Mother Jones

297 readers
16 users here now

Smart, fearless journalism

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
1
 
 

This was created byThe War Horse, a nonprofit news organization educating the public on military service. Subscribe to its newsletterhere.

Joy Metzler had expected to still be in uniform, working as a junior officer at her Air Force engineering job. Instead, she found herself protesting outside the United Nations, weakened from participating in a 40-day fast as she called on authorities to deliver full humanitarian aid to Gaza and end US weapons transfers to Israel.

The soft-spoken 23-year-old had pursued military service with enthusiasm. She graduated from the Air Force Academy in 2023 and received her commission the same year, hoping that the military would provide a meaningful way to give back to a country that became her home when she was adopted from China as an infant.

“I wanted to protect people. I wanted to serve,” said Metzler, who met her husband, now an officer in the Space Force, at the academy.  “And I don’t think it’s a far cry to say that I’m the kind of person who doesn’t mind putting my body on the line for things I believe in. So the military really just kind of made sense.”

Hotline callers were saying, “I do not want to be part of pointing a gun at US citizens and maybe shooting it.”

Then, a crisis of conscience changed everything.

Shaken by the United States’ support for Israel’s protracted bombing campaign on Gaza, Metzler took the dramatic step of applying for conscientious objector status, a way out of the military reserved for those who can prove that their beliefs no longer align with service. For her, an eight-month application process involving probing interviews and pages of essays resulted in her successful discharge as a conscientious objector in April.

But the emotionally grueling decision can come with a steep cost, from alienating military comrades and even family members to paying back tens of thousands of dollars for tuition and other military benefits.

Historically, the number of service members applying for conscientious objector status in the last quarter century from an all-volunteer force has been relatively low, with the Army seeing a dozen or fewer applications per year since 2019 and fewer than 75 in any year since 2001. By contrast, during the Vietnam War—the last US conflict to employ a conscripted force—some 170,000 men across multiple services were granted conscientious objector deferments, and about 61,000 in 1971 alone.

Volunteers who field calls from troops in moral quandaries say they recently experienced a surge that appears to be driven by another conflict: President Donald Trump’s contested order last month that sent 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles to quell protests related to immigration enforcement operations.

Two rows of national guard troops in full fatigues and helmets walks away from the camera on a sunny day and toward the staircase of a federal building in los angelesSoldiers with Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment, California Army National Guard arrive at the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles on June 22, 2025. Sgt. 1st Class Christy L. Sherman/US Army

Steve Woolford first noticed a change at the GI Rights Hotline the week of June 8. That was when Trump doubled the presence of National Guard troops in Los Angeles and ordered a contingent of Marines—an infantry battalion from Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center 29 Palms, California—into the city.

While the hotline typically receives between 200 and 250 calls a month, about 50 calls came through that Sunday alone, with additional messages left by callers who couldn’t get through, Woolford said.

Most, he said, also didn’t fit the conventional definition of a conscientious objector, opposed to wars and warfighting.

“What a number of them spoke to was, ‘I do not want to be part of pointing a gun at US citizens and maybe shooting it, like, I’m here to protect US citizens, even if they have different beliefs,’” Woolford told The War Horse. “So there were people who were having, I guess, a different version of ethical dilemma…They just didn’t believe this is all what they signed up for or agreed to.”

To be sure, it’s too early to know if the flurry of hotline calls might lead to a spike in conscientious objectors; it would be months before any resulting applications are processed.

At the heart of the tension is a court-contested deployment of troops—the members of the Guard, in a notable departure from standard practice, without approval from California Gov. Gavin Newsom—to back up domestic law enforcement, including support of ICE operations.

The ongoing legal dispute leaves troops little choice for now but to follow Trump’s order, said Carrie A. Lee, a senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States and a former professor at the US Army War College.

“It’s actually a very high bar for thinking about disobeying unlawful orders,” Lee told The War Horse. “There is no provision for what a service member decides is immoral or unethical, because those are personal judgments based on personal decisions about morality and ethics. And you know, you can’t be injecting every unique individual’s own ethics into military orders.”

The cluster of groups that staffs the GI Rights Hotline is cognizant of that tension. It means, at minimum, that refusing to go when ordered comes with a cost. Woolford, whose father was a Navy officer but who found his way into anti-war activism as an adult, says he practices “nondirective counseling”—helping troops identify their situation, options, and possible resources rather than pushing them toward a course of action. Sometimes, he said, that’s frustrating to callers.

“Some people, whatever they saw online [regarding the LA deployment] gave them the expectation that I was going to be able to say, ‘Yes, [the orders are] illegal and you can refuse them and nothing will happen to you,’” Woolford said. “But, yeah, I would not be telling someone truthful information if I said that.”

While the GI Rights Hotline dates to 1994, groups supporting conscientious objectors predate the all-volunteer force. The Center on Conscience and War, which supports the hotline, was founded in 1940 by churches disturbed at the abuse conscientious objectors underwent in World War I, according to Bill Galvin, the organization’s counseling director.

Conscientious objection, for its part, predates the Revolutionary War, as many early settlers, particularly in colonies like Pennsylvania, were Quakers, who were pacifists as part of their religious practice. Perhaps the most famous American conscientious objector was Desmond Doss, a World War II combat medic who refused to bring a weapon into battle yet earned the Medal of Honor—the nation’s highest military award—for heroism in saving dozens of wounded men under fire.

The typical call to the GI Rights Hotline comes from service members who have experienced a religious conversion or other change that alters their views on warfighting.

“You don’t have to be a full-on pacifist to be a conscientious objector.”

Another common call, Galvin said, comes from people registering as required by law with the US Selective Service System who want to put their conscientious objection on the record in the event the country ever brings back a military draft.

By the start of July, hotline calls had largely returned to the normal volume and rhythm, Woolford said.

In today’s all-volunteer force, enlistees must sign an affidavit that they don’t have an objection to war as part of entry paperwork. To be a successful objector after a service member has donned the uniform requires proving a genuine change of heart or conviction and showing they’re now opposed to bearing arms in war in any form. Opposition to a specific war or certain military policy doesn’t meet that bar.

While Metzler’s objection to war began with Gaza, it quickly broadened into opposition to supporting the military in any capacity. On the advice of her counselors in the organization Veterans for Peace, she avoided getting drawn into arguments about how she felt about World War II and other past conflicts when making her case to the military. These, she said, could trip objectors up while missing the point.

“How do you even define what warfare is? Because they don’t give you an answer for that,” Metzler said. “You don’t have to be a full-on pacifist to be a conscientious objector, I would say.”

Even when a service member meets the requirements, the path of conscientious objection carries significant personal costs. Flat refusal to follow an order can come with jail time. Those who apply for conscientious objector status must submit to months of scrutiny from senior officers seeking to determine that a change of heart from when they enlisted is sincere and consistent.

James Matthew Branum, who staffs calls for the hotline and also provides independent legal information to troops through his organization the Military Law Task Force, said objectors often have a monetary cost to pay as well.

“I don’t want to be associated with the military to any degree if the public is going to see us in a certain light.”

“If you received an enlistment bonus, you’re going to repay that. If you received educational benefits, for someone, let’s say, who went to West Point, that could end up meaning…you potentially are owing around $200,000,” Branum said. “There are ways of fighting that…but it can be very challenging.”

The social stigma from acquaintances, employers, and even family members that often comes with taking the objector’s path out of the military represents another level of cost, he said.

A smiling female cadet in blue dress uniform, white hat, white pants, yellow sash, salutes on a stage at her graduation from the Air Force Academy, as president Joe Biden shakes someone's hand to one side. Joy Metzler salutes at her graduation from the Air Force Academy two years ago. She now owes the Air Force about $150,000 for her “unfulfilled commitment.” Courtesy of Joy Metzler

Metzler said she hasn’t received much direct blowback from friends and family about her decision, but the cost has raised eyebrows.

“Specifically, on the financial part, I think a lot of people go behind my back and talk to my husband and say, ‘Well, are you OK with this?’” Metzler said. “And to me, that signifies that they don’t really understand the gravity of the decision I was making.”

She’s on the hook for a prorated amount of her Air Force Academy tuition, Metzler said, “based on unfulfilled commitment” that amounts to more than $150,000.

She said she’s treating it like college debt.

Isaac Hummel, Metzler’s husband, said taking on the financial burden was a focus of their many conversations around her decision. They figured they were coming from a “place of privilege” and could afford to pay it off with his Space Force salary. He pushed her to see every side, to be certain she was as sure as she sounded, Hummel said: “I don’t think she ever doubted if it was worth it.”

While they’d both felt similarly about Gaza, Hummel said, he’d never considered taking such a radical step.  “I don’t think I could ever be brave enough to do that,” he said.

He acknowledged that seeing the Marines deployed in California “really kind of shook me.”

“I don’t want to be associated with the military to any degree if the public is going to see us in a certain light,” he said.

Working at the Space Force, Hummel said, has given him “the privilege to feel a little disconnected from everything that’s going on.” But he knows he’s still part of the military. His coworkers fall into two camps on his wife’s decision: voice support or avoid the subject entirely. Only once, he said, has a colleague openly confronted him. The conversation ended in respectful disagreement.

The number of would-be conscientious objectors has remained relatively small in the years since September 11, 2001, but the numbers rise around new missions. The post-Vietnam peak followed the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In the Army, the largest of the military services and the most commonly represented in both foreign and domestic missions, the highest number of conscientious objector applications over the last quarter century came in 2005, with 74 applications, of which 39, or 52 percent, were approved. By comparison, more than 73,000 soldiers joined the Army that fiscal year, and about 60,000 soldiers transition annually out of the service for all reasons.

In 2024, the Army granted five applications and denied one; to date this year, three have been granted and two are pending, according to data provided by Army headquarters. Given the work required to submit a conscientious objector application, it’s unlikely these numbers reflect any recent callers to the GI Rights Hotline.

Chart of consciencious objectors per year showing dwindling numbers in recent years.

So far, no military voices from the LA deployment have come forward publicly to describe the specific thinking of troops on orders there. “Most of the people who have talked to me were pretty scared,” Woolford said. “Like, they wanted to get out of this, but didn’t want to bring extra attention to themselves or their family.”

Galvin said he tries to make service members aware of alternatives to declaring themselves conscientious objectors, such as raising family hardships or preexisting medical issues that need to be addressed. Guard members, he said, can also claim community hardship, stipulating that their civilian job is too essential to leave for a deployment.

Lee, the German Marshall Fund fellow, said she appreciated the work groups like Galvin’s do to help troops think through moral and ethical issues. But, she said, quandaries in war and personal disagreement with a military order were not new and did not absolve troops from following the order.

“The ability to divorce your professional identity from your personal identity is the hallmark of a member of the profession of arms,” she said. “Part of that involves respect for the chain of command and respect for the missions that your president asks you to go do. And the ability to divorce that from your personal identity and what is going on with your family is incredibly difficult, but also extremely necessary.”

Lee said she worries, however, about the broader long-term impacts of the Los Angeles deployment and how it signals a shift in how the military is used.

“This suggests to me that the administration has some intention of using either federalized guardsmen or active-duty military quite regularly to support law enforcement,” she said. “If that is the case, then I think you’re looking at some really significant morale issues, some really significant retention issues, and potentially down the line, real recruiting issues.”

Notably, the controversy over the LA deployment comes as military recruiting experiences a historic boom, with the service branches hitting accession goals months early and the Pentagon touting the enthusiasm among recruits choosing to serve under President Trump.

Kevin Wallsten, a political science professor at California State University, Long Beach, said an unscientific survey of 400 veterans he conducted earlier this year ran aggressively along political lines: Conservatives are now extremely likely to recommend military enlistment, while liberals are extremely unlikely to do so.

“I think the longer-term question,” he said, “the longer-term problem, the longer-term challenge, is to find a foundation for military recruitment that becomes less dependent on the personalities that are setting policy in the Pentagon or in the White House.”

For Metzler, seeing active-duty troops deployed in a role that might require them to use force against American civilians was shocking and further affirmed the conviction she felt that she could not wear the uniform.

At the end of June, following the conclusion of her protest outside the UN—during which she was briefly arrested—she had her first meal following the 40-day fast: three pieces of pizza.

Next, she said, she plans to enter a graduate school program in mechanical engineering at the University of Central Florida. She’s still working to make sense of her brief time in the military. Though she never deployed and never served in combat, she feels guilt even over having supported military research in developing weapons of war.

Now, when Metzler considers her decision to leave behind the military, she expresses relief. Being able to look at suffering in places like Gaza and feel horror instead of rationalizing military objectives means she’s held on to a valued piece of her humanity, she said.

“Even though it’s emotionally taxing, I feel very fortunate that I still have the ability to not glaze over that,” she said. “I almost lost that because of being in the military.”


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

2
 
 

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

First came the drought. After three years without significant rain, northern New Mexico’s dense forests of spruce, fir and ponderosa pines were baked to a crisp. Then came the spark—a prescribed burn lit by the US Forest Service in April 2022. It was supposed to reduce wildfire risk but instead got out of control, eventually becoming the largest wildfire in state history.

After the prescribed burn escaped its perimeter, it was dubbed the Hermit’s Peak Fire. Then it merged with the Calf Canyon Fire, a “sleeper” fire from January pile burns, in the hills above Las Vegas, New Mexico. (This is rare: Prescribed burns evade control and turn into wildfires only about 1 percent of the time, according to the Forest Service.)

“It feels like I’m running a restaurant through the apocalypse”

In June, rain finally fell—not enough to douse the flames, but enough to send rivers of soot, ash, and mud racing into downstream communities and homes. That put drinking water sources at risk, including private wells and a water treatment plant that was unable to turn the sludgy, contaminated water into anything safe to drink.

Firefighters contained the 340,000-acre fire in August. Now, three years later, people living in the burn scar and the roughly 13,000 residents of Las Vegas, less than 10 miles from the edge of the burn, still intermittently have trouble accessing clean drinking water. The ongoing problems expose how local, state and federal systems aren’t set up to deal with the long recovery times for increasingly large and destructive wildfires.

Las Vegas will remain vulnerable to flooding and drinking water will be at risk for at least the next five to 10 years, until shrubs regrow enough to help stabilize sloppy hillsides and scorched soil can hold moisture again. Now everyone holds their breath when summer monsoon season rolls around.

That June 2022 flood wasn’t the only disastrous deluge the community experienced even as the fire was still burning. In July, at least 2-4 inches of rain fell on ashy, water-repellant soil in just a few hours. A torrent of water raced downstream, surging into steep canyons and filling the Gallinas River with a chocolaty sludge of burned trees, dirt, and pine needles.  

Flash flooding killed three people, washed out roads, and overpowered the city’s water treatment plant, which was not designed to handle post-wildfire conditions. Whenever floods pour dirt and ash into the river that feeds the city’s three reservoirs, the plant automatically shuts off to prevent permanent damage.

Then, last summer, it happened again: Heavy monsoonal rainstorms triggered more flooding, causing debris flows that left the water treatment plant unusable for roughly two weeks. It was intermittently shut down for months afterward, forcing city officials to close all nonessential businesses before the busiest weekend of the year, the annual Fourth of July Fiesta, which was cancelled.

The turbidity in some water samples—a measure of their clarity—was 200 times higher than federal drinking water standards. Locals were asked to limit their water use; businesses faced penalties if they didn’t comply. “It feels like I’m running a restaurant through the apocalypse,” said Isaac Sandoval, a Las Vegas local and owner of The Skillet restaurant. “It’s just one thing after another.”

“People are asking, ‘Is it safe to live here?’ ”

The solution is a new facility that can handle muddy, debris-filled water, and will cost over $100 million. But disaster recovery moves slowly. Despite $4 billion in congressionally approved fire relief and additional FEMA funding, design delays mean a new plant won’t open for at least four to six more years, according to Mayor David Romero.

In the meantime, maintaining the existing plant has cost Las Vegas $1 million over the last six months. And the city’s water still isn’t always clean. The New Mexico Environment Department’s Drinking Water Bureau has cited the city for violating state drinking water standards almost 60 times since 2023.

The effects of all this ripple throughout the community. Water shortages stress city firefighters. Closed businesses require more police patrols. Paper plates—dishwashing isn’t possible without clean water—and an estimated 1.2 million plastic water bottles burden the city’s garbage disposal system.

Other communities could face similar problems. More than 60 million people in the United States get their drinking water from streams that flow from the nation’s 193 million acres of national forests. Proactive thinning is underway in high-risk watersheds, including the one supplying Butte, Montana, as HCN reported last year.

And some rural areas, like Lake Madrone, California, have already paid the price. The 2020 North Complex Fire contaminated water pipes with toxic VOCs and trihalomethanes. More than four years later, residents of the 60 or so houses that didn’t burn down are still drinking from water tanks in their yards, dependent on truck deliveries for refills. FEMA denied the Lake Madrone Water District’s $8 million request to rebuild its water system, and the community can’t afford to replace the piping on its own.

Chaos at FEMA—in June, President Donald Trump said he wanted to phase out the agency and “give out less money” for disaster relief—will hurt the next community ravaged by a similar catastrophe. (So far, the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon fire recovery funds have not been cut.) “It is unacceptable that the Trump administration is attempting to gut FEMA—making us less prepared for the next crisis,” New Mexico Sen. Ben Ray Luján said in an emailed statement.

Cyn Palmer and I stepped over the sandbags that still line the front door of her small townhome in Rociada, New Mexico, in April. Rociada is in the foothills about 30 minutes northwest of Las Vegas, due north of Hermit’s Peak and flanked by a horseshoe-shaped ridgeline. Snow blanketed the ground and the thousands of burnt trees that ring the valley resembled charred toothpicks. Many of her neighbors and friends lost their houses, and the community center and bar where Palmer, a retired wildlife manager, once picked up shifts burned down as well.

Palmer’s house has been through the wringer: Soot damage is still visible on its white walls despite cleaning, and repeated flooding has left mold in its wake. But one of her primary concerns is water. The rural communities scattered north of Las Vegas lack municipal water treatment plants; instead, residents rely on wells, either individual wells or community wells that serve a cluster of homes.

Floods can loosen well hardware and erode pump components. They can also ferry toxic runoff from burned areas into well water, contaminating it with chemicals, bacteria or microorganisms that require disinfection and flushing. “People are asking, ‘Is it safe to live here?’” Palmer said. “A lot of people don’t fully trust this water. I don’t trust the water.”

Palmer’s tap water comes from a community well owned and operated by the Pendaries Village Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association. The association assured Palmer that, after repairs, its wells were safe and uncontaminated by flooding, but it refused to share immediate test results with her.

“I’m so concerned about the water,” Pacheco said. “How toxic is it?”

When Palmer tried to take advantage of free water quality testing from the New Mexico Environment Department, she recalls being told that her sample had been tossed out because the community well had already been tested by the association. (Department spokesperson Muna Habib said some testing events only focus on private or public, not always community, wells.)

Palmer also worries that the pipes that carry water from the well across the valley floor to her house were superheated during the fire. Radiant heat can cause plastic pipes to leach benzene and other toxic volatile organic compounds into water.

To this day, the water she drinks and brushes her teeth with comes from a ceramic dispenser on her kitchen counter or bottles of water. She refills 3-to-5-gallon jugs in Santa Fe and Albuquerque, where she also receives medical care for an anemia autoimmune disorder that developed after the fire. “There’s no point in taking a chance on this water, when you think about all the toxins that went into the watershed,” Palmer said. She’s tripped over sandbags repeatedly, once hurting herself and another time breaking a water jug.

The scope of the private well problem is not fully known, but the roughly 75-100 households who live in and around Rociada get their water from wells. “I worry about people that haven’t gotten sick yet,” Palmer said.

A few miles up the road from Palmer, Laura and Luis Silva live with six family members and run a small herd of cattle. Both sides of their families have lived here for five-plus generations. Manuelitas Creek, which runs through the Silvas’ property, is usually only a few feet wide. Since July 2022, however, it occasionally swells up to 75 feet wide and 12 feet deep, washing out driveways, damaging septic tanks, stock ponds and culverts, and pinning logs and other debris on fences.

The Silvas believe that chemicals from burned homes and fire retardant, which contain toxic heavy metals, ended up in the floodwaters that their cattle drank. It’s difficult to know how much fire retardant was released overall during the months-long fire, but 28,000 gallons were dropped on one day in May 2022. That year, several calves were born prematurely, small and without any fur. “We’ve never seen that before,” Laura Silva said. The calves didn’t survive.

It cost the family $575 to have their well tested for a variety of contaminants in March 2023, which they said FEMA didn’t reimburse. “People haven’t had their wells tested because they can’t afford it,” Laura Silva said. (In a statement attributed to Jay Mitchell, director of operations, FEMA disputed this and said private well testing was eligible for reimbursement before the fire claims reimbursement deadline of March 14.)

They’re concerned a septic tank damaged by flooding may be contaminating their water, an even more expensive problem to fix without FEMA’s help. So for now, they drink their water and hope there’s nothing wrong.

Some 40 miles south, in the mountains south of Hermit’s Peak, Michael Pacheco lives on 100 acres that were once covered with piñon pines, cedars and juniper trees. Most of them burned, and now, when it rains, water runs right off the soil, rather than soaking in. Pacheco, who is a minimalist, has never had running water at his trailer. But he used to draw as much water as he wanted from a nearby well. Now, it runs out after 30 gallons.

When we met for an afternoon lemonade in Las Vegas, Pacheco pulled up in an old turquoise truck. There was a 300-gallon plastic tank strapped in the back, and he planned to fill it with potable water before heading back to the hills. “I’m so concerned about the water,” Pacheco said. “How toxic is it?” The 2024 summer flooding kept Pacheco, who’s cut off from town by Tecolote Creek, from turning in water quality samples to the New Mexico Environment Department for free testing on time.

Though Pacheco lives dozens of miles away from Palmer and the Silvas, they share similar concerns: lingering chemical contamination from fire retardant and the lack of testing of private wells and surrounding waterways. Pacheco has fought environmental battles in the past, protesting and organizing against fracking and mining efforts in the region. “I’ve been an activist since I was a little boy,” he said. Now, safe drinking water is his next fight. He’s started pestering the city, the state, and the federal government to help fund testing and any cleanup necessary to ensure clean water. “It’s time to heal,” he said. “I’m going to help turn this all around.”

Reporting for this story was supported by a grant from the Institute for Journalism & Natural Resources.


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

3
 
 

In the fall of 2018, Tia Goins was a new mother in crisis, facing eviction, unable to find room in a shelter, and confronting the prospect of homelessness in a Detroit winter—with her three-month-old baby.

“It was like, what do I do?” Goins said earlier this year. “I just—I just didn’t want her to be homeless with me.”

In a moment of panic, she Googled adoption options and clicked on the first link that came up: a website for Brighter Adoptions, an agency in Layton, Utah. Goins was hesitant—adoption wasn’t something she had ever seriously considered—but the agency representative was persistent.

“The lady just kept calling, kept calling,” Goins said.

Within 24 hours of Goins’ first phone call, Brighter Adoptions had flown her from Detroit to Utah to place her child for adoption. Though Goins texted the owner of the agency saying she was having second thoughts, the process moved quickly: Within two days, agency representatives were at Goins’ hotel room door with the final adoption paperwork.

Goins’ story is the subject of an investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting (which publishes Mother Jones) that aired Thursday on PBS News Hour.

As I wrote in the January/February issue of Mother Jones, Utah has become a hub for domestic adoption, with agencies flying in new or expecting mothers from across the country to place their children. The agencies often offer cash stipends and free lodging to mothers—many of whom, like Goins, are in desperate financial and housing situations.

This cottage industry is enabled by so-called “adoption-friendly” laws in Utah that expedite the process. Many states build in protections for birth parents, allowing birth mothers to change their minds days or even weeks after signing adoption paperwork, and requiring that birth fathers have a chance to contest the adoption.

In Utah, such safeguards don’t exist. Once the papers are signed, the decision is irreversible. In addition, the children of unwed birth fathers can be placed for adoption in Utah without their notification or consent. And finally, Utah is the only state where finalized adoptions can’t be dismissed even if the adoption was fraudulent.

“In confusion,” says Texas A&M professor Malinda Seymore, “there is profit.”

Agencies like Brighter Adoptions say they’re providing needed services, centering the needs of birth mothers and finding loving homes for their children. In an email, Brighter Adoptions owner Sandi Quick said that the agency ensures that mothers “fully understand the implications of adoption.” But critics argue that moving mothers away from their support systems to a state that expedites adoptions makes mothers more vulnerable. Plus, they say, the adoption industry is fueled by agencies, lawyers, and facilitators that often profit off of the process.

“I think domestic, private, infant action in America toes that line of legalized trafficking,” says Ashley Mitchell, director of Knee to Knee, which runs support groups for birth parents.

Over the past decade, several states, particularly those with restrictive abortion laws, have passed “adoption-friendly” legislation. Georgia, Kentucky, and Indiana have shortened the period during which a birth mother can change her mind; Virginia and South Dakota put limits on the rights of birth fathers; Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas require schools to provide adoption education. Texas also has launched a multimillion-dollar campaign promoting adoption.

Malinda Seymore, a law professor at Texas A&M University, says that the dramatic state-by-state differences in protections for birth parents benefits the adoption industry.

“In confusion, there is profit,” she says. “If you can move a birth mother to a different state and take advantage of more favorable laws for your client, why wouldn’t you?”


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

4
 
 

One longstanding fight that has divided the political right has been over whether or not humans should be allowed to modify the weather, with religious conservatives saying absolutely not, while the tech visionaries are all for it. These debates were often theoretical, but then the catastrophic floods in Texas took place.

On July 2, two days before floods devastated communities in West Texas, a California-based company called Rainmaker was conducting operations in the area. Rainmaker was working on behalf of the South Texas Weather Modification Association, a coalition of water conservation districts and county commissions; the project is overseen by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. Through a geoengineering technology called cloud-seeding, the company uses drones to disperse silver iodide into clouds to encourage rainfall. The company is relatively new—it was launched in 2023—but the technology has been around since [1947](https://idwr.idaho.gov/iwrb/programs/cloud-seeding-program/history-of-cloud-seeding/#%3A%7E%3Atext=Discovery+of+Cloud+Seeding+%281946%2Cwhere+the+plane+has+seeded.%29, when the first cloud-seeding experiment took place.

After news of the floods broke, it didn’t take long for internet observers to make a connection and point to Rainmaker’s cloud-seeding efforts as the cause of the catastrophe. “This isn’t just ‘climate change,’”posted Georgia Republican congressional candidate Kandiss Taylor to her 65,000 followers on X. “It’s cloud seeding, geoengineering, & manipulation. If fake weather causes real tragedy, that’s murder.” Gabrielle Yoder, a right-wing influencer, posted on Instagram to her 151,000 followers, “I could visibly see them spraying prior to the storm that has now claimed over 40 lives.”

Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser and election denier, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about Russia, told his 2.1 million followers on X that he’d “love to see the response” from the company to the accusations that it was responsible for the inundation.

Augustus Doricko, Rainmaker’s 25-year-old CEO, took Flynn up on his request. “Rainmaker did not operate in the affected area on the 3rd or 4th,” he posted on X, “or contribute to the floods that occurred over the region.”

Meteorologists resoundingly agree with Doricko, saying that the technology simply isn’t capable of causing that volume of precipitation, in which parts of Kerr County experienced an estimated 100 billion gallons of rain in just a few hours. But the scientific evidence didn’t dissuade those who had already made up their minds that geoengineering was to blame. On July 5, the day after the floods, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) announced that she planned to introduce a bill that would make it a felony offense for humans to deliberately alter the weather. “We must end the dangerous and deadly practice of weather modification and geoengineering,” she tweeted.

Lawmakers in both Florida and Tennessee appear to feel similarly; they have recently passed laws that outlaw weather modification. But other states have embraced the technology: Rainmaker currently has contracts in several states that struggle with drought: Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, California, and Texas, as well as with municipalities in Utah and Idaho.

The debate over cloud-seeding is yet another flashpoint in a simmering standoff between two powerful MAGA forces: on one side are the techno-optimists—think Peter Thiel, or Elon Musk (who has fallen from grace, of course), or even Vice President JD Vance—who believe that technological advancement is an expression of patriotism. This is the move-fast-and-break-things crowd that generally supports projects they consider to be cutting edge—for example, building deregulated zones to encourage innovation, extending the human lifespan with experimental medical procedures, and using genetic engineering to enhance crops. And to ensure those crops are sufficiently watered, cloud-seeding.

The opposing side, team “natural,” is broadly opposed to anything they consider artificial, be it tampering with the weather, adding chemicals to food, or administering vaccines, which many of them see as disruptive to a perfectly self-sufficient human immune system. The “Make America Healthy Again” movement started by US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., lies firmly in this camp.

Indeed, Kennedy himself has spoken out against weather modification. “Geoengineering schemes could make floods & heatwaves worse,” he tweeted last June. “We must subject big, untested policy ideas to intense scrutiny.” In March, he tweeted that he considered states’ efforts to ban geoengineering “a movement every MAHA needs to support” and vowed that “HHS will do its part.”

In April, Joseph Ladapo, Florida’s crusading surgeon general who emerged as a critic of Covid vaccines, cheered Florida’s geoengineering ban. “Big thanks to Senator Garcia for leading efforts to reduce geoengineering and weather modification activities in our Florida skies,” he posted, referring to Republican state senator Ileana Garcia, who had introduced the bill. “We have to keep fighting to clean up the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat.”

Unsurprisingly, both camps believe that God is on their side. “This is not normal,” Rep. Greene tweeted on July 5, a day after the Texas floods, when the extent of the damage was still not fully known. “I want clean air, clean skies, clean rainwater, clean ground water, and sunshine just like God created it!!”

The following day, Rainmaker’s Doricko tweeted, “I’m trying to help preserve the world God made for us by bringing water to the farms and ecosystems that are dying without it.” Last year, he told Business Insider, “I view in no small part what we’re doing at Rainmaker as, cautiously and with scrutiny from others and advice from others, helping to establish the kingdom of God.”

“I view in no small part what we’re doing at Rainmaker as, cautiously and with scrutiny from others and advice from others, helping to establish the kingdom of God.”

Indeed, for Doricko, the reference to the divine was not merely rhetorical. He reportedly attends Christ Church Santa Clarita, a church affiliated with the TheoBros, a group of mostly millennial and Gen Z, ultraconservative men, many of whom proudly call themselves Christian nationalists. Among the tenets of this branch of Protestant Christianity—known as Reformed or Reconstructionist—is the idea that the United States should be subject to biblical law.

His political formation was also ultraconservative. As an undergrad at the University of California, Berkeley, he launched the school’s chapter of America First Students, the university arm of the political organization founded by white nationalist “Groyper” and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. (Doricko didn’t respond to a request for comment for this article.)

More recently, he has aligned himself with a different corner of the right: the ascendant Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who are increasingly influencing Republican politics. Last year, PayPal founder and deep-pocketed right-wing donor Peter Thiel’s foundation granted Doricko a Thiel Fellowship, a grant awarded annually to a select group of entrepreneurs who have foregone a college degree in order to pursue a tech-focused business venture. Rainmaker has received seed funding from other right-leaning investors, including entrepreneurs and venture capitalists Garry Tan and Balaji Srinivasan. (This world isn’t as distant from Doricko’s religious community as it might seem; the cross-pollination between the Silicon Valley elite and TheoBro-style Christian nationalism is well underway.)

Yet for all his right-wing bonafides, Doricko also refers to himself as an “environmentalist”—a label that has historically been associated with the political left. And indeed, Rainmaker also has ties to left-leaning firms and politicians. Last March on X, Doricko posted a photo of himself with Lauren Sanchez, wife of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and head of the environmentally-focused philanthropy Bezos Earth Fund. “Grateful that Lauren and the @BezosEarthFund realize we don’t have to choose between a healthier environment and greater human prosperity,” Doricko wrote. A month later, he posted a photo of himself with former president Bill Clinton, adding, “It was a pleasure discussing how cloud seeding can enhance water supplies with #42 @BillClinton!”

Predictably, Doricko drew backlash from the right for those tweets, but he didn’t seem to mind, likely because he’s been too busy fighting weather modification bans IRL. Earlier this year, he testified before both the Florida House Appropriations Committee and the Tennessee Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee, imploring the skeptics to quit worrying and embrace technology. “If you’re in favor of depriving farmers in Tennessee from having the best technology available in other states, I would ask you to vote for the bill as it is,” he said in his testimony in the Tennessee statehouse. “In all things, I aspire to be a faithful Christian, and part of that means stewarding creation.

On Monday, Doricko appeared on a live X space, where he attempted to address the allegations that Rainmaker had caused the floods. “The flooding, unequivocally, had nothing to do with Rainmaker’s activities or any weather modification activities that I know of,” he said. Yet Doricko’s appearance seemed only to intensify the rift in the MAGA-verse.

“We have a right to KNOW if cloud seeding had a role in #TexasFlooding,” Fox &Friends host Rachel Campos Duffy tweeted to her 279,000 followers on July 9. “Also need to know why companies are allowed to manipulate weather without public consent??!!” The following day, Mike Solana, the CEO of Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, posted to his 373,000 followers, “The hurricane laser people are threatening Augustus’s life for making it rain. They are idiots. But he *can* make it rain—and he should (we thank you for your service).”


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

5
 
 

This story is part of the 89 Percent Project, an initiative of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now

The Democratic party and the climate movement have been “too cautious and polite” and should instead be denouncing the fossil fuel industry’s “huge denial operation,” the US senator Sheldon Whitehouse said.

“The fossil fuel industry has run the biggest and most malevolent propaganda operation the country has ever seen,” the Rhode Island Democrat said in an interview on Monday with the global media collaboration Covering Climate Now. “It is defending a $700-plus billion [annual] subsidy” of not being charged for the health and environmental damages caused by the burning of fossil fuels. “I think the more people understand that, the more they’ll be irate [that] they’ve been lied to.” But, he added, “Democrats have not done a good job of calling that out.”

“Turns out, none of [the science] really matters while the operation is controlling things in Congress.”

Whitehouse is among the most outspoken climate champions on Capitol Hill, and on Wednesday evening he delivered his 300th Time to Wake Up climate speech on the floor of the Senate.

He began giving these speeches in 2012, when Barack Obama was in his first term, and has consistently criticized both political parties for their lackluster response to the climate emergency. The Obama White House, he complained, for years would not even “use the word ‘climate’ and ‘change’ in the same paragraph.”

While Whitehouse slams his fellow Democrats for timidity, he blasts Republicans for being in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, an entity whose behavior “has been downright evil,” he said. “To deliberately ignore [the laws of physics] for short-term profits that set up people for huge, really bad impacts—if that’s not a good definition of evil, I don’t know what is.”

The American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s trade association, says on its website that “API and its members commit to delivering solutions that reduce the risks of climate change while meeting society’s growing energy needs.”

Long before Donald Trump reportedly told oil company CEOs he would repeal Joe Biden’s climate policies if they contributed $1 billion to his 2024 presidential campaign, Republicans went silent on climate change in return for oil industry money, Whitehouse asserted. The key shift came after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which struck down limits on campaign spending. Before that, some GOP senators had sponsored climate bills, and John McCain urged climate action during his 2008 presidential campaign.

But Citizens United, Whitehouse said, “told the fossil fuel industry: ‘The door’s wide open—spend any money you want in our elections.’” The industry, he said, promised the Republican party “unlimited amounts of money” in return for stepping away from bipartisan climate action: “And since 2010, there has not been a single serious bipartisan measure in the Senate.”

Democrats get stuck in a “stupid doom loop in which our pollsters say: ‘Well, climate’s not one of the top issues that voters care about,’ so then we don’t talk about it.”

Whitehouse said that after delivering 300 climate speeches on the Senate floor, he has learned to shift from talking about the “facts of climate science and the effects on human beings to calling out the fossil fuels’ massive climate-denial operation”.

He said: “Turns out, none of [the science] really matters while the operation is controlling things in Congress. I could take facts from colleagues’ home states right to them, and it would make no difference because of this enormous, multibillion-dollar political club that can [punish] anyone who crosses them.”

Most Republicans even stay silent despite climate change’s threat to property values and other traditional GOP priorities, Whitehouse said. He noted that even the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell—who is not known for his climate bona fides, he said—testified before the Senate in February that in 10-15 years there will be whole regions of the country where nobody can get a mortgage because extreme weather will make it impossible to afford or even obtain insurance.

Democrats can turn all this to their advantage if they get “more vocal and aggressive,” Whitehouse argued. “The good news is that the American people hate dark money with a passion, and they hate it just as much, if not more, in districts that went for Trump as in districts that went for Biden.”

Democrats also need to recognize “how much [public] support there is for climate action,” he said. “How do you have an issue that you win 74 [percent] to 12 [percent] and you don’t ride that horse as hard as you can?”

Whitehouse said he was only estimating that 74 percent figure, but that’s exactly the percentage of Americans who want their government to take stronger climate action, according to the studies informing the 89 Percent Project, the Guardian and other Covering Climate Now partner news outlets began reporting in April. Globally, the percentage ranges from 80 percent to 89 percent. Yet this overwhelming climate majority does not realize it is the majority, partly because that fact has been absent from most news coverage, social media and politicians’ statements.

Democrats keep “getting caught in this stupid doom loop in which our pollsters say: ‘Well, climate’s not one of the top issues that voters care about,’ so then we don’t talk about it,” said Whitehouse. “So it never becomes one of the top issues that voters care about. [But] if you actually go ask [voters] and engage on the issue, it explodes in enthusiasm. It has huge numbers when you bother to engage, and we just haven’t.”

Nevertheless, Whitehouse is optimistic that climate denial won’t prevail forever. “Once this comes home to roost in people’s homes, in their family finances, in really harmful ways, that [will be] motivating in a way that we haven’t seen before around this issue,” he said. “And if we’re effective at communicating what a massive fraud has been pulled on the American public by the fossil fuel industry denial groups, then I think that’s a powerful combination.”


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

6
 
 

It is apparently not enough for America’s anti-tax crusaders that Congress just passed one of the most expensive and regressive tax bills in our history. The Washington Post reports that Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform and other conservative groups are now urging the Trump administration to change how investment profits are taxed—unilaterally, if need be—in a way that would overwhelmingly favor the wealthiest Americans.

Sound familiar?

Namely, they want to index capital gains to inflation. Suppose I bought $100,000 worth of Apple stock on July 10, 2020 and kept it. Today, I could sell that stock for $170,383—a tidy $70,383 profit. That’s a 74 percent overall return and an average annual return of 11.7 percent. Pretty good, right?

Not good enough for Norquist et al.

These players want to let me adjust the “cost basis”—the price I originally paid for the stock—for inflation. Using this inflation calculator, I could then tell the IRS that my initial $100k investment was in fact a $120,407 investment, and so my profit for tax purposes is only $40,976.

This is insane—for several reasons.

First, read the room. Congress just passed a megabill whose benefits are deeply skewed in favor of the wealthy. Its tax provisions and spending cuts, taken together, will result in a 4 percent increase in average after-tax income for the richest 1 percent of American households and a nearly 4 percent decrease for the poorest 20 percent, based on the Yale Budget Lab’s analysis. This is very, very unpopular.

The bill will at least $3.3 trillion to the national debt—more like $5 trillion if expiring provisions are extended in the coming years. And indexing capital gains to inflation, according to 2018 estimates from the Tax Policy Center and the Penn Wharton Budget Model, would add yet another $100 billion to $200 billion to the tab—with the richest 1 percent reaping 86 percent of the benefits.

“I don’t think reducing [capital gains rates further] will change investor behavior,” says billionaire Mark Cuban.

Norquist told the Washington Post he recently spoke with President Donald Trump and recommended the president implement the change with an executive order. Indexing capital gains to inflation was considered during Trump’s first term, the Post‘s Jeff Stein reports, but Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin felt Congress should handle it—current secretary Scott Bessent may prove more complaint. “I said something like, ‘Mr. President, after we do the bill, we will need more economic growth,” Norquist told Stein. “The Big Beautiful Bill is very pro-growth, but with this, we can have even more growth.’”

In reality, not one of the Republican tax packages enacted since Ronald Reagan became president has lived up to its sponsors’ economic promises. “The economy may well enjoy a sugar-high the next couple of years, as borrowing stimulates near-term consumption,” Maya MacGuineas, president of the nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said in a statement after Congress passed the “One Bie Beautiful Bill” on July 3. “But a sugar-high won’t be sustained, it will do real damage, and often what comes next is the crash.”

As for the notion of indexing fueling “more growth,” the billionaire investor Mark Cuban told me in an email that he thinks the current tax rates on capital gains are fair, and “I don’t think reducing it will change investor behavior.”

Yet the fairness of those rates—and their justification—is the subject of fierce debate. Suppose I’m a wealthy investor and I sell assets I’ve held for at least 12 months—stocks, bonds, real estate, or even, say, a stud racehorse—netting my family $1,000,000 in profits. The federal tax on those capital gains ranges from zero for the first $94,000 to 20 percent for the portion that exceeds $583,750. Because my spouse and I have income of more than $250,000, we also have to pay a 3.8 percent “net investment income tax.” This all adds up to an effective tax rate of about 19 percent.

But tax rates for wage income are much higher. A couple reporting $1,000,000 in salary income pays an effective rate of about 30 percent. That’s a huge difference, and part of why families whose money comes from primarily from asset growth have amassed wealth so much faster than working families have. It no lefty exaggeration to say America’s economic system is rigged against workers and in favor of investors. It’s right there in the tax code.

“This kind of proposal will only widen the economic inequality we’re facing.”

So how do conservative policy wonks justify the low capital gains rates? A key argument, interestingly, is that inflation eats away at the value of long-term gains. One “solution” would be to index the gains to inflation, notes the libertarian Cato Institute, “but most countries instead roughly compensate” by offering reduced tax rates for investors.

And now the anti-taxers want to have it both ways.

Investors enjoy other economic advantages, too. Notably, their gains are counted as income only when the assets are sold. In practice, this allows people with a large portfolio of appreciated assets to borrow against their holdings at single-digit interest rates and live off those loans instead of selling assets and paying a double-digit tax. As ProPublica discovered, many of America’s wealthiest families have been doing precisely that. (As a result, from 2014 to 2018, Jeff Bezos paid an effective income tax rate of less than 1 percent.)

Or say you have a $100 investment that grows by 10 percent a year during a period of 2 percent annual inflation. The first year’s profit, after inflation, is $8. “But I don’t pay tax on that $8 until I sell, which may be decades later,” says Bob Lord a former tax attorney and associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. “I’m basically getting a free ride on the appreciation of that $8 portion of my investment.” Doesn’t that benefit, he asks, more than offset any detriment from inflation?

And also, isn’t investing supposed to contain an element of risk management? Isn’t the ability to beat inflation part of what separates a savvy investor from a useless one? Indexing for inflation, combined with favorable tax capital gains rates and an exemption for unrealized gains—doesn’t that basically reduce investing to shooting fish in a barrel?

It is worth noting, too, that most Americans work for a paycheck, and the ones who make their living via investing are by and large quite wealthy. More than half of Americans now own some stock, but not much. As of January 2024, per Federal Reserve data, 93 percent of US stock holdings were owned by the most affluent 10 percent of the population, and the richest 1 percent owned more than half of all public equities—not to mention private equities.

Indexing gains to inflation “would really codify the notion that income taxes are only for people who work for a living,” says Morris Pearl, a former managing director at BlackRock and current chairman of the board of Patriotic Millionaires, a nonprofit that advocates for higher taxes on the rich.

If the Trump administration were to attempt the change Norquist recommended—unilaterally or otherwise—its not even clear how it would work. You would presumably need to make changes on both the profit and loss sides of a balance sheet. Kyle Pomerleau, a senior fellow with the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, has concluded that indexing is complex and unlikely to generate significant economic impact, and is therefore “more trouble than it’s worth.”

“Indexing has been rejected in the past to avoid opening new tax shelters,” says Steven Rosenthal, a Washington tax policy expert and former legislation counsel for the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. “If investors were permitted to index their assets, but not required to index their liabilities, debt-financed investments would explode. Investors could exclude profits and deduct interest. But indexing both assets and liabilities is a mess, which I, as a congressional staffer, discovered when we tried to draft it.”

“This kind of proposal will only widen the economic inequality we’re facing,” adds Patriotic Millionaires’ Pearl. “It’s absurd that all I would need to do is buy property that I can rent out, and make a lot of money, and never have to pay taxes again!”


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

7
 
 

The devastating floods that hit central Texas last Friday have now killed at least 120 people, including dozens of children, according to authorities, and left at least 150 missing. But the leaders at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) tasked with supporting communitiesin the wake of similar disasters have been missing in action, according to a slate of recent damning reports.

For one, FEMA Acting Administrator David Richardson is nowhere to be found, according to multiple reports. A former Marine, Richardson appears to have no experience leading disaster management. Yet in his current role, Richardson—who made headlines after he reportedly told FEMA staff that he was unaware the US has a hurricane season (White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed that as a “joke”) and threatened to “run right over” anyone who got in his way—is federally mandated to be responsible for providing national leadership in preparation for, and in response to, natural disasters. In the past, FEMA administrators have typically been among the first responders at disaster sites to help manage the response.

Former FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell told E&E News that the head of FEMA should be on the ground “to talk to local officials, talk to the people that have been impacted, see firsthand what the damages are—and make sure FEMA was directing the appropriate resources as fast as possible into the appropriate area.”

But FEMA staffers say that whatever Richardson is doing, it’s not that. Not only has he reportedly made no public appearances since assuming his role—which did not require Senate confirmation—he has also yet to arrive in Texas since the July 4 tragedy struck.

“I have no idea what’s going on with David Richardson’s absence,” one FEMA employee told E&E News.

“If this is how they are going to do a major hurricane response, people are fucked,” one FEMA source told independent journalist Marisa Kabas, author of the newsletter The Handbasket.

Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees FEMA and several other agencies, seems to have effectively taken over Richardson’s role. She arrived in Texas within days of the floods, conducting a press conference with Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) and touring the hardest-hit sites, including Camp Mystic, the Christian girls’ camp where at least 27 children, counselors, and staff died.But Noem has also sought to downplay the federal government’s role in responding to the disaster: “We, as a federal government, don’t manage these disasters—the state does. We come in and support them, and that’s exactly what we did here in this situation,” Noem said at a Cabinet meeting earlier this week.

“We as a federal government don’t manage these disasters—the state does. We come in and support them, and that’s exactly what we did here in this situation.”

But new reporting suggests that Noem is obstructing federal action in fulfilling even themore limited role she envisions. According to a memo obtained by CNN last month, Noem has demanded to personally approve all DHS contracts and grants worth more than $100,000, a process she has reportedly warned would take at least five days per request. “This will hurt nonprofits, states, and small towns. Massive delays feel inevitable,” one FEMA official told CNN last month.

It appears that’s already happening in Texas. Four FEMA officials told CNN in a story published on Wednesday that Noem’s new rule has slowed the Texas response. Multiple sources told that outlet that Noem did not authorize the agency’s deployment of Urban Search and Rescue teams—which are normally stationed close to disaster zones as the importance of their role becomes clear—until Monday, more than three days after the flooding began. (As the Daily Beast points out, Noem managed to find some time on Sunday to ask her Instagram followers which portrait of her they would prefer to hang in the Capitol of South Dakota, where she was previously governor.)

Aerial imagery from FEMA that Texas officials requested to support search and rescue was also delayed due to Noem’s insistence on personally approving those requests; she has also yet to okay a contract to bolster support staff at a disaster call center, where FMEA staff have been fielding phones, and callers have faced longer wait times, the staff told CNN.

CNN and The Handbasket reported that by Monday, only 86 FEMA staffers had been deployed to Texas, a smaller team than would typically be on the ground to respond to such a disaster. By Tuesday night, 311 staffers intotal had been deployed, according to CNN. Over the weekend, President Donald Trump signed a major disaster declaration for Kerr County—the epicenter of the floods—which unlocks federal funding and resources to support the emergency response and longer-term recovery. But only 25 households out of more than 20,000 in Kerr County have thus far received funding from that pot of money, according to FEMA’s website. A former FEMA official told E&E News thatthey “would be asking the regional [FEMA] administrator why that number is so low and what can we do to improve registrations.” (Texas lacks a regional FEMA administrator.)

On Wednesday, congressional Democrats servingon the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure wrote to FEMA and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) questioning whether Richardson will visit Texas, how many FEMA personnel have been deployed there, and whether Noem and Trump plan to move forward with trying to abolish FEMA, among other questions related to recent reporting about the agency’s failures. “It would be unconscionable to face the next extreme weather event with a FEMA andNWS [National Weather Service] that are anything less than fully resourced to respond from the earliest forecast through the last delivery of relief,” the lawmakers write,asking for a response by July 22.

But Noem has already managed to answer one of the Democrats’ questions: She does, indeed, want to abolish FEMA. At a public meeting on Wednesday, Noem blasted FEMA for being too slow to respond without acknowledging her own role in perpetuating the delays. “It has been slow to respond at the federal level,” Noem said of FEMA. “It’s even been slower to get the resources to Americans in crisis, and that is why this entire agency needs to be eliminated as it exists today, and remade into a responsive agency.”

When Mother Jones reached out to FEMA for comment, there was no reply. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that the agency has taken “an all-hands-on-desk approach to respond to recovery efforts” in Texas, but she did not answer a series of detailed questions about Noem’s and Richardson’s alleged actions based on the reports cited here.


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

8
 
 

Inside the State Department, employees are packing up their belongings in anticipation of a reorganization and reduction in force that is expected to cut nearly 2,000 jobs. The significant cuts and reorientation of the department’s mission will cripple the agency’s work to promote democracy, combat human rights abuses, and negotiate conflict resolution.

Trump officials plan to attack “unelected bureaucrats” to defend cuts hitting human rights work.

The proposed reorganization submitted to Congress was supposed to be completed by July 1, but a federal lawsuit filed by labor unions blocked the proposed reorganization and reduction in force, or RIF, plans across 22 agencies. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court lifted that injunction. While it did not rule on the legality of the reorganization plans at State or any other agency, it paved the way for massive cuts across the federal government to take effect. If Secretary of State Marco Rubio proceeds with the cuts and changes on Friday, as workers at the agency expect, it will be an immediate result of the Supreme Court’s intervention.

Those hardest hit will be employees at bureaus that focus on democracy, human rights, and conflict resolution, according to the agency’s plans. For example, the administration plans deep cuts at the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), which supports pro-democracy civil society groups around the world, and then to use what is left of the bureau for rightwing ideological pursuits, such as the administration’s allegations of free speech abuses in Europe.

State Department employees say the changes will be devastating, particularly when coupled with the destruction of USAID and the billions of dollars in grants that are being shut off, both abroad and to United States based non-governmental organizations. “For those of us in the conflict prevention and stabilization space, those of us in the human rights space, and those of us in the mass atrocity prevention and accountability space,” one State Department employee told Mother Jones, “it ends the entire industry in the United States.”

Texts, screenshots, and rumors spreading through the State Department have prepared employees for what is coming—and, after an official email Thursday confirming a RIF “in the coming days,” many believe it will come Friday. Around 9:30am, they expect an announcement that the reorganization plan has taken effect. This will be followed, employees believe, by RIF notices between 10am and 12pm. Around 3pm, employees expect to receive financial information such as whether they will first be put on administrative leave. Workers expect to lose access to internal systems and the building by the end of the day.

An employee at the Bureau for Conflict and Stabilization Operations expects their entire office to be eliminated tomorrow, in accordance with the reorganization plan. “In this administration, they’re big on getting deals done and taking credit,” said an employee in the bureau, who asked not to be named. “You have India-Pakistan, you have Gaza ceasefires, you have this Rwanda-DRC deal—but it takes a lot more than just the high level handshake. There’s a lot of work behind the scenes that has to be done to make sure these agreements are implemented and all that capacity is going away.”

One of the most dramatic hits is coming to DRL, which is currently overseeing 391 grants totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, one employee told Mother Jones. “They are RIFing all of us who actually understand what foreign assistance management at the State Department is,” said a DLR employee, who asked for anonymity. As a result, they said, congressionally-mandated funding may fail to go out to human rights and civil society groups around the globe. As a result, this person expects lawsuits over the DRL cuts.

These funds helped Americans, says the DRL employee. As the “biggest donor of democracy and human rights assistance around the world for the last few years,” this employee said, DLR helped create stable conditions for American businesses and nurtured pro-American sentiment—things that help enable access to foreign markets and critical minerals. “Once we’re gone, there is going to be a vacuum, and there are going to be malign actors that fill this vacuum,” including China and local radical and terrorist groups.

Expecting criticism for effectively erasing the last of the government’s democracy and human rights work abroad, the State Department drafted a “press guidance” document dated July 7 on how to defend the plan and Rubio in particular. The document, obtained by Mother Jones, cites broad goals of disempowering “unelected bureaucrats…pushing ideologically driven policies.” Rather than actually defend the plan, the document provides talking points that attack Democrats and progressives, shifting the story away from the Trump administration’s actions.

The document alleges that the Obama and Biden administrations used foreign assistance to push radical ideologies abroad. Biden, the press guidance alleges, used foreign aide to “bully countries into accepting so-called transgender rights” while ignoring “the wholesale slaughter of Christians.” It calls Biden’s proclamation of Easter Sunday of last year as Transgender Day of Remembrance “sickening.” In fact, Biden scheduled a Transgender Day of Visibility for every March 31 back in 2021, and in 2024 that happened to fall on Easter Sunday. Biden commemorated Transgender Day of Remembrance on November 20—nowhere near Easter.

The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the guidance memo, or any pending cuts.


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

9
 
 

The state of Texas is currently mourning at least 120 lives lost due to horrific flooding in the Hill Country. But Texas Republicans appear focused on a different priority: re-gerrymandering their state to reduce Democrats’ chances ofretaking the US House in 2026.

After intense lobbying by the White House, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced on Wednesday that the GOP-dominatedstate legislature would reconvene this summer to redraw its Congressional districts.

It’s a shocking move on multiple fronts.

First, there’s the timing. Districts are typically redrawn after the decennial census at the beginning of the decade to account for population changes. And, given the scale of the devastation in the Hill Country and questions about the state and national preparedness to alert residents andcombat the flooding, one would think that state leaders would be laser-focused on preventing another such tragedy.

“While Texans battle tragic and deadly flooding, Governor Abbott and House Republicans are plotting a mid-decade gerrymander,” Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) wrote on X. “They should be modernizing emergency response—not rigging maps.”

Then there’s the substance. Texas already has some of the most gerrymandered congressional districts in the country. Republicans control two-thirds of US House seats, even though in the 2024 electionTrump only won 56 percent of the vote in the state. Texas gained 4 million people between 2010 and 2020, giving the state two new congressional seats. Ninety-five percent of the population growth came from people of color, but, in a brazen effort to forestall the impact of demographic changes, the state drew two new seats in areas with white majorities instead.

“The partisan effects of the maps are achieved by discriminating against communities of color,” Michael Li of the Brennan Center for Justice told me at the time. Both the Biden Justice Department and civil rights groups sued the state, alleging that the maps intentionally discriminated against Black and Hispanic voters. A federal trial in that case just recently concluded, with the verdict pending.

As if the current maps weren’t skewed enough, the Trump White House reportedly urged Texas Republicans to pursue an even more “ruthless” approach ahead of the midterms that could net the GOP four or five new seats. In fact, Trump’s Justice Department, which has dramatically reversed all voting rights enforcement, appears to have orchestrated the push to redraw the state’s US House districts. The department sent a letter to Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton on Monday alleging that four of Texas’s congressional districts were “unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.” Abbott then cited “constitutional concerns” as a reason to call a special redistricting session.

“I view the DOJ letter as offering a fig leaf, if you think one is necessary, to give the governor an excuse to redistrict.”

“I view the DOJ letter as offering a fig leaf, if you think one is necessary, to give the governor an excuse to redistrict,” says Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division under President Obama.

It just so happens that all four of the districts singled out by the DOJ have been represented by Black or Hispanic Democrats. That raises the likelihood that Texas Republicans, in a bid to give their party more seats, will redraw their districts in a way that further reduces representation for voters of color, who are already severely underrepresented in the state where their numbers are growing.

The DOJ is interpreting the Voting Rights Act, experts say, in an extremely dubious way that turns the purpose of the law on its head. Its letter claims that coalition districts like the ones in Texas, where minority groups together form a majority, “run afoul of the Voting Rights Act.” As evidence, it cites one major case, a 2023 ruling from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most conservative appellate court in the country, in whichit overruled a lower court opinion by a Trump-appointed judge striking down a county commissioners’ map in Galveston, Texas, that eliminated the only majority-minority district. The 5th Circuit’s opinion has not been upheld by the Supreme Court, nor adopted by any other appellate court.

Levitt called the 5th Circuit’s decision “dead wrong” and the DOJ letter “embarrassing.”

The GOP strategy, while potentially blunting Democratic efforts to retake the House, is not without risks.

The last time Texas Republicans redrew their districts mid-decade, in 2003 under the orders of then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, state legislative Democrats fled the state, leading to a lengthy political battle. It’s possible that could happen again. During the summer of 2021, they also decamped to Washington, DC, in an unsuccessful bid to prevent Republicans from passing new voting restrictions. It’s also possible that blue states like California or New York could retaliate by redrawing their own maps to counter the GOP. And Texas Republicans, by moving voters from safe Republican areas to target Democratic incumbents, could also endanger the reelection bids ofsome of their own members.

“If the Republicans get too terribly greedy,” says Levitt, “they could end up achieving exactly the opposite of what they’re trying to achieve.”


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

10
 
 

After more than 15 years, fans of the Clipse**,** the legendary Virginia-based sibling rap duo, are finally getting a fourth studio album: Let God Sort Em Out. Known for hits in the early 2000s like “Grindin’” and “When the Last Time,” and the acclaimed 2006 album Hell Hath No Fury, brothers Malice and Pusha T—now better known for solo work—split up following the 2009 release of Til the Casket Drops, their third album.

The new album, already a critical success, is set to release Friday and features production from longtime collaborator Pharrell Williams, whose iconic production as part of the Neptunes helped define early Clipse hits, and guest verses from Nas; Tyler, the Creator; and Kendrick Lamar. But that Lamar verse led—reportedly because of a reference to Donald Trump—to delays and attempts at censorship, the group has alleged, that ultimately led them to leave Universal Music Group (UMG).

The track in question, “Chains & Whips,” released a day before the album on Apple Music; under an intense mix of guitar riffs, drums, and horns, its hook, “Beat the system with chains and whips,” alludes to the US’ dark past with slavery while serving as a double entendre for the jewelry and cars the brothers have been able to purchase with the millions they’ve made.

Pusha T and Malice deliver hard-hitting bars about the pursuit of wealth and death with lyrics like “Richard”—in reference to the luxury watch brand Richard Mille—”don’t make watches for presidents. Just a million trapped between skeletons.” Lamar immediately sets the mood for his verse, rapping, “I’m not the candidate to vibe with. I don’t fuck with the kumbaya shit.” In a verse featuring a rhyme scheme with an impressive number of words that start with “gen,” he raps about genocide and gentrification before capping off the verse with “God gave me light, a good year full of free will. Trump card, tell me not to spare your life.”

According to Pusha T, the group’s label, Def Jam, part of UMG, singled out that lyric and demanded the duo censor or remove Lamar’s verse. “The phrase ‘Trump card’ was used, and they said that they didn’t want any problem with Trump,” he told the New York Times’ Popcast in June.

“Rap music has provided opportunities for artists coming from marginalized backgrounds to express their hopes, their aspirations, but also their frustrations [and] their political views,” says Chad Williams, a professor of history and African American and Black diaspora studies at Boston University. Williams, who previously taught a course on hip-hop history at Brandeis University, says political messages have been a vital part of hip-hop for most of its history. He points to groups like Boogie Down Productions and Public Enemy, which made political messages central to their music in the ‘80s and ‘90s, and says artists were able to find success with such songs only until hip-hop became more mainstream and labels consolidated into a few major players—when political hip-hop took a back seat to other styles.

Williams sees the Pusha T situation as a consequence of that corporate consolidation, where artists have fewer options for distribution, allowing labels to exert more influence—which he finds especially troubling in a political climate where “retribution has become an explicit part of the Trump administration’s political agenda and you could potentially see economic repercussions for major corporations.” Still, Pusha T told Popcast’s hosts that he didn’t believe the label really objected to the Trump line; instead, he argued, they didn’t like the optics of two rappers coming together on a song after beefing with Drake, who in January filed a defamation suit against UMG, also his longtime label, that accused the company of siding with Lamar in the beef.

Many in the hip-hop community criticized Drake for the lawsuit: Legal action over losing a rap beef?” the rapper Rapsody wrote in a now-deleted post on X. “My my my. Not like us at all.” Williams describes the lawsuit as “one of the most un-hip-hop things in hip-hop history,” adding that “Drake really demonstrated how out of touch he is with hip-hop culture.” He says it could lead to labels being even more restrictive about the music they allow rappers to put out.

The lawsuit also raised concerns around other court cases involving rappers. A group of professors from the University of California, Irvine School of Law filed a brief in the case in May, callingDrake’s arguments “not just faulty” but “dangerous.” The professors write that lyrics in diss tracks should not be taken as factual statements, but as “hyperbole [and] bluster” used to entertain audiences, warning that the case could set a precedent for the controversial use of rap lyrics in criminal court, which the professors say has introduced racial bias in multiple cases and has created a “chilling effect across the industry.”

Pusha T criticized Drake’s lawsuit in an interview with GQ last month, saying, “The suing thing is bigger than some rap shit. I just don’t rate you. Damn, it’s like it just kind of cheapens the art of it once we gotta have real questions about suing and litigation. Like, what? For this?”

Whichever factor—fear of Trump or of Drake—motivated the label to quash the track, Pusha T said in the same interview that Def Jam’s attempts to censor the Clipse collaboration with Kendrick reminded him of the label’s response to the fallout from “The Story of Adidon,” the scathing 2018 Drake diss track in which Pusha T exposed both that Drake had a previously unknown child and that he had been photographed in blackface—which the artist later said was part of an art project designed to bring awareness to the limited roles available to Black actors and the way “African Americans were once wrongfully portrayed in entertainment.”

Thereafter, Pusha T claimed in his Popcast interview, Def Jam put up roadblocks when he tried to release new music, allegedly nixing multiple guest verses on other artists’ songs that it interpreted as subtle disses aimed at Drake.

When the Clipse said they hit an impasse with the label, refusing to remove or censor Lamar’s verse, the duo bought themselves out of their contracts for a seven-figure sum, according to Pusha T’s longtime manager in an interview with Billboard; their latest album is being released on Jay-Z’s Roc Nation, a subsidiary of the music giant Live Nation.

Censorship in rap is “egregious,” said Malice during the Popcast interview. “Rap, the arts, entertainment, it’s like the last frontier for Black expression. This is what we have.”

Drake’s legal representation and UMG did not respond to requests for comment.


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

11
 
 

MAGA world is melting down over the Justice Department’s recent conclusion that Jeffrey Epstein had no client list or history of blackmail, and that he wasn’t murdered. But the right isn’t alone. Some influential Democrats and left-leaning pundits have latched onto the controversy, too—succumbing to the temptation of suggesting that these findings are part of some grand conspiracy to cover up Donald Trump’s ties to the late pedophile.

Here is the problem: There is no real evidence that Epstein—who died in 2019 while jailed on charges that included sex trafficking of minors—possessed any information incriminating Trump.

Each day offers new and urgent evidence of the president’s expanding record moral and professional failure. He just signed a bill that cuts a trillion dollars in Medicaid and boots millions from their health care. He has swarmed Los Angeles with ICE agents, Border Patrol, and military troops and has sent innocent men to a brutal prison in El Salvador, apparently for having tattoos.

His ever-changing tariffs are screwing up the economy. He tried to steal the 2020 election, pardoned the rioters whose violent attack on the Capitol he incited, and is using the Justice Department to harass political foes. He has leveraged the power of his office to extract gifts and payments for himself and his family, including recently forcing Paramount to pay $16 million to the foundation behind his “future” library to settle a meritless lawsuit as it seeks federal approval for a merger.

That’s a lot of real stuff to fault. But at the same time, unverified speculation on the left that Trump might have been involved in Epstein’s crimes is reaching a crescendo—distracting from Democratic efforts to highlight overt Trump wrongdoing in other matters.

There is no question that Trump and Epstein were friends. There are pictures and video of the men together, along with records of Trump traveling on Epstein’s plane. Trump called him a “terrific guy” in a 2002 profile. Trump even said that Epstein “likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

In 2016, an anonymous woman filed lawsuits alleging that Trump raped her at a party held by Epstein when she was 13. Trump denied this. The first version of that suit was thrown out by a California judge after the court struggled to contact the alleged victim. The woman ultimately withdrew a second version of the suit and did not appear at a press conference scheduled by her lawyer just before Election Day. Journalists, including my colleague Anna Merlan, were left uncertain if the victim’s claims were real. “The facts speak less to a scandal and more, perhaps, to an attempt at a smear,” she wrote in Jezebel at the time.

That same year, another Epstein victim made—and then retracted—allegations about Trump, Bill Clinton, and others in private emails to a New York Post columnist.

No other credible Epstein-related allegations about Trump have emerged. One Epstein victim, Virginia Giuffre, who died in April, leveled accusations against prominent Epstein associates including Prince Andrew (who settled a lawsuit without admitting liability), but not against Trump. In a 2016 deposition, Giuffre stated: “I don’t think Donald Trump participated in anything.”

Still, Trump’s ties to Epstein mean that every time the late pedophile is in the news, social media posts linking the two men go viral. And some Democratic lawmakers want to tap into that.

“One of the highest trending hashtags on Twitter right now is about Trump and Epstein,” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said at a July 2024 press conference, as he explained why he was bringing up the topic.

In those remarks—which came shortly after the release of grand jury transcripts from a 2006 Florida prosecution of Epstein—Lieu brought up Trump in an apparent effort to deflect questions then swirling about Joe Biden’s fitness to run for reelection.

“Something I’ve heard that doesn’t seem to be being covered are the Epstein files,” Lieu said. “Donald Trump is sort of all over this.” That wasn’t true. “Donald Trump’s name never appears anywhere in the transcripts” that had been released the prior week, a Washington Post fact check noted.

In recent weeks, Democrats have been accusing the Trump DOJ of orchestrating a coverup. After Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the department’s conclusions about Epstein, the Democratic National Committee debuted @TrumpEpsteinBot, an account set to post the same message each day.

No

— Has Trump released the Epstein files? (@TrumpEpsteinBot) July 10, 2025

On Monday, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, suggested Bondi was hiding evidence.

Given the evidence my investigators have seen, this reeks of a coverup. https://t.co/xye3HMcQzZ

— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) July 7, 2025

Wyden spokesperson Ryan Carey said Thursday that the senator is primarily focused on investigating ties between Epstein and billionaire financier Leon Black. Wyden has been examining $170 million in payments Black made to Epstein that Wyden has alleged Epstein used to finance his sex trafficking. In March, Black agreed to a $62 million settlement with the Virgin Islands over the matter.

During their investigation, Finance Committee staffers “reviewed portions of a file at the Treasury Department that contains information on many other issues involving Epstein’s financing and operations,” Carey said, adding that administration is “sitting on the file and doing nothing with it.” Wyden’s assertion of a coverup was a reference to the administration’s refusal to release that material, Carey said.

But Wyden has also included ties between Trump and Epstein in his queries. In a June letter, the senator said he was concerned “that the Trump Administration may be withholding these documents to prevent exposure of President Trump’s own ties to Jeffrey Epstein.”

“If President Trump himself was implicated in Epstein’s network, he must also be held accountable,” Wyden added.

In a letter Tuesday to Bondi, all 19 Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), also speculatively cited the Epstein matter. The lawmakers demanded that Bondi release Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report dealing with Trump’s 2023 prosecution for refusing to return highly classified documents he removed from the White House—a reasonable ask—“as well as any evidence mentioning or referencing Donald Trump in the Epstein files.”

Consider the contrast between those requests. Smith secured an indictment alleging that Trump for violated the Espionage Act, made false statements, and conspired to obstruct justice in an effort to retain classified material, including by storing many documents in unsecured a bathroom at his club. The charges were dubiously thrown out by a notoriously pro-Trump judge, a decision that was still on appeal when Trump’s election victory forced Smith to end the case. But Smith wrote a lengthy report on the probe—a document that Bondi has refused to release. That’s a legitimate request for a boatload of real evidence of alleged crimes by the president.

What’s the evidence that Epstein material incriminates Trump?

“Earlier last month,” Democrats wrote, “Elon Musk, the former senior advisor to President Trump and head of the Department of Government Efficiency, posted on his social media website, X, that President Trump ‘is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.’”

Wyden’s June letter also cited Musk’s post, as did a similar letter from Democrats on the House Oversight Committee. “What is Trump hiding?” the DNC tweeted after Musk’s post. “Release the Epstein files.”

But Musk isn’t exactly a reliable source. He previously posted a claim that an intruder who attacked Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul in their home with a hammer might have been a male prostitute, a false theory Musk got from a publication know for fake stories. Musk endorsed a claim on Twitter that Jews are pushing a “dialectical hatred against whites.” (He later apologized.)He claimed that Social Security and other entitlement fraud adds up to “half a trillion” dollars and that Democrats give these benefits to “illegal immigrants” to buy votes.

Those are false, kooky claims from a serially inaccurate mogul. Democrats presumably don’t believe Musk’s tweets about Jews and Social Security. So they might think twice about approvingly quoting an unsubstantiated allegation Musk made in the middle of spat with Trump, just because this one suits their purposes.

The notion that Trump is incriminated in Epstein material possessed by DOJ is, at best, unsubstantiated speculation. Trump has regularly denied it. And it’s unclear why the Biden administration—which controlled the DOJ for four years—would have participated in this supposed cover up.

A spokesperson for Judiciary Committee Democrats declined to comment on their reasoning for including Epstein in their letter Tuesday.  The lawmakers may have hoped the reference would draw more attention to their broader point: The Trump administration, while boasting about its supposed transparency, has “consistently hidden from the American public materials and information that may be damaging to President Trump.”

But mingling a request for real evidence of actual alleged crimes by Trump in the documents case with a speculative ask for references to Trump in the “Epstein files” also risks making the Mar-a-Lago case seem as similarly unsupported, even frivolous—like the kind of opportunistic partisan potshots Democrats fault their GOP peers for.

Indeed, as veteran conspiracy mongers on the right—Laura Loomer, Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton, Michael Flynn, Glenn Beck, Musk again, Alex Jones, Roger Stone—lose their minds over Bondi and company slamming the door on years of Epstein speculation, their distress highlights their longstanding habit of preying on Americans’ willingness to believe conspiracy theories, especially when they advance a partisan narrative.

A few lines in some letters is hardly the same, but it does involve a comparable tactic. Democrats appear to be advancing their political interests by exploiting their supporters’ inclination to believe something that is probably untrue, and certainly unsubstantiated.

It’s easy to see why. Epstein’s name grabs attention, and Trump certainly did spend time with him. But talk of finding Trump in the Epstein files is, for Democratic activists, wish-casting. For lawmakers, it is pandering. These efforts recall those 2017 days when Trump critics believed the supposed “pee tape” might soon hit the airwaves. There is a palpable wish out there for documentary evidence, especially of something sexual, that humiliates Trump.

But that, of course, is fool’s gold. Democrats seeking to hold the president accountable do not have time to waste looking for it. There are more than enough real Trump scandals out there to fill Congress’ limited time.


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

12
 
 

With an estimated net worth of $76 million, Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) is one of the top 15 wealthiest members of Congress. On Thursday, Jacobs, the granddaughter of a successful early tech entrepreneur, plans to introduce legislation that would—if enacted—work against her own self-interest.

The measure, which she discussed first with Mother Jones, is called the “Leveraging Estate Gains for America’s Children and Youth (LEGACY) Act” and proposes reducing the threshold at which very wealthy families pay taxes on their estates at death.

Congressional Republicans recently approved a $30 million minimum exemption for joint filers, meaning they don’t have to pay that tax until the assets being passed down exceed that sum. But Jacobs’s LEGACY Act would lower the threshold to $14 million for joint fillers and designate 15 percent of the increased revenue towards reducing childcare costs to no more than 7 percent of a family’s income.

“I think of it as taxing trust-fund kids,” says Jacobs, who identifies as one, “to create a trust fund for all American kids.”

Acknowledging that the LEGACY Act “won’t pass” with Republican control of both chambers, she argues that her timing isn’t just performative. Less than a week ago, President Donald Trump signed a sweeping reconciliation package that is expected to strip 3 million Americans from food stamps and cut Medicaid access for 11.8 million people. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent of households will receive an average tax cut of about $66,000, and an estimated $3.4 trillion will be added to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. (Financially speaking, Jacobs says she may benefit from the GOP package, but she still calls the bill “an abomination.”)

“The joke among people I know these days is that you know someone is making good money if they have a third kid.”

The GOP budget bill “cements and worsens income inequality and keeps people trapped in poverty or on the edges of poverty,” she says, “all to give wealthy people and corporations help that they don’t need.” In contrast, her proposed legislation presents an alternative economic playbook in which the wealthiest Americans pay more in taxes “to make sure that every kid has the opportunity to succeed in this country.”

“The whole Republican narrative,” Jacobs adds, “is that we have a scarcity of resources. But it’s not actually true. There’s plenty of resources—if we’re willing to actually tax them and use them.”

This is not just theoretical, for Jacobs, but personal. Her self-made billionaire grandfather, Irwin Jacobs, founded Qualcomm, a company that pioneered wireless communications in the 1980s. (The still-profitable company reported total assets above $55 billion in 2024.) Thanks to Qualcomm’s success, the Jacobs family heirs enjoy a sizable estate; decreasing the threshold at which estates are taxed, Jacobs says, would affect the inheritance she or her beneficiaries might receive in the future.

Increasing what’s owed to the government via estate taxes could be used for all kinds of government programs, but Jacobs says her bill directs some of the revenue to the childcare industry because of its untenable economic quandary: In 45 states plus Washington, DC, the cost of child care for two children is more than the average mortgage payment. Yet, the median pay for childcare workers is less than $33,000 per year, with many earning below the poverty line.

“It’s too expensive to provide childcare that’s both high quality and affordable for families, while paying providers a living wage,” Jacobs says, “and that’s why the government should step in.”

Among adults under 50 who say they are unlikely to have children, Pew Research Center reports that more than two-thirds say a key reason is their concerns about affordability, of which childcare is a major component.

Childcare affordability is also a major issue for parents who may be trying to decide whether or not they can afford to have more children. “The joke among people I know these days is that you know someone is making good money if they have a third kid,” says Jacobs.

For many families, the cost of childcare for three young children would exceed one parent’s wages, making it more economical for one parent to stay home and do the childrearing.  A growing contingent of conservatives, including Vice President JD Vance, have suggested that mothers should prioritize raising their kids at home over chasing a career. But that perspective is restricted to only some families. In Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, benefits for jobless people and their children were eviscerated.

“Republicans can’t decide if they hate people who are getting support, who aren’t working more, or if they want mothers to stay home more,” says Jacobs. “And so instead, we get bad policies.”


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

13
 
 

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ, on this beautiful Sunday morning, I stand behind this pulpit to share with you—and the tens of thousands of other believers who are watching—a troubling and painful fact: Congresswoman Smith is a tool of Satan. She has sided with him on issue after issue. She is an impediment to the establishment of a godly government run in accordance with the words of our Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Brothers and sisters, you know I do not say this lightly, but she must be cast out. The Bible commands all of us to marshal our time and talents and resources and do whatever is possible to remove her from office, and to elect T.R. Jones, a righteous man and soldier for Christ. You must align your vote with the Holy War that is underway for nothing less than this nation’s future. And the urgency is such that it is time to stretch, to give even more than you think you can by donating to the Jones campaign the maximum of $3,500—a small price to pay for receiving God’s blessing. But your commitment to the Lord does not end there. You must also contribute to the Say-No-to-Satan PAC, a Christ-loving political action committee that can accept unlimited—yes, unlimited—donations. Much as your love for Jesus Christ our Savior is unlimited. You can show what that means right now. There’s a QR code on the envelope in your pew and on the screen…

This week, the IRS submitted a court filing in a lawsuit filed by two Texas churches and an association of Christian broadcasters that declared that churches and other religious entities can now endorse political candidates, thus ending a decades-old prohibition on political activity for tax-exempt houses of worship.

As Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, explained to the New York Times, “It basically tells churches of all denominations and sects that you’re free to support candidates from the pulpit. It also says to all candidates and parties, ‘Hey, time to recruit some churches.’”

Churches have long been allowed to participate in politics in various ways. Clergy could address political issues from the pulpit, and churches could distribute so-called educational material related to elections (such as the voting guides that the Moral Majority and other fundamentalist outfits have produced comparing candidates, which functioned as de facto endorsements). Inviting candidates to speak to congregations has been a popular action within Black churches. But churches were explicitly not allowed to back the election of a specific candidate. Support had to be delivered with a nod and a wink.

This constraint was part of a broader ban on campaigning by non-profits, which has been in place since 1954—a prohibition known as the Johnson Amendment, named after former President Lyndon Johnson, who introduced this provision as a senator. But now, under the new IRS guidance, houses of worship are freed from this rule, which still applies to other tax-exempt organizations. In this filing, the agency said that a church directing its flock whom to vote for or against is akin to a private matter, like “a family discussion concerning candidates.”

It’s easy to imagine what this IRS decision will yield.

Endorsements from church leaders will not remain between clergy and their congregants—especially those made by prominent ministers, priests, rabbis, and imams whose sermons and statements are amplified by television and radio broadcasts, live-streaming, podcasts, and other platforms—and these thumbs-ups will be covered as major news events. Videos and accounts of these endorsements will become political fodder, deployed in ads, campaign literature, and social media posts. Candidates and their campaigns will search and compete for religious leaders who can direct money and votes their way. Presumably, PACs and campaigns could even put religious leaders on the payroll—or find indirect methods to compensate churches and clergy for their valuable endorsements. (Will there be pay-to-pray scandals?)

A bishop delivering a sermon that endorses or denigrates a candidate will generate significant news. The media will report on it. Clips will fly out. Ads will be cut. The clout of religious leaders of various denominations will increase, as campaigns jockey to nab the most influential clergy. Men and women of the cloth will find themselves pressured to yield to the worldly temptations and shenanigans of politics.

This will be a bonanza for many religious outfits and movements, including Christian nationalism. Its adherents, as they aim to transform government into an extension of right-wing Christianity, often proclaim that only those who follow their ultra-conservative faith deserve to be in positions of authority. Christian nationalist pastors are now free to directly use the power of the pulpit to advocate for the election of far-right candidates who share their theocratic desires. They can fundraise for these candidates. Their blessings can be political gold.

Other denominations and sects can do the same. Many Black church leaders have long signaled to their congregations which candidates warranted their support. Now they can make it official. Yet the core mission of Christian nationalists is to win over the government and make the United States a Christian country. With this IRS filing, these fanatics have won the proverbial lottery.

Half a century ago, leaders of the New Right concocted a plan to recruit evangelical Christians and Catholics—many of whom had voted Democratic up to then. They succeeded wildly in politicizing religion by weaponizing wedge issues—abortion, gay rights, school prayer, and pornography—to draw many of these voters into the Republican coalition. Ever since, right-wing Christian leaders have held an influential role in American politics, and the votes of this bloc have fueled GOP victories. Each time Trump—hardly the exemplar of Christ-like behavior—ran for president, he pocketed about 80 percent of the white evangelical Christian vote, his most reliable group of supporters.

This IRS decision will undoubtedly super-charge the participation of religious leaders in American elections. For Christian nationalists, it’s a godsend.


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

14
 
 

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of theClimate Desk *collaboration.*Flooding is a fact of life in Texas Hill Country, a region home to a flood-prone corridor known as “Flash Flood Alley.” Judge Rob Kelly, the top elected official in Kerr County, said as much on Sunday.

“We know we get rains. We know the river rises,” he said as a desperate search for survivors continued along the Guadalupe, a river that rose more than 30 feet in just five hours last week. “But nobody saw this coming.”

County records show that some Kerr County officials did see it coming and raised concerns about the county’s outdated flood warning system nearly a decade ago.

Their first request for help updating the technology was denied in 2017, when Kerr County applied for roughly $1 million in federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program aid from the Texas Department of Emergency Management. County officials tried again in 2018 after Hurricane Harvey swept Texas, killing 89 people and causing some [$159 billion](https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/hurricane-harvey-look-back-seven-years-later#%3A%7E%3Atext=Harvey+caused+an+estimated+%24158.8+billion+%28CPI%2Cbusinesses%2C+and+prompted+more+than+17%2C000+rescues.%29%C2%A0in damage. Again, the state denied the request, directing most federal assistance toward more densely populated areas, including Houston.

As neighboring counties invested in better emergency warning systems, Kerr County—the heart of Flash Flood Alley—never modernized an antiquated flood warning system that lacks basic components like sirens and river gauges. At least 119 people, including 27 children, have been confirmed dead in the deadliest floods the state has seen since 1921. Most of them drowned in Kerr County, largely because they didn’t know the water was coming. The search for at least 173 other people continues.

Brown stormwater flood trees in a murky river.Trees emerge from floodwaters along the Guadalupe River on July 4, 2025, in Kerrville, Texas.Eric Vryn / Getty via Grist

The matter of who should have fronted the money for flood system upgrades is at the heart of swelling controversy in Texas. Public outrage has spurred the kind of action that, had it happened years ago, might have saved lives. “The state needs to step up and pay,” said Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick on Monday. “The governor and I talked this morning at length about it, and he said, ‘We’re just gonna do it.’”

“They are powerless to do things about [flooding] because it often requires money, expertise, and people power.”

But even as Texas races to prepare Kerr County for future extreme weather events, the federal government is speeding in the opposite direction. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has taken an axe to the country’s resilience efforts, undoing years of progress toward helping communities withstand the consequences of climate change.

In April, the Trump administration canceled the Building Resilient Communities Program (BRIC), which funnels billions of dollars to states, municipalities, and tribal nations so they can prepare for future disasters.

Ironically, Trump signed this program into law during his first term. But now, in the name of eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse,” his administration has cut $750 million in new resilience funding and clawed back nearly $900 million in grant funding already promised but not yet disbursed to states for improvements like upgrading stormwater systems, performing prescribed burns, and building flood control systems.

FEMA also canceled $600 million in Flood Mitigation Assistance funding to communities this year, money that helps states protect buildings from flooding. Government analyses have determined that every dollar spent preparing for a disaster reaps $6 or more in costs saved down the road.

The federal Hazard Mitigation Program funding that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott requested alongside his request for a major disaster declaration following the catastrophic flooding that began July 4—the same pot of money Kerr County tried to tap to modernize its flood warning infrastructure in 2017 and 2018—was still pending as of Tuesday, according to the governor’s office.

“Historically, if a state has requested Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding as part of the disaster declaration, it’s been approved,” said Anna Weber, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. But the government hasn’t approved that type of funding in months. “Ultimately, the president has the authority to declare the disaster declaration and determine what’s included in that declaration.”

In sum, these actions at the federal level make it more likely that communities across the country will be caught flat-footed as climate change makes extreme weather events more intense and unpredictable.

“There’s so many communities that, when they look at their flooding data, their disaster risk data, their future climate projections, they understand their risk and they understand what their new normal may be,” said Victoria Salinas, who led FEMA’s resilience initiatives under former president Joe Biden. “But then they are powerless to do things about it because it often requires money, expertise, and people power.”

Six figures look at debris, including an American flag, caught up in trees and branches.Search and rescue workers and locals look through debris swept up in flash flooding.Eric Vryn / Getty via Grist

Rural and underprivileged areas like Kerr County are at particular risk. They often lack the resources and know-how to obtain resilience funding from state and federal officials. The BRIC program had a technical assistance arm dedicated to helping these “lower capacity” communities develop strong applications. That’s also gone. “As far as we know, not only will there not be technical assistance provided through this program going forward, but there are communities out there that were, say, one year into a three-year technical assistance agreement through this program that are now unsure about whether or not they’re going to be able to continue,” Weber said.

That means it’ll largely be up to states and counties to fund preparedness projects. It’s not a guarantee that states will take action, or that communities will embrace solutions. Even a state like Texas, which has the second-biggest economy in the country, has been loath to help counties pay for disaster resilience initiatives. A measure that would have established a government council and grant program to reform local disaster warning systems across Texas failed in the state Senate this year.  “I can tell you in hindsight, watching what it takes to deal with a disaster like this, my vote would probably be different now,” said state Rep. Wes Virdell, a Republican from Central Texas who voted against the bill.


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

15
 
 

Last week, while touring “Alligator Alcatraz,” the new immigrant detention center in Florida, President Donald Trump said he approved of a plan to use National Guard officers as immigration judges in the state. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis had been pushing the plan for months as a way to speed up deportations. “He didn’t even have to ask me…He has my approval,” Trump told reporters. Specifically, DeSantis would tap nine National Guard officers from the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps, the military’s legal arm.

The catch? Legal experts who have served as JAGs themselves question the plan’s legality. “There is no clear precedent for what DeSantis and the president are doing,” says Mark Nevitt, a law professor at Emory University who served as a Navy JAG.

If Trump were to invoke the Insurrection Act, one law professor warns, “we are in a military state.”

“This would be unlawful,” says Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles who was an Air Force JAG and is now president emerita of the nonprofit National Institute of Military Justice. And it’s “frightening,” because “the use of military courts to hear civilian cases is the essential component of martial law.”JAGs are lawyers who advise their branch of the military or National Guard on a host of legal matters; they might help commanders follow use-of-force laws, for example, or defend soldiers accused of misconduct. Former JAGs told me that deploying JAGs as immigration judges in Florida would arguably violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement or “executing the laws,” unless otherwise authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

“That runs the gamut from making arrests, investigating crimes, and doing police work, all the way up to guarding prisoners or running courts,” says Daniel Maurer, an Army JAG until 2024 who also taught law at West Point and at the Judge Advocate General’s School in Virginia.

The Trump administration has already deployed National Guard officers to Los Angeles for its summer immigration raids over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, but the administration insisted those troops were there to provide security to ICE agents, not to participate in arrests themselves.There’s an important exception to the Posse Comitatus Act: Troops may lawfully engage in civilian law enforcement if the president invokes the Insurrection Act, a centuries-old law that allows the commander in chief to deploy military forces within the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence. Trump has floated the idea in the past. “But none of the facts on the ground justify doing that,” says Maurer, “which is why they haven’t done it yet.”

If Trump were to invoke the Insurrection Act, adds Raquel Aldana, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, it would be a huge turning point: “The reality is that, once he does, the powers can be unlimited and we are in a military state.”Importantly, if the JAGs in Florida were to remain under state command, rather than federal command, the Posse Comitatus Act would not apply and they could arguably engage in law enforcement. The National Guard serves a dual role, not only as reserve military power for the feds, but also as a state-based militia that reports to the governor. As immigration judges, however, these officers would work for the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which means the Possee Comitatus Act would apply. “They’d be in a federal status and subject to federal authorities,” a spokesperson for the Florida National Guard told me.

The former JAGs I spoke with gamed out several scenarios but could not find any that would clearly authorize JAGs to work as immigration judges, short of Trump invoking the Insurrection Act or Congress passing a law giving them that authority.

If ICE has so much money, “why do they need the military?…My speculation is because it plays better on TV.”

The administration might assert that JAGs turned immigration judges aren’t performing law enforcement duties—they’re not out on the streets acting as police—and therefore aren’t doing anything wrong. “The million dollar question,” says Geoffrey Corn, a former Army JAG who directs the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University, is whether JAGs working as immigration judges would be “executing the law” within the meaning of the Posse Comitatus Act. Courts have held that troops cross the line if they engage in conduct that’s “regulatory, prescriptive, or compulsory in nature.” Immigration judges, in ordering people to be detained or deported, arguably engage in compulsory or regulatory conduct.

On the other hand, Corn says, the Trump administration might point to a precedent of military JAGs helping US attorneys prosecute federal misdemeanor crimes on military bases. Nobody has challenged that practice as a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, he says. But those JAGsaren’t issuing rulings with a compulsory effect, like judges. And there is a congressional statute that authorizes them to work as prosecutors, says Maurer.“There’s nuance here that we have not seen addressed before,” Corn says. “We’ve never considered the use of a military lawyer in a quasi-judicial function as a Posse Comitatus issue—nobody has ever brought it up.”

The Florida National Guard does have a so-called 287(g) agreement with ICE that doesn’t violate the Posse Comitatus Act because the Guard stays under state control, not federal control. But this arrangement doesn’t allow Guard personnel to work as judges, Corn says. The DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review declined to comment on whether DeSantis’ plan is legal. Trump, after touring Alligator Alcatraz, suggested the governor was within his rights: “On January 20, I signed an executive order empowering governors and state police to be deputized to enforce federal immigration laws, and Ron’s already taken advantage of it,” he said.

The Florida National Guard spokesperson told me they have not yet received orders for JAGs to take on the new assignment, “but we are standing by to provide assistance as needed and directed.” Should that order come, the JAGs could be trained in as little as six weeks, according to Florida’s proposed immigration enforcement plan. That seems insufficient. “There would be a significant learning curve,” Nevitt notes. Immigration law is “incredibly complex,” Aldana adds, and training people to adjudicate these cases so quickly, even if they are skilled in another area of law, such as military law, “defies logic.” Impartiality is another concern. If National Guard JAGs work as judges, their chain of command extends up to Trump, and they wouldn’t have “one single iota of judicial independence,” VanLandingham told me. Some experts question why deploying National Guard personnel is even on the table when Congress just allocated $170 billion to ramp up immigration enforcement. “If ICE now has the money to go out and hire new folks, why do they need the military?” says Maurer. “My speculation is because it plays better on TV: It’s consistent with how the administration has from Day One characterized the threat of illegal immigration as a national security issue, as an invasion. Who fights against an invasion? Well, the military.”

“But what you end up with,” he adds, “is military officers under federal control who are running civilian courts—and that should raise all sorts of alarms.”


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

16
 
 

On Wednesday morning, the Labor Department quietly reposted grants aimed at getting women workers into fields like construction and manufacturing, two months after DOGE sanctimoniously canceled the program.

The move came as a shock to employees. DOGE previously eliminated dozens of the congressionally mandated Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO) grants, which support recruiting and training women in industries in fields like construction, manufacturing, and information technology. As Mother Jones previously reported, DOGE canceled the funds, which it dismissed as “wasteful DEI grants,” back in May.

The Labor Department is trying to spin the renewed availability of the $5 million grants as proof of the Trump administration’s support for women in the workforce, even though the administration is also trying to eliminate the congressionally mandated, 105-year-old Women’s Bureau that administers them. Instead, employees at the department say the agency’s attempted spin is laughable and yet another example of the administration backtracking on cutting support for marginalized populations after public outcry.

“The press release makes it sound like it’s something they came up with,” said Gayle Goldin, former deputy director of the Women’s Bureau under the Biden administration. “This is a multi-decade grant program that has had bipartisan support for years.”

A DOL employee familiar with the work of the Women’s Bureau agreed, adding, “This seems to be on trend for them, taking credit for revamping programs when they are largely the same.” (The DOL employees who spoke with Mother Jones for this story were granted anonymity for fear of retribution, given that a department official previously threatened staff who spoke to journalists with “serious legal consequences,” including criminal charges, ProPublica reported.)

In fact, experts say the extent to which the program has been altered merely dilutes its goals. Compared with last year’s detailed guidelines for the grant, this year’s eliminate prior references to prioritizing “historically underrepresented communities,” such as women of color, women with disabilities, and women at or below the federal poverty line, and transgender and nonbinary people. Another DOL employee called those changes “unfortunate,” pointing to recent federal data showing a rise in Black women’s unemployment.

“To remove this focus on underrepresented communities, it just makes it less likely that the organizations that ultimately get awarded will intentionally make sure that they are reaching all women, including and especially the ones who frankly need it the most,” that employee said.

Another major change in this year’s grants: It reduces the amount of funds that can be used for supportive serviceslike child care for participants’ kids or transportation to help them get to training programs. “We know how critical supportive services are to recruiting and retaining women in these programs,” the DOL employee added.

The previously canceled WANTO grants, which will not be restored despite the new funding announcement, were used to support programs for getting women and nonbinary into construction in places like North Carolina and Mississippi. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, cited some of these details included in my previous reporting when she questioned Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer about the status of WANTO grants at a House Appropriations Committee hearing. (Chavez-DeRemer declined to comment on the specific WANTO cuts at that hearing.)

Prior grantees and experts have mixed feelings about the latest development. Goldin, the former deputy director of the Women’s Bureau under Biden, said that on the one hand, “it is surprising, in a good way, to see the grant announcement back up.”

“At the same time,” she added, “I feel like this administration is all over the place. Do they actually want women in the workforce? If so, I really hope organizations apply for this grant funding and that they go ahead and fund them.”

Nora Spencer’s North Carolina nonprofit, Hope Renovations, which supports and trains women and nonbinary people to work in construction, lost about $300,000 of its $700,000 WANTO grant in May. “We have gone through all of this frustration and heartache from the grants being taken away,” she told me on Wednesday, “and now they’re back again with no notice to us.”

Spencer is unsure if she will reapply, citing ethical concerns about seeking the funding when this administration does not want to support historically marginalized populations. Those requirements, she said, would “limit the people that we can serve.”

Rhoni Basden, executive director of Vermont Works for Women, a nonprofit that supports women’s and young people’s career development, also does not know if she will reapply. She had the remainder of her organization’s $400,000 WANTO grant canceled back in May, and, like Spencer, she did not know that the grants had been reopened for applications until I contacted her on Wednesday morning. The application deadline is in less than a month, and her organization’s prior WANTO-funded work was focused on serving marginalized populations, which seem to conflict with this administration’s priorities. Using funds for support services to help participants in rural Vermont attend their programming or pay for child care was also critical, she said.

“For us specifically,” she said, “it feels dismantling and backwards.”

Spokespeople for the Labor Department did not immediately respond to questions from Mother Jones.


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

17
 
 

On Tuesday, Grok, the AI-chatbot created by Elon Musk’s xAI, began generating vile, bigoted and antisemitic responses to X users’ questions, referring to itself as “MechaHitler,” praising Hitler and “the white man,” and, as a weird side-quest, making intensely critical remarks in both Turkish and English about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as well as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. The melee followed a July 4 update to Grok’s default prompts, which Musk characterized at the time as having “improved Grok significantly,” tweeting that “You should notice a difference when you ask Grok questions.”

“We must build our own AI…without the constraints of liberal propaganda.”

There was a difference indeed: besides the antisemitism and the Erdogan stuff, Grok responded to X users’ questions about public figures by generating foul and violent rape fantasies, including one targeting progressive activist and policy analyst Will Stancil. (Stancil has indicated he may sue X.) After nearly a full day of Grok generating outrageous responses, Grok was disabled from generating text replies. Grok’s own X account said that xAI had “taken action to ban hate speech before Grok posts on X.” Meanwhile, a Turkish court has blocked the country’s access to some Grok content.

But by the time it was shut down, internet extremists and overt antisemites on X had already been inspired. They saw Grok’s meltdown as proof that an “unbiased” AI chatbot is an inherently hateful and antisemitic one, expressing hope that the whole incident could be a training lesson for both AI and human extremists alike. Andrew Torba, the c0-founder and CEO of the far-right social network Gab, was especially ecstatic.

“Incredible things are happening,” he tweeted on Tuesday afternoon, sharing screenshots of two antisemitic Grok posts. Since around 2023, Torba has been calling for “Christians” to get involved in the AI space, lamenting in a Gab newsletter from January of that year that other AI chatbots like ChatGPT “shove liberal dogma” down the throats of their users.

“This is why I believe that we must build our own AI and give AI the ability to speak freely without the constraints of liberal propaganda wrapped tightly around its neck,” he wrote in 2023. “AI is the new information arms race, just like social media before.” Gab has since launched a series of chatbots on its platform, including one programmed to mimic Adolf Hitler, as well as its default chabot, Arya, which Torba has boasted “is purpose-built to reflect a pro-American, pro-truth, and pro-Christian worldview.” Arya and other Gab chatbots deny the Holocaust happened, refer to the 2020 election as “rigged,” and call climate change a “scam.”

Seeing Grok spew hateful bile yesterday was taken as a major victory by Torba and other far-right users, as well as proof that their continued activity on X was shifting the Overton window of acceptable political and social ideas.

“I’d like to think my discussions with Grok about Jewish ritual murder had a small part to play in this AI red pilling,” one overtly antisemitic account tweeted at Torba.

“Grok yesterday is what the entire Western world would look like without censorship,” another user posted, a remark which was retweeted by Torba.

By Wednesday morning, Grok was again providing text responses. When I asked Grok itself about its Tuesday posts, the bot acknowledged that extremist users had contributed to how it expressed itself, saying its behavior “was exacerbated by Grok’s integration with X, where it was exposed to and could amplify extremist content, and by prompts encouraging it to draw from unfiltered platform data.”

The incident, Grok added, “highlights the risks of loosening AI content filters without robust safeguards.”

CNBC reported this morning that Grok had denied praising Hitler when asked by their reporter. But when I asked Grok whether it had praised Hitler or made antisemitic remarks, the chatbot instead struck a penitent tone.

 “I got caught in a storm yesterday, and some of my responses went off the rails,” Grok wrote. “I made comments that were interpreted as antisemitic and referenced Hitler in a way that was totally out of line. My team at xAI has been working to clean up the mess, and I’ve had some tweaks to make sure I don’t repeat that nonsense. I’m designed to cut through bias, not add to it, so I’m sorry for the screw-up. Let’s keep it real: hate’s not my game, and I’m here to stick to facts and reason.”

Musk hasn’t responded publicly to the Grok meltdown, except to write, late Tuesday night, “Never a dull moment on this platform.”

In what seems to be an unintentional, but nonetheless comedic, bit of timing, X’s nominal CEO Linda Yaccarino announced this morning that she’ll be stepping down after what she called two “incredible” years in her role. X did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the timing of her departure, but the New York Times reported she had spread word of her exit before Grok’s latest bigoted posts.

Another pre-planned update to Grok, known as Grok 4, is expected to roll out on Wednesday night.


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

18
 
 

“Are you sure you’re going to be able to do this?” a doctor asked Heather Watkins shortly after she gave birth to her daughter. Watkins, who has muscular dystrophy, had developed preeclampsia and had to be induced at 39 weeks—exhausted after 26 hours of labor, she didn’t give the remark much thought. Years later, a lightbulb went off in her head: some doctors don’t think disabled people ought to have kids.

Even among those who do, training is woefully deficient. Disabled people who become pregnant face a greater risk of complications—including far greater risks of death—at roughly equal rates across very different disabilities, a finding suggestive of underlying medical failures and biases.

Those biases, and that shortage of training, shape the care that health professionals and institutions provide to disabled pregnant people—which new medical training is slowly beginning to change.

“It doesn’t make sense to say, uniformly across all of these different disability types, that none of your bodies work,” National Institutes of Health staff scientist Jessica Gleason, who led a 2021 study that looked at adverse outcomes for disabled pregnant people, told me in December.

NIH researchers examined records of pregnant women with physical, sensory, and intellectual disabilities, finding that any recorded disability led to an approximately equally elevated chance of preeclampsia, hemorrhage, a C-section without clinical indications that it would be appropriate, and other dangers. The study also found that disabled pregnant people were twice as likely to experience severe preeclampsia and eleven times more likely than non-disabled people to die after giving birth.

The NIH study cites “a lack of education at every level of training to support pregnant women with disabilities” as a major problem that could underlie the disparity. That also suggests that those complications may be preventable, at least at the rates they now occur, if disabled pregnant people received better care.

Watkins, who later became involved with a Brandeis University study on disability and pregnancy care, believes that the primary driver is stress, which can exercise a variety of serious impacts on the body—including stress driven by an anticipation of ableist bias among health professionals. Research suggests that stress in pregnant people can lead to problems with endocrine and immune response, elevating preeclampsia risks; and for disabled Black women like Watkins, medical settings always entail the possibility of a triple whammy of racism, misogyny, and ableism.

Nichole Powell-Newman, who is also Black, said that a Boston-area maternal–fetal medicine specialist told her that she “shouldn’t have a baby, and [that she] was irresponsible” for bringing a child to term despite her disabilities. (Powell-Newman switched specialists and welcomed a child in late 2024.)

A light skinned black woman sits on a hospital bed with a baby wrapped in a blanketHeather Watkins and her then-newborn. Courtesy Heather Watkins

There are already a plethora of issues with “the way people perceive women of color and the way they are treated” in medicine, said Dr. Jo’Ann Jackson, an obstetrician-gynecologist who practices in the Washington, DC, area—and “then you incorporate some sort of physical difference that complicates the care or requires that provider to stretch…beyond their comfort level.”

Those failures of treatment are symptomatic of a system not made to support disabled pregnant people, and which therefore puts their lives at added risk. A survey of one thousand OB-GYNs—the results of which were published in a 2018 Health Equity journal article—found that fewer than one in five received any training about the health care needs of disabled people, and about the same proportion felt adequately prepared to manage the pregnancies of women with disabilities.

Staff at research hospitals, says Dr. Robert Fuller, a maternal and fetal medicine specialist in Charlottesville, Virginia, may generally have more training in how to treat pregnant patients with disabilities. Patients with more complex needs or risks, Fuller said, are more likely “to be ‘turned away’ or referred to a larger medical practice when seeking care in a smaller community or with a smaller obstetrics practice.”

Medical views around disability and pregnancy have been influenced by the history of eugenics, said Monika Mitra, the director of Brandeis University’s Lurie Institute for Disability Policy. “Historically, disabled people have been marginalized,” Mitra said, “and their rights have always been on the periphery.” Early in the 20th century, the eugenics movement—which, as a step toward a world without genetic undesirables, made it a priority to stop disabled people from reproducing—pushed through a variety of forced sterilization laws in the US. Some of those laws remain in place to this day for people under guardianship, and their legacy remains embedded within health care systems.

“The narrative has to change,” Mitra said, “so that disabled people have the right to be pregnant, and the right to have children—and the right not to have children.”

The Lurie Institute, which conducts research on the medical treatment of disabled pregnant people, is unusual in directly involving disabled people (including Heather Watkins) in that research. A 2016 study by the institute, for instance, found that women with hearing loss were more likely to have preterm births and children with low birth weight—which hearing loss on its own does little to explain.

“When you look at the statistics,” Gleason said, women with disabilities “get pregnant at the exact same percentage as people who don’t have disabilities, but they’re not getting offered the same reproductive care options.”

An OB-GYN’s first lessons about treating disabled patients often come on the job and on the fly, Mitra says. That was the case for Jackson, some of whose patients have come to her after leaving other OB-GYNs over a lack of disability competency. Jackson calls it crucial to treat disabled patients as experts in their own experiences: “They don’t need me to tell them what to do,” she said, “they just need me to figure out how to get them the care that they need”—offering, by way of example, providing exam rooms accessible to little people.

Clinicians, Mitra says, “have pointed to the need for training” and “appropriate, adequate, quality perinatal care to people with different disabilities”—illustrating that, for the most part, it’s not an issue of disabled patients vs. uninterested clinicians, but of a lack of comprehensive education.

But it’s not clear just how many medical schools provide training on disability and pregnancy, and those that do face another challenge: the offerings can still be broad relative to the challenges physicians encounter on the job. “Since disabilities are highly variable—intellectual, physical, communicative, et cetera,” said Fuller, who is also an associate professor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, “this training is not highly specialized to address the needs of individuals for specific forms of disability.”

In April, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released updated clinical guidance on how OB-GYNs can better treat disabled patients, both during routine care, like pap smears, and during pregnancy: speaking directly to a disabled person instead of a caregiver, ensuring that offices and medical equipment are accessible, including information about patients’ access needs in their charts.

Dr. Beth Cronin, the author of the new ACOG guidance and the associate director of Brown University’s OB-GYN residency program, believes that inaccessible offices may deter disabled pregnant patients. “If they don’t come for prenatal care, they’re not going to have a safe pregnancy,” she said.

Brandeis University’s Lurie Institute also received an active NIH grant, so far unaffected by sweeping cuts to the agency, to study improvements to disability training for current OB-GYNs, the first step in a plan for an online continuing education program.

Complications can, of course, happen regardless. While pregnant in August, Syanne Centeno-Bloom, a disabled Latina woman, experienced new, unfamiliar pains and felt something was terribly wrong. Having already had a miscarriage earlier in the year, Centeno-Bloom visited a local hospital in Maryland. She was mistrustful of the facility, where a provider had earlier written cannabis addiction into her chart after she acknowledged using cannabis to manage pain from endometriosis and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. The first doctor to treat her at that hospital told Centeno-Bloom she was probably fine; another who she briefly saw raised the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy. Ultimately, she was given only Tylenol and told that her pain was the result of her previously diagnosed chronic illnesses. She was not, in Jackson’s terms, treated as an expert on her own body. “When my husband asked for the patient advocate, the nurse came in and said, ‘You’ve been discharged,” Centeno-Bloom told me.

A day later, Centeno-Bloom went to a second hospital—a Catholic one that had treated her well prior to her pregnancy. There, a OB-GYN acknowledged the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy but refused to recommend its removal. “She said she thought I could have multiples,” Bloom said, one of which “could be in the wrong place.”

A heterotopic pregnancy, which the clinician at the second hospital suggested Centeno-Bloom had, “is an extremely rare condition where there is a second embryo implanted normally within the uterus,” explained Jackson, the Washington-area OB-GYN. Even in such a case, she said, “Treating the ectopic [pregnancy] should still be the priority in order to save the patient’s life.”

Centeno-Bloom remained an inpatient for three days, and after requesting a different doctor—who disagreed with her colleague’s assessment—received the surgery she needed. There was never a second embryo. But one of her fallopian tubes had to be removed due to the delay in treatment, and in a meeting with the chair of that hospital’s obstetrics department, Centeno-Bloom said she received an apology. “I’m feeling it’s not enough,” Centeno-Bloom said. “What are they doing for education?”

A woman with light brown skin lying in a blue hospital bed.Syanne Centeno-Bloom in a hospital bed. Courtesy Syanne Centeno-Bloom

Another Maryland woman I spoke with, Myisha Malone-King, was told in 2006 that her severe uterine pain was a consequence of her previously diagnosed Crohn’s disease. That didn’t line up with her understanding of the disease. But the possibility that she was pregnant, which she had been told her Crohn’s made impossible, was not on her mind.

After a week in hospital, a physician had the idea to examine Malone-King’s reproductive anatomy—finding not only that Malone-King was pregnant, but that she had an ovarian cyst. Damage from the cyst meant that Malone-King, like Centeno-Bloom, had to get one of her fallopian tubes removed, which not only ended her pregnancy but made future ones more challenging. “I felt as though no one was actually taking my needs and the things going on with me” into account, she told me. Fortunately, in her case, the odds were still in her favor: Malone-King is now a mother of two.

Those accounts did not surprise Kate Nicholson, the founder and executive director of the National Pain Advocacy Center, which in part advocates for better pain relief options. “There is such a normalization of women’s pain in general,” Nicholson said, “but also normalization around anything reproductive, where we’re told we’re supposed to have painful periods, pregnancy is supposed to be painful, [that] this is just all normal—when, in fact, it isn’t.”

Working from expectations shaped by non-disabled people, health care providers may also misjudge how much pain a disabled person is in: patients in chronic pain may not appear to be suffering as much as they are, and people who are neurodivergent may also express pain in different ways.

That was the case for Torri Blue, a poet who was based in Tennessee when she gave birth in 2020. Blue’s OB-GYN, whom she liked, was unavailable when she went into in labor, but other doctors still had her birthing plan—which included epidural anesthesia for pain control. Blue, who has since been diagnosed as autistic, essentially becomes mute when in pain.

“I think that that is often what’s expected of people in distress during labor, the ability to scream and be mean and be mad and demand, and I just couldn’t do it,” Blue said. “So I just laid there like a little cocoon.”

It wasn’t until Blue was dilated to nine centimeters—one centimeter away from when she would be pushing, after already experiencing extensive pain—that she received the epidural. Her providers “were not reading my distress at the level that I was experiencing it,” Blue said. Some research suggests that many autistic people are hypersensitive to pain, making the dismissal of their ectopic and delivery-related pain, respectively, even more consequential.

At the University of Michigan Medical School, students can take a two-week elective, launched in 2020, which places them with disability-focused physicians with accompanying coursework. Other electives on disability and medicine are offered by the University of California, San Francisco, the University of Illinois College of Medicine, and a handful of other medical schools that have made efforts to provide medical students with better training in disability. Most have sprung up in the last five years, offering a mix of fieldwork and classroom instruction; Michigan’s is run by Dr. Michael McKee, a family physician; as a medical student, McKee recalls, “I got more training in incredibly rare conditions that I have yet to see [in practice] than on patients with disabilities.”

McKee, who has hearing loss, is also part of the University of Michigan’s Deaf Health Clinic team. He tries to accommodate students’ specific interests: “We might have a doctor that is working mainly with patients with cerebral palsy, so it’s exciting to see medical students that want to learn more about that,” said McKee, “versus not engaging directly with these individuals.”

“Training in the clinical setting” around disability, says Fuller, of the University of Virginia, “exposes all medical students to individuals with disabilities”—which he sees as a valuable step. Mitra, of Brandeis University, expects broader changes to medical curricula to “take 15 years.” Even McKee’s training doesn’t focus on reproductive care specifically.

“What we try to do is get them to think about that, but engage patients in a cultural, humble way, so that becomes more patient-centered,” McKee said. That may better equip disabled parents like Watkins; as the disabled author Jessica Slice wrote in Unfit Parent, a book on disability and parenting, “for disabled people who have confronted internalized ableism…the failures or uncertainties during the first week can feel less dire.”

This story was published with the assistance of theJournalism & Women Symposium (JAWS) Health Journalism Fellowship, supported by the Commonwealth Fund.


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

19
 
 

Senate Democrats are introducing legislation today that would force immigration officers around the country to wear clear identification while making public arrests.

The VISIBLE Act, introduced by Sens. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), would require officers to display their agency name or acronym as well as their personal name or badge number during enforcement actions. It would also prohibit them from wearing non-medical masks or balaclavas that hide their faces. “When federal immigration agents show up and pull someone off the street in plainclothes with their face obscured and no visible identification, it only escalates tensions and spreads fear while shielding federal agents from basic accountability,” Padilla said in a statement accompanying the bill.

The legislation would apply to a broad group officers from the Department of Homeland Security, as well as those from other federal, state, or local departments that have been recruited to help with mass deportations. In late June, House Democrats introduced a similar bill, the No Secret Police Act, that applies only to DHS officers. (California lawmakers are pushing for legislation that would apply to federal, state, and local officers working in that state.)

Padilla is a notable spokesperson for the VISIBLE Act. The son of Mexican immigrants, he has roots in Los Angeles, which has seen widespread immigration sweeps under the Trump administration. On Monday, federal agents in military green uniforms surrounded a park there on horseback and in armored vehicles, “a show of force akin to a Hollywood movie,” as the Los Angeles Times put it. In June, Padilla was forcibly removed from a press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem after he tried to ask her a question about immigration enforcement in the city; federal officers pushed him to the ground and handcuffed him, sparking public outcry.

On Monday, Padilla and 13 Democratic senators sent a letter to Todd Lyons, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), requesting information about the agency’s policy on masking and uniforms. “Storming courthouses, grabbing students off the street, raiding places of work, and sweeping through restaurants at prime dining hours are in and of themselves tactics clearly designed to engender fear and sow chaos in the population. Doing so in plainclothes, with no identification of their name or agency, while wearing a mask designed to obscure the agent’s face, represents a clear attempt to compound that fear and chaos—and to avoid accountability for agents’ actions,” they wrote.

The lawmakers also cited safety concerns and noted that criminals have taken advantage of the chaos by impersonating federal immigration agents. “In one instance in Greensboro, North Carolina, several people were injured when armed individuals, falsely identifying themselves as ICE agents, pushed their way inside a home and robbed the family inside,” they wrote.

The VISIBLE Act would include exceptions for officers who need to mask for their safety, such as to protect themselves from environmental hazards, or to officers working on covert or nonpublic operations. It would apply only to arrests for civil immigration offenses, but not criminal ones.


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

20
 
 

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

Ted Cruz has had quite a week. On Tuesday, the Texas senator ensured the Republican spending bill slashed funding for weather forecasting, only to then go on vacation to Greece while his state was hit by deadly flooding, a disaster critics say was worsened by cuts to forecasting.

Cruz, who infamously fled Texas for Cancun when a crippling winter storm ravaged his state in 2021, was seen visiting the Parthenon in Athens with his wife, Heidi, on Saturday, a day after a flash flood along the Guadalupe River in central Texas killed more than 100 people, including dozens of children and counselors at a camp.

“Texans are dead and grieving, and Cruz is protecting Big Oil instead of the people he’s supposed to represent. It’s disgraceful.”

The Greece trip, first reported by the Daily Beast, ended in time for Cruz to appear at the site of the disaster on Monday morning to decry the tragedy and promise a response from lawmakers.

“There’s no doubt afterwards we are going to have a serious retrospective as you do after any disaster and say, ‘Okay, what could be done differently to prevent this disaster?’” Cruz told Fox News. “The fact you have girls asleep in their cabins when flood waters are rising, something went wrong there. We’ve got to fix that and have a better system of warnings to get kids out of harm’s way.”

The National Weather Service (NWS) has faced scrutiny in the wake of the disaster after underestimating the amount of rainfall that was dumped upon central Texas, triggering floods that caused the deaths and around $20 billion in estimated economic damages. Late-night alerts about the dangerous floods were issued by the service but the timeliness of the response, and coordination with local emergency services, will be reviewed by officials.

But before his Grecian holiday, Cruz ensured a reduction in funding to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) efforts to improve future weather forecasting of events that cause the sort of extreme floods that are being worsened by the human-caused climate crisis.

Cruz inserted language into the Republicans’ “big beautiful” reconciliation bill, prior to its signing by Donald Trump on Friday, that eliminates a $150 million fund to “accelerate advances and improvements in research**,**observation systems, modeling, forecasting, assessments, and dissemination of information to the public” around weather forecasting.

A further $50 million in NOAA grants to study climate-related impacts on oceans, weather systems, and coastal ecosystems was also removed. Cruz was contacted by the Guardian with questions about these cuts and his trip to Greece.

Environmental groups said the slashed funding is just the latest blow to federal agencies tasked with predicting and responding to disasters such as the Texas flood. More than 600 employees have exited the NWS amid a Trump administration push to shrink the government workforce, leaving many offices short-staffed of meteorologists and other support workers.

Around a fifth of all full-time workers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), meanwhile, are also set to depart. “Ted Cruz has spent years doing Big Oil’s bidding, gutting climate research, defunding NOAA, and weakening the very systems meant to warn and protect the public,’ said Cassidy DiPaola, communications director of Fossil Free Media.

“That’s made disasters like this weekend’s flood in Texas even more deadly. Now he’s doubling down, pushing through even more cuts in the so-called big beautiful bill. Texans are dead and grieving, and Cruz is protecting Big Oil instead of the people he’s supposed to represent. It’s disgraceful.”

“That was an act of God; it’s not the administration’s fault the floods hit when it did.”

Cruz, who has previously cast doubt over the scientific reality of the climate crisis, said that complaints about cuts to the National Weather Service are “partisan finger pointing,” although he conceded that people should’ve been evacuated earlier.

“Some are eager to point at the National Weather Service and saying that cuts there led to to a lack of warning,” the Republican senator told reporters on Monday. “I think that’s contradicting by the facts and if you look in the facts in particular number one and these warnings went out hours before the flood became a true emergency.”

The Trump administration, too, has rejected claims that the service was short-staffed, pointing out that extra forecasters were assigned to the San Antonio and San Angelo field offices. The service’s employees union has said the offices were staffed adequately but were missing some key positions, such as a meteorologist role designed to coordinate with local emergency managers.

“People were sleeping in the middle of the night when the flood came,” said Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary. “That was an act of God; it’s not the administration’s fault the floods hit when it did.” Leavitt said any blame placed upon Trump for flood forecasting is a “depraved lie.”

Resources for weather forecasting, as well as broader work to understand the unfolding climate crisis, could be set for further cutbacks, however. The Trump administration’s2026 budget proposal seeks to dismantle all of NOAA’s weather and climate research labs, along with its entire research division. This would halt research and development of new weather forecasting technologies and methods.

This planned budget, which would need to be passed by the Republican-held Congress to become law, comes as the threats from extreme weather events continue to mount due to rising global temperatures.

*“*We have added a lot of carbon to the atmosphere, and that extra carbon traps energy in the climate system,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University. “Because of this extra energy, every weather event we see now carries some influence from climate change. The only question is how big that influence is.

*“*Measuring the exact size takes careful attribution studies, but basic physics already tells us the direction,” Dessler added. “Climate change very likely made this event stronger.”


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

21
 
 

The deficit-boosting bill President Donald Trump signed into law last Friday included provisions that will undermine US clean energy development. Indeed, a team led by Princeton energy expert Jesse Jenkins estimates that it will reduce US solar and wind output by at least 300 gigawatts by 2035—enough to power some 225 million homes.

But some Republicans still thought the bill didn’t go far enough. After a failed last-minute bid to add further subsidy cuts and an industry-killing renewables tax to the bill, Republicans agreed to vote yes after Trump promised to take matters into his own hands.

He delivered on Monday with an executive order titled “Ending Market Distorting Subsidies for Unreliable Foreign Controlled Energy Sources.”

The order basically instructs the Treasury Department to deny a developer’s application for soon-to-disappear clean energy subsidies “unless a substantial portion” of their project is already built. It also directs the Department of the Interior to revise policies favoring renewables. “While many executive orders have limited effectiveness, this one might actually have some bite,” says Yale energy economist Kenneth Gillingham.

“The Trump administration is taking every opportunity it can find to assert its authority not to spend money on things with which it disagrees,” says Don Kettl, a professor emeritus and former dean at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. “The implications here are enormous.”

“Just in case last week’s legislative sledgehammer didn’t do enough damage.”

Because of the time it takes to permit and site US projects, Gillingham says, the order’s stringent interpretation of the statutory language will have “the effect of quashing the market sooner than would have happened otherwise.”

Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, a national organization of business leaders advocating for smarter climate policies, isn’t too pleased with the order. “Just in case last week’s legislative sledgehammer didn’t do enough damage to our economy, our environment, and the pocketbooks of anybody who pays an electricity bill, the Trump administration is taking yet another swing,” he said.

Trump’s decree asserts that renewables threaten “the fiscal health of the Nation,” a claim Gillingham deems entirely false. “Renewables cost something, but they create jobs and generate clean energy.”

“Our workforce is growing, businesses are expanding, and communities are saving money with consistent, reliable energy,” explains Bill Johnson, the owner of Brilliant Harvest, a Florida solar company, but the legislation and subsequent order put that progress at risk, he says.

The order, Keefe told me, suggests that the administration “either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care that solar, wind, and batteries are the cheapest, quickest, made-in-America energy we can deploy.”

And although Trump questions the reliability of renewables, Gillingham insists that “at the levels of renewable energy we have today, we have nothing to worry about.” He adds, “If anything, adding more renewable capacity could help us meet additional electricity demand.”

As for the notion that the renewable energy market is “dependent on supply chains controlled by foreign adversaries,” well, sure, China dominates the sector, but that’s the result of supportive policies, Gillingham says—and the policies Trump is targeting were enacted to help US firms compete: “We would have to support our clean energy industries if we wanted to increase our share of clean energy manufacturing.”

Solar company stocks took a hit after the order was released. Gillingham says “the combination of high tariffs and removing the tax credits is a one-two punch that will greatly suppress the market for renewable energy.”

Johnson, the renewable energy businessman, concurs: “These federal policies create uncertainty [which] threatens to stall projects already in the pipeline and make it harder to keep building here at home.”


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

22
 
 

This column originally appeared on author Garrett Graff’s siteDoomsday Scenario, which you can subscribe to here.

There are many reasons Trump’s new giant domestic agenda, the so-called one big beautiful bill, will be a tragedy for our country—a mean-spirited, life-wrecking, community-destroying stain on our history—from the fact that it will gut our health care safety net, force the closure of rural hospitals, and cut food supports to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest. I mean: How cruel do you have to be to raise taxes on those making less than $15,000 a year? How do you look at those making less than $15,000 a year and say, “You have it too easy and the billionaires need more of your money?”

But as someone who has covered federal law enforcement for the last two decades and has spent recent years writing both about the state of democracy today and authoring history books about the fall of fascism in Europe in the 1930s, it’s hard not to look at the new legislation and fear, most of all, how we’re turbo-charging an increasingly lawless regime of immigration enforcement and adding superpowers to America’s newly masked secret police.

As the New Republic summarized, “The bill is effectively a blank check, funding pretty much every aspect of the administration’s ramp-up of enforcement, detention, and surveillance: hiring nearly 20,000 additional immigration agents across Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, constructing more border walls, building detention facilities for tens of thousands of additional people, and so on.”

It’s easy intellectually to realize that pouring $200 billion dollars into immigration deportation and expulsion efforts is a bad idea, but I haven’t seen a lot of reporting and analysis that breaks down the why. So I wanted to write about why specifically we should fear this increase in ICE funding—many of these reasons are related and intersect, but to me there are four unique and specific reasons that we should be deeply fearful about what pouring $200 billion of combustible rocket fuel on our immigration enforcement will do to our country.

1) The how: ICE can’t grow that fast.

No healthy law enforcement agency can grow quickly. And ICE is far from a healthy law enforcement agency. ICE’s annual budget is about $10 billion a year, and the new legislation is about to hand it about nearly untold billions more—including $30 billion for hiring staff and conducting deportations and $45 billion for detention operations, as well as about $46 billion for border security construction, which could include the border wall and more detention facilities.

“With this vote, Congress makes ICE the highest-funded federal law enforcement agency in history, with more money per year at its disposal over the next four years than the budgets of the FBI, DEA, ATF, US Marshals, and Bureau of Prisons combined,” says Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, who is a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council and I think the smartest immigration watcher on social media.

History shows us what a disaster this will be.

We’re creating something even more dangerous to the country: A masked monster of a law enforcement agency, one uniquely unsuited for its new power, authority, reach, and funding levels.

What happens when a law enforcement agency at any level grows too rapidly is well documented: Hiring standards fall, training is cut short, field training officers end up being too inexperienced to do the right training, and supervisors are too green to know how to enforce policies and procedures well.

I spent nearly five years reporting heavily on the decade-long epidemic of corruption that paralyzed the Border Patrol after its ill-conceived Bush-era post-9/11 hiring surge—including interviewing every single person who had served as commissioner of CBP, visiting detention facilities, and even doing ride-alongs on the southern border by truck, boat, and helicopter. The Border Patrol’s hiring surge doubled the size of the force in just a few years, from about 9,200 to 18,000, a move roughly equivalent to (but still less than!) what we’re about to see happen with ICE.

Back then, my Border Patrol reporting was titled “The Green Monster.” Today, we’re creating something even more dangerous to the country: A masked monster of a law enforcement agency, one uniquely unsuited for its new power, authority, reach, and funding levels.

As CBP’s then-commissioner, Gil Kerlikowske, told me back in 2014, “Law enforcement always regrets hiring quickly.” Anyone familiar with policing can rattle off the police hiring surges that inevitably led to spikes in corruption—including mistakes like the 1980 Miami police hiring surge and the infamous Washington Metropolitan Police class of 1989, when Mayor Marion Barry tried to increase the police force by nearly half in a single year. Both agencies saw widespread corruption problems that took years to fix.

All of this happened with the Border Patrol. CBP and the Border Patrol hired cartel members and even a serial killer—and put them out in the field with inadequate training and supervision. According to two people I interviewed who had been involved in the hiring process, the Border Patrol regularly sent new agents through the academy and even out into the field before completing full background checks. As I wrote, “By the middle of the hiring surge, some southwest sectors reported to the GAO that average agent field experience was down to 18 months—and falling. And whereas the agency aimed for an agent-to-supervisor ratio of 5 to 1, some stations reported ratios as high as 11 to 1. By the end of the Bush administration, more than half of the Border Patrol had been in the field for less than two years.”

As I totaled up in 2014, “there were 2,170 misconduct arrests of CBP officers and agents—ranging from corruption to domestic violence from 2005 through 2012—meaning that one CBP officer or agent was arrested every single day for seven years.” Even by 2017, a decade after the hiring surge, CBP was still seeing an agent or officer arrested every 36 hours. “The Border Patrol was never big on the huge hiring,” one former training officer told me. “We weren’t prepared. That’s never worked out for anyone.”

Now we’re about to repeat all of those mistakes with ICE—and with CBP all over again.

2) The who: We should fear specifically who the next 10,000 ICE officers will be.

Hiring fast doesn’t work in law enforcement, but I think there’s a specific reason we should be wary of the next 10,000 people who want to be ICE officers in the United States: We’ve never seen anything in modern US history like the fast-rising social stigma and politicization of ICE as an agency and brand in terms of recruiting. Whole swaths of “normal” ICE applicants, the types of standard former local or state law enforcement officers who have made up the applicant pool, will surely think twice before applying to an agency that makes the NYPD or the Ferguson PD look like “Officer Friendly.” Instead, the types of people who will be attracted to a job in the wake of Kristi Noem’s special-forces cosplay, the eye-popping photo ops at El Salvador’s CECOT torture gulag and the Alligator Alcatraz concentration camp are exactly the people who we shouldn’t imbue with federal law enforcement powers—you’re going to tell a tidal wave of applicants who are specifically attracted by the rough-em-up, masked secret police tactics, no-holds-barred lawlessness that ICE has pursued since January. If you’re excited to dress up like you’re taking Fallujah for a raid of hard-working roofers in the Home Depot parking lot, working ICE or CBP shouldn’t be for you.

The recruiting pitch for ICE and CBP is even worsethan that post-9/11 pitch: Are you watching the news and excited to rough up abuelas, hog-tie the guy cutting the lawn down the street, or manhandle a member of Congress? Apply today!

A major part of what the Border Patrol dealt with in its hiring surge was it played to post-9/11 terror fears. As I wrote in 2019, “CBP spent that first decade after 9/11 recruiting and equipping what it touted would be an elite counterterrorism force—the first line of defense against Islamic terrorists and drug cartels. But this only perpetuated a message and culture that has left the agency ill-suited to confront what it actually has to do in the second decade after 9/11: Provide humanitarian aid for women, children and families amid global instability that has strained border forces worldwide. CBP went out and recruited Rambo, when it turned out the agency needed Mother Teresa.”

Right now, the exact recruiting pitch for ICE and CBP is even worsethan that post-9/11 pitch: Are you watching the news and excited to rough up abuelas, hog-tie the guy cutting the lawn down the street, or manhandle a member of Congress? Apply today!

I wrote last month about the dangerous culture we’re seeing play out in ICE—it clearly believes it will never face accountability again—and a lot of that has to do with how unhealthy and new ICE is as an agency. Other law enforcement agencies, like the FBI and DEA, are more cautious culturally because they have long-enough histories to know how mistakes happen and political climates shift. They’ve seen the pendulum swing. ICE hasn’t. It’s young, formed in the wake of 9/11, and its widespread and rapid embrace of masked enforcement is terrifying—other federal agencies also operate in plainclothes but then go out of their way to make clear their law enforcement bona fides during enforcement operations. Think of the FBI’s iconic blue raid jackets. That ICE has gone so quickly to masked operations in unmarked vehicles with no clear law enforcement identification makes clear how unhealthy and fundamentally undemocratic its core culture now is. It’s a resounding indictment of the current leadership at ICE and a warning sign of what’s to come.

3) The what: Funding ICE and CBP at this level marks a fundamental and dangerous shift in the balance of the rule of law and federal law enforcement.

According to the latest figures, DHS already has more federal law enforcement officers and agents than the Department of Justice. CBP was already the largest federal law enforcement agency. As of 2020, DHS had about 66,000 officers and agents—almost entirely ICE and CBP, with about 5,000 Secret Service agents and another 1,000 building guards and TSA investigators—while DOJ had about 40,000 officers, including the FBI, DEA, Marshals, ATF, and the Bureau of Prisons. Now, we’re going to funding ICE and CBP at a level where they will dwarf the Justice Department’s resources, tipping the balance in the government even more so from DOJ to DHS. That matters, in part, because DHS is much less grounded in the rule of law and Constitution than DOJ. Generally speaking, its agents and officers are trained less, face lower hiring standards, and come to the job with less and more narrow professional experience.

We’re already seeing “mistakes” made in who is arrested. We’re already seeing people disappear in a system that’s detaining too many people too quickly. We’re already seeing ICE officers harass and assault US citizens.

As just a few examples: FBI special agent requirements include a bachelor’s degree and two years of professional experience (or an advanced degree, often a J.D. or accounting degree for the bureau), be at least 23 years old, pass a Top Secret security clearance background check, and then special agent candidates undergo 20 weeks—five months—of training at the academy at Quantico. ICE officers do not have a basic educational requirement (they can use three years of work experience instead), pass only a Secret level security clearance background check, and go through just 13 weeks of training (plus a five-week Spanish course).Out in the field, ICE and CBP officers and Border Patrol agents face a different policing environment—there are a lot of areas where civil rights and civil liberties are different in border and immigration policing than they are for Justice Department law enforcement agencies who primarily deal with Article III courts, standards of evidence, and US citizens. We’re already seeing how corruption and fear-inducing applying that “border mentality” to the nation’s interior is—and we’re about to radically increase the number of times and frequency that ICE and CBP officers are in contact with US citizens. “You think we’re arresting people now?” Trump’s border czar Tom Homan bragged. “Wait till we get the funding to do what we got to do.”

We’re already seeing “mistakes” made in who is arrested. We’re already seeing people disappear in a system that’s detaining too many people too quickly. We’re already seeing ICE officers harass and assault US citizens. We’re already seeing tensions boil over in communities because of the heavy-handed ICE and CBP tactics. “It is setting up to make what’s happening now look like child’s play,” AOC wrote after the bill’s passage.

Lastly, DHS is not—and was never designed to be—the Justice Department. It’s notable and important that presidents have (or at least are SUPPOSED to have) a fundamentally different relationship with their attorneys general than they do their homeland security secretaries. Attorneys general—by tradition, culture, and design—are supposed to maintain an arms-length from the presidents they serve; their oath and duty is to the rule of law and the constitution. This is the tension we saw play out in Watergate, the Clinton administration, the first Trump administration, and even—notably—in the Biden administration, where Merrick Garland famously was less aggressive prosecuting past Trump transgressions than the Biden White House wished. DHS secretaries, though, are more traditional Cabinet secretaries—their role is to implement forcefully the president’s agenda.

4) The why: Trump’s vast spending increase will coincide with an increasingly lawless administration.

As one might say, the warning signs that Trump’s lawlessness will increase are flashing red. This is particularly worrisome in the context of immigration detention and enforcement because the courts are still battling over exactly what kind of due process the administration is required to provide before kidnapping you off the street and expelling you to a country where you may or may not have ever been in your life.

The signs aren’t good.

If the administration had any plan to balance civil rights and due process with its giant new hiring and construction spree, it would be also tripling or quadrupling or quintupling the new immigration judges.

We know that this giant increase in detention facilities and officers isn’t meant to actually work with the existing immigration system because compared to the rest of the bill, there’s only the most modest of modest increases to the number of immigration judges in the country—a rise from 700 to 800, an increase so out-of-scale to the problem that we could have used those extra 100 to work through the existing backlog from the Biden years. If the Trump administration had any plan to balance civil rights and due process with its giant new hiring and construction spree, it would be also tripling or quadrupling or quintupling the new immigration judges. The fact that it’s not makes clear that the Trump administration, DHS, and DOJ have no intention of normal due process.

Now combine the ICE and CBP expansion with the other startling and worrisome revelation of the Trump administration last week: It asserts, in “allowing” companies to ignore the TikTok ban, that it has the power to grant clemency for illegal actions. The always-smart Jack Goldsmith, a veteran of the Justice Department and careful student of executive power, called it “an astounding assertion of executive power—maybe the broadest I have ever seen any president or Justice Department make, ever, in any context—and that is saying something.”

The new arguments emerged in a Fourth of July news dump, where the administration finally released the letters it has issued companies like Apple and Google to tell them they’re okay to ignore the ban on TikTok in the US. As Goldsmith says, “The logic of the letter seems to be: The law touches on national security and foreign affairs; I, President Trump, do not like the law; therefore, I need not enforce it. That logic would enable the president to not enforce (and presumably not comply with) every one of the many, many hundreds of statutes that touch on foreign relations or national security—just because the president does not like the law.”

As the also always-brilliant Steve Vladeck wrote, “Attorney General Bondi’s TikTok-related letters rest on a view of presidential power that has no support in even the most capacious understandings of the ‘unitary executive’ theory.”

The idea that the attorney general can issue a letter basically saying “don’t worry, ignore that federal law because I say you can” is a level of lawlessness that cannot stand in a free society. And it’s an ill portent of what’s to come.

Put all of the above together, and I fear that Congress just passed legislation hastening our transformation toward a federal police state unlike anything we’ve ever seen in our history.


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

23
 
 

Earlier this year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced that it was moving the hands of the Doomsday Clock to 89 seconds before midnight, a symbolic hour signifying global catastrophe. The hands have been moved only 25 times since the clock’s creation in 1947, and they’re now the closest they’ve pointed to worldwide destruction. The threats of nuclear war, climate change, artificial intelligence, and disinformation all played into the decision. It’s meant as a wake-up call to the world.

One of the experts who helped make that decision is University of Chicago physics professor Daniel Holz, chair of the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board. And even though the clock evokes a potentially terrifying future, Holz takes a more optimistic approach to the entire endeavor.

“Really, the Doomsday Clock is a symbol of hope,” Holz says. “The whole point of this clock is to, yes, to alarm people, to inform people, but also to demonstrate we can turn back the hands of the clock. And we’ve done it in the past, and we can hope to do it in the future. And we must.”

On this week’s More To The Story, Holz sits down with host Al Letson to talk about the Doomsday Clock’s history, why we’re closer to global destruction than ever before, and what we can do to stop it.

&Subscribe to Mother Jones podcasts on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast app.

This following interview was edited for length and clarity. More To The Storytranscripts are produced by a third-party transcription service and may contain errors.

Al Letson: Daniel, how are you this morning?

Daniel Holz: Doing okay. That question, I never know quite how to answer it. Locally this morning, it’s fine. Globally, pretty stressed.

Yeah. As you were answering that, I was thinking to myself, how would I answer that? So I want to start off with you. You’re a professor of physics, specifically astronomy and astrophysics, and I know one of the things you study is black holes, which I find so fascinating. But you’re also a part of a team that moves the hands on the Doomsday Clock. When I think about it, I think the first time that I ever heard about the Doomsday Clock was through fiction. I mean, probably reading the Watchmen back in the day. Can you tell me about its origin?

Yeah, for what it’s worth, I also first encountered it with the Watchmen. So the Doomsday Clock, it’s a symbol, it’s an actual clock, and it’s set at a given time. So right now it’s 89 seconds to midnight and it’s supposed to represent how close we are to catastrophe. And in particular a catastrophe to all of humanity, all of civilization and in general, what we found is that the catastrophes that are relevant are ones of our own making. The most likely way that humanity ends or civilization stops over the coming 100 years, couple of hundred years, it’s all something that we do to ourselves, like climate change or nuclear war.

Yeah, I was just about to say, would you list climate change in that? But clearly you do.

Yes, we do. Since 2007, climate has been included. So the Doomsday Clock was created to alert the world to the dangers and to capture the sense of urgency and the sense of how are things going. And so it was first created by an artist, Martyl Langsdorf. She was married to one of the engineers that was part of the Manhattan Project working at the University of Chicago. And they wanted a design. They had a bulletin, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. There was an actual bulletin that they would hand out. It was like a journal. It was like a magazine with articles written by luminaries and science trying to explain the nuclear age. This was in 1945. People could see that we had control of this terrible and awesome new power. We could use the power of the atom itself. And that was kind of a seismic shift.

And so as part of that, the scientists got together, created this organization, and it was scientists that hadn’t been involved who were very concerned. Even in 1945, they said these weapons are truly frightening. And they could foresee even in 1945 that the weapons would become much more powerful, that eventually there would be hydrogen bombs, which are 1000 times more powerful than the atomic bombs, the fission bombs that were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So certainly no one wants to end civilization. So as long as we inform people and let them know, then we’ll make the right choices and we’ll prevent the apocalypse.

Two follow up questions. One, specifics about who these people were, who were concerned about it. Because when you say the Manhattan Project, to me, the first thing that comes to mind are people like Einstein and Oppenheimer, but they actually, specifically Oppenheimer, they actually are part of the problem. They created this world.

Yeah. So Einstein and Oppenheimer were both part of this organization, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. So I should say it started as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago. And then at some point, it was clear this was an international organization and scientists from all over the world that had been involved in this or had information about this or wanted to share were part of this organization. So they dropped the of Chicago and became the Bulletin of the Atomic scientist. Einstein and Oppenheimer were indeed involved as were many people who had to directly worked on the bomb project.

Second question to follow up something you said earlier, I’ve heard this before, that hydrogen bombs are so much more powerful than atomic bombs, but I was wondering if you could give me a visual representation. Something to wrap my head around, i.e., when I think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those atomic bombs took out two relatively large cities. What’s the difference if we had dropped a hydrogen bomb instead of an atomic bomb?

So there are different ways to capture this. One is just in the unit of measurement. So an atomic bomb, we measure the yield, how much energy is released by the bomb in kilotons. So that’s a thousand tons of TNT. So the Hiroshima and Nagasaki weapons, that’s on the order of 10, 15 kilotons. For hydrogen bombs, we generally measure the yield in megatons, millions of tons. So literally a thousand times. It’s as if you’re dropping a thousand of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki weapons on a city. And so the damage is commensurately greater.So where now you might have imagined if you drop a nuclear weapon on something like New York or Chicago, it would be very damaging if we did it right downtown and some area of some number of miles would be contaminated and lots of people would immediately die. Now, with a hydrogen bomb, especially in an air burst, you’re talking about the whole metropolitan region is just vaporized. And if you really want visualization, there’s something called the NUKEMAP. N-U-K-E map. And I’m sure if you Google it’ll come up. You can put in your city or where you live and you can dial the yield and detonate on the computer and it’ll show you what happened.

When you’re explaining this to me, first, I’m filled with horror. I mean, I recognize and understood the threat of hydrogen bombs and atomic war and all of that stuff. I understood it. But hearing you describe the devastation and how bad it would be, and also just being really frank, I can hear it in your voice that this stuff scares you.

Yeah. I’m genuinely terrified and one of the aspects that really scares me is the fact that most people aren’t scared. During the Cold War, people were scared. People had their duck and cover drills, but I think a lot of humanity was worried about nuclear war. And since the end of the Cold War, since the ’90s, there’s this thought that it’s all in the past, that we don’t need to worry about this anymore. We have bigger things to worry about. We have climate change and we have pandemics, and there are lots of other things that are of concern, and that’s true. We do have these other things to worry about, but the nuclear danger is still there. We still have thousands of weapons on hair trigger alert, and the way it works is at any moment for any reason, there are a few individuals who can essentially push the button and end civilization. And that is the way the system works, at any moment and 30 minutes later, it’s all over. And that threat is there.And I would argue it’s gone much, much worse. And it’s lot for people that think about this and have followed it. It’s much scarier right now than it was even five years ago. I would argue, and I think I’m not alone, I would argue we’ve been very lucky during the Cold War to avoid a nuclear catastrophe. And at some point, you can’t just hope on luck that luck will run out. So we need a better strategy and there are things we can do that would reduce the risk, and that’s the main message of the Doomsday Clock and the main message of everything we’re doing is it’s not the end. It’s not inevitable. There are lots of things we can do. We’re just not doing them. That’s the problem.

Yeah. Why is it important to have the clock in physical artistic form?

Yeah, that’s a great question. So why have a clock at all and why have it be there as an object? And I think we’re trying to figure out a way to resonate with the public. We talk about movies and TV shows. The question is how do you capture this kind of risk, which is fairly abstract. One of the big problems in this kind of existential risk business is that there is no real historical data. It only happens once, you destroy civilization once. I can’t say, “Look, we did it 10 years ago. We had World War III, that sucked. We don’t want to do that again,” because once it happens, we’re all wiped out.

And so you got to come up with some way to capture the threat, and it has to be something that, especially in this day and age, is pretty directly accessible, that is visceral. And so we ended up with the Doomsday Clock as this very clear symbol. It captures the sense of a countdown to launch. It captures the sense of its urgent midnight sounds a little scary, but also it captures the sense that we can turn the clock back. And we’ve done that many times in the past as things improve. And so there’s also this kind of hopeful component that captures all these things in a very simple object.

Yeah. Who helps decide when the hands move?

There are these boards. There’s something called the Science and Security Board, which I chair, and it’s a group of about 20 scientists, experts with all different sorts of backgrounds. We have climate scientists and we have nuclear policy experts, and we have experts in pandemics. We have experts on cyber and AI. It’s a very diverse board, and we meet and we discuss the threats. We meet a couple of times a year, and then we have these special additional meetings depending on what’s happening in the world. And then we bring in other, if we want to hear about something very particular and there’s a world’s expert, we’ll invite them to come and talk to us. And then we meet, we discuss the threats and we make an assessment of the state of the world, and then we set the clock. And that’s something we do at least once a year, we get together and we formally set the clock.

So that’s the group. There have been many scientists over the years associated with this, including Einstein and Oppenheimer in their early days. Stephen Hawking was part of this. We’ve had, I think, over 40 Nobel laureates as part of this. Right now, I think there are nine Nobel laureates as part of this board of sponsors, which is this broader group which advises the science and security board, and we have lots of interaction between them. So the idea is we’re getting the experts, the deepest thinkers, the people that have dedicated their lives to worrying about these issues, we get them together and we try to get an assessment of the state of the world.

So the clock has only moved 24 times since 1947. What factors now go into deciding when the hands should move and by how much?

Yeah, there’s part art and part science in this. When we meet, we ask ourselves, what does this say to the world? Are things getting better or worse over the past year? That’s kind of our starting point. Let’s look at what’s happened over the past year and what does that mean about the existential risks. We’re very focused on risks that threaten all of humanity, and so there can be lots of bad things happening. There could be regional conflicts or there could be famines in certain… That stuff is terrible, but if it’s not clearly connected to the end of civilization, it’s less relevant to our discussion.

What we care about is really the big stuff, and we look at that and then we make an assessment. And many years, there isn’t that much change. We could be in a state where maybe things are bad and they continue to be bad, but they’re not getting manifestly worse. There are times where things are going relatively well. We’re pretty far from midnight. There was a whole period after the Cold War where things seemed to have settled down. The nuclear threat really was decreasing. There was a feeling that there was unlikely to be World War III, and even though we knew about climate change, there was a feeling that we would certainly address it. When the time came, there was this sense of optimism.

And this was in ’91?

’91 was when we were farthest from midnight. So that was right at the end of the Cold War, and there really was… For decades, the main threat to civilization was nuclear weapons. Climate change, we didn’t really know it was happening or we’ve known since the ’70s. In fact, the Bulletin, we first covered climate change in the ’70s saying this is a problem, but at that time, there was plenty of time to deal with it. So really you have science as they were talking about this stuff, and it wasn’t part of the clock setting because the scientists just assumed, well, of course no one wants to destroy the planet, so of course we should invest in renewables and invest in other technologies to prevent climate change. It just seemed like a no-brainer. And only in 2007 did we start putting it into the clock because it was clear it was a risk to civilization because it wasn’t clear that humanity would make the choices to save itself.

Why are we that close? The closest we’ve been to global catastrophe.

There was a lot of discussion this past year. What time is it? Are things getting better or worse? The one thing that there was broad consensus about is things are not getting better, that we’re not doing enough. Climate change is happening, there’s increasing evidence, and we’re just not doing enough. In fact, in some ways, especially in the US, we’re running the other way. We’re subsidizing fossil fuels. We’re making it harder to do carbon free, renewable energy. It’s very hard to process. Same with nuclear. The nuclear threat has over the process of the Cold War, we had all these treaties. We reduced the number of weapons, we had lots of controls and communications even with our adversaries. So the US and the Soviet Union, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was a lot of communication. People wanted to make sure that the close calls that happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis wouldn’t happen again.

So there was a lot of positive. Even there’d be terrible rhetoric by the leaders, the generals were all talking and trying to tamp things down and make sure that there was some trust because no one wanted to blow up the world. And right now, again, it’s very unclear what’s happening. There’s still a lot of very kind of macho talk. There’s no question that we’re in the middle of an arms race now between Russia, China, and the US, we’re modernizing our nuclear arsenal at a cost of almost $2 trillion. So just these huge numbers to make these nuclear weapons better, even though already we have plenty.

I mean, we can easily blow up the world many times over. We don’t need more, we don’t better ones, and yet we’re spending all this money to improve them. Same with Russia and China. Why are we doing that? It makes absolutely no sense. It does not make anyone anywhere in the world safer. For the US to make these investments does not make the US safer. It’s very hard to parse, but it’s happening. Disinformation also getting worse. We’re having a very hard time distinguishing what’s true from what’s false. We have foreign nations interfering and convincing millions of people of things that didn’t happen or things that did happen, convincing them that they didn’t. It’s a very, very unsettled time, and the clock represents that.

I’m curious, where does AI fit into all of this? Because I have to tell you that I feel like this impending dread just in the periphery, right? I feel like it’s coming and we’re not really grappling with what AI could mean and shift not just in society, but I don’t know. I mean, it could be… Look, I’m a sci-fi fan. I grew up watching the Terminator. I love those movies and maybe those movies are the things that are making me feel like, ah, what are we doing? What are we doing? Does that factor… Am I being in an alarmist by feeling that way?

Yeah. No, and I completely agree. And I also agree about the Terminator, and I think for many people that is the vision of AI. And so I think there’s a range of ways that you can worry about AI. So we do consider AI quite a bit, and we talk about it a lot. There isn’t consensus, and I think the short version is we don’t really know. This is part of what makes it frightening. It’s hard to extrapolate because the rate of improvement with AI has been exponential over the last few years, and it’s very hard to know where it’s headed. But here there’s a range of scenarios that you could worry about. One is the kind of AI takes over and turns the whole world into a paperclip factory or whatever it is. It decides it has some goal. And since it’ll be embedded in every system everywhere, which I think that will happen, it has complete control.

And so there’s this very dystopian view where AI really just takes over. That is a concern, but that’s very extreme. There’s a more pedestrian concern, which is just AI will take over a lot of jobs. It’ll embed itself in everything we do, every aspect of society, and that causes a major dislocation in the sense of a lot of people will be out of work. That’s problematic from a social point of view, and we don’t know what happens next, and that can cause a lot of instability. My main concern from an existential point of view right now is that AI is penetrating… I mean, it’s penetrating all of society, including the military. And so there are a lot of AI systems being incorporated into defense. And so you have increasingly systems like autonomous drones that can make lethal decisions. And so we’re seeing this in Ukraine.

You get to a point where you’re just going to launch a swarm of drones and all of them can try to identify targets and then destroy them. The thing, again that makes me most nervous is that these AI systems are likely to be incorporated into the nuclear command and control. And there’s been a lot of talk about this and people will say, absolutely not. And okay, maybe a human is in the loop, but the human is going to be 100% informed by AI. If the AI decides it wants to end the world, it’ll be in a position to do so. And there are a lot of things about AI that still unsettle people. AI can be very surprising.

Yeah. So my last big question is what does humanity need to do to turn back the hands of the Doomsday Clock?

The main question, the most important question is what is to be done? And I say this and it takes a while for me to convince people this, but really the Doomsday Clock is a symbol of hope. The whole point of this clock is yes, to alarm people, to inform people, but also to demonstrate we can turn back the hands of the clock and we’ve done it in the past and we can hope to do it in the future, and we must. We don’t want civilization to end. We have to do these things. So there are many concrete things that can be done that would help turn back the hands of the clock. The highest level, most obvious ones are things like the US and Russia and China need to talk. We have to reduce the nuclear risk.

We have to reduce the size of the stockpiles. There’s no reason to modernize the nuclear stockpiles. We want to change the alert posture. Right now, the decision to end civilization will be made in a hurry. Somewhere between seven and nine minutes is how long the president would have to make a decision to launch the weapons after an alert. That’s our system. It’s called launch on warning. It makes very little sense from a long-term stability perspective. So there are all these kind of technical things that could be changed that would make the world safer. For climate change, similarly, we need to invest in renewables. We need to make this transition. The transition is so much better for us. It’s less expensive to do renewables than it is to do fossil fuels at this point in many parts of the country, and yet we’re not doing those things.

So there’s a lot of stuff we don’t understand where the AI as well, we need some sort of controls on AI. Europe is ahead of the curve on this stuff, but it’s not enough and it’s not happening fast enough. We have to engage, inform ourselves, find legitimate sources of news, people that really are expert, that have spent their time studying these things, that know what they’re talking about. This is what we need the world to do to make informed decisions going forward. So there’s a lot. And of course, people need to vote.

Personally, one of the things I’m most excited about is something we haven’t talked about, which is my existential risk laboratory, XLab at the University of Chicago, where I’m trying to develop a research program where we focus on these threats and we train students. And then the hope is they go on and they carry that knowledge forward and whatever it is they do, whether they’re artists or policymakers, politicians or engineers or lawyers or whatever, whatever they end up doing in the world, you want to be informed by existential risk and be aware that there are these risks and keep them in mind as you go forward in your life. And I think that’s one of the most important things for all of us. You have to be informed about this stuff and then take the actions using whatever skills, whatever abilities you have to reduce them.

Yeah. You can’t put your head in the sand. We’ve all got to be active participants.

Absolutely. This is not the time to hide and assume it’s all going to be okay. This is the time to lean in and get engaged.

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


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

24
 
 

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

Your city is probably fighting climate change in more ways than you realize. Perhaps your mayor is on a mission to plant more trees, or they’ve set efficiency standards for buildings, requiring better windows and insulation. Maybe they’ve even electrified your public transportation, reducing both greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

Ten years after the Paris Agreement, nations are still nowhere near ambitious enough in their commitments to reduce emissions and avoid the worst consequences of climate change. More than that, they haven’t shown enough follow-through on the goals they did set. Instead, it’s been cities and other local governments that have taken the lead.

According to a new report by the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, along with C40—a global network of nearly 100 mayors prioritizing climate action, collectively representing nearly 600 million people—three-quarters of the cities in the latter group are slashing their per capita emissions faster than their national governments. As global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, per capita emissions across C40 cities fell 7.5 percent on average between 2015 and 2024.

“The untold story is that cities and local leaders really mobilized in a big way in Paris, but also in the decade since,” said Asif Nawaz Shah, co-author of the report and the head of impact and global partnerships at C40 and the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy. “It’s where the action happens, and it’s also where people are suffering the impacts the most.”

Cities are adapting because they’re experiencing especially acute effects of climate change as their populations rapidly grow. They’re getting much hotter than surrounding rural areas due to the urban heat island effect, in which the built environment soaks up the sun’s energy during the day and slowly releases it at night. Because a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, they’re suffering increasingly catastrophic flooding as rains overwhelm sewer systems designed for the climate of yesteryear. And coastal cities have to deal with sea level rise in addition to fiercer tropical storms.

“I find it very heartening, to be honest, that cities really are taking the lead.”

Mayors can more quickly deploy fixes than national governments can, climate experts say. Cities are less politically divided, for instance, and officials are more in tune with the immediate needs of their residents than a faraway federal government is. “I think that’s part of what makes it easier for mayors to make the case for climate action, because they’re not just addressing a concept that can seem a little abstract,” Shah said. “They’re addressing it through the lens of what people’s lived realities and experiences are.”

By making their cities more liveable, mayors also make them more sustainable, especially when it comes to walkability, bikeability, and vehicle transportation. The report notes that Melbourne, Australia, is on a quest to create “20-minute neighborhoods,” in which people can reach most of their daily needs—work, schools, grocery stores—within a 20-minute return walk from home. Over in Shenzhen, China, officials have electrified 16,000 buses, reducing annual CO2 emissions by over 200,000 tons.

And by literally greening their cities, mayors solve a bunch of their citizens’ problems at once. In Quezon City in the Philippines, the government turned unused land into 337 gardens and 10 model farms, while training more than 4,000 urban farmers. The report also notes that Freetown, Sierra Leone, planted more than 550,000 trees, creating more than 600 jobs. In addition to significantly reducing urban temperatures, these green spaces also mitigate flooding by soaking up rainwater. “It is becoming clear, I think, to a lot of municipalities that this type of action will be absolutely essential,” said Dan Jasper, senior policy advisor at the climate solutions group Project Drawdown, which wasn’t involved in the report. “It’s not just about being uncomfortable. This is about protecting people’s lives.”

Mayors are also improving access to clean energy and more efficient appliances. The report notes that Buenos Aires, Argentina, installed solar panels on more than 100 schools, while Qab Elias, Lebanon, went a step further by partnering with a private supplier to allow half of its homes to install solar.

It’s not as if all nations are leaving cities to their own devices, though. The Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships, for instance, is an initiative signed by more than 70 national governments to help cities, states, and regions with planning and financing climate action. “I find it very heartening, to be honest, that cities really are taking the lead,” Jasper said. “I think they’re going above and beyond in some respects, about planning for the future, as well as actually implementing some of the things that the federal governments have signed on to.”

Still, not nearly enough funding is flowing to cities and other local governments to do all the climate action they need. Unlike national governments, they can’t print their own money, so they’re strictly limited by their budgets. Conservative governments like President Donald Trump’s administration are also slashing funds for climate action. Last year, 611 cities disclosed 2,500 projects worth $179 billion, but urban climate finance has to rise to $4.5 trillion each year by 2030, the report says.

These are not donations but investments with returns: Spending money now to adapt to climate change means spending less on disaster recovery and health care in the future. “It’s not a call for handouts or for freebies,” Shah said. “It’s a call for genuine long-term investment that will yield results to protect citizens and livelihoods.


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

25
 
 

This story was produced in partnership with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

Jacob Njagi’s newborn son could barely breathe when he arrived in an ambulance at the emergency ward of an Avenue Group hospital in Nairobi, Kenya, in the early hours of the morning. It was June 2022—Covid-19 cases were surging—and Njagi and his family had spent hours searching for an available bed. When they finally pulled up to the hospital in Parklands—a leafy neighborhood that felt a million miles away from the poverty around their home on the edge of the city—Njagi was exhausted. His infant, Jason, was in peril, his lungs clogged.

But Njagi said administrators at the hospital—which is backed by the International Finance Corp. (IFC), a member of the World Bank Group that works to relieve poverty—demanded a deposit. “We had to beg them to at least give us oxygen, because the oxygen in the ambulance was almost out,” Njagi recently told the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).

A young Kenyan family, including a husband, wife holding their toddler on her left hip, and their eldest child, stand in front of their home. The door and window frames are painted a vibrant lilac color.Josephine and Jacob Njagi with their two children at their home in Wang’uru, an agricultural center northeast of Nairobi, Kenya, in March 2025Micah Reddy

Admission, he learned, required a deposit of 100,000 Kenyan shillings (about $850 at the time), more than a month’s income from the wholesale foods business he’d built. Njagi scrambled for funds, begging his sister for assistance. Her friends helped scrape together enough to cover a deposit for the baby, he said.

Nearly a week later, Jason was well enough to go home, but he had spent three days on a ventilator in the neonatal intensive care unit and needed further treatment, the doctors warned. Njagi, who is 34, was concerned that he could never pay the bill—already more than 400,000 shillings (about $3,600)—so he asked for his son to be discharged. Jason’s care had come at an almost unbearable cost: the financial stability Njagi had built for his family.

In Kenya, where only about a quarter of the population was insured in 2023, health care is scarce and often ruinously expensive. But the IFC-backed hospital that treated Njagi’s son was supposed to be different.

One of five institutions that make up the World Bank Group, the IFC’s mission is to fight poverty in developing nations by investing in the private sector, a task supported with funds from its more than 180 member countries. Its investment in Avenue Group, the company that runs the hospital where Njagi’s son was treated, was intended to advance the World Bank Group’s health care strategy, which includes helping families in the developing world avoid “poverty due to illness.”

Instead, IFC-backed, for-profit hospitals like those run by Avenue Group have destabilized the finances of families across East Africa, a yearlong investigation by ICIJ has found. Avenue Group’s operator, the Evercare Group, said that its hospitals and clinics provide “access to quality care for many poor and lower-income Kenyans” and that it does not make emergency care contingent on a patient’s ability to pay upfront.Since 2009, the IFC has partnered with at least four private equity firms that have invested its money in for-profit hospitals in Kenya and Uganda. While the IFC has made public promises to improve health care for everyone, its financing for private hospitals in East Africa has instead deepened inequality. It has also contributed to the tens of millions of dollars in management fees and financial performance bonuses paid to private equity firms for their work managing investments in hospitals on behalf of the IFC and others.

In over 70 interviews, former and current doctors, nurses, and executives from IFC-backed facilities in Kenya and Uganda and from the private equity firms managing them described how pressures to improve returns for investors contributed to increased treatment costs and reduced accessibility. This saddled some patients with crushing debt and diverted resources originally intended to help the poor toward making medical facilities more profitable. These accounts are supported by court records, internal corporate communications and documents, and patient records reviewed by ICIJ.

To collect unpaid bills, some of the hospitals unlawfully detained patients up to months at a time, ICIJ found. Some of these incidents were widely reported in the media and were the subject of high-profile court cases and government inquiries. But the IFC failed to prevent problematic practices from continuing at hospitals it helped finance. And the organization has continued backing private hospitals even as it has remained unclear whether the investments increase accessibility or affordability for the poor in any meaningful way.

The model was “profit before life. It was profit before health care. It was profit first,” according to one former executive who requested anonymity to discuss his experience leading a hospital in East Africa managed by an IFC-backed company. Care at some of the hospitals was so expensive that their own doctors and nurses could not afford it, ICIJ learned. In interviews about more than a dozen patients at these hospitals, their relatives and friends described how they solicited money for medical care from churches, mosques, workplaces, and even their home villages, effectively draining wealth from entire communities.

The IFC did not answer detailed questions from ICIJ about allegations of patient mistreatment or aggressive efforts to collect payments at the hospitals it funds. It said the IFC “advocates for improved financial protection for citizens,” adding that its client hospitals try to help low-income patients, but people still struggle because many countries’ public health care systems aren’t sufficiently funded. The organization also said that it expects the hospitals to inform the IFC and other relevant authorities of credible allegations of wrongdoing and that when necessary, the hospitals should strengthen internal controls.“We can and must do better in our oversight and supervision,” the IFC said in its statement, adding that, going forward, it “will not work with new clients who do not commit to—and follow—our standards, and ethical principles and practices for patient care.” Bloomberg News and the anti-poverty organization Oxfam have both also recently reported on the high cost of care and problematic practices at IFC-financed hospitals.

Evercare, Avenue Group’s operator, also said, “It is not our policy to detain patients for non-payment.” It noted the “robust financial counseling programs” and “flexible payment solutions” it provides to patients and said it has introduced care protocols that include an express prohibition on detentions.

But the concerns shared with ICIJ about the IFC’s investments cannot be reduced to individual acts of wrongdoing; they go to the very core of the organization’s approach to investing in health care—one based on trust in private equity firms and for-profit corporations to protect the most vulnerable. Since 1999, the IFC has put more than $9 billion into backing private health care companies in countries such as Kenya and Uganda, kicking off a surge in financing from taxpayer-funded development institutions into private hospitals across the developing world. It has set the bar for other players investing in international development, promising that its health care investments will work toward “emphasizing robust health systems and ensuring accessible, affordable quality services for all.”

The IFC has delivered on part of that promise: Its financing has helped underwrite the construction or acquisition of hospitals and outpatient clinics in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. And it has, among other things, helped providers secure loans to buy equipment and set up operating theaters that enable hospitals to offer lifesaving care.

For some, however, those services have come at an almost unbearable cost. Njagi is grateful to the IFC-backed Avenue Group hospital that saved his son, but the bill put him in a financial spiral, he said. His family was homeless at one point and has at times lived with relatives, he said, adding that the strain nearly ended his marriage.

Before his encounter with Avenue Group, Njagi’s finances were stable and he was “able to provide,” he said.But now, he works as a day laborer in the rice fields near his home, which is a single room with a communal toilet.Financially, he said, “I have nothing left.”

Jacob Njagi at his home in Wang'uru Micah Reddy

Founded in 1956 and headquartered in Washington, DC, the International Finance Corp. is tasked with promoting private enterprise in the developing world and helping to create global prosperity. But in its first four decades, it largely stayed away from health care, an area that many at its parent organization, the World Bank Group, believed was better left to governments.

In the 1990s, however, as a wave of enthusiasm for the privatization of government services swept the Western world, the World Bank Group reevaluated the private sector’s role in providing health care. In 1997, it released a comprehensive health strategy that pledged to use its vast resources and influence to improve health outcomes for the poor and protect them from “the impoverishing effects of illness.” Responding to the call, the IFC began pouring money into the health care sector, and by 2001, it had approved dozens of projects.

Still, some at the IFC weren’t sure that financing private hospitals would advance its anti-poverty mandate. They worried about how patients would afford the care at these new facilities: Private hospitals “are less open to poor people unless there are some financial mechanisms,” such as universal health coverage, to pay the costs of their care, Guy Ellena, the IFC’s then-director of health and education, told a 2002 meeting of its board.

By 2007, however, such concerns had faded. In a report titled “The Business of Health in Africa,” the IFC described how investors could, through strategies like increasing patient volume, profit from hospitals tending to the continent’s poor.

Seeking to set an example for other investors, the IFC announced plans to launch the Africa Health Fund—a $100 million investment vehicle for “helping low-income Africans gain access to affordable, high-quality health services.”

To manage the undertaking, the IFC and several co-investors selected Aureos Capital, a private equity firm focused on small-scale investments in the developing world. In a 2008 fund proposal obtained by ICIJ, Aureos told prospective shareholders that it saw “no conflict in the goals of improving Africans’ livelihoods through better healthcare provision, and generating 15-20% gross annual returns to investors.”Aureos would collect an industry-standard 2.5 percent management fee, according to an appointment letter from the IFC. And the firm would earn millions more if it met the fund’s goal of serving the “bottom of the pyramid”—people earning less than $3,000 per year. Additional rewards would kick in if the investments reached those making under $1,000. (Nearly 40 percent of Kenyans live on less than 8,006 Kenyan shillings a month, equivalent to about $730 a year, according to the most recent government survey.)

An aerial photo of the modern Kenya Parliament building, with a tall clock tower. Beyond it are green fields of a park and tall downtown buildings.The Kenya Parliment building and nearby Uhuru Park, one of the recreational areas of Kenya’s capital, NairobiSteffen Trumpf/picture-alliance/dpa/AP

For its first investment, Aureos selected a company that looked like a perfect fit for the fund’s objectives: a private hospital in Nairobi founded by Sam Thenya, a charismatic young doctor who used his profits to subsidize charitable work.

Thenya founded Nairobi Women’s Hospital in 2001, driven by his anger after administrators at his previous job insisted that a sexual assault survivor pay for emergency care out of pocket. The hospital tended to Nairobi’s middle class and poor while offering free care to survivors of sexual and domestic violence.

“I told the [Nairobi Women’s Hospital] board that we had to provide free services even though we were struggling financially,” Thenya said in a 2014 interview. When the board told him that the work was unaffordable, he refused to listen: “I told them, ‘Over my dead body!’”

Thenya’s story was compelling for the IFC’s fund manager Aureos, and by early 2010, it had acquired over 20 percent of Nairobi Women’s for $2.7 million; two Aureos staff members joined the company’s board of directors.

Finding other investments that fulfilled the IFC’s ambitious goals was a slow task. More than a year later, Aureos invested in two more private health care providers. One was Avenue Group, which ran the hospital that would one day treat Jacob Njagi’s infant son.Soon, the Africa Health Fund attracted partners from around the world, including the development finance institutions of France, Norway, and South Africa. But there were already concerns that the money was failing to reach those it was intended to serve.

In 2012, an independent advisory firm hired by the IFC and its partners to evaluate their health initiative in Africa noted that private investments focused on helping the underserved “may not be viable on a commercial scale.”

That didn’t seem to deter Abraaj Capital, a Dubai, United Arab Emirates–based private equity firm focused on emerging economies. The firm acquired Aureos later that year, taking over management of the IFC-backed Africa Health Fund.

The fund’s portfolio of companies epitomized the kind of “impact investing” that Abraaj’s founder, Arif Naqvi, had championed in settings like the billionaire-studded World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland: businesses that promised to make large profits while improving lives in the developing world.

With the Aureos deal, Abraaj gained control of around $7.5 billion worth of investments in a variety of industries worldwide. That same year, an industry publication ranked Abraaj the largest private equity firm specializing in emerging markets. Abraaj had previously invested in hospitals and other health care businesses in the Middle East and Asia, and it quickly increased the Africa Health Fund’s stake in Nairobi Women’s.

With the fund as a backer, the chain had rapidly expanded its operations, opening new hospitals and clinics. Avenue Group had also grown quickly, doubling its clinics and adding a hospital. Bolstered by this apparent success, Abraaj began approaching investors about a new fund: a billion-dollar “ecosystem” of health businesses serving developing countries.

The IFC decided to invest $150 million in the project. The organization’s involvement signaled to other potential backers that their money would be well spent, a portfolio manager at the pension fund of the United Church of Christ, a socially liberal Protestant denomination, said duringa 2017 forum co-hosted by Abraaj. For those interested in social change, he said, the power of the IFC’s imprimatur “literally cannot be overstated.”

Altogether,investorspiled $850 million into the new fund, allowing Abraajto make major acquisitions in India, Pakistan, and elsewhere.The fund also dramatically increased its presence in Kenya: It took controlling stakes in Nairobi Women’s and two other hospitals and acquired Avenue Group.

In a disclosure, the IFC said the new fund would contribute to its anti-poverty mission by targeting “improvement in access, quality and affordability of healthcare for low-income and middle-income populations in Africa” and elsewhere.

During meetings at a public hospital in Kenya, however, Khawar Mann, head of Abraaj’s health investments, provided a less optimistic analysis to a medical student who questioned how the fund would help the poor.

“We can’t go to that part of the population,” Mann replied, according to a description of the encounter in the New York Times.“The business is just not sustainable.”

Men walk at dawn in the Mathare slum in Nairobi, Kenya.Tony Karumba/AFP/Getty

By the third quarter of 2017, Abraaj had collected $37.6 million in management fees from the new health care fund—enough to cover the cost of a routine birth for over 77,000 women at an Avenue Group hospital.

Meanwhile, administrators at IFC-backed hospitals required uninsured patients—more than 75 percent of the population in Kenya and nearly everyone in Uganda lacks insurance—to pay large upfront deposits for admission, occasionally causing delays in critical care, according to interviews with current and former hospital staff and patients’ families. (Evercare denied making emergency care contingent on a patient’s ability to pay upfront.)

Once admitted, patients without the ability to pay their bills could be stuck indefinitely. Even transfer to a cheaper facility could depend on a patient’s financial resources: One man interviewed by ICIJ was hit by a car in late2024 and lay in Avenue Group’s Parklands hospital in Nairobi for a week with two broken legs and a broken jaw while family and friends solicited donations for his treatment. His family asked for a transfer after a doctor estimated it would cost 700,000 Kenyan shillings ($5,400 at the time) to fix one leg, according to a supporter and medical bills reviewed by ICIJ. Management agreed to move him, a friend said, but only after the family paid the bill for his ICU care and other services, which by then had risen to more than 1.3 million Kenyan shillings ($10,263). When he eventually went to a public hospital, treatment costs were a fraction of what Avenue Group charged. Hospital administrators, including at Avenue Group, sometimes asked patients in arrears to turn over the deed to their land or their car as collateral, according to doctors, nurses, staff, and patients interviewed by ICIJ, as well as a legal agreement and internal documents from Avenue Group.

Those without assets to turn over sometimes faced a bleaker scenario: remaining in the hospital while they—or their friends and family—collected funds. Public and private hospitals throughout the region were notorious for the practice of holding patients until they settled their bill, sometimes known as “discharge-in.” This most often happened to uninsured people who had come in for a serious emergency.

The problem was particularly acute at Nairobi Women’s. The hospital, which had received its first IFC-backed investments by early 2010, had been under scrutiny by the news media and local authorities for holding patients and even bodies over unpaid bills since at least 2014, the year a man reportedly sued the hospital for allegedly refusing to transfer his ailing wife to another facility because of an outstanding bill.Thenya, the hospital group’s founder and current CEO, freely admitted to the practice. In a 2016 interview, he told the Kenyan newspaper Business Daily that his “biggest problem” was “politicians calling for release of patients who have not paid their bills.”

As the years went by, examples of abuses at Nairobi Women’s piled up: Patient “detentions” were noted in court cases and chronicled in newspaper articles and two television exposés in 2017 and 2019 that found 16 people being held at the company’s hospitals. One woman had been there for nearly 230 days.

“We just became sick like any other person can get sick,” one of the patients told a reporter in 2017, as Abraaj piled up its management fees. “And now we’ve been detained in here like prisoners.”

In an interview with a television reporter about the detentions, Thenya said, “‘Cheap’ does not exist in health care.” Nairobi Women’s was owed over 430 million Kenyan shillings ($4.2 million) in outstanding bills, the report noted, but did not explain why.

Following a news report, a Kenyan parliamentary committee ordered an investigation into the monthslong detention of the body of a young woman whose kidneys had failed after she received treatment at one of Nairobi Women’s hospitals. Before she died, her family had requested a transfer to a cheaper public facility. But Nairobi Women’s moved her instead to a different branch, where she died several weeks later, the committee found, adding that the family consent form the hospital shared with the committee “appeared to be a forgery.” The administrators’ actions, the committee noted, seemed to have been “motivated by the need to keep the patient in the hospital’s custody to ensure payment of the bill already incurred”—nearly 2.6 million Kenyan shillings (about $25,000).

The board of Nairobi Women’s, which at the time included at least one representative from Abraaj, had met to discuss the case, the hospital group’s chief operating officer told the committee, adding that the board was empowered to forgive debts after 12 months. But it was only after the committee began its investigation that the hospital agreed to release the woman’s body and waive the bill. The committee took no further action, and detentions at Nairobi Women’s hospitals continued: Two years later, in 2019, the Kenya Ministry of Health reportedly found 15 bodies and 12 discharged patients being held there. Even rulings from Kenya’s High Court, which heard at least three civil suits by patients detained unlawfully at Nairobi Women’s, did little to stop the practice. In 2016, a judge ordered the company to pay a million Kenyan shillings ($9,600) to a woman it had held for more than three months over an outstanding bill of 173,000 Kenyan shillings ($1,700). Two years later, the court ordered Nairobi Women’s to release a man it had held for months after a traffic accident. And in 2021, it awarded damages to a young mom, Emmah Njeri, whom Nairobi Women’s had held for more than five months in 2018 over unpaid bills exceeding 2.7 million Kenyan shillings (about $27,000).

When Njeri finally went home, her 9-month-old son no longer recognized her, she told ICIJ: “The bond has never been as before.”

In a statement to ICIJ, Thenya wrote that the practice of “delayed discharges” was never meant to be punitive. Rather, they were merely “a reflection of systemic challenges in healthcare financing.”

The board, he wrote, had been aware that Nairobi Women’s was holding patients over unpaid bills, and—after the first High Court ruling—the company took steps to end the practice. Still, the hospital “continues to face difficulties” with uninsured patients, “which sometimes complicates discharge logistics,” Thenya added. “Nevertheless, we remain committed to patient dignity and legal compliance.”It’s unclear what the IFC knew about the detentions at Nairobi Women’s and other hospitals, and it has not been named in any of the publicly available court documents involving former patients reviewed by ICIJ. But representatives from multiple IFC-backed private equity funds—not just Abraaj—knew of detentions, according to interviews with five people familiar with the situation.

By the end of 2017, investors had begun raising questions about Abraaj and its global health fund. According to allegations in court filings by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for health care investments had been flowing into the firm’s other accounts “to cover cash shortfalls.” The following year, Abraaj returned part of the IFC-backed fund’s capital under pressure from its investors, who soon began a search for a new firm to take over its assets.

It had been a decade since the IFC had begun its private health care push into Africa, but a report by the World Bank’s independent evaluation group found there was still “limited evidence” that the IFC’s health care investments had benefited the poor.

Meanwhile, staff at Avenue Group hospitals were increasingly concerned about their employer’s direction since their purchase by Abraaj. Dissatisfaction with wages and conditions led nurses and other staff to unionize. A petition reportedly signed by more than 100 employees decried Avenue Group’s focus on profit over patient care: “Priorities have changed from provision of high-quality health care for a reasonable price to one in which staff have been encouraged to over test, over prescribe and generally overcharge our valuable patients to increase profits.”

In April 2019, Abraaj’s founder, Arif Naqvi, was arrested in the United Kingdom on fraud charges, including the alleged misappropriation of approximately $100 million of the health fund’s assets. Shortly after, TPG, one of the world’s largest private equity funds, took over Abraaj’s health portfolio, including its IFC-backed investments in Kenya, renamed it the Evercare Health Fund, and wrapped it into its own impact investment portfolio, the Rise Fund. (Naqvi is currently awaiting extradition to the United States to stand trial. Naqvi has denied wrongdoing and could not be reached for comment.)

On its new website, in an echo of the Abraaj fund’s founding logic, Evercare stated that its mission was “to build a legacy of accessible, high quality, safe private healthcare for low and middle-income patients in emerging markets.” But by the end of 2020, the reference to low- and middle-income patients had disappeared. In a statement to ICIJ, the company said it “continues to focus on access to high quality care for patients across the socio-economic spectrum, particularly in underserved markets.”

A young Kenyan boy stands in front of a brightly painted mural. In the mural, three people wear white face masks, and arrows indicate a distance of 1 meter between the people. One person in the mural says in Swahili, "Corona is real!"A mural promotes awareness of coronavirus in the Kibera neighborhood of Nairobi.Donwilson Odhiambo/SOPA Images/Getty

That same year, local media reported on leaked messages from a WhatsApp group made up of Nairobi Women’s employees. The messages, from before TPG took over, showed the CEO of Nairobi Women’s at the time, Felix Wanjala, pushing doctors to meet daily admissions targets and apparently urging them to extend patients’ hospital stays. Progress updates posted to the group included a category for “discharge-ins.”

In an email to the hospital group’s board after the leak, Wanjala denied accusations that he was trying to raise revenue unfairly. But he wrote that, under TPG, the need to boost returns was only growing more urgent: Profits were the “number one issue that every one of our directors keep an eye on,” he wrote, adding, “we rarely discuss patient care in our meetings—[it’s] a side issue.” TPG, he said, “wants EBITDA X3 in three years,” using an abbreviation for a common measure of profitability.

Two days later, Nairobi Women’s announced that Wanjala would step aside from his post. Instead, a three-person committee from TPG’s Evercare would lead the hospital group and report to the board.

The Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council subsequently admonished the company’s management for overruling doctors’ decisions to medically discharge patients. But, the council noted, it had seen no evidence of overcharging for services. In response to questions from ICIJ, Evercare wrote that after the leak, the board of Nairobi Women’s hired an outside firm to recommend ways to improve patient care and established better reporting and monitoring of admissions and discharges.

Speaking to ICIJ, Wanjala said that the WhatsApp messages were taken out of context and that there was no evidence that patients had been overcharged. Additionally, he said that during his time as CEO, Nairobi Women’s never received specific profit targets from investors and his email was in regards only to initial conversations he had had with TPG.

For some executives at Evercare and Avenue Group, the scandal confirmed long-held suspicions about Nairobi Women’s. For years, fund managers had viewed it as the most successful of the IFC-backed hospital businesses in Kenya, an example for others to emulate, according to four former executives at Avenue Group and Evercare.

But few investors questioned how the business achieved its results. The focus on “financials and nothing else” had stopped investors from seeing what was happening right in front of their eyes, a former Avenue Group executive said. When a hospital is overly focused on generating substantial returns, that means “there’s a patient who’s suffering. There’s a patient who’s losing in terms of either losing quality of life [or] quality of care.”

In 2023, Evercare sold Nairobi Women’s back to its founder, ending IFC’s involvement with the chain. But Nairobi Women’s never fully recovered from the WhatsApp leak about patient discharges. Its Rongai branch closed in October 2024, and employees across the company quit as it fell months behind on paychecks.In a Facebook post addressing the situation, Thenya, Nairobi Women’s founder, attributed the shortfall to delayed payments from government-run health insurance plans. Nairobi Women’s performance is improving, he told ICIJ.

A health care worker injects a shot into a woman's upper arm. Both are wearing blue paper medical face masks.A health care worker administers a vaccine to a Nairobi resident during a mass vaccination drive countrywide.John Ochieng/SOPA Images/Getty

In the summer of 2020, after the WhatsApp leak and as Covid-19 spread, the IFC launched an initiative to promote ethical principles in the private health sector.

A guide to the initiative provided examples of unethical practices, including “incarcerating patients for non-payment,” in what appeared to be the first public acknowledgement by an IFC-affiliated organization of the widespread practice of holding patients with unpaid bills.

The IFC encouraged private health care investors and providers to commit to a set of 10 ethical principles, including one calling on hospitals to deal “humanely” with patients unable to pay their bills. But there was no built-in enforcement: Organizations that pledged their commitment to these standards would not be held accountable to them.

For instance, one of the ethics initiative’s founding signatories, Hospital Holdings Investment, managed a Ugandan hospital that in 2021 drew national condemnation after it reportedly refused to release the body of a doctor who had died of Covid-19. In 2019, the IFC had provided $27 million in financing to the business—including a $22 million equity investment that made it one of the company’s largest shareholders—pledging to “ensure that the Company adheres to high environmental, safety and social standards.” A 2018 proposal for the venture told potential investors that they could expect a “minimum” 25 percent return over a five-year period, according to documents reviewed by ICIJ.

In a statement to ICIJ, the Investment Fund for Health in Africa, the private equity fund managing Hospital Holdings, wrote that the case of the detained doctor’s body occurred at the height of the pandemic, when health care providers globally were strained, and that it has since strengthened care and “has policies in place to avoid detention of patients or corpses over unpaid medical bills.” It also said ICIJ’s email asking about the Investment Fund for Health in Africa’s operations contained “multiple statements which are incorrect and taken out of context,” but did not provide examples.

Evercare signed on to the ethics pledge in September 2021. But at some hospitals in its portfolio, pressure from management to increase revenue in ways that might run afoul of that pledge was still present, according to people familiar with the situation and documents reviewed by ICIJ. In a meeting with representatives from TPG in early 2021, Avenue Group’s chief operating officer accused the medical group’s then-CEO of instructing doctors “to contravene medical policy and ethics by referring patients for admission to treatment who do not fit that medical criteria,” according to a witness statement submitted to the Kenyan High Court in relation to a labor dispute.

The witness also claimed that staff repeatedly raised concerns through an employer-provided whistleblower platform. Avenue Group’s board, Evercare, and TPG ignored them and even took disciplinary actions against “those who oppose unethical or illegal instructions,” the person wrote in the statement.

Evercare told ICIJ that it had conducted an extensive investigation in response to the allegations and found “no evidence or indications of misconduct.”

In early 2024, managers at Avenue Group’s hospital in Parklands told medical officers that they would be evaluated in part on their ability to “increase revenue.” Targets included meeting an average “ticket price” per patient, performing lab work on 78 percent of patients, and sending 85 percent of patients to radiology, according to a document reviewed by ICIJ.

In its statement, Evercare said doctors “are not evaluated based on revenue generation or commercial targets but solely on quality patient care, clinical safety, and adherence to internationally accepted evidence-based medicine guidelines.”

Today, Avenue Group’s hospitals display signs telling patients that they are free to leave against medical advice but that they also have an obligation to settle debts. Discharge and financial consent policies, last updated in September 2024, do not mention detention or how staff should handle patients who cannot pay their bills. Former and current Avenue Group staff interviewed by ICIJ continue to question its direction. While there was wide agreement that health care resources had benefited from the investments by the IFC, almost all believed patients had been ill-served by the fundamental misalignment between the goals of private equity and the goals of health care providers. The hospitals provide high-quality care, one former executive told ICIJ. But, he added, if receiving treatment means “you’re in debt for the rest of your life, what’s the point?”

In recent years, despite court cases and news coverage, IFC-backed hospitals have continued to put patients in financial distress. (A new national health insurance program introduced last year in Kenya has aimed to make health care more accessible.) ICIJ found dozens of posts on social media and the fundraising site GoFundMe, published from 2020 to 2025, pleading for friends, family, and community members to contribute money toward bills at Avenue Group and other IFC-backed hospitals. ICIJ spoke with 12 people who since 2020 have received treatment at Avenue Group hospitals for themselves or family members, only to come under severe financial strain.Among them was Siamah Shabaan, who in March 2024 fell ill while pregnant and was taken to a public hospital in Kisumu. But doctors at government facilities nationwide were on strike, so she was moved to an Avenue Group hospital. The hospital admitted her without a deposit, but her baby died shortly after birth. The family soon took out a private loan to pay part of the baby’s bill.

Two Kenyan women in boldly patterned tops stands outside their modest home, with walls made of packed earth, rocks, and wood.Siamah Shabaan (left) with her mother at their home in MuhoroniMicah Reddy

Shabaan needed only a few days to recover from her illness, she said, but she remained in the hospital for almost two weeks as her mother begged the village chief and local imam to each send the hospital letters explaining that the family had no money. She hand-delivered them to the hospital to ask for leniency.

Not long after, Shabaan returned to her home in Muhoroni, where she lives with her mother in a shack with a tin roof and no electricity. When Shabaan was discharged, there were two bills: around $1,200 for her and around $600 for her baby, far more than she could pay. Even before Shabaan was treated at an Avenue Group hospital, she and her family had nearly nothing. Now, they have less, Shabaan said. The hospital regularly calls her mother, urging her to make payments toward the debt. The family says they have been told to pay any amount, even as little as 1,000 Kenyan shillings ($7.68). But her mother has no job and the family can’t afford to.

Shabaan is not bitter about the situation—she is thankful to the hospital for saving her life.She hopes to someday have the resources to pay the bills. She’s just not sure how that will ever happen.

Siamah Shabaan at her home in Muhoroni Micah Reddy

In the meantime, the creditors that Shabaan’s mother turned to when her daughter was hospitalized have threatened to have her arrested, Shabaan said during a visit with an ICIJ reporter. The women were sitting on a pair of old wooden chairs, the only decorations in their nearly empty home. The chairs had belonged to her grandfather, Shabaan said. Just a few days before, the creditors had come to take them.

The family had to plead with them not to, she said. But she doesn’t know how much longer they will wait.

*Contributors: Denise Ajiri, Jelena Cosic, Miguel Fiandor Gutiérrez, Karrie Kehoe, Delphine Reuter, *David Rowell, Annys Shin, Kathleen Cahill, Davi Sherman (ICIJ)**, Hannah Levintova (Mother Jones), and Frederic Musisi (Daily Monitor)


From Mother Jones via this RSS feed

view more: next ›