Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“Booksellers save lives”: James Patterson plays Santa to hundreds of bookstore employees nationwide

James Patterson has given 600 booksellers $500 holiday bonuses just in time for the holiday season.

The bestselling author has been awarding independent bookstores across the country since 2015. This year, bookstore staffers at stores like Thank You Books in Birmingham, Alabama, San Francisco's City Lights Books and The Nook in Cedar Falls, Iowa are all at the center of Patterson's initiative, ABC News reported.

In a statement released Tuesday, the author said, “Booksellers save lives. Period. I’m happy to be able to acknowledge them and all their hard work this holiday season.”

Out of the thousands of applicants, Patterson's handpicked winners are bookstore staffers Davis Gustafson at Thank You Books and Erin Messer at City Lights. They were all nominated for the holiday bonus by co-workers and customers. Other winners include Brandon Conrad of the Nook, Gina Marx of The Lynx in Gainesville, Florida, and Kirstin Kraig of Whale's Tale Books in Lakewood, Colorado. 

“We appreciate Mr. Patterson’s financial generosity as well as his generosity of spirit. We all continue to be awed by, and grateful for, Mr. Patterson’s continuing support of independent booksellers,” Allison Hill, CEO of the American Booksellers Association, said in a statement. "It means everything to have him recognize and reward the valuable role booksellers play in the industry.”

The prolific American author has also donated millions of dollars to schools, libraries and literacy programs in America. In 2015, the National Book Foundation awarded him an honorary National Book Award — the Literarian Award — for “outstanding service to the American literary community."

Former Bond girl Gemma Arterton doesn’t think a woman should ever play 007

Over the years, non-male actors like Gillian Anderson, Charlize Theron, Priyanka Chopra Jonas and Emily Blunt have been mentioned in online chatter as to who could best put a spin on the role of Agent 007 in a modern James Bond film but, according to a former Bond girl, seeing a woman follow in the footsteps of Sean Connery and, most recently, Daniel Craig, would be "too outrageous."

In an interview with The Times, Gemma Arterton — who played Strawberry Fields in the 2008 Bond film “Quantum of Solace” alongside Craig — expressed her staunch views on the matter, saying, “Isn’t a female James Bond like Mary Poppins being played by a man?”

While no woman has played James Bond, the franchise introduced Nomi, a female 00 agent, in "No Time to Die" (2021). Played by Lashana Lynch, Nomi briefly holds the 007 designation after Bond's retirement, marking a significant step toward diversifying the franchise, but Arterton is of the belief that the role should continue to be given to a man, saying, "Sometimes you just have to respect the tradition.”

In a 2021 interview with Radio Times, Craig fielded questions on the possibility of a woman as his successor in the role, saying, "The answer to that is very simple. There should simply be better parts for women and actors of color. Why should a woman play James Bond when there should be a part just as good as James Bond, but for a woman?”

Trump’s pick to lead DOJ’s civil rights division is a right-wing election denier

President-elect Donald Trump's decision to put the Department of Justice's civil rights division under the leadership of Harmeet K. Dhillon, a staunch loyalist who has participated in lawsuits against states over antidiscrimination and voting rights laws, has provoked a broadside of criticism from advocates who say that her right-wing ideology will be the dominant factor in her decision-making.

Dhillon, a former attorney and GOP official, has also championed right-wing campaigns against diversity initiatives, transgender rights and COVID-19 lockdown policies. In 2020, she served as a legal advisor for the Trump campaign and called on the Supreme Court to overturn the election results in several swing states.

“There is a wholesale ignoring of laws passed by legislatures … a few unelected bureaucrats, or elected perhaps, who change the outcomes of the election in a few counties and that changes the outcome of the national election — that’s what happened in 2020,” Dhillon said on an October 2024 podcast hosted by Nicole Shanahan, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s former running mate. Statements like those have raised the alarm among activists who say that her views and actions are anathema to the original purpose of the department, which was founded in 1870 to protect newly-enshrined Black voting rights.

“Dhillon has focused her career on diminishing civil rights, rather than enforcing or protecting them,” Maya Wiley, president and chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement. “Rather than fighting to expand voting access, she has worked to restrict it. Instead of defending election results and demonstrating concern for free and fair elections, for example, she helped fuel the ‘big lie’ in many forms, challenging election results on several occasions based on misrepresentations and outright lies.”

For Dhillon's supporters, her history and loyalty to Trump is the very reason she should be in charge. In announcing her nomination on Truth Social, the president-elect touted her work “suing corporations who use woke policies to discriminate against their workers."

Though Dhillon has faced pushback within her own party over her Sikh faith, she can count on the friendship of prominent right-wing figures like activist Charlie Kirk, GOP money-man Leonard Leo and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who she represented in a gender discrimination lawsuit brought by his former producer, Abby Grossberg. In the ensuing settlement, Fox paid Grossberg $12 million.

We need your help to stay independent

In 2018, Dhillon founded the Center for American Liberty, a legal organizations that claims to defend “the civil liberties of Americans left behind by civil rights legacy organizations" and has spent much of its resources in suing states over trans protection laws, or in one case, a school that used a transgender student's preferred name. In 2023, she ran an insurgent campaign against then-RNC chair Ronna McDaniel largely on the grounds that she would carry even more water for Trump on his efforts to cast doubt in the 2020 election, including a proposal to hire an army of lawyers to challenge the election process.

NAACP President Derrick Johnson said Tuesday that Dhillon’s shots at "legacy" organization amounts to "gaslighting."

“I am concerned with the approach this nominee will take as it relates to protecting the rights of all communities and ensuring equal protections to all sides, not only the majority,” Johnson told The Washington Post. “If confirmed, she will be sitting in a seat in which Americans would hope she pursues issues based on facts that are aligned with our Constitution and are squarely within legal precedents and not go and stretch that notion as the top person in the civil rights division. We don’t need to manufacture issues.”

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: the watchdog Republicans love to hate

Elon Musk recently posted that he’d like to “delete” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If you haven’t heard of the CFPB, but you’re a consumer who spends money in America, it’s worth knowing a bit about what it does, why President-elect Donald Trump's allies want to get rid of it and what’s technically possible under federal law. 

The CFPB — created to protect consumers from predatory and abusive practices in the financial sector — has drawn Republicans' ire since it was signed into law in 2010. It now has the attention of Musk, a co-leader of Trump's "Department of Government Efficiency" — a nongovernmental group created to help “slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies," according to his statement. 

For now, simply “deleting” government agencies isn’t possible. Nor is it possible for a president to issue an executive order eliminating the CFPB; that could violate the Constitution, which states that the president is obligated to ensure that the nation’s laws are faithfully executed, legal experts say. 

“If somebody wanted to get rid of a government agency that is created by statute, you have to pass a new statute to get rid of that agency,” Noah Rosenblum, associate professor at New York University School of Law, told Salon. 

“That's the baseline,” he said. “Now, of course, there are lots of workarounds.”

What is the CFPB?

The CFPB was established when Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act into law. The statute was enacted to prevent the events that led to the 2008 Great Recession, the most profound economic crash and downturn since the 1929 Great Depression. 

We need your help to stay independent

Dodd-Frank tightened regulations on mortgage lending and other financial products, added new levels of oversight on financial institutions and strengthened protections for banking industry whistleblowers. The CFPB is an independent agency tasked with protecting consumers from “unfair, deceptive or abusive” practices in the financial industry, and to take action against companies breaking the law. 

The CFPB has collected more than $17.5 billion for consumers in the form of compensation, cancelled debt, loan reductions and other forms of relief, according to its website. More than 50 million online users have accessed answers to common personal finance questions on the agency’s Ask CFPB database, like “How will shopping for an auto loan affect my credit?” and “What should I do when a debt collector contacts me?” 

In one of the agency's most notable cases, it fined banking giant Wells Fargo $100 million for the behavior of 5,300 employees who since 2011 had opened fake banking and credit card accounts and created online banking profiles in order to meet Wells Fargo's quotas. 

One of CFPB's newest rules capped credit card fees at $8, but a federal judge put it on hold after business lobbyists and banks protested the policy as unconstitutional.

Why delete it?

In his post, Musk said “there are too many duplicative regulatory agencies.” But it’s worth noting that the CFPB is the first and only governmental agency whose mandate isn’t simply to make sure banks aren’t doing anything illegal, but to specifically monitor them and other financial institutions for violations against consumers. Before the CFPB’s founding, the responsibility of consumer financial protection was spread across seven different federal agencies.  

Wall Street and Republicans have largely rallied against the agency, arguing that it represents too much government overreach and is a “rogue” agency because it isn’t funded by tax dollars. CFPB receives funding from the Federal Reserve in order to keep it out of the political process.

“It’s going to punish every banker in America for the sins of a few on Wall Street,” John Boehner, then the House Minority Leader, told reporters in 2010. In 2017, Texas GOP Rep. Jeb Hensarling called the agency "arguably the most powerful, least accountable agency in U.S. history,” according to CNN.

Another Republican rub is that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) proposed the agency in 2007 and was deeply involved in its creation alongside Obama. Her support of left-leaning political ideologies has made the CFPB a target for conservative attacks, said Shayak Sarkar, a law professor at The University of California at Davis.

"Thinking of it as any senator’s pet agency is just oversimplifying the demand and need for it"

“A lot of the rhetoric just tries to tie this agency to a particular person, namely Elizabeth Warren, who has a lot of salience in the popular imagination,” Sarkar told Salon. “But it reflects not only the social movements of Occupy Wall Street and the precipitating financial crisis of 2008, but a lot of different stakeholders. Thinking of it as any senator’s pet agency is just oversimplifying the demand and need for it.”

Could it be eliminated?

The "workarounds" that could be used to delete the agency are hypothetical and could meet legal challenges. But they represent the possible routes that a second Trump administration may take to defang or dramatically reduce the agency’s regulatory impact. 

One could include passing legislation to reduce or eliminate the agency’s funding in budget reconciliation, a special procedure that’s meant to let the U.S. Senate more easily pass tax and spending legislation with 51 votes instead of 60, experts said. The procedure can also be used “as a mechanism to avoid the filibuster and pass partisan legislation, usually with a slim majority,” according to The Center for American Progress

Another scenario could include Trump “short staffing” the CFPB by laying off employees and hindering the agency’s ability to enforce consumer protections, Rosenblum said. Trump could also appoint a new agency head who shares Republicans’ disdain for the administrative state.

"A director who disagrees with CFPB’s mission is likely to de-prioritize some of the things that a Biden administration might have made a priority"

“A director who disagrees with CFPB’s mission is likely to de-prioritize some of the things that a Biden administration might have made a priority,” Nicholas Bagley, professor of law at University of Michigan and former chief legal counsel to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, told Salon. 

How has the CFPB survived?

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge to the CFPB that argued the agency’s funding structure violates the Constitution. The effort was backed by all Republican state attorneys general, reported The Hill

But in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the president is free to fire the director of the CFPB without cause — a partial win for conservatives. The Court stopped short of dismantling the agency.

A report shared exclusively with Salon in 2020 found that the vast majority of amicus briefs filed in support of the case were done so by parties with an "axe to grind" against the CFPB. 

Conservatives who frame the CFPB as an institution for consumers, and therefore against financial institutions, imply that regulation and oversight is bad for business, Sarkar said. 

“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in protecting consumers, is also protecting the integrity of our financial markets,” Sarkar told Salon. “You need to have financial market integrity in order for us to allow for meaningful and healthy choice, because meaningful and healthy choice in a market without integrity isn't really meaningful choice at all.”

Judge rejects The Onion’s bid to purchase Alex Jones’ Infowars

A U.S. bankruptcy judge on Tuesday blocked parody news outlet The Onion from buying Infowars, a website founded by right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who claimed that the bankruptcy auction was rife with collusion.

Judge Christopher Lopez rejected Jones’ claims, but ruled that the bankruptcy auction did not result in the highest possible bids, The Guardian reported. 

The Onion was the highest bidder in an auction for Infowars on Nov. 14, offering $1.75 million in cash and other incentives. The publication had plans to oust Jones and turn the misinformation website into a parody, with “noticeably less hateful disinformation," it said.

First United American Companies, a company affiliated with a Jones website that sells nutritional supplements, had bid $3.5 million.

“This should have been opened back up, and it should have been opened back up for everybody,” Lopez said. “It’s clear the trustee left the potential for a lot of money on the table.”

In 2022, Jones declared bankruptcy and was forced to liquidate his assets to pay $1.5 billion in damages to families of the victims in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre, a result of his spreading harmful lies and misinformation about the shooting. For years, he claimed that no children were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School and that the whole incident was a hoax to take away guns.  

Multiple courts have ruled that Jones defamed the families of the victims. 

Sandy Hook is just one of the thousands of conspiracy theories Jones spread on Infowars, which he founded in 1999 under Free Speech Systems LLC. The lies range from claims that 9/11 was an inside job to the Boston Marathon bombings being staged by the FBI.

Lopez ruled that neither offer at the auction for Infowars was high enough for the site, given the exorbitant amount Jones owes. He ordered court-appointed trustee Christopher Murray to come up with an alternate solution.

"You got to scratch and claw and get everything you can for them," Lopez said.

The families of the Sandy Hook victims were disappointed the sale wasn’t approved, their attorney told The New York Times. 

“These families, who have already persevered through countless delays and roadblocks, remain resilient and determined as ever to hold Alex Jones and his corrupt businesses accountable for the harm he has caused,” Chris Mattei told The Times.

Trump still owes a $454 million civil fraud judgment to New York, state attorney general says

Donald Trump's imminent return to the White House will not affect his $454 million civil fraud judgment, a lawyer for New York Attorney General Letitia James wrote in a letter to attorneys representing the president-elect Tuesday.

Trump and his two adult sons, Don Jr. and Eric, owe $490 million in total, including interest, to the state of New York after a judge ruled that they repeatedly lied about Trump's net worth to gain an advantage in loan negotiations. While criminal cases targeting Trump over covering up hush-money payments, election racketeering and other charges have been dropped due to the election results, presidents do not have immunity from civil litigation. 

"The ordinary burdens of civil litigation do not impede the President's official duties in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution," New York Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale wrote in the letter to D. John Sauer, the Trump lawyer who has been nominated to serve as U.S. solicitor general.

James will continue defending the judgment against Trump as he appeals the case, the letter continued.

Sauer had requested James drop the case after Trump's victory, to no avail.

"In the aftermath of his historic election victory, President Trump has called for our Nation's partisan strife to end, and for the contending factions to join forces for the greater good of the country. This call for unity extends to the legal onslaught against him and his family that permeated the most recent election cycle," Sauer wrote in an earlier letter that Vale said was based on claims that had "no merit."

Pete Hegseth’s GOP critics “got the message”: Trump allies say they’re confident he’ll get confirmed

Pete Hegseth’s mother has a name: Penelope. In a 2018 email, she — Penelope Hegseth — called out her son as a man who had “abused” women (“belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses”) throughout his life.

The woman who accused Hegseth of raping her at a fall 2017 conference, resulting in a police report but no criminal prosecution, also has a name: Hegseth paid her an undisclosed sum to make the allegation go away, his attorney currently threatening to sue her if she comes forward and repeats the claim again.

That President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Defense is a predator, then, is not an accusation leveled by faceless trolls on social media but one cosigned by his own parent and detailed in a 22-page write-up from the Monterrey Police Department. Republicans, however, are preparing to act as if the trail of accusations Hegesth has left in his wake — including that he was often drunk on the job while at Fox News and leading a veterans advocacy group, per his colleagues there — are mere tabloid rumors and not charges made by some of the very people who know him best.

In a statement this week, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, a survivor of sexual assault who was seen as a possible “no” vote on Hegseth’s confirmation, signaled that she’s willing to support a nominee accused of abuse, dismissing the accusation as poorly sourced after meeting with him in private.

“I appreciate Pete Hegseth’s responsiveness and respect for the process,” Ernst stated, saying she had secured commitments to conduct a “full audit” of the Pentagon and appoint a “senior official” who will address sexual assault in the military. “As I support Pete through this process, I look forward to a fair hearing based on truth,” she added, “not anonymous sources.”

Ernst had previously been skeptical that Hegseth could get confirmed in the Senate, earlier this month telling reporters that she was not yet a “yes” herself,” a fact that made her a MAGA target. According to Politico, Trump’s allies knew they had to “draw a red line here” lest Hegseth go the way of Matt Gaetz, who is recording birthday wishes on Cameo instead of leading the Department of Justice. That meant going to war: “Fix bayonets — that’s what we’re doing here to make sure that we have the back of President Trump and his nominees,” Steve Bannon said on his podcast last week. A local MAGA media personality also began publicly weighing a primary challenge in 2026.

“Joni, I’m told, got the message loud and clear,” a Trump insider told Politico.

We need your help to stay independent

There are still as many as a half-dozen GOP senators who “aren’t there yet to vote yes,” MSNBC’s Jonathan Lemire reported Wednesday. “They are not outright saying ‘no,’ but they are also not saying ‘yes.’”

Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, are the most likely “no” votes; any others would likely sink Hegseth’s nomination.

But the momentum now appears to be on Hegseth’s side, with other members of the not-fully-MAGA caucus this week removing any doubt about how they plan to vote.

“I’m supporting Pete’s confirmation and I believe ultimately he will be confirmed,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Tuesday night on Newsmax. Cornyn warned that the actual confirmation hearings would be “very unpleasant,” but like Ernst he downplayed the salience of the charges made against him (from his mother and a woman very much known to Hegseth, his attorneys and California police).

“I know there will be unnamed accusations and some things that are going to be hurtful, not only to him and his family, but he’s ready for that, his wife is ready for that, and I’m confident he will be confirmed,” Cornyn said. “I know of no one who’s said that they will vote against him.”

Republicans fall in line for Trump’s Cabinet picks — but are they holding fire for a bigger battle?

If it feels as though the new Trump administration is taking shape at warp speed, that's because it is. It's unusual for an incoming administration to announce all these Cabinet and staff nominations in such rapid succession but that's part of the Project 2025 manifesto, to hit the ground running as fast as possible. And they're using the Steve Bannon tactic of flooding the zone to keep the media and the opposition off balance.

Trump's getting awards from Fox Newsgallivanting around Paris with his best buddy, naming one billionaire after another to his administration and giving his family members anything they want. He has even named his son's (reportedly former) fiancée, Kimberly Guilfoyle, as U.S. ambassador to Greece. And for any recalcitrant senators who still believe they have a say in any of it, he's bringing the hammer down.

Take for example the case of Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, a former female combat officer who had serious reservations about Trump's choice to be defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. After all, as someone who has experienced sexual assault, she was logically a bit disturbed by the rape allegations against Hegseth as well as his comments that he doesn't think women should be allowed in combat.

Well, Trump and his henchmen made sure Ernst understood that they were not going to stand for any guff from her. Politico reported:

In recent days, allies of Trump adopted an approach that is not novel for the president-elect and his followers: Make life extremely uncomfortable for anyone who dares to oppose him. The swarm of MAGA attacks that Sen. Joni Ernst has experienced is a warning of what’s in store for others who express skepticism of his personnel choices.

Hegseth “became a cause,” said a Trump ally who was granted anonymity to speak freely. “Not even for the official Trump operation, but the movement who is going apeshit for him.”..

“Joni, I’m told,” said a Trump ally with insider knowledge of the transition process, “got the message loud and clear.”

On Monday Ernst said that she will now support Hegseth through the process and demanded that any of the women he assaulted come forward and testify against him or she would discount their accusations. She, of all people, knows exactly what will happen to them if they do.

Whatever resistance the Republican senators may have felt toward Trump's autocratic demands has fizzled in the face of Dear Leader deploying MAGA threats. It is a feature of Trump's Republican Party. Recall what Mitt Romney's biographer, McKay Coppins, told CNN when he was asked whether Romney was planning to endorse Kamala Harris:

Mitt Romney knows that he would be on that enemies list. He’s worried about protecting his family. He said, "You know, I have 25 grandkids. How do you protect 25 grandkids?”

Let's just say the pressure is intense and most of these GOP officials apparently value their seats more than they value their integrity in any case. The way to succeed in Republican politics these days is to follow orders, no questions asked.

The bottom line is that when it comes to these complicated budgetary matters, this administration will have no leadership at all.

So, it appears that Trump is most likely going to get his way and every miscreant nominee will be confirmed. How long they last is another story. If you recall Trump's first term, the turnover was historic. It's hard to imagine that most of them will go the distance.

From what we can tell, they plan to do as much as possible through executive orders, many of which are bound to be at least delayed through litigation. But when it comes to appropriations there's no getting around Congress. Even if Trump and his Office of Management and Budget wizard Russell Vought are able to employ "impoundment" (the currently illegal process by which the president can spend appropriated funds contrary to Congress' negotiated agreement) they still have to get the budget passed through legislation. And that may mess up Trump's first 100 days in ways they can't anticipate.

We need your help to stay independent

Over the weekend, Trump's senior adviser and deportation zealot Stephen Miller appeared on Fox News Sunday where he told host Maria Bartiromo that Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., promised the president they can get the full funding for his massive deportation plan done by early February, weeks before the continuing budget resolution from last year expires in March. The plan is to do two big bills through reconciliation (which means they're filibuster-proof) the first being some kind of border/energy/defense bill that could cost in the neighborhood of $120 billion and the second down the road to extend and expand the Trump tax cuts along with whatever other draconian plans they have to destroy the health, safety and economic security of the American people.

According to Axios, Thune wants this first bill to be budget-neutral or negative and is thinking about reversing the Biden administration's student loan relief to pay for it. You have to wonder if he's consulted with shadow president Elon Musk about whether that's going to be OK. After all, Musk is supposedly working on reducing government spending by $2 trillion so he probably needs to use that student loan relief for that. Who's Trump going to choose?

Meanwhile, there's the House of Representatives, which, the last I heard, still has something to say about all this and will be operating with a one-vote margin for the GOP majority during the first two months of the new administration. They are already reportedly chafing at the Musk "DOGE" contraption since budgeting really is their bailiwick and they want to do the cutting themselves. Apparently, Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, insists there will be only one big reconciliation bill later in the year.

And then there's the House Freedom Caucus, which is never satisfied and almost always refuses to take yes for an answer. If there is any negotiation to be done, and one expects there will be with such a small margin and every member having leverage, we can expect them to make the kinds of demands in territory where even Donald Trump fears to tread.

So yes, Republicans are all cowed by Trump and his MAGA army and none of them are operating out of principle. You might think that means Trump will have smooth sailing. But he is a chaos agent and it's very difficult to know if he even understands what he's saying half the time. His inner circle already has competing priorities and half the people he's chosen are without any experience while the other half have agendas that clash with one another. The two chambers of Congress are already butting heads and there is dissension brewing within each of them.

The bottom line is that when it comes to these complicated budgetary matters, this administration will have no leadership at all. I don't doubt that they are going to do a whole lot of very bad things and it's entirely possible that the very worst of them, the deportation plan, will pass early on just as Stephen Miller says. But the rest of it is going to be a mess, with possible government shutdowns and speaker challenges and the most powerful man in the world eventually facing down the richest man in the world when their egos can't fit in the Oval Office at the same time. If you have any spare change, you might want to invest in popcorn futures.

Beyond access: Why true financial inclusion demands dignity and control

The prevailing narrative in the financial technology industry has centered around one central concept: access. The promise of fintech “revolutionizing” financial services has led many to celebrate the proliferation of apps and platforms that claim to democratize financial tools.

This move is not unfounded, especially considering companies such as McKinsey & Company define financial inclusion as “when everyone can access financial services that can help them build wealth.” While access is undeniably important, it is just the first step toward financial inclusion. True financial inclusion requires more than just providing access — it demands preserving dignity and ensuring meaningful control over one’s financial life. 

Imagine a woman standing at the checkout counter of a grocery store, cart full of weekly essentials. Her card is declined. Not because of insufficient funds but because an automated system flagged the transaction as “unusual.” As the line grows behind her while she is figuring out how to pay for her food, another layer of dignity is stripped away. This “front-of-line problem” is a far too common problem where traditional financial systems inadvertently create stressful moments that cause public humiliation.

The “front-of-line problem” can often be attributed to limitations imposed by outdated or inaccurate Merchant Category Code (MCC) rules, preventing low-income consumers from using their government benefits or accessing the most affordable options. Too many financial tools are either over or under-restrictive in this way — applying a hammer-like approach to a problem that requires scalpel-like precision. Furthermore, algorithmic biases against budget retailers deepen these disparities, especially when those retailers serve as lifelines for needy families. The compounding effect of these barriers is not just a transactional inconvenience; it erodes trust and self-worth, leaving individuals feeling alienated from the same system designed to help them.

While sophisticated fintech solutions can streamline processes, they often approach social support with rigid, prescriptive frameworks that fundamentally misunderstand the complexity of human need. The tradeoff of simply providing access but with inflexible guardrails means that being given access can be just as stressful as not having had access in the first place. Luckily, many companies and organizations are realizing this and are adopting approaches rooted in a profound understanding of human agency and dignity.

We need your help to stay independent

One such example is the city of Philadelphia. Its community development organization is piloting a program for housing vouchers that recognizes that the bureaucratic process and hoop-jumping required to obtain vouchers, compounded with the restrictiveness that comes with limiting vouchers just to mortgage or rent payments, take away some of the humanity of being able to pay for one of the most human things we have: a home.

By substituting housing vouchers with direct cash payments made via prepaid debit cards, the city recognizes that what constitutes money for housing isn’t one-size-fits-all. Instead, it leaves open flexibility for recipients to make choices about whether to purchase internet and from which provider, for example. At the very least, the direct cash option can allow recipients a more positive, less clunky experience of paying their monthly rent. The program has managed to capture the attention of HUD, the federal housing authority, who may adopt the practice nationwide if the city’s results prove compelling enough. 

Another example is Uplift. Uplift challenges traditional aid models by providing immediate, unconditional financial assistance through agile giving — a philosophy recognizing survivors as experts in their own lives. Agile giving is a radical act of trust. Unlike traditional support systems that impose restrictive conditions, micromanage spending, or assume recipients lack the capacity to make sound decisions, Uplift believes in providing direct, unrestricted funds.

Agile giving empowers women to make real-time decisions that address their most urgent challenges

By removing bureaucratic barriers and treating recipients with inherent respect, agile giving empowers women to make real-time decisions that address their most urgent challenges. Through agile giving, Uplift has not only increased its ability to support women in crisis — achieving a 34% increase in approved applications and approving 50 percent of assistance requests — but has also demonstrated how financial technology can be a powerful tool for restoring personal agency and dignity.

Even when more flexible technologies or money movement systems are introduced, it’s still only half the picture. Automated solutions such as mobile apps and AI-powered chatbots may be convenient, but they fall short of true financial inclusion. For many individuals, this might be their first experience with a financial product, where even basic concepts like PIN codes can feel overwhelming and unfamiliar, or at least, negative perceptions of predatory financial institutions instill fear and doubt.

Beyond just solving technical issues, cardholder support teams must serve as financial educators who can guide users through the fundamental building blocks of financial services. By training support agents to provide patient, comprehensive financial education, individuals can transition confidently from cash-based transactions, reducing expensive ATM usage and empowering users to navigate their finances with knowledge and agency. This human-centered approach bridges the technology-human divide, transforming financial products from transactional tools to instruments of genuine empowerment.

Furthermore, to truly serve our communities, we must move beyond binary access/no-access models, and flexible, context-aware approval systems are crucial to this evolution. Security and accessibility may seem like opposing forces, but dignity-preserving solutions, like lending circles, demonstrate that it is possible to balance security with accessibility.

Lending circles, which have been around for hundreds of years, involve a group of peers contributing to a shared pool of money and taking turns receiving funds. Lending circles can help individuals who struggle to meet the strict identification requirements of banks by accepting a wider range of IDs. They can also help build credit, provide an interest-free method to borrow money, and are an example of how, when we prioritize the human experience, we can create a system that fosters inclusion.

A dignity-first approach to financial inclusion can fundamentally transform financial services by shifting from traditional top-down models to collaborative systems

It’s time for fintech companies to reimagine their technology to prioritize the critical role of human support. Companies must prioritize dignity in areas like user experience design, customer service, and algorithm development. When they do, they not only foster loyalty but also tap into an underserved market eager for fintech solutions that resonate on a human level.

A dignity-first approach to financial inclusion can fundamentally transform financial services by shifting from traditional top-down models to collaborative systems that prioritize individual agency and user empowerment. Policymakers can promote inclusive finance by creating incentives for financial institutions to serve underserved communities while implementing regulations to safeguard against any predatory practices. This vision for a more inclusive fintech industry relies on the collaboration between fintech institutions, consumers, and regulators.

Through years of working closely with underserved communities, I have witnessed firsthand the transformative power of combining financial access with dignity. These communities have taught me that true empowerment means fostering a sense of control and respect in their financial choices.

Therefore, as we look to the future, I urge our industry to embrace a more holistic approach to financial inclusion — one that recognizes that adopting dignity-first approaches that give control back to users is the only way to achieve true financial inclusion. 

 

Does talking about climate “tipping points” inspire action — or defeat?

Climate tipping points are a specter looming over our future — thresholds beyond which the Earth’s systems switch into new states, often abruptly and irreversibly.

The long-frozen soil beneath the Arctic could rapidly thaw and release vast amounts of carbon dioxide and methane stored within it, heating up the atmosphere even more in a feedback loop. Fast-melting fresh water from Greenland’s ice (one tipping point) could disrupt the Atlantic Ocean’s circulation pattern (another tipping point), causing weather chaos around the world: Temperatures might plunge in northern Europe, the tropics could overheat, the rainy and dry seasons in the Amazon could flip, and parts of the U.S. East Coast could be submerged by rising seas.

A new paper in the journal Nature Climate Change makes the case that all these alarming events should be called something other than “tipping points.” The framing is intended to draw attention to the radical changes that global warming might bring. But a group of scientists from Canada, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and cities around the United States argue that the concept is scientifically imprecise — and worse, it might be backfiring.

Bob Kopp, a co-author of the paper who researches climate change and sea level rise at Rutgers University, said that talking about tipping points, as scary as they are, might not inspire people to do something about climate change. That’s because fear is an unreliable motivator. It might be key to generating attention online, but it can too often leave people feeling defeated and disengaged. “Tipping points are not, as a way of looking at the world, some inherent property of the world,” Kopp said. “It’s a choice to use that framing.”

The metaphor surged in popularity after the pop-science writer Malcolm Gladwell published the book The Tipping Point in 2000, inspired by an idea from epidemiology for the moment when a virus starts spreading explosively. “When I heard that phrase for the first time, I remember thinking, ‘Wow, what if everything has a tipping point?’” Gladwell recounted in 2009. “Wouldn’t it be cool to try and look for tipping points in business, or in social policy, or in advertising, or in any number of other nonmedical areas?”

The concept was quickly embraced by scientists trying to raise the alarm about global warming. “We are on the precipice of climate-system tipping points beyond which there is no redemption,” the climate scientist James Hansen said during a lecture to the American Geophysical Union in 2005. Three years later, the climate scientist Tim Lenton co-authored a much-cited paper assessing how close the world might be to various tipping points — when the lush Amazon rainforest might turn into a dry savanna, for example, or when the warm water eating away at the underside of the West Antarctic ice sheet could lead it to collapse into the sea. (Climate researchers have also applied the idea to cultural trends that would help cut emissions, called “social tipping points,” such as accelerating the adoption of electric vehicles or plant-heavy diets.)

"If people think the scientific community has been telling them that 1.5 degrees C is a tipping point, but nothing happened when we went over 1.5 degrees C, that can threaten scientific credibility."

Kopp said that the emphasis on climate tipping points might have made sense as a call to action 20 years ago, when the consequences of climate change weren’t so obvious. But in 2024, the hottest year ever recorded, its effects are apparent, with floods, fires, and heat waves noticeably worse than they used to be. “You just need to open the newspaper to see the impacts of dangerous climate change,” Kopp said. 

Such disasters can trigger the kind of collective recognition that can lead to policy changes, like how New York City poured resources into climate adaptation after Hurricane Sandy struck in 2012. Tipping points just don’t produce this kind of response, Kopp said: “We’re never going to stand up and say, ‘Today is the day the West Antarctic ice sheet is collapsing. We better do something about that.’”

Lenton, whose work has influenced how people think about the climate’s tipping points, said that Kopp’s paper misrepresented efforts he and colleagues have made to clarify what they meant by tipping points. “Most importantly, tipping points are real and are well established in both climate and social systems — readers of this paper could get the false impression that they don’t exist,” said Lenton, who now studies climate change and Earth systems at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, in an email. 

In Lenton’s personal experience, the framing of “tipping points” can help people understand the risks of climate change. “What makes me sad about this paper is that, as is too often the case, some members of the climate community would rather pick arguments with each other than constructively work together in a common quest for the public good, against a well-organized opposition,” Lenton said.

Lenton’s paper in 2008 justified its review of what climate systems might tip because of “increasing political demand to define and justify binding temperature targets.” But there are still unknowns about how much global warming would actually trigger tipping points. Take, for example, the potential for a major slowdown in the Atlantic Ocean’s conveyor belt of currents that regulate temperatures, distributing heat from the equator to the poles, and vice versa. One study from 2022 found that the threshold for collapse could be anywhere between 1.4 and 8 degrees Celsius of warming.

Despite that, tipping points have become conflated with international goals to keep global temperatures beneath 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Kopp and his colleagues found many references, from the news as well as in scientific studies, to “the 1.5-degree C tipping point.” But the temperature thresholds for tipping into catastrophe are very uncertain. What’s for sure is that with every tiny amount of global warming, the risk continues to grow.

“If people think the scientific community has been telling them that 1.5 degrees C is a tipping point, but nothing happened when we went over 1.5 degrees C, that can threaten scientific credibility at a time when actually we are facing a lot of dangers from climate change,” Kopp said.

He isn’t suggesting that people should keep quiet about the tipping points the world faces. He simply wants different terminology — perhaps a phrase like “potential surprises.” But given the widespread appeal of “tipping points,” which has made its way into more than 2,200 scientific papers at this point, switching to a new phrase would be a major challenge.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/language/climate-tipping-points-science-communication/.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

"This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here."

Democrats’ grief is Donald Trump’s best tool of distraction

The Democratic Party is still licking its wounds after being badly beaten by Donald Trump and his MAGA movement in the 2024 election. Here are some examples of how they are processing their defeat.

Kamala Harris’s campaign is still sending out emails each day asking for money. Her campaign raised 1.5 billion dollars and was still defeated by Donald Trump and the Republicans. On Monday, they sent out the following email:

One question for you: Will you share your support of Joe Biden?

We're putting together a card for President Biden filled with messages of gratitude from his top supporters. Will you be the next person to sign?

Please sign our official card thanking President Joe Biden for his support for our campaign and the American people. It would mean the world to him to see your signature.

We’d love to tell President Biden that you added your name today.

Thank you and Happy Holidays!

Team Harris-Walz

We're putting together a card for President Biden filled with messages of gratitude from his top supporters. Will you be the next person to sign?

The progressive Democrats in Congress appear to have a strategy for trying to stop the incoming Trump administration from further assaulting American democracy and gutting the social safety net to line the pockets of the kleptocrats and plutocrats: 1) cooperate with President Trump when they can find areas of common concern to advance the cause of working-people and 2) attempt to shame Trump as a hypocrite when he deviates from his promises about plans to help working-class Americans.

It is abundantly clear in these weeks after Trump’s victory that the Democratic Party (and pro-democracy Americans as a group) is still struggling through the stages of grief.

As I wrote in a previous essay, this strategy for stopping Trump is tragicomic. The progressive Democrats and other members of the party need to study history to learn from what happens when the Left, progressives and centrists/institutionalists in a failing democracy attempt to triangulate or otherwise cooperate with autocrats and insurgent authoritarians.  

And what of the “liberal” news media and the so-called Resistance? They are still shellshocked from the 2024 election as the political world they thought existed where Harris would win because the American people and the nation are so “exceptional” and “the institutions” and “democracy!” encountered reality as it currently exists. The epistemic collapse is great. It is also painful to watch.

In total, Harris and the Democrats’ strategy of “hope” and being “joyful warriors” and calling the MAGA people “weird” and other names in a self-serving exercise of liberal schadenfreude was no answer for the raw fury and rage at the system, the elites and the status quo that has come to typify America (and other liberal democracies around the world) in this era. 

Politico offers this account of what some of the Democratic Party’s leaders have been doing since they returned to their respective states:

At a Hilton hotel outside of Phoenix, where Christmas carols piped into the lobby, state Democratic chairs gathered for their annual winter meeting. They weren’t frantic like they had been after Trump’s first stunning victory. They were exhausted. Even after Trump tapped the likes of Kash Patel and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to staff his government, they still weren’t ready to demonstrate in the streets or tune into liberal networks.

But they were inching toward the anger phase of the grieving cycle as they huddled in ballrooms and traded theories about what went wrong. They pointed fingers at what they cast as overpaid consultants, expressed despair that working-class voters of all stripes had abandoned them, and lamented that they had lectured voters instead of listening to them.

“We need to win back the House, not fund consultants who want to buy a new house!” said Ken Martin, president of the Association of State Democratic Committees, in a speech to hundreds of attendants.

Waiting for pizza after hours of meetings, Judson Scanlon, political director of a PAC that produced “White Dudes for Harris” hats, fessed up to being one of the Democrats who has stopped watching MSNBC after Trump returned to power.

“Since 2016, all we’ve heard about is the crazy crap that this guy is doing when he’s president and when he’s not,” said Scanlon. “I’m fed up with that.”

Politico continues, “In speeches, none of the DNC chair hopefuls made the case that Democrats should undergo a sweeping shift in their worldview. Unlike in some progressive parts of the Democratic ecosystem, no one argued that Trump’s win proved that they need to adopt a bold, concrete promise like Medicare for All — or, from the other end of the party’s spectrum, that they must urgently move to the center on transgender issues. Instead, most sold themselves as competent managers and pitched technical solutions….

As Democrats tried to figure out a path forward, there was a quiet sense among some here that they wouldn’t be out of power for long. It was a stark contrast from people elsewhere in their party who are worried that a realignment could rob them of power for years.”

None of this sounds very inspired or compelling. The Democratic Party’s leadership appears committed to their belief that Harris ran a (near) perfect campaign and that tweaks to the party’s messaging are all that is needed to reenergize its base and take back power in the next election cycle.

We need your help to stay independent

The New York Times offers this peek into the thinking of the Trump and Harris camps on the latter’s supposedly flawless campaign:

After every presidential election, the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School invites campaign strategists for both general-election candidates — as well as key staff members from losing primary campaigns — to unload about what happened. The discussions, which take place on panels moderated by journalists, can get heated, as they did in 2016. Maybe some years the event feels cathartic. This year, though, the big word was flawless.

Sheila Nix, Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign chief of staff, used it on Thursday as each campaign outlined over dinner what had been its main strategy, saying Ms. Harris “ran a pretty flawless campaign.” And then Chris LaCivita, one of President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign managers, lobbed the word back at Team Biden/Harris during one of the panels today.

“Flawless execution,” he sarcastically interjected, after Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, the chair of the Biden and then the Harris campaign, labored to answer a question about the fateful debate that ended President Biden’s campaign.

LaCivita’s interruption got at a central tension in the aftermath of the election, one that has grated on Democrats outside the room and became a target of mockery from the Trump staff members inside it. For a campaign that lost, the Biden-Harris team has been reluctant to admit to specific mistakes — and that pattern continued today. They admitted they had lost, but their diagnosis was more about the mood of the country than tactical errors on their part. The ultimate answer may be a combination of both factors.

Here is some plain talk and uncomfortable realpolitik for establishment Democrats: If Harris had run a perfect campaign she would have won. Period. Such hubris by the Democratic Party’s leaders and other insiders will likely only bring more defeats for the party (and by extension American democracy and civil society) in this national and global moment of authoritarian populism.

In his recent essay "The Face of the Democratic Party", Robert Kuttner ponders

It’s hard to think of a time when the Democratic Party was more bereft of real leaders. As the losing presidential candidate, Kamala Harris is not held in warm regard, and her continuing fundraising efforts have added to the irritation. Joe Biden, who accomplished more than his critics give him credit for, is going out on a low note.

Usually, the chair of the Democratic National Committee is a technocrat and not the face of the party. But this time could be different.

A number of names have been mentioned in the press coverage and in self-promotion, but it’s clear that the two finalists will be Ken Martin, 51, Minnesota party chair, and his neighbor, Ben Wikler, 43, who chairs the Wisconsin state party. Both are excellent party-builders, both are substantive progressives, and both have earned wide respect. The election is set for February 1….

Since the DNC and the DSCC work in close concert, expects sparks to fly whether the new DNC chair is Martin or Wikler. One possibility, still premature, is that one could be chair and the other executive director. If ever there were a moment for both a strong Democratic Party and a compelling face of the party, it’s now.

As I asked in an essay here at Salon on Sunday, “Where is the fierce urgency of now?” from the Democratic Party’s leadership. There is a long-overdue reckoning with what the party is versus how it is perceived by the American people. What about the party's many millions of base voters who chose to stay home and not support Harris and Walz in the 2024 election and those other voters who were compelled, for whatever reason, to join Trump’s rainbow coalition of rage, fury, nihilism and resentment?  

Even more importantly, where is the fierce urgency of now from the Democrats, the so-called Resistance or the mainstream news media (the supposed “guardians of democracy”) about Trump and the MAGA Republican Party's shock and awe campaign against American democracy? The Democratic Party’s leadership (and the “liberal” news media and the party's other surrogates) need to start with an honest self-assessment — what is described in professional sports as “self-scouting” — if they want to defeat Trump and the MAGA Republicans in 2026 and beyond.

It is abundantly clear in these weeks after Trump’s victory that the Democratic Party (and pro-democracy Americans as a group) is still struggling through the stages of grief. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party, the American people and their democracy and civil society do not have the luxury of lingering in grief, they need to quickly move on to healthy action because time is not on their side. Donald Trump, in his own way, continues to be the most honest politician in America today (if not perhaps all of American history). On Sunday, he told NBC’s Kristen Welker, “We’re not playing games.”

Experts pour cold water on Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship — but issue a stark warning

As he prepares to take office next month, President-elect Donald Trump has offered the most expansive look at his incoming administration's plans to tamp down illegal immigration into the U.S., taking aim at birthright citizenship in his first post-election interview. 

In a "Meet the Press" interview that aired Sunday, Trump reiterated his long-term aim of ending birthright citizenship, a constitutional guarantee that any person born on U.S. soil has citizenship status. He told moderator Kristen Welker he intends to repeal the protection on day one of his presidency through executive action, stripping rights from Americans born to two undocumented parents.

"Do you know if somebody sets a foot, just a foot, one foot, you don’t need two, on our land — 'Congratulations you are now a citizen of the United States of America,'” he said. "Yes, we’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous."

But immigration law and policy experts told Salon that Trump has no real legal pathway toward repealing birthright citizenship, despite his claims. Instead, they said, his insistence on pursuing the plan — alongside his call for mass deportations — will create fear among communities of immigrants and their children that will act as a deterrent. 

"President-elect Trump is trying to send a message to people all over the world and also to unauthorized immigrants in the United States that he's going to be tough on immigration," argued Julia Gelatt, the associate director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), a nonpartisan think tank.

"He hopes that people will choose not to make the trip to the United States and not try to enter," she told Salon in a phone interview. "I think he also hopes that people who are living in the United States without status might opt to leave the country on their own." 

Trump has signaled an interest in repealing birthright citizenship since his first run for president, including the change in his immigration policy proposal in 2015, according to CNN. Trump insisted to Axios in 2018 that it was possible to do so through an executive order and last May, Trump released a campaign video proclaiming he would sign an executive order to roll back the right on day one of his presidency, according to NBC News

The impact of repealing the right would be immense. A 2020 MPI and Pennsylvania State University analysis found that ending birthright citizenship for U.S. babies with two undocumented immigrant parents would lead to a 4.7 million-person increase in the population of unauthorized people by 2050, including one million children born to two parents who had been born in the U.S. themselves. 

That population would skyrocket to 24 million by 2050 from 11 million at the time of the analysis' publishing if U.S. babies with only one undocumented parent were also denied citizenship, the researchers found. 

Gelatt said that such an action from the Trump administration would create a "multigenerational class of people who are excluded from full rights" and citizenship, which would restrain their ability to achieve higher earnings, support their families and contribute to the country through taxes. 

"Denying people that legal status, even if they're born in the United States, would put people in a much more legally vulnerable, economically vulnerable position," she said. 

We need your help to stay independent

Depending on the exact language of Trump's proposed executive order, ending birthright citizenship could also impact U.S.-born children's parents, added Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law practice at Cornell Law School. Such an order could potentially prevent officials from issuing passports, Social Security numbers or providing welfare benefits to family members of those children. 

But Trump has no viable legal pathway to repealing birthright citizenship, Yale-Loehr told Salon in an email. An executive order can't repeal an amendment, and any executive action Trump took attempting to do so would "trigger immediate litigation."

Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution in 1868 with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, which was intended to grant citizenship and civil liberties to formerly enslaved African Americans. Contrary to what Trump told Welker, more than 30 nations, largely in the western hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.

Amending the Constitution to upend the 14th Amendment would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate as well as ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. Even with slim Republican majorities in both chambers during Trump's next term, such a proposal would be unlikely to get past either chamber. 

His proposed executive order is also unlikely to withstand any legal challenges as the likelihood of the Supreme Court, despite its conservative majority, striking birthright citizenship from the Constitution is slim to none, added Hiroshi Motomura, a UCLA School of Law professor and faculty co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and policy.  

"Even though people say that the court has become more conservative, this would be even further in the direction of trying to overturn the past than we've seen," he told Salon in a phone interview. 


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Ending birthright citizenship would upend the foundation of how the nation has historically seen itself — as a country of immigrants — flying in the face of the purpose of the American Civil War and much of the United States immigration history since its founding, Motomura said. He pointed to the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision that held that U.S.-born children of Chinese immigrants were U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment even though their parents were, at the time, legally barred from obtaining citizenship under the Chinese Exclusion Acts. 

"This is all part of the racial history of the United States. This is why this is so bedrock compared to other things that the Supreme Court is sometimes characterized for doing as being quite radical," he explained. "This goes way beyond overruling Roe v. Wade. I think that was a radical move, but this is no comparison. This is quite a bit more of a rethinking of what the country is even about."

Given how unlikely it is that Trump would succeed at repealing birthright citizenship, what purpose, then, could Trump's focus on ending the right serve? Generating political value, Gelatt and Motomura argued, the former pointing to the importance of illegal immigration and the border to voters during the 2024 election. 

"Making the announcement makes people afraid and anxious, and I think it says to his supporters, 'you count, and these other people don't,'" Motomura said. "This was in the air during his first term, and so I think even if he does nothing or keeps threatening, there's a great deal of value sending a message to his base that he's doing something about the immigration question."

In taking aim at birthright citizenship, Motomura added, Trump is opting for the "simple-minded solution," which would lead to the exclusion from citizenship and relegation to a "third class" status of Americans who have been protected for nearly 160 years. 

"It's similar to saying that you can stop undocumented or unlawful irregular migration by building a wall," he said, adding: "Ultimately, I think it's corrosive to the whole country."

Abortion bans are profoundly impacting contraceptive care, study finds

Immediately after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade via the Dobbs decision, giving states control to restrict abortion, Google recorded the highest volume of searches for “vasectomy” in the past five years. Research later reported rising interest in tubal sterilizations among females was twice as high as the increase among vasectomies in males. The data reflected a broader trend: more women were seeking out birth control options as they faced a future of a more restrictive abortion access landscape.

But now, a new study has found that the stress of the Dobbs decision wasn’t only affecting what contraceptive methods patients were seeking, but also how some doctors were responding and counseling their patients in return. 

Published in the journal Reproductive Health, researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 41 contraceptive health care providers across the United States. An estimated 63 percent of them resided in states with abortion restrictions. The researchers found that the providers noted an increase in requests for contraception such as IUDs and other effective methods, as anticipated. However, the researchers concluded that Dobbs “profoundly” impacts providers’ contraceptive counseling and care.

“Our interviews highlight the moral injury and fear among health care providers resulting from abortion bans, even in contraception care,” the researchers wrote in their conclusion. “To sustain providers, clinics must invest in training and legal support so providers can safely advocate for their patients and effectively provide health care in uncertain, and increasingly hostile, environments.”

Yasaman Zia, a researcher at the Bixby Center of Global Reproductive Health and lead researchers of the study, told Salon that their findings highlight the increased pressure both on patients requesting more long-acting and permanent contraception options, and then on the providers’ ability to respond in a “patient-centered” way. While birth control hasn’t been directly affected by abortion bans — though there is genuine concern it could be banned next — misinformation and legal ambiguity are influencing how providers practice. 

"Our interviews highlight the moral injury and fear among health care providers resulting from abortion bans, even in contraception care."

“There's a deliberate legal ambiguity around inserting IUDs for emergency contraception and misinformation through abortion restrictions as IUDs causing an abortion,” Zia said. “This is despite the scientific evidence that its mechanism of action greatly differs.”

One example of how the fear that is prevalent among providers can be found in the case of using misoprostol before inserting an IUD. Misoprostol, which is used in conjunction with mifepristone as part of a medication abortion, can soften the cervix and make placement more comfortable. For some women, the pain of getting an IUD can be extreme.

Recently, after years of public outcry, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued recommendations for clinicians on how to help manage the pain that women might experience. While Misoprostol wasn’t recommended for routine use, the CDC advised it could be used in “selected circumstances,” like when a patient experienced a first failed placement. But in the recent study, a provider during an interview raised concerns that by using misoprostol, people could think that the provider is “causing an abortion.”

“Is someone going to try to get us in trouble for doing that?” the nurse practitioner based in a restrictive state, who was interviewed in the study, posited. “Is the pharmacy going to fill it? We know we’re not doing anything wrong, but… that too.”


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


Another nurse practitioner also said they were concerned about placing IUDs, and revealed some doctors are adding additional layers of protection to ensure it doesn’t look as if they’re performing an abortion if they’re practicing in an abortion-ban state. And it has even changed what kind of tests doctors run, sometimes opting for more sensitive pregnancy tests using the blood instead of urine.

“There are some doctors that I am working with who have started doing SDHCG [serum detected human chorionic gonadotropin test] instead of just a urine HCG to prove that they weren’t pregnant before they put in an IUD and those kinds of things,” another nurse practitioner said. 

"Will restrictions become more and more?"

Many providers who were interviewed also expressed concern that abortion restrictions will soon expand to contraception care. In Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion on the Dobbs decision, he opined that the Supreme Court should revisit precedents that codified same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships, and the right to contraception. Earlier this year, U.S. lawmakers had a chance to codify access to birth control by passing the Right to Contraception Act, but failed to do so.

“We also offer emergency contraceptive pills at our clinic. … But I definitely have concerns moving forward, is this something that will continue?” one provider said. “Will restrictions become more and more?”

Zia said that the fears expressed by providers that contraceptives could be the next target of restriction “are real and felt.” 

“We need institutions to protect providers legally in navigating these hostile environments, and equip providers with the information they need to battle misinformation and shifting policies, in order to continue providing patients with the full range of contraceptive options,” Zia said. 

We need your help to stay independent

Notably, providers in abortion-ban states felt the void of not being able to discuss abortion care with their patients. Providers who deliver contraceptive care may also provide abortion counseling or care, but now they are taking it upon themselves to see what options in other states are available to their patients. 

“As far as caring for patients I think it’s going to be important for us to educate ourselves about the law in different states so we can offer them… while I know this is what we can do for you here, in this state you can do XYZ,” one nurse practitioner said. “Learning resources to provide them I think is going to be important going forward.”

Zia said it was “surprising to witness” how these restrictions are affecting the range of contraceptive care. 

“Contraception is not directly implicated in these abortion restrictions, and yet it's profoundly impacted,” Zia said.

Kimberly Guilfoyle chosen by Trump to be the US ambassador to Greece

On Tuesday night, Donald Trump announced his decision to honor yet another television personality with a role as he continues to fill positions ramping up to his second term in office, tapping his son Donald Trump Jr.'s fiancée, Kimberly Guilfoyle, to be the U.S. ambassador to Greece.

As Politico points out in their coverage of Guilfoyle's nomination, she isn’t the first person with ties to the Trump family chosen for a foreign policy role, with Charles Kushner — whose son Jared is married to Ivanka Trump — chosen alongside her as ambassador to France.

In a post to Truth Social, Trump described Guilfoyle as a "close friend and ally," and sang her praises as the perfect fit for the role, writing, "Her extensive experience and leadership in law, media, and politics along with her sharp intellect make her supremely qualified to represent the United States, and safeguard its interests abroad. Kimberly is perfectly suited to foster strong bilateral relations with Greece, advancing our interests on issues ranging from defense cooperation to trade and economic innovation."

In a post to X accepting the president-elect’s appointment, Guilfoyle wrote, "I’m honored to accept President Trump’s nomination to serve as the next Ambassador to Greece and I look forward to earning the support of the U.S. Senate," adding that she's also looking forward to "delivering on the Trump agenda."

“I am so proud of Kimberly. She loves America and she always has wanted to serve the country as an Ambassador. She will be an amazing leader for America First,” Donald Trump Jr. wrote in a post to X, showing his support. 

 

Editor's note: This article previously referred to Guilfoyle as Trump Jr.'s ex-fiancée. They have not formally announced a split amid reports of a breakup. 

Matt Gaetz has a new gig lined up as an anchor on conservative news network OAN

Since backing away from Donald Trump's attorney general nomination and resigning from Congress as a whole, Matt Gaetz has had some time on his hands — when not occupied with fulfilling video orders on Cameo — but his evenings are about to be a lot more busy.

On Tuesday, One America News (OAN) announced that Gaetz has signed on to anchor his own primetime show for the conservative network, confirming rumblings of his new gig that floated around social media at the start of the week.

“Matt Gaetz has earned a reputation as a relentless champion of conservative values, taking on entrenched Washington bureaucrats and exposing government overreach,” the network said in a statement. “While serving on key committees including the House Judiciary and Armed Services Committees, Gaetz was a leading voice in defending President Donald Trump and advocating for an unapologetic America-first agenda. His knack for connecting with grassroots Americans and shaking up the status quo makes him a dynamic and timely addition to OAN’s team.”

Further details on the gig were issued by the network in a press release, answering questions about the format of Gaetz's new show: “The former eight-year member of the U.S. Congress and recent U.S. Attorney General nominee will be hosting a one-hour political talk show every weeknight. 'The Matt Gaetz Show' will air at 6 p.m. ET every weeknight."

"OAN is blazing a trail in media, embracing not just traditional news but the platforms where Americans are going—streaming, apps, podcasts, and social media," Gaetz said in a statement of his own. "I couldn't be more thrilled to join OAN's forward-thinking team and be part of this revolutionary expansion."

Remembering Nikki Giovanni, the iconic poet who taught me how to exist with freedom

They say, "Never meet your heroes," and I say, they couldn’t be more wrong. Back in 2017, I had the rare opportunity to interview the legendary Dr. Nikki Giovanni here at Salon, where we had a transformative exchange that changed me. On Monday, she passed at 81. 

Nikki Giovanni – poet, educator and literary giant who authored over 25 titles including “Black Judgement,” “A Good Cry” and “Black Feeling, Black Talk” — was a special kind of public figure. By special, I mean her name has become synonymous with poetry, similar to how Muhammad Ali comes to mind when we think about boxing. Many have never seen Ali put on a pair of gloves, but they know his influence has shaped the game, just as I knew who Nikki Giovanni was before someone shared her poem Nikki-Rosa with me, where she wrote to me:

and I really hope no white person ever has cause   

to write about me

because they never understand

Black love is Black wealth and they’ll

probably talk about my hard childhood

and never understand that

all the while I was quite happy

I know she didn't write it directly to me, but she was speaking directly to me. As a student, I would continue to read her work, becoming frustrated with the poems I did not understand and then thanking God for all of her classic interviews appearing on YouTube that gave me new clarity and a hunger to go back and revisit those poems. I gained new meanings for the ones I thought I could comprehend and peace when they guided me into places I may have never been. This was years before I thought about getting a book deal, before I ever published anything, before I ever even felt that I would be able to survive this industry. But time passed and I kept reading Giovanni, and I did try, I did publish, I did make a few aggressive attempts at existing in the literary world, which landed me at Salon, where I was given the opportunity to meet my hero. 

"Never meet your heroes."

I don't want to ruin anyone's dreams so I'll say this: Sometimes, that's good advice. One of my former favorite comedians is an a**hole who talks bad to his staff, and one of my favorite actors had a remarkable breakdown after smelling imaginary fumes. I was also at a party with a guy who used to be one of my favorite music executives, until I found out he was the biggest narcissistic womanizer that the good Lord has ever created. There is some truth to being better off avoiding your heroes. With that being said, I had no anxiety on my way to the Giovanni interview. She was on a press run for her book “A Good Cry,” and many on our staff were excited that the great Nikki Giovanni was blessing our studio with her presence.

We all know that Giovanni's name comes up with other greats like James Baldwin and Toni Morrison; however, her language, her demeanor and what she seemed to get excited about had nothing to do with worldly or literary praise.

 

Sometimes we imagine Hollywood types and icons will stroll in with teams of 30 people, all individually responsible for something like hair or makeup or PR. But Giovanni came in with just one other person — and she was beyond pleasant, delicate, and calm — and she was direct, and told nothing but the truth, over and over again. 

I was in a weird place in my career, where I was too Black for many of the people dominating mainstream publishing, and too much of a success story to have a normal experience back in my neighborhood. I didn’t think I was a thug or a nerd, but was constantly feeling like a man with no nation. I did not take this problem to Giovanni directly, but instead, just listened to how she saw the world and how she saw herself. We all know that Giovanni's name comes up with other greats like James Baldwin and Toni Morrison; however, her language, her demeanor and what she seemed to get excited about had nothing to do with worldly or literary praise. The real prize was her. Giovanni was 1,000% comfortable being her, living out her own dreams and existing inside of her own skin. 

From Giovanni, I indirectly learned that the industry is a joke, that the people who praise you will quickly turn their backs on you, and that all of their love is temporary, conditional and not even worth it.

So, if you felt like she was too Black for the function, or too successful for the function, or too into space and developing far-out ideas for the function, then that was your business as much as it was your loss, because she was totally content using all of the extra time to pour into the people and things she loved, all of which loved her back. 

From Giovanni, I indirectly learned that the industry is a joke, that the people who praise you will quickly turn their backs on you, and that all of their love is temporary, conditional and not even worth it. She introduced me to the kind of freedom that I did not know existed. The freedom that comes with fighting to create the best work, not fighting to belong. 

That meeting not only gave new meaning to the poems I thought I understood, it gave new meaning to who I was becoming as a person and I'm forever grateful for that. Your integrity, your family, your personal village is what matters – the rest is noise, which you can focus on or simply turn off. I met my hero, and she effortlessly elevated my being. 

I continued to keep in contact with Giovanni over the years, and was fortunate enough for her to not only give insight, but a valuable endorsement to the most vulnerable book I ever wrote. She also presented me with the CityLit’s Dambach Award for Service to the Literary Arts, which brought tears to my eyes, because she truly did not have to take time out of her busy life to celebrate me. These are the acts of kindness that drive me – and challenge me to always be the kind of person who is available to educate, support and listen to the next generation. 

Nikki Giovanni has made it easier on me, and now I have the task of trying to do that for the many creators who are still trying to figure it out. 

Thank God I met my hero. 

“We’ll send the whole family”: Trump’s deportation plans echo depression-era “repatriation” schemes

President-elect Donald Trump’s recent promise to deport entire families of undocumented immigrants  including those who are American citizens  harkens back to “repatriation” programs of the 1930s, which were used to attempt to pressure Mexican Americans, including Mexican citizens, into leaving the country voluntarily.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” with Kristen Welker on Sunday, Trump reiterated his plans to attempt to end birthright citizenship and expanded on some of the details around his mass deportation program, including what the incoming administration has planned for the roughly 4 million families of mixed immigration status in the United States.

Specifically, Welker asked Trump what he had planned for families in which the parents in a family are undocumented while the children are in the United States legally. Trump said in response “I don’t want to be breaking up families.”

“So the only way you don’t break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back,” Trump said. “We’ll send the whole family very humanely, back to the country where they came.”

When Welker asked whether Trump would revive his zero-tolerance policy from his first administration, Trump responded that “it depends on the family.”

“If they come here illegally but their family is here legally, then the family has a choice. The person that came in illegally can go out, or they can all go out together,” Trump said.

While most of the follow-up reporting and commentary on Trtump’s appearance has focused on his promise to challenge the constitutional right of birthright citizenship via executive order, Trump’s plans to remove whole families from the United States, including those citizens, may have greater historical precedent.

In the 1930s, during President Herbert Hoover’s administration, states like California and Colorado undertook so-called “repatriation” programs during a wave of xenophobia that erupted during the Great Depression.

While “repatriation” is sometimes used as a euphemism for deportations, in the context of the 1930s schemes it was used to convince Mexican Americans, citizens or not, to leave the United States voluntarily.

According to the National Archives, “many chose to leave the country rather than risk a deportation hearing” during the Great Depression. Combined with the economic pressures of the time, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and sometimes even hostile environments created by neighbors, many chose to leave. 

“The specifics varied but the results were the same: illegal immigrants and even legal migrants left the country “voluntarily” in large numbers. In some cases they left after being threatened or detained by local law enforcement or Bureau of Immigration officials,” the National Archives’s Spencer Howard wrote.

We need your help to stay independent

Through these repatriation schemes, states were able to increase the number of Mexican Americans they removed. According to the Department of Homeland Security, there were roughly 105,000 official deportations from 1929 to 1933. However, estimates of the total number of people removed are much higher. 

A California law called the “Apology Act for the 1930s Mexican Repatriation Program" estimated that “In California alone, approximately 400,000 American citizens and legal residents of Mexican ancestry were forced to go to Mexico” beginning in 1929 and that throughout the 1930s, around 1.2 million American borns Citizens of Mexican descent were “repatriated” to Mexico.

“Throughout California, massive raids were conducted on Mexican‑American communities, resulting in the clandestine removal of thousands of people, many of whom were never able to return to the United States, their country of birth,” the bill, which became law in January of 2006, reads. “These raids also had the effect of coercing thousands of people to leave the country in the face of threats and acts of violence.”

These repatriation schemes accompanied more direct deportation tactics as well. In Los Angeles, in February 1931, immigration agents raided La Placita Park in what was then a predominantly Mexican American part of Los Angeles and arrested 400 residents  including those born in the United States  legally.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


In a 2001 interview with The Los Angeles Times, the late Raymond Rodriguez, who authored “Decade of Betrayal: Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s” alongside California State University professor Francisco Balderrama, described how raids like this and other tactics were used to try to convince Mexican Americans, like his father Juan Rodriguez,  to leave on their own.

“If you don’t go [too] . . . you’ll starve to death and maybe worse,” Rodriguez recalled his father saying before he left.

Keira Knightley doesn’t want to have more kids because of this popular TV character

Keira Knightley is over having kids but it's not because of any of the reasons you may think.

The British actress and star of Netflix's new spy-thriller series "Black Doves" spilled the real reason why two children are enough for her on "The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon."

“You know that thing where you’re like ‘Oh, you know they’re so nice. Should we have another one?’ ” Knightley said. “And you think, ‘Oh yeah, I could do the pregnancy. I could even do the birth but I cannot watch anymore Peppa Pig.’ So there's no more kids."

Knightley described her children, who are 5 and 9, as "very cool right now. They're into Studio Ghibli and just like beautiful things where you're just like 'oh, this is just lovely' after seven years of 'Peppa Pig.'"

In 2020, "Peppa Pig" was the most-watched on-demand series in the world, and its YouTube channel has also garnered nearly 38 million subscribers. Fortunately for Knightley, the actress says her children have transitioned from "Peppa Pig" to musical artists like Lizzo and Chappell Roan.

The British star also attributed her motherhood as why she wanted to play her starring role in "Black Doves." In the Netflix thriller, Knightley plays Helen, the homemaker and mother of twins, who is also secretly a spy. Knightley, who was just nominated for a Golden Globe for the role, told Fallon what drew her to the show was that "I wanted to kick a**."

“I’m a mom of two and I’m so child-friendly at home,” she said. “I just wanted to do something that was a bit punk and kind of blew everything up.”

Luigi Mangione shouts message to reporters prior to extradition hearing

Luigi Mangione, the 26-year-old suspected shooter of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, was taken in for a court appearance in Pennsylvania on Tuesday after being charged the previous day with second-degree murder, as well as two gun charges and forgery.

Denied bail at the hearing and fighting extradition back to New York, where the shooting took place outside of Thompson's Sixth Avenue hotel, Mangione was caught on video angrily shouting a message to reporters prior to the hearing at Blair County Court House.

Flanked by police officers and dressed in orange prison garb, a handcuffed Mangione caused a momentary ruckus as he pulled at his restraints to turn behind him and yell, “It’s completely out of touch and an insult to the intelligence of the American people and their lived experience!” An apparent reference to the charges against him.

After a six-day manhunt, Mangione was apprehended on Monday at a McDonald's restaurant in Altoona, Pennsylvania, where he was spotted by an employee. Following his arrest, Altoona Police Department Deputy Chief Derek Swope has issued reports of threats being received by officers connected to what he's calling “a very polarized case,” according to NBC News.

“We have received some threats against our officers and building here, we’ve started investigating some threats against some citizens in our community. We’re taking all those threats seriously and doing all the follow-up we can with those,” Swope said. 

Toymakers’ tariff warning: Prepare to pay more

From the newest Marvel movie figurines to plastic bulldozers with a smiley face, most toys sold in the U.S. come with two things: a sense of whimsy and a "Made in China" tag. 

The latter explains why toymakers and sellers across the U.S. are panicking as the next Trump administration looms. According to NPR, tariffs were the primary topic at a toy vendor trade show last month in Orlando. 

"All anybody was talking about was tariffs," Jay Foreman, CEO of the Florida-based toy company Basic Fun!, told NPR. "We know that if tariffs hit, that prices are going to go up and it's going to affect the consumer. And so we're absolutely in panic mode in our industry."

Trump has promised a 60% tariff on goods imported from China, where most toys sold in the U.S. are made. That leaves toymakers with two expensive choices: Absorb some of the tariff costs, or shift to domestic production. 

Either way, the bulk of that extra cost is expected to fall to consumers.

"You're going to see a $30 Tonka Mighty Dump Truck become a $45 Tonka Mighty Dump Truck," Foreman told NPR. "The prices on so many things that consumers buy in places like Walmart and Target and on Amazon will spike."

Trump has made tariffs — taxes imposed on imported goods — his top economic talking point, claiming they would bring manufacturing back to the U.S. 

The toy industry was affected in 2018, when Trump's trade war with China started with two rounds of tariffs. A third threatened to affect finished toys, according to Business Insider

Among one of the nervous companies is Mattel, the second largest toy company in the U.S. behind Hasbro. 

"This is something that will impact the entire toy industry," Mattel CEO Ynon Kreiz told investors during an earnings call.

Trudeau on Trump’s tariffs: Americans “beginning to wake up” to the cost

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Monday he will retaliate if President-elect Donald Trump enacts tariffs on Canada — and it would make life a lot more expensive for Americans. 

Trump responded by calling Canada a "state" and giving Trudeau the title of "governor."

Trump has threatened to impose a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports if the countries fail to reduce the flow of migrants and drugs into the U.S., a standard that Canadian officials say is unfair. Trump said last weekend he "can't guarantee" that the tariffs won't raise prices for Americans, who cited the economy as their top issue in the Nov. 5 election. 

“Trump got elected on a commitment to make life better and more affordable for Americans, and I think people south of the border are beginning to wake up to the real reality that tariffs on everything from Canada would make life a lot more expensive,” Trudeau said at an event at the Halifax Chamber of Commerce, per The Associated Press.

Trump's administration imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum during his first term. Canada retaliated by putting billions of new duties against the U.S., choosing products that would make a political impact as well as an economic one.

“It was the fact that we put tariffs on bourbon and Harley-Davidsons and playing cards and Heinz ketchup and cherries and a number of other things that were very carefully targeted because they were politically impactful to the president’s party and colleagues,” Trudeau said.

Trump later posted on his social media platform Truth Social: “It was a pleasure to have dinner the other night with Governor Justin Trudeau of the Great State of Canada. I look forward to seeing the Governor again soon so that we may continue our in depth talks on Tariffs and Trade, the results of which will be truly spectacular for all!” 

The post appeared to reference Trump's recent meeting with Trudeau at Mar-a-Lago, where he was said to joke with the prime minister about Canada joining the U.S. and becoming the 51st state.

About 60% of U.S. crude oil imports are from Canada, and 85% of U.S. electricity imports as well, The Associated Press reported. Canada is also the largest foreign supplier of steel, aluminum and uranium to the U.S.

“Trump got elected on a commitment to make life better and more affordable for Americans,” Trudeau said, “and I think people south of the border are beginning to wake up to the real reality that tariffs on everything from Canada would make life a lot more expensive.”

Can scorecards push supermarkets to do better?

Whole Foods earned an “A” grade for animal welfare on the ASPCA Supermarket Scorecard while the British supermarket Tesco took top honors for human rights practices on the Oxfam Supermarket Scorecard.

Organizations including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, The Center for Biological Diversity and Fair Trade America have graded supermarkets on multiple metrics from human rights and animal welfare to food waste, seafood sustainability and pollinator friendliness. Their scorecards were designed to help consumers make more informed decisions about where to shop.

The concept of supermarket scorecards isn’t new: Greenpeace launched its first scorecard in 2008 to evaluate grocers on seafood sustainability and provided annual rankings for 10 years. The national nonprofit also launched the Supermarket Plastics Scorecard and the Tuna Retailer Scorecard.

More recently, Oxfam published its supermarket scorecards in 2018 and 2023 and ASPCA published their first annual scorecard in 2023. While some organizations publish annual scorecards, others, like Oxfam, publish an inaugural version and a follow up to assess progress, educate consumers and hold supermarkets accountable.

“Our choices as consumers do matter,” says Eline Achterberg, policy lead business and human rights at Oxfam. [Supermarket scorecards] allow us to compare how supermarkets are performing relative to each other.”

Grading grocers

In order to design these scorecards, organizations use public data to rank distinct aspects of retail practices and purchasing decisions. Oxfam focused its supermarket scorecard on three aspects of human rights: workers, women and small-scale farmers, which are among the most vulnerable groups in food production, according to Achterberg.

The Oxfam scorecard awarded points to supermarkets on multiple metrics, including tracking and disclosing suppliers across its food supply chains, making commitments to support small scale seaforights policies with commitments to proactive prevention of forced labor in the supply chains of the products they stock.

The Greenpeace Grocery Store Scorecard ranks major U.S. retailers on seafood sustainability  based on their policies, participation in initiatives that promote ocean conservation and seafood sustainability, labeling and transparency and whether stores sell destructively caught or endangered species. Based on their evaluation, Whole Foods achieved the highest score (75 percent) while Publix scored just 26 percent.

For their scorecard on food waste, the Center for Biological Diversity gathered information from sustainability reports, promotional materials, and other public data to rank supermarkets on 26 data points from tracking and prevention to organics recycling to grade supermarkets on their food waste reduction efforts. Walmart, Kroger, Ahold Delhaize, which includes U.S. retailers like Giant and Food Lion, earned “A” grades.

ASPCA graded the largest U.S. supermarkets on their policies on broiler chickens, laying hens and pregnant pigs, assigning grades based on their commitment to phasing out suppliers that house animals in battery cages or gestation crates.

“Until the largest food retailers in the country set standards for their supply chains, banning inhumane practices like extreme close confinement of animals, farmers lack the kind of reliable markets they need to invest in higher welfare practices,” says Nancy Roulston, senior director of corporate policy & animal scientist, ASPCA Farm Animal Welfare. “Since retailers are the arbiters of consumer choice, the Supermarket Scorecard seeks to hold these powerful grocery stores accountable.”

Since most supermarkets work with multiple suppliers and average more than 33,000 products on their shelves, it can be difficult to grade individual products or even individual suppliers, according to Achterberg. It’s easier to evaluate supermarket-wide benchmarks — and it’s important. Americans purchase almost two-thirds of their calories from large supermarket chains.

“Major retailers have a major role in shaping our food system,” Roulston says.

Recent data found that 67 percent of consumers rated animal welfare as “very” or “extremely important” to their purchasing decisions and 62 percent were more apt to purchase products with third-party animal welfare certifications. The number of consumers who use sustainability metrics to guide their purchasing decisions is also on the rise.

Scorecards tell consumers how their preferred stores ranked on various benchmarks. The organizations that produce the rankings want consumers to use them to encourage their favorite stores to do better.

ASPCA encourages customers to thank high ranking stores for their commitments to animal welfare and offers “bring your store on board” resources that consumers can use to encourage them to make progress. “When we know that supermarkets aren’t fully inclusive or respecting human rights or sustainable, then it is good as a consumer to try and make better choices if we can,” Achterberg says.

The path to a passing grade

The goal of supermarket scorecards is about influencing supermarket purchasing patterns and changing consumer behavior to promote a more sustainable, equitable and just food system.

Oxfam has seen the impact of supermarket scorecards. The global nonprofit published supermarket scorecards in 2018 and 2022; all of the ranked supermarkets increased their scores during the reporting period. Tesco increased their score from 23 percent to 61 percent; Lidl went from five percent to 59 percent and Aldi raised their score from 1 percent to 56 percent.

Achterberg attributed some of the increases to improved transparency, since many of the scorecards award points for that. She explains, “We know that there is no supermarket in the world that doesn’t have any human rights issues in their food supply chains.”

Greenpeace, for example, considers how transparent grocers are about the source of their seafood as a key metric in their scorecard and supermarkets can earn points for transparency even if their sourcing practices are less than ideal. Achterberg believes that publicizing their data is the only way that supermarkets can start to improve.

As a result of Oxfam’s scorecard, Tesco signed a “ground breaking agreement” with the global federation of trade unions to improve worker rights in their supply chain; Lidl started publishing information on its full supply chain for products like bananas and tea; and Aldi published human rights impacts assessments on the human rights impacts of certain crops.

Their efforts have been called “a race to the top” and attributed to Oxfam supporters and customers calling for change after the supermarket scorecards were published.

ASPCA also reported improvements in supermarket scores between their 2023 and 2024 scorecards. Roulston notes that four stores — Albertsons, Key Food, Kroger and Safeway —advanced their commitment to eliminate confinement in their supply chains and either improved their farm animal welfare policies or reported progress.

Grading the effectiveness of scorecards

Mark Lang PhD, food marketing expert and associate professor of marketing at the University of Tampa is concerned that supermarket scorecards are “too fragmented and too specific” to have maximum impact and believes that keeping up with a number of different seals, rankings and scorecards is overwhelming for consumers.

Lang would like to see organizations partner to create a more holistic grade rather than multiple, disparate efforts to rank niche components of food production, explaining, “There are so many environmental and sustainable rankings that they are almost meaningless. People don’t want to put effort into understanding the difference between [the scorecards].”

Indeed, the 2024 American Consumer Satisfaction Index found that the grocers that were most popular with consumers, including H-E-B, Publix and Trader Joe’s, had some of the lowest grades on scorecards. Friends of the Earth gave Publix and H-E-B “F” grades for bee friendliness; Publix and Trader Joe’s received “D” grades from the Center for Biological Diversity for their efforts to reduce food waste.

Achterberg acknowledges that scorecards aren’t a silver bullet for creating more sustainable, ethical supply chains.  “Benchmarking is one thing to stimulate supermarkets to get them to do better but it’s still voluntary,” Achterberg says. “The worst that could happen is they’re low on the scorecard and maybe their reputation is a bit damaged.”

Legislation, including laws that compel supermarkets to perform due diligence into their supply chains or bans on importing products made with forced labor, is also essential for holding supermarkets accountable for human rights, animal welfare or other issues in their supply chains, she adds.

In the absence of legislation, the rankings are an important tool. Roulston says they can “fill a gap to connect concerned consumers with the information they need to make more informed decisions aligned with their values given that supermarkets have immense influence over what we eat and how that food is produced.”

9 of the year’s best films feature powerful, unapologetic women who speak up and stand out

If you haven’t already noticed, those feelings of uncertainty and instability you’ve been experiencing all year long aren’t just the result of another stomach-churning election and an increasingly bizarre news cycle, they’re products of fictional media, too. This year has been filled with films that contend with the concept of power and the broad spectrum of ways it can be wielded. Take “Conclave” (perhaps the most on-the-nose choice given that it was released just weeks before the election), a movie about how major global power changes hands and the internal battles occurring within these sequestered systems. 

Audiences were fascinated by how quickly favor turns in Edward Berger’s film, but it felt all too familiar watching men grovel and gripe over authority, at least until a twist changes the ranks. “Conclave” is a well-made film, but one we’ve fundamentally seen before. Far more memorable were the movies that didn’t just save their big, prickly ideas for the end, but dared to challenge the norms by the start. Often, these movies saw women in the driver’s seat, controlling the action and calling the shots. 2024 was the year when these characters — and the actors who embodied them — either didn’t play by the rules or stuck their necks out to dispute them. It was a year of bold, striking performances, where women defied power structures to take it back for themselves. 

Here, then, are nine of the year's best films, boasting some of the most unapologetic, delightfully power-hungry performances in recent memory.

01
"Anora," Currently in theaters nationwide
AnoraMikey Madison as Ani in "Anora" (Courtesy of NEON)
In Sean Baker’s “Anora,” Mikey Madison is a tough-talking Brighton Beach broad named Ani, unafraid to say exactly how she feels to everyone she meets. This brash personality makes her a favorite of the clients who frequent the gentlemen’s club where she works as a dancer. When Ani meets Ivan (Mark Eydelshteyn), the son of a Russian oligarch, she finds that her pluckiness is no match for his charm and ostentatious love-bombing. But her infatuation comes with a price, and when Ivan’s family’s cronies come calling, Ani’s love story slowly transforms into a callous cautionary tale. Ani, however, won't let her dreams simply slip through her fingers. She doesn’t cower to power but punches up (sometimes quite literally) at indomitable figures every chance she gets. And though Ani eventually finds that some systems are too strong to overcome on her own, she learns that there is enough strength in her spirit to keep going after all of the chips have fallen.
02
"Babygirl," In theaters Dec. 25
BabygirlNicole Kidman in "Babygirl" (Courtesy of A24/Niko Tavernise)
“Babygirl” is not only this year’s most outrageously erotic film, it’s also Nicole Kidman's most daring role in years — which should say a lot, considering Kidman's decisions consistently surprise. Kidman's character, the outrageously named, high-powered tech CEO Romy Mathis, enters into an illicit relationship with one of her interns, Samuel (Harris Dickinson), and what follows is a torrid, totally magnetic tête-à-tête for the ages. The latency of Romy’s intense sexual desire keeps her focused and in control, but her connection with Samuel is unlike anything she’s ever experienced before, even with her husband. Writer-director Halina Reijn probes how sex can be a willing exchange of power, and at the film’s most ferocious moments, how easily a singular connection can convince us to sacrifice it all for our most carnal needs. “Babygirl” is a complex study of both restraint and how hard we swing after being held back for so long.
03
"Challengers," Streaming on Prime Video
ChallengersMike Faist as Art, Zendaya as Tashi and Josh O’Connor as Patrick in "Challengers" (Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures)
Zendaya was always destined for big things, but with her role as fictional tennis wunderkind Tashi Duncan in Luca Guadagnino’s sweat-soaked “Challengers,” the former Disney star and “Euphoria” powerhouse stepped into a new echelon entirely. Tashi is a maneuvering schemer who, throughout the course of a decade, is unmoored by the faults thrown at her. After an injury dashes Tashi's shot at professional stardom, she gets her thrills off the court, managing her slightly less talented husband Art (Mike Faist). To get Art's game up, Tashi arranges for him to face off against his former best friend Patrick (Josh O’Connor) for an electric three-way rivalry as steeped in power and global influence as it is in sexual tension. Alongside a propulsive electronic score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, Zendaya’s withering expressions are the centerpieces of some of this year’s most memorable sequences of pure, unfettered cunning.
04
"Kinds of Kindness," Streaming on Hulu
Kinds of KindnessEmma Stone in "Kinds of Kindness" (Courtesy of Searchlight Pictures/Yorgos Lanthimos)
Just six months after Emma Stone won an Oscar for bringing an eccentric tale of a woman’s sexual discovery to life in Yorgos Lanthimos’ “Poor Things,” she returned in Lanthimos’ follow-up feature “Kinds of Kindness,” a triptych of stories dealing even more expressly (and abstractly) with the tricky dynamics of power. Stone jumps from playing a beautiful woman baiting a man (Jesse Plemons, her co-star in all three stories) to ruin, to a wife who is acting mighty strange after being lost at sea, to finally, the right-hand of a sex cult tasked with tracking down a woman who can revive the dead. Lanthimos scrutinizes blind faith and how misplaced, steadfast belief can easily empower the wrong people, while Stone turns in three exemplary micro-performances that further add to the excellent canon of work she’s established alongside the director.
05
"The Last Showgirl," in limited theaters Dec. 13, expanding nationwide Jan. 10
The Last ShowgirlPamela Anderson in "The Last Showgirl" (Courtesy of Roadside Attractions)
One of the year’s most heartening onscreen turns is courtesy of Pamela Anderson in Gia Coppola’s simple, stunning film “The Last Showgirl.” As Shelly, an old-school Vegas-era dancer classified by most as past her prime, Anderson cleverly winks at her real-life public persona while embodying a character trying with all her might to overcome a world that no longer favors her or her art. When her long-running show on the Vegas Strip closes, Shelly grapples with losing the one thing she loves the most, trying not to get left behind in the process. Anderson’s performance is brimming with heart, yet quiet in its execution. But even when all of her cards have been played, Shelly refuses to go quietly into the night, chasing every last shining moment in the warmth of the spotlight's glow. It’s a display of complete, unassuming vulnerability. Sometimes, there is power in letting go, even if it’s the last thing we want to do.
06
"My First Film," Streaming on Mubi
My First FilmDevon Ross as Dina in "My First Film" (Courtesy of Mubi)

Performance artist and filmmaker Zia Anger already had a hit with “My First Film” while it was still a pandemic-era Zoom presentation about her experience making a movie that went untouched by every festival and distributor she could get it in front of. This year, Anker adapted her piece into a metafiction film about a young woman, Vita (Odessa Young), who sets out to make her debut feature, only to run into a litany of problems that come with being an independent artist. Vita is halted by industry roadblocks and her film is constantly beset by personal difficulties, while Anker’s candid screenplay layers fiction and fact to transform the movie into an empowering artistic manifesto. “My First Film” is a blisteringly honest look at how failure — as crushing as it can be — is its own gift, and often, a necessary component in the search for our true creative voice. 

07
"Red Rooms," Available to rent or purchase
Red RoomsJuliette Gariépy in "Red Rooms" (Courtesy of Entract Films)
Arguably one of 2024’s most criminally under-seen films, the stomach-churning techno-thriller “Red Rooms” holds you in its clutches and won’t let go for days after the credits roll. That trance alone is its own kind of control, but more mesmerizing is the enigmatic central character, Kelly-Anne (Juliette Gariépy). Kelly-Anne holds a disturbing fascination with a serial murder case that has just started its high-profile trial. While I’ll spare you the more grisly details, “Red Rooms” won’t, and that’s partially why Canadian director Pascal Plante’s film is so haunting: It does not shy away from our distinctly modern darkness. When she shows up as a courtroom spectator during the trial, Kelly-Anne’s intentions are unclear and her motivations are murky. But her opacity is her weapon; Kelly-Anne can be both a ghost and a cipher, and when she uncovers the truth by dastardly means, she proves that a cunning mind is powerful enough to go toe-to-toe with the deeds of the wicked, even if it means compromising your society’s moral code.
08
"The Substance," Streaming on Mubi
The SubstanceDemi Moore in "The Substance" (Courtesy of Mubi)
No power grab was more gnarly and vicious in 2024 than the one seen in French director Coralie Fargeat’s film “The Substance,” primarily because it’s a startling reminder of how often we screw ourselves over by just trying to keep up with society’s ever-changing standards. When mega-celeb Elisabeth Sparkle (Demi Moore) ages out of her superstar status, she opts into a mysterious program that promises to transform her into an entirely new person, restoring her youth and beauty. There is, however, one caveat: This separate woman, Sue (Margaret Qualley) is the product of human mitosis, and the program can only work if both Sue and Elisabeth respect the balance between them. Unsurprisingly, their equilibrium is quickly thrown out of whack when Sue realizes how much power her bubbly laugh and poreless skin can yield. What happens next is a jaw-dropping, subtext-free thrill ride as Moore and Qualley spit in the face of gender norms, beauty standards and Hollywood industry perverts in a scathing, blood-soaked satire that pulls no punches.
09
"Wicked," Currently in theaters nationwide
WickedCynthia Erivo is Elphaba in "Wicked" (Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures/Giles Keyte)
This year’s most massive blockbuster in every sense of the word was also a notable model for standing tall in the face of relentless marginalization. In the long-awaited film adaptation of the Broadway hit “Wicked,” Cynthia Erivo instills Elphaba Thropp, the not-so-wicked Witch of the West, with enough resonant vulnerability to affect audiences worldwide. There’s a reason that people were “holding space” with the lyrics of “Defying Gravity" (at least in a few posts), and it’s because Erivo’s stirring rendition transformed one of the most well-known showtunes into a towering cinematic climax that was impossible to deny. While Elphaba will certainly face more challenges when “Wicked: Part Two” is released next year, Erivo’s work has already inspired countless people of all ages to be unwavering in the face of the world’s many injustices — especially if they have a good friend to stand by their side to back them up.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


 

Is fasting the “natural” state of human metabolism? Or just another diet fad?

Sky Radoci spent years trying to find something that could cure his eczema, which developed during a bout of stress he went through when attending music school in Los Angeles. Steroid creams helped temporarily, but his condition stubbornly came back as soon as he ran out. Looking for a longer-term solution, he was eventually able to wane off the creams altogether after changing one part of his routine: his diet. 

Radoci, a musician based in Costa Rica, now fasts for the majority of the day, eating a large portion of meat, plantains and some fruit in about a six-hour period starting around 5 p.m. In the five months since he has been fasting with this keto diet, his eczema symptoms have disappeared, and Radoci says he feels better than he ever has.

“This might not be for everybody and this might not be for a whole lifetime,” Radoci told Salon in a phone interview. “But for right now, it feels like it reset my body. I just feel better.”

Eating one meal a day (also known as OMAD) is the latest weight loss trend to storm the internet, endorsed by celebrities like Bruce Springsteen and even former British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. This and other forms of intermittent fasting like the “warrior diet” have been touted as ways to lose weight by triggering your body’s “survival mode.” The essential idea behind many of these techniques is that restricting meals to a smaller time frame in the day will make you consume fewer calories, said Dr. McKale Montgomery, a nutritionist at Oklahoma State University.

“For most of these intermittent fasting diets, people don’t have as much time to eat as they normally would, so the weight loss ultimately comes from just consuming less calories,” Montgomery told Salon in a phone interview. 

Doctors in Ancient Greece prescribed fasting to cure certain illnesses, and it has been and still is used in various religious or spiritual practices.

Although intermittent fasting may be no more beneficial for weight loss than calorie-restriction and extreme trends like OMAD might not be sustainable for the majority of the population, fasting in general has played an important role in human history, and many of the modern-day trends stem from ancient practices.

Our ancestors would naturally fast after a failed hunt until they were able to recuperate the calories they needed to sustain themselves. Doctors in Ancient Greece prescribed fasting to cure certain illnesses, and it has been and still is used in various religious or spiritual practices. In one Japanese tradition, tracing back to the 10th century, monks fast for nine days after walking a marathon distance for 1,000 days around Mount Hiei to bring themselves closer to enlightenment. Today, about 2 billion people fast during Ramadan each year.

Some argue that the proliferation of available food through refrigeration and other technological advancements has shifted our eating patterns in modern times, such that we eat more often than our bodies are evolutionarily accustomed to. Animals in the wild, including our hunter-gatherer human ancestors, live or lived in environments where food was relatively scarce and had to expend much more effort to acquire it, said Dr. Mark Mattson, a neuroscience professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who studies fasting. 


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


“There was competition for limited food sources,” Mattson told Salon in a phone interview. “So individuals whose brains and bodies functioned very well in a food-deprived state had a survival advantage because your brain and body had to be working well to get food.”

Mattson said fasting in part works by activating the body’s stress response, which can have physiological effects — similar to intermittent exercise, where the body is put under a state of stress to get stronger.

“It’s a stress on your muscles, your heart cells, even the neurons in your brain become more active during physical exercise,” Mattson said. “They respond to that energetic challenge by enhancing their ability to resist stress and function better, and these cycles of challenge and recovery through fasting and eating over the period of weeks and months can optimize health.”

In the metabolic process, the body converts food into glucose that it burns for energy. When fasting, these glucose stores run dry, and the body begins using fats as energy sources instead. However, the body cannot run on just fat for energy, and it also begins to convert its own proteins into glucose — essentially eating itself. In this process, the body also begins to produce molecules called ketones, which substitute glucose when it is not available.

“There’s a lot of emerging evidence that [ketones] actually act as a hormone and are not only an energy source for cells when glucose isn’t available,” Mattson said. “[They] also activate genes and have other effects on cells that stimulate them in ways that make them more resilient and also better able to conserve resources and recycle things.”

Some limited research has shown that time-restricted eating might help people lose weight, though most of these studies in humans have been performed in people who are overweight or have obesity. Other studies have shown that fasting could help longevity, memory, and cardiovascular function, but the majority of this research testing the effects of intermittent fasting on the body have been done in animals.

For the OMAD diet, one 2022 study published in Frontiers in Physiology found people did lose more weight and burn more fat when they ate one meal per day compared to eating the same amount of calories across three meals — though the study was small and short, measuring these factors in 11 young people for just 11 days.

Dr. Nick Fuller, an obesity expert at The University of Sydney and founder of the Interval Weight Loss program, said our body’s system is designed to protect against weight loss to survive, so many people might still not lose weight when following these programs.

“When we change our diet to lose weight, we take our body out of its comfort zone and trigger its survival response,” Fuller told Salon in an email. “It then counteracts weight loss, triggering several physiological responses to defend our body weight and ‘survive’ starvation.”

We need your help to stay independent

Plus, extreme diets like OMAD might not be sustainable for many, Fuller said. These regimens could also lead some people to develop an unhealthy relationship to food, as some might feel deprived or socially isolated at meal times, he added. Restricted eating could also lead to nutritional deficiencies, depending on what the diet consists of.

For certain groups, like those who have a history of eating disorders or pregnant people, fasting could also introduce health concerns. Ultimately, like any dietary change, whether fasting works for the individual depends largely on their body and schedule and should be discussed with their doctor if there are any doubts.

Aryan Zainaleain, an entrepreneur who runs a yerba mate company, has been intermittent fasting for two and a half years. For him, breakfast always felt forced, and it was more natural for him to reserve his meals for the time before bed. 

“I don't know my method of intermittent fasting would be advised for everybody,” Zainaleain told Salon in a phone interview. “But this regimen resonates with my body.”