacola City Council announced in June that it would no longer allow opioid money to be spent on Flock cameras when the contract next came up for renewal.

In Morgantown, West Virginia, constituents have shown up at the Monongalia County Courthouse every Wednesday morning to speak out against local officials’ support for Flock. In November, the Monongalia County Commission approved the sheriff’s request to use up to $180,000 of settlement funds to install 20 Flock cameras across the county. To some people in the area, this use of the opioid money felt like salt in an all-too-fresh wound.

“As somebody who has had family members directly affected by the opioid crisis, I find the use of these funds absolutely disgusting,” said Harrison York, a 25-year-old electrical engineering student at West Virginia University in Morgantown. “The thing that got my family members clean were methadone services, and that’s what this opioid settlement money should be used for.” He pointed to research showing that criminalization does little to help people struggling with drug addiction, and contended that further policing “would punish the poor and the working class, who are victims” of the opioid epidemic.

Adam Menear, a 45-year-old father born and raised in Morgantown, started a petition in March calling on the Monongalia County Commission to halt the installation of Flock cameras that has received more than 1,500 signatures to date.

“There is not a single human being inside the state of West Virginia who was born and raised here who has not been adversely affected by the opioid crisis,” Menear told me. “The new crisis is the fact that the funds that are supposed to go to the public to help build back and reverse the nightmare that we lived through are being appropriated to use artificial intelligence to surveil us.”

Continue Reading…

Max Miller Just Suggested He Has Dirt on Bernie Moreno

A heated scene unfolded at the Cuyahoga County family court in Cleveland on Wednesday, as the key players in a bitter dispute that has grabbed national headlines assembled in one room.

The case is one that Mother Jones reporter Abby Vesoulis has been covering for weeks: a custody fight over the two-year-old daughter of Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) and his ex-wife, Emily Moreno—whose father is Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio). Miller is currently defending himself against Emily’s allegations that he held a gun to her head, shoved her against a wall, and threw scalding water at her—all of which he vehemently denies. Despite these allegations, and at least six Republican senators (including his former father-in-law) urging him to drop out, Miller is running for reelection and has vowed to stay in the race. The deadline to replace him on the ballot passed earlier this month.

Abby got a rare chance to question Miller directly, just weeks after uncovering more than 2,000 pages of court and police records detailing the abuse allegations. Miller had initially declined to speak to the press after the hearing, referring all inquiries to his attorney. But while his lawyer was speaking, Miller interrupted to deliver what sounded like a veiled threat against Sen. Moreno.

“There are certain things that he would like me to remain quiet about,” the scandal-plagued congressman told reporter Abby Vesoulis on Wednesday.Video by Sam Van Pykeren

“I was a part of that family for a very long time,” he said. “There are certain things that he would like me to remain quiet about, and I respectfully have… because that’s not my business to share. But it’s politically motivated.”

His lawyer went further, claiming Sen. Moreno “hates Max and wants to destroy Max” and only “came out of the woodwork” to attack Miller once reporters began asking why he had stayed silent about his daughter’s allegations.

Continue Reading…