Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“Morning Joe” hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski meet with Trump to “restart communications”

The hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski had a private meeting with President-elect Donald Trump to develop a “new approach" and "restart communications", the pair revealed on their show Monday.

“We talked about a lot of issues including abortion, mass deportation, threats of political deportation against political opponents and media outlets,” Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, told viewers. “It will come as no surprise to anybody who watches this show, has watched it over the past year or over the past decade, that we didn’t see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues and we told him so.”

Brzezinski said they hadn’t spoken with Trump, in person, for over seven years; the last conversation they had on the phone was in March 2020. 

“Morning Joe” engaged in critical coverage of Trump’s threat to democracy throughout his 2024 presidential campaign But this year’s election results have prompted the MSNBC hosts to “do something different,” Brzezinski said. “That starts with not only talking about Donald Trump, but also talking with him."

Fox News praised Trump for meeting with Brzezinski and Scarborough after they "called him every name under the sun," per "Fox and Friends" co-host Ainsley Earnhardt on Monday. 

“It just shows you that he does want to smooth things over. Maybe he is going to unite our country,” she added.

Anticipating preemptive backlash from the left about their reasons for communicating with Trump, Brzezinski said Monday: “Why wouldn’t we?" Scarborough then mentioned that "top Democrats" he'd spoken with were taking a similar approach to communicating with Trump in hopes of a more united country.

But the pair also reassured viewers that they remain committed to speaking “truth to power” and will be critical of Trump when needed to hold him accountable. 

“Don’t be mistaken, we’re not here to defend or normalize Donald Trump, we’re here to report on him,” Scarborough said. “And to hopefully provide you insights that are going to better equip all of us in understanding these deeply unsettling times.”

PBS’ mesmerizing “Leonardo da Vinci” captures the creative essence of the artist’s vision

Turns throughout PBS' “Leonardo da Vinci” remind us of how similar his era was to ours. Da Vinci’s Renaissance was a time of doubt and great uncertainty. His native city of Florence, Italy, was an oligarchy shaped by wealthy families, including that of Cossimo de Medici, a generous patron of the arts under whom an artistic class thrived. 

The self-taught genius rode waves of political and cultural transformation by forging connections to other well-heeled, expansive intellects. Still, he wasn’t above aligning himself with strongmen if the price was right. When he wasn’t working on masterpieces that would endure for centuries, he was inventing weapons, schematics and maps for Cesare Borgia and offering his services to other city-states’ rulers.

"He is the embodiment of what it means to be fully alive, and aware, and questioning everything."

When a religious zealot came to power in his native Florence and inspired mass burnings of portraits, carnival masks, mirrors, perfumes and other vanity objects, da Vinci leaned into architectural designs. His later years yielded some of the most important early drawings of human physiology along with discoveries that revolutionized medicine.

The four-hour “Leonardo da Vinci,” directed by Ken Burns, Sarah Burns and David McMahon, represents Burns’ first documentary profile of a non-American subject. In its way, though, it snugly fits into the filmmakers’ exploration of the American story. 

Biographer and journalist Walter Isaacson recognized that when he recommended that the Burnses and McMahon guide viewers through da Vinci’s storied life and accomplishments. So do the varied personalities who speak to his multidisciplinary inventiveness, a roster that includes engineers, historians, writers and director Guillermo Del Toro.

Every would-be innovator – are we still calling them disruptors? — aims to be the da Vinci whether or not they acknowledge that to be the case. Few if any qualify as true polymaths as the Renaissance artist personified the term, and without the benefit of a traditional education. Only legitimate family heirs could attend universities in his time, and da Vinci was born outside of wedlock.

Had he received an heir’s formal schooling, da Vinci would likely have become a notary. Instead, he learned through observing the world around him, inspired by nature and the artistry of calculation. “Nature begins with the cause and ends in experience,” he wrote.

Fetus in Utero by Leonardo da VinciFetus in Utero by Leonardo da Vinci (Courtesy of PBS/CreditRoyal Collection Trust/© His Majesty King Charles III, 2024/Bridgeman Images)Da Vinci's way of processing the world ensured he'd transcend the designation of acclaimed painter, sketch artist and sculptor. His work cemented his status as an engineer, scientist and theorist whose findings are instructive centuries after he lived.

“He is the embodiment of what it means to be fully alive, and aware, and questioning everything,” Ken Burns said to TV journalists covering PBS’ presentation at the Television Critics Association’s press tour in July.  

"Leonardo da Vinci" emulates his way of seeing the world, making it a departure from Burns’ other work.

But please resist the impulse to liken him to certain tech bro dropouts. Although his vast body of work is populated by many unfinished pieces, as one expert explains, this is because the questions he sets for himself cannot be easily answered. Translation: he thought in vast terms but recognized that materializing certain concepts was beyond the scope of what he could do or wanted to do.

Such thinking didn’t get in the way of the director realizing da Vinci’s story in a way that captures his essence and captivates the audience. An observation by writer and essayist Serge Bramly sums up the philosophy fueling the four-hour, two-part documentary’s execution: “Leonardo was himself a work of art even before creating art,” Bramly says.

We need your help to stay independent

He was referring to the way da Vinci looked, dressed and appeared in paintings, whether created by others or self-portraits. It also suits the stunning whirl of animation presented side-by-side with the artist’s work and writings, interwoven with footage of human expressions, features, interviews and narration. Before telling the story of its polymath, “Leonardo da Vinci” emulates his way of seeing the world, making it a departure from Burns’ other work.

Its singular style can be attributed in part to necessity. “One of the reasons we were attracted to the film was because of the challenge of how we might visually capture who he was,” McMahon told critics in July. “We weren't going to have the archives. We weren't going to have the photos or the film.”

Not only that, as Sarah Burns cited, the historic record of da Vinci’s life and that of most artists was thin at best. “While Leonardo left behind many thousands of pages of his notebook entries, which provides us with this amazing way to get inside his head, he very rarely writes about his personal life, his feelings about things. It’s always what he’s thinking about,” she said. 

Burns was referring to the limited records confirming da Vinci’s sexual orientation. (The film cites a legal document linking him to a scandal involving a friend accused of engaging in homosexual acts and his lifelong companionship with pupil Andrea Salaì to address that conversation.) 

But this also describes the documentary’s means of imagining the mechanics of da Vinci’s logic and imaginative flights. McMahon explained that da Vinci’s deep consideration of nature and his view of art and science as indistinct from each other informed the filmmakers’ decision to put aside their tried-and-true cinematic conventions. 

That detour yielded a work that stirs emotions through visuals alone. One can watch “Leonardo da Vinci” with the sound off and be mesmerized and, this is key, soothed. With the sound on we’re immersed in a tapestry of languages and Caroline Shaw’s diaphanous score, along with the classic Burnsian touch of Keith David’s narration interwoven with Italian actor Adriano Giannini’s readings of his journals.


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


It’s as if the filmmakers were trying to create an intellectually nurturing rival to Calm app content: You can feel your anxieties melt away while watching “Leonardo da Vinci” while feeling reawakened and fully engaged. It might even recharge your faith in humankind. 

The Virgin and Child by Leonardo Da VinciThe Virgin and Child by Leonardo Da Vinci (Courtesy of PBS/Musee du Louvre via Art Resource)The Renaissance birthed many modes of thinking; the same era that gave us da Vinci and his mononymous rival Michelangelo also yielded Niccolò Machiavelli whose work “The Prince” is still instructing power-hungry bros on how to get ahead by behaving like a f– former president

In this dark, anti-Enlightenment hour of our nation’s history, Machiavelli’s philosophy may seem to have a broader relevance. His treatise was meant to educate the wealthy and powerful about the best means of outwitting each other and subjugating the working classes, and he correctly deduced that the peasants would never read it.  

Among da Vinci’s earlier mechanical schematics were devices for removing bars from windows and opening a prison cell. We get to decide for ourselves which of those ideas is more inspiring. 

"Leonardo da Vinci" airs in two parts at 8 p.m. on Monday, Nov. 18 and Tuesday, Nov. 19 on PBS member stations. Check your local listings.

Beyoncé will perform songs from “Cowboy Carter” at NFL Christmas halftime live on Netflix

Giddyup, cowboy! It's a Lone Star Christmas miracle. Beyoncé will be performing at the Baltimore Ravens and Houston Texans Christmas Day halftime show in the Space City.

The Houston-born pop star will return to her hometown for Netflix's first-ever live stream of the Dec. 25 football game between the Ravens and the Texans to be held at NRG Station at 4:30 p.m. ET. Beyoncé is no stranger to performing at the NFL's halftime shows having performed twice at the Super Bowl: once in 2013 as the headliner and again in 2016 joining Coldplay and Bruno Mars. Beyoncé's solo performance at the Super Bowl halftime show is the second most-watched Super Bowl halftime show in history at the time. 

However, this halftime show will be different and it's being kept under wraps. But it will bring more of the singer's Southern charms. According to Netflix, the halftime performance will be the first time Beyoncé performs music from her Grammy-nominated country album "Cowboy Carter."

Beyoncé also took to Instagram late Sunday evening to tease her fans about the performance and posted a trailer showing her standing on a car covered in roses, with a pair of longhorns mounted on the hood. Dressed in red, white and blue with a matching white cowboy hat, she catches a football while the intro song to "Cowboy Carter," "Ameriican Requiem" is played.

Beyoncé hasn't been afraid to ruffle feathers on stage. In the past, her performances have been met with conservative backlash, latching onto the political undertones of her song "Formation" and showcasing Southern Black history.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DCf7a2iRSd-/

Kash Patel would be “extremely dangerous” as FBI director, former agent says

A former FBI special agent has said right-wing loyalist Kash Patel would do "major damage" if he President-elect Donald Trump selects him to lead the bureau.

“Putting someone like Kash Patel in the position of director of the FBI is, I believe, extremely, extremely dangerous,” Daniel Brunner, a former FBI agent, told CNN on Sunday.

Last week, reports surfaced that Trump is considering Patel to lead the FBI, sticking to his longtime pledge to fire current FBI Director Christopher Wray and replace him with a loyalist.

Patel is a former Trump aide and spent three years working in the Department of Justice. He unwaveringly supports Trump’s calls for retribution against his political enemies. 

In an appearance on Steve Bannon’s podcast in July, Patel said he would come after those who helped “Joe Biden rig presidential elections.”

“We’re going to come after you, whether it’s criminally or civilly. We’ll figure that out. But yeah, we’re putting you all on notice,” Patel promised.

Brunner warned that Patel’s lack of experience in law enforcement, combined with his loyalty to Trump, will lead to “a massive amount of damage” within the FBI and result in hundreds of people being “unjustly fired.” 

“He has no experience leading an organization, no less a Cub Scout pack,” Brunner said. 

If selected, Patel would join other Trump loyalists selected for top law enforcement positions in his Cabinet, including Rep. Matt Gaetz as attorney general and Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence. 

“Knife fight”: As contenders battle, Trump still debating who will lead the Treasury Department

After wasting no time in naming a number of right-wing loyalists to his cabinet, President-elect Donald Trump is still debating who will be his Treasury Secretary, The New York Times reported Sunday.

Trump was originally expected to pick either Wall Street mogul Howard Lutnick or hedge fund manager Scott Bessent, but is now reportedly having second thoughts. Several other candidates have entered the mix, including former Federal Reserve governor Kevin Warsh, billionaire Marc Rowan, Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., and former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.

The battle for the position has been a “knife-fight,” an anonymous source told The Times. Candidates are expected to meet at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence this week.

Trump is prioritizing a candidate who will commit to raising tariffs, sources told the Financial Times. A self-described “tariff-man,” the president-elect ran his campaign on the promise of dramatically raising tariffs on goods from China and other countries. He has claimed import duties would boost U.S. manufacturing, create jobs and lower prices.

Despite Trump’s claims, experts have warned that his economic plans would drive up consumer prices and increase inflation.

On Sunday, billionaire Elon Musk, who was recently named by Trump to lead a new federal agency called the Department of Government Efficiency, threw his support behind Lutnick. 

“My view fwiw is that Bessent is a business-as-usual choice, whereas @howardlutnick will actually enact change. Business-as-usual is driving America bankrupt, so we need change one way or another,” he wrote on X.

On the remote Faroe Islands, its gas station hot dogs are a major culinary delight

“Should we stop for one more?” I ask my partner as he rounds a corner with sheep grazing on one side and a cascading waterfall on the other. He gives me the side-eye while I insist we just need a little post-hike snack.

Hot dogs, or “meat apples,” as we’ve come to jokingly call them, are a gas station go-to in the remote Faroe Islands. These sausages with impossibly snappy casings are like biting into a crisp apple—although arguably much less doctor-approved. And while these hot dogs are imported from Denmark and served “French-style,” they are distinctly Faroese.

Step into any Magn or Effo gas station dotting the Faroe Islands, and you’ll likely be behind one or two other people waiting for a frankfurter. It may be a construction worker with dirty boots and paint-stained hands ordering a few for lunch or an eager child who just got out of school looking for a warm snack.

The various types of sausages are kept warm on a roller grill. The soft bun is hollowed out and warmed after ordering, making it a “French dog,” as the locals call it. Your choice of squeeze-bottle sauce is added inside, followed by the hot dog, which evenly distributes the sauce, creating a wildly addictive and affordable meal at roughly $3 to $4 apiece.

“The fact that you have around ten to 15 different sausages to choose from and at least the same amount of dressings and sauces makes it a perfect meal for a lot of people,” says Jógvan Steingrim Rasmussen, Head Chef of Áarstova in the country’s capital city of Tórshavn. “If two, three or four people are together traveling, it's easy just to go get a nice hot dog on the road.” 

Faroe Islands Hot DogFaroe Islands Hot Dog (Courtesy of Effo)Home to what may be some of the world’s most beautiful scenic drives, an hours-long road trip from quaint village to village is my favorite way to take in the country’s grand scenery. “Driving around in the Faroe Islands is very essential to our existence,” says Rasmussen. 

And since you only need one hand to eat this hot dog style served in the Faroes, it’s the perfect accompaniment.

We need your help to stay independent

“I think the hot dogs are popular because, for a long time, there was little else available if you were driving around the islands. Restaurant culture as such is very new,” says Tim Ecott, travel writer and author of the best-selling “The Land of Maybe: a Faroe Islands Year.”

Ecott ideates that the small island nation's ties to Denmark are another reason hot dogs are just a regular part of the food scene there. The Faroe Islands is a self-governing archipelago within the Kingdom of Denmark, where there is also a strong affinity for meat served in tubed form. In fact, the sausages served at gas stations throughout the country are made from Danish pork.

"Usually, we Faroese buy two each."

Although everyone has their favorite combination—mine is a chili sausage with spicy mustard, the options feel endless. Sausage types include cheese, bacon-wrapped, cheese and bacon, chili and a “meatball” sausage (basically just pan-fried meatballs.) The sauce or dressing varieties are just as varied as ketchup, sweet mustard, spicy mustard, garlic and, the most popular, French dressing. 

“French dressing is a combination of mayonnaise, curry and mustard,” says local chef Mortan Borgarlíð. “You get the sweet and sour taste from the dressing, and you get the smokey grilled flavor from the sausage, combined with the crunchy bread. Hot dogs cover most of your taste cravings.”

In a place where food can be pricey, it’s a budget-conscious salve to a grumbling stomach and a quick stop-off in between a busy sightseeing itinerary. And while a hot dog may not seem like a culinary gem in a far-off country, ordering one is an immersive experience of everyday life in the Faroes. And if you really want to fit in, listen to Rasmussen, “Usually, we Faroese buy two each because there is always a nice price offer, and they're so damn good.”

Trump has murky plans for Social Security, raising fears of a public health crisis

Ned Barnett lives in Las Vegas, Nevada, meaning he resides in one of the seven swing states that Donald Trump swept in the 2024 presidential election. LIke a majority of voters on Election Day, Barnett is primarily concerned about economic issues like inflation. That is why he cast his ballot for Trump; he explained that he has simply suffered too much from the rising prices under President Joe Biden’s economy.

“When I heard [Vice President] Kamala [Harris] on 'The View' saying she wouldn't change a thing, I knew I couldn't survive four more years of Bidenomics,” Barnett explained. In one sense, Barnett’s experience is consistent with the polls, which found American voters primarily concerned with economic issues like inflation. Yet Barnett also brings up an economic issue that was not widely discussed during the campaign: Social Security.

Barnett is fearful that Trump’s plans for Social Security will deprive him of the little money he has left to survive. According to experts who spoke with Salon — both about the agency’s long-term solvency and about why it is essential to public health — Barnett and the millions of other Social Security beneficiaries like him are correct to keep a close eye on the program.

“My wife and I depend on Social Security — it is our lifeline to the future,” Barnett said. The couple was “wiped out” during the economic crash that began in 2008; Barnett’s wife lost her half-million dollar retirement fund in nine days in 2009, and the spouses later filed for bankruptcy in 2011-12. Like many hardworking Americans, Barnett gradually rebuilt his finances, thriving in the mid-to-late 2010s by ghostwriting and performing consulting work. Yet the two depended on Social Security to survive, as it bridged the gap between Barnett’s income and what they needed to survive.

Then came the high inflation of the post-COVID economy. Now the Barnetts cannot afford to fix their car or use Uber more than sparingly, leaving them effectively housebound. Barnett’s consulting and ghostwriting services “dried up with so much of the rest of the economy,” with the pair relying on charity and programs like Meals on Wheels, as well as plenty of oatmeal.

"We know very little for sure about what will happen to FICA and Social Security taxes."

“We are hopefully optimistic that the economy will turn around, but until it does, Social Security is all that's keeping us (barely) afloat,” Barnett said.

The Social Security program, as it exists in the United States, was created in 1935 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of his liberal New Deal policy package. Over nearly nine decades it has been considerably amended, and today it guarantees that U.S. citizens who have worked and paid Social Security taxes for at least 10 years will receive financial support if they are disabled or become a senior citizen (defined in this context as 62 years old). The program is funded primarily through payroll taxes called the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) or Self Employed Contributions Act (SECA), and as of 2022 provided essential support for more than 70 million Americans.

Trump’s 2025 agenda has some people concerned that Social Security will be targeted. He plans to cut trillions from the federal budget — a speculation bolstered by evidence in March when he told CNBC that “there is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements. There's tremendous amounts of things and numbers of things you can do.”

While Trump later backpedaled by claiming he was only referring to “waste,” his subsequent tax cut proposals raise the specter of defunding the program, with there being little evidence to support Trump’s assertion that the difference could be made up through high tariffs. Such tariffs would in turn force Social Security recipients to make cost-of-living adjustments. Even the Trump campaign’s promises — such as pledging to cut all taxes levied on Social Security income — come with the risk that doing so would likely further deplete the Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) fund. Finally, the Social Security program is threatened by Trump’s promise to fire thousands of federal employees and replace them with political loyalists, who may or may not be best qualified to competently perform their duties.


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


Consequently, one key to figuring out the future of the program under Trump is to ascertain how exactly he plans on doing the two most essential things: Paying for the program short-term and long-term, then implementing it effectively for those who need it.

“At this point, I think we know very little for sure about what will happen to FICA and Social Security taxes,” Timothy J. Moore, an economist at Purdue University, told Salon. Trump has focused less on answering those questions than on promising financial rewards to current beneficiaries through the aforementioned tax cuts. Moore added that Trump’s pledge to not tax Social Security benefits “is unlikely to affect older Americans who depend on Social Security as their only source of income or beneficiaries getting the average amount from Social Security or less or Americans who are in the bottom half of the distribution in terms of their lifetime earnings,” adding that these groups often “overlap substantially.” Because there are already federal tax breaks for Social Security income, those groups already do not pay income taxes.

“You might also note that most states provide tax breaks for Social Security income that mean most Social Security beneficiaries do not have their benefits taxed,” Moore said. “In 2020, the Congressional Research Service reported that 30 states and the District of Columbia exempt Social Security income from state income taxes and another seven states have no income taxes. The remaining 13 states’ tax apply discounts similar or larger than those applied to federal taxation.”

This is not to say that Trump’s proposed tax relief will fail to provide any help to Social Security beneficiaries, at least in terms of giving them a little more money for heating, medical care and family support. In terms of the overall amount of revenue that ends up in beneficiaries’ pockets, however, “we would not expect observable changes in objective health outcomes or life expectancy.”

"SSI/SSDI offers vital support to those facing health challenges and disabilities by providing income and health insurance."

Moore used the phrase “objective health outcomes or life expectancy” because, regardless of the political considerations, there are public health consequences to reducing the assistance provided by social welfare programs like Social Security Insurance (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). The concept behind Social Security is not simply to provide relief to the needy, but also to maintain America’s overall economic viability by providing a floor to the health scourge known as poverty. When Roosevelt signed the act into law in 1935, he did so not only to help 30 million recipients at the time, but to “take care of human needs and at the same time provide the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness,” Moore said.

“SSI/SSDI offers vital support to those facing health challenges and disabilities by providing income and health insurance,” Jeremy McCauley, an assistant professor in economics at the University of Bristol, told Salon. “Increased income and health insurance access are known to have health benefits, including reduced mortality rates.”

Recipients of these programs experience increased food, housing and medical security, but also the mental health benefits of alleviated anxiety about their survival. McCauley expressed concern that the programs could unintentionally discourage people from working, social interaction and physical activity, but “despite this trade-off, the health benefits of SSI/SSDI likely outweigh any potential negative impacts for most recipients, especially those with high-cost conditions like cancer.”

Eric French, an economist at the University of Cambridge, explained that we know for sure that life expectancy in the United States has risen dramatically since the Social Security Act was passed in 1935, especially among senior citizens. Although life expectancy has started to fall again in recent years, this is largely due to obesity and diseases of despair (drug overdose, alcoholism and suicide, for example) that Social Security can actually help ameliorate.

“We also know that high income people live longer than low income people (four to nine years, depending on approach),” French added. The causal relationships are somewhat murky — for example, people with lower incomes may succumb more to diseases of despair like substance use disorder or overeating. “Of course, those who are healthy find it easier to work, raising their income. So it is not obvious which way the causality runs.”

According to Yue Li, an economist at the University at Albany, SUNY, “there has been evidence showing that when social security was first introduced, it caused mortality to fall.” At the same time, the data has its nuances: “That period features very low income levels. It is questionable whether this can be generalized to the current period.” Li also said that, when Sweden raised its social security program’s retirement age, it had basically “no effect” on health and mortality, suggesting that although Social Security provides a floor for survival, throwing more and more money into the program does not as a consequence lead to similarly constant improvements in public health outcomes. The challenge in preserving Social Security lies in maintaining its solvency and the quality of its services without harming current recipients.

“The evidence that benefit cuts are bad for kids is a lot stronger than the evidence that benefit cuts are bad for those in retirement. Retirees can look after themselves — kids can't,” French said. Regardless of how those benefits are cut, though, experts agree that mass economic suffering will ensue unless those cuts are targeted toward those most capable of affording them.

“My research indicates that significantly reducing Social Security benefits would likely have adverse effects on recipients' health, particularly for those with costly medical conditions,” McCauley said. “While reforming the system to reduce work disincentives could potentially improve overall health outcomes, sharp cuts to benefits would likely increase mortality rates.”

Martin O'Malley, the commissioner of the Social Security Administration, empathizes all too well with the human suffering that necessitates the program’s existence. A former governor of Maryland, O’Malley visited field offices whenever he could and recalls the wide variety of problems his agency exists to alleviate. He recalled widows who described themselves as “survivors” because they needed to apply for survivor benefits for the first time. He met grandmothers raising disabled children who needed a redetermination of their supplemental security income, and people on SSI who were part-time working and “jumping through all of the hoops to prove that they're not earning too much, coming in with their pay stubs every week. Those are all the human stories that I saw.”

"A great deal of the anti-bureaucracy sentiment is associated with right-wing populism, which often sputters between anarchism and fascism."

O’Malley was also concerned with the morale of the employees who serve the beneficiaries. Appointed by President Biden in July 2023 and confirmed five months later, O’Malley inherited an agency that had lacked a permanent Senate-confirmed head since July 2021. Internal surveys found employee morale had plummeted from a high during the Obama administration to a nadir over the previous three years.

“The legacy was a totally demoralized workforce,” O’Malley told Salon. “It had staffing driven down to 50 year lows as customers because of Baby Boomers like me, who have swelled our ranks to every day a new all time high in customers. So they were demoralized, they were battered, they were embarrassed that they weren't serving the public like they were able to in the not-so-distant past. That was the agency that President Biden asked me to go pick up off the mat.”

O’Malley immediately prioritized improving the work environment, from asking Congress to beef up staffing to challenging the risk-averse work culture that had developed there. He did this because there can be terrible consequences for ordinary people when a bureaucracy is not able to run efficiently. Speaking to Salon in September, Bert A. Rockman, professor emeritus of political science at Purdue University, explained that bureaucracies can be extremely useful because "the most proficient means of organizing is with a professional class of operatives with expertise in the relevant subject matter." It is true in government just as it is true in business — and any organization's success therefore depends on the quality of the people who work there.

"A great deal of the anti-bureaucracy sentiment is associated with right-wing populism, which often sputters between anarchism and fascism (turning all agencies into the playthings of a right-wing dictator)," Rockman said. For right-wing governments to achieve that result, they need to spread misinformation about the programs they aim to weaken or destroy. O’Malley combatted this firsthand while trying to turn things around for Social Security.

“Whenever I would go to a field office, instead of coming in the locked back door, I would always go into the reception area and I'd introduce myself, point to the official photos on the wall and tell people I’m the other guy in the blue tie,” O’Malley recalled. “And I'd asked them what they were doing there, and what they were hoping to get done in the field office.” He would explain to people that assume Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme,” pointing out that “these are real dollars that get paid in every year and real dollars that get paid out. It is more akin to an insurance company where premiums are collected and benefits are paid out.”

O’Malley debunked false claims made by Trump that undocumented people receive Social Security benefits, noting that “there were a couple of big lies that were being told in this election season. One of them was that illegal immigrants are bankrupting social security when in fact illegal immigrants — people working here out of legal status — are prohibited from receiving any benefits from Social Security nor can they earn any credits for retirement. But they do pay in $22 billion [in taxes] a year for the rest of us, and they'll never see a dime of that money.”

O’Malley also said that the system is not going bankrupt.

We need your help to stay independent

“Social Security cannot go bankrupt because it is structured to be a pay-as-you-go program,” O’Malley said. “In other words, last year we paid out $1.35 trillion in benefits, and most of the dollars for paying those benefits came from people working last year in the economy.”

Finally, O’Malley clarified how the system is financed and how that could collapse in the future: “If we're not going to ask millionaires to pay into FICA again and we're not going to have people pay in through their paychecks, then there won't be benefits to pay out,” O’Malley said. “It's a simple mathematical equation.”

Karoline Leavitt, the Trump-Vance transition spokeswoman who was recently named the youngest ever White House press secretary, told Salon that "President Trump delivered on his promise to protect Social Security and Medicare in his first term, and President Trump will continue to strongly protect Social Security and Medicare in his second term." They did not respond to any specific questions about their Social Security policies, a fact that will likely provide little reassurance to recipients like 72-year-old Sheila Sorvari in Texas, who said she is outright “scared” of another Trump presidency.

“I worry about my daughter,” Sorvari said. She is 40-years-old and has the most deadly form of brain cancer: glioblastoma.” After surviving for three years following an operation where she had a 14-month prognosis, she relies on both SSDI and Medicare since many of America’s top cancer centers would not accept insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

“Months after her diagnosis, my husband and I sold our home and moved to a tiny condo so we would have cash for her care,” Sorvari said. “I am terrified for my daughter. I am terrified for everyone who doesn’t have savings and health insurance. Just thinking about this makes me cry.”

Trump picks Project 2025 co-author as next head of the FCC

President-elect Donald Trump said on Sunday he will select Project 2025 co-author Brendan Carr as the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

Carr, a Republican who has worked at the FCC since 2012, vowed to “dismantle the censorship cartel” at Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft and “restore free speech” for Americans.

The FCC commissioner is the author of the FCC chapter of Project 2025, a right-wing agenda published by the Heritage Foundation that promotes dismantling federal agencies and replacing the federal workforce with Trump loyalists.

“Commissioner Carr is a warrior for Free Speech, and has fought against the regulatory Lawfare that has stifled Americans’ Freedoms, and held back our Economy,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Sunday.  “He will end the regulatory onslaught that has been crippling America’s Job Creators and Innovators, and ensure that the FCC delivers for rural America.”

The FCC is an independent agency that regulates TV and radio broadcasting, as well as internet service providers. If he becomes chairman, Carr has indicated he will punish news organizations that negatively cover Trump. Earlier this month, he slammed NBC over Vice President Kamala Harris’ appearance on Saturday Night Live, claiming it broke an FCC rule that required political candidates to be provided equal air time. 

“The purpose of the rule is to avoid exactly this type of biased and partisan conduct — a licensed broadcaster using the public airwaves to exert its influence for one candidate on the eve of an election,” he wrote on X. 

The media advocacy group Free Press said in a statement that Carr was wrong about the equal time rule, noting that networks “have no legal obligation to set aside broadcast time for opposing candidates, unless the candidates request it.”

Carr is also a vocal supporter of billionaire Elon Musk, accusing Democrats of over-regulating Musk's Starlink satellite internet service. As chairman, Carr could steer billions in federal subsidies to Musk's satellite internet business. 

Costco is recalling approximately 80,000 pounds of butter over an “undeclared allergen”

A hefty amount of butter sold at Costco warehouses nationwide has been recalled for containing an “undeclared allergen,” Today reported Monday.

Continental Dairy Facilities Southwest LLC issued a voluntary recall on Oct. 11 of nearly 80,000 pounds of butter distributed in Texas and sold at the big-box retail chain. Per Today, the recall includes 1,300 cases (about 46,800 pounds) of 16-ounce, 4-stick packs of Kirkland Signature Unsalted Sweet Cream Butter and 900 cases (about 32,400 pounds) of 16-ounce, 4-stick packs of Kirkland Signature Salted Sweet Cream Butter.  

Nearly a month later, on Nov. 7, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classified the recall as a Class II because the butters’ label didn’t specify the inclusion of one key ingredient: milk. “Butter lists cream, but may be missing the Contains Milk statement,” the FDA wrote.

Milk is one of the nine major food allergens listed and recognized by the FDA. The federal agency defines a Class II recall as “a situation in which [the] use of or exposure to a violative product may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences or where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote.” Last year, the FDA classified PepsiCo’s recall of more than 25,000 cases of bottled frappuccinos as Class II because they possibly contained glass.

Those who have purchased the recalled butter products on or before Oct. 11 and are allergic or sensitive to milk are encouraged to dispose of them or return the products to their local Costco for a refund.

In the wake of the recall, several Costco customers poked fun at the ridiculousness of warning customers that butter is made from a dairy product.

“Warning, peanut butter may contain peanuts,” wrote u/sandiercy on Reddit. “But does it contain butter?” questioned another Redditor, u/ChronoMonkeyX.


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food's newsletter, The Bite.


“Seemingly silly and arbitrary technicalities like this is the outcome of a couple centuries of death and illness from non-labeled, mis-labeled, and/or deceptively-labeled foods not allowing for responsible choices by the broadest number of people possible as food became more industrialized or was able to be shipped further from home,” explained user u/turnmeintocompostplz.

“Yeah, considering the fact that I have to deal with this exact allergy in my day-to-day cooking, the fact that this is getting mocked is kinda concerning to me,” said user u/Colaymorak.

How the push for the “right to repair” may result in working McDonald’s ice cream machines

McDonald’s ice cream machines have garnered an infamous — and comical — reputation for always being broken. So much so that soon-to-be-president Donald Trump made a campaign promise to repair the machines once in office. “WHEN I’M PRESIDENT THE MCDONALD’S ICE CREAM MACHINES WILL WORK GREAT AGAIN!” he wrote on his social media platform.

Unfortunately for Trump, he was too slow to make that a reality because Lina Khan, Chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), had already beaten him to it, per a report from Mother Jones. On Oct. 25, the day before Trump’s pledge, the United States Copyright Office announced a new copyright exemption allowing some small business owners and franchisees to repair “retail-level commercial food preparation equipment.” It targeted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which protects the functional software within the ice cream machines. The law itself made it illegal for third parties (like McDonald’s employees and franchisee owners) to break the machines’ digital locks and conduct any repairs. Only the machine’s manufacturer could fix them.

The fast food chain’s ice cream machines were made by the Taylor Company, an Illinois-based manufacturer of food service equipment. Prior to the exemption, only licensed Taylor Company technicians could repair the machines.

Back in March, the FTC and the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division submitted a joint comment urging the U.S. Copyright Office to expand the right to repair certain equipment, including industrial and commercial equipment.

“In the Agencies’ view, renewing and expanding repair-related exemptions would promote competition in markets for replacement parts, repair, and maintenance services, as well as facilitate competition in markets for repairable products,” the comment read.

“Promoting competition in repair markets benefits consumers and workers because it makes it easier and cheaper to fix things you own. Eliminating repair restrictions can lower the cost of repairs, improve access to repair services, and minimize costly and inconvenient delays.”

The new rule, which went into effect on Monday, is a major step forward in the so-called Right to Repair movement that strives to allow people who purchased certain mechanical equipment to fix them on their own. “We've seen over the last decade or so, manufacturers have realized that they can make a lot of money by monopolizing repair of their devices,” Jason Koebler, a tech journalist at 404 Media, told NPR. “So they make it very difficult to get into the diagnostic systems of these devices to find out what's going wrong.”

Koebler explained that the movement kickstarted more than 15 years ago when a growing number of farmers struggled to repair their John Deere tractors, which had become more high-tech with new sensors and software. Amid the pandemic’s peak, the movement grew prevalent within the medical device field. Many hospitals were operating with broken ventilators that weren’t being repaired on time.


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food's newsletter, The Bite.


“And, you know, hospitals often have their own trained repair people to fix medical devices,” Koebler said. “But they often were not able to fix ventilators because the manufacturers were overwhelmed by the number of ventilators that were broken because there were so many being used.”    

In Oct. 2021, the U.S. Copyright Office granted access to medical device data, encompassing devices that aren’t implanted and allowing patients to authorize third parties to access devices to a certain extent.

The Right to Repair movement prevails with the latest exemption. “Victory is sweet,” Elizabeth Chamberlain of iFixIt wrote in a blog post. “This is a big win — and we’ll be celebrating with ice cream! — but copyright law still needs fixing before we’re free to fix everything we own.”

“Testing his strength”: Trump’s Gaetz pick forces Republicans to choose power or ethics

President-elect Donald Trump, a friend of child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein who a jury last year found liable for sexual abuse, is determined to install as the nation’s top law enforcement a man who himself stands credibly accused of statutory rape — so much so that he’s willing to potentially go to war with his own party if it chooses "ethics" and "family values" over raw political power.

Former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., resigned last week after Trump nominated him to serve as attorney general. Although Gaetz has little in the way of legal experience, he is a partisan firebrand who excelled in his job interview by speaking in the blunt language of retribution, one Trump advisor told The Bulwark, as opposed to his theories of law and how precisely he’d manage the Department of Justice and its more than 115,000 employees.

“Gaetz was the only one who said, ‘yeah, I’ll go over there and start cuttin’ f***in’ heads,’” the advisor recounted.

To his critics, Gaetz is a repellent sex criminal: a man in his 40s who attended drug-fueled parties as an elected Republican and had sex with a 17-year-old girl at one of them, according to a woman who testified before the House Ethics Committee. Gaetz has denied the allegations and a federal investigation into him ended without criminal charges.

His supporters, meanwhile, are not so much defending Gaetz, the man, as much as they are seeking to bury the evidence of any wrongdoing and force through his nomination in a demonstration of raw political power. The ethics panel was supposed to last week release the product of a months-long investigation into Gaetz and his alleged improprieties, but the lawmaker’s abrupt resignation complicated that: The committee only has jurisdiction over current members of Congress, a fact Trump-Gaetz allies are citing to justify keeping the report’s findings secret.

Presumably those findings do not exonerate Gaetz. According to a lawyer representing two women who testified about Gaetz, House investigators were told that witnesses could place the Florida Republican at as many as 10 “sex parties” during his first term in Congress, where illegal drugs were being used and at least on one occasion Gaetz was seen having sex with a 17-year-old girl, Politico reported Monday.

“I think that would be a terrible precedent to set,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has said, speaking not of an accused predator serving as attorney general but the House report on his activities being made public.

Gaetz’s fate will be determined in the Senate, however, not the House. There, at least, members of Trump’s own party are publicly insisting that they would like to do their job: to provide advice and consent regarding the president-elect’s cabinet picks.

We need your help to stay independent

Appearing Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., said he’d actually like to take a look at the ethics report on Gaetz.

“I believe the Senate should have access to that,” he said. “Now, should it be released to the public or not? I guess that will be part of the negotiations. But that should definitely be part of our decision-making.”

That echoes other members of the Senate GOP caucus, including Texas’ John Cornyn and South Dakota’s Mike Rounds, and it’s more spine than some Trump allies have shown. But it’s also a retreat from what Mullin was saying about Gaetz before he was nominated — in short, that he is an amoral pervert who would share videos of his sexual exploits on the House floor. While admitting he did not even know Gaetz had a law degree, Mullin on Sunday also reiterated his faith in the head of the Republican Party.

“You can see why he was successful in business, why he was successful in this campaign — because he surrounds himself with the right people,” Mullin said Sunday, adding: “I have no doubt hat President Trump believes that Matt Gaetz is the right person to do the right job.”


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


There is indeed no doubt about that. “Trump is dead serious about making him attorney general,” as Politico notes; it is not a feint, meant to precede a more palatable nominee just as committed to using the Justice Department to harass the president's enemies. And if his allies in the Senate try to thwart him, there’s always the House, where the Trump team believes that the speaker could assist them in bypassing the upper chamber, should it be necessary, and relying on recess appointments. Although the legal theory is untested, the argument is that Johnson could call for Congress to be adjourned; if the Senate fails to go along, Trump could then intervene and essentially force the legislative branch to go on vacation, allowing him to fill his cabinet while lawmakers are off in Cancun.

Johnson has shown no signs he will thwart Trump in any way, the conservative Christian instead deploying his moral authority to defend an alleged sexual predator.

“Look, Matt Gaetz is a colleague of mine,” the Louisiana Republican said on “Fox News Sunday,” appearing after he was photographed alongside Trump and his inner circle over the weekend. “He’s one of the brightest minds in Washington or anywhere for that matter,” Johnson continued, describing the opposition to Gaetz as based on the fact that he’s a “reformer.

“I think that’s why the establishment in Washington is so shaken up about this pick,” Johnson said.

That — forcing Republicans to pick a side; making them describe a total cad as a legal genius if they wish to stay in the good graces of power — is at least part of what’s at play here. Trump, narrowly winning the popular vote for the first time, insists he has a mandate to do as he pleases and is daring his own party to object.

As former DOJ Inspector General Michael Bromwich told The Guardian, Gaetz is certainly a choice.

“In a world where there are plenty of lawyers willing to do Trump’s bidding, he chooses the candidate who has so much baggage,” Bromwich said. “He’s testing his strength and if anyone in his party has the backbone to oppose him.”

Trump preps a new Red Scare

I recently saw the movie "The Apprentice" about the relationship between Donald Trump and his mentor Roy Cohn, the notorious lawyer who was involved in many of the mid-20th century's most high-profile political events. I don't know that the film told me anything I didn't already know but it did remind me of just how vicious Cohn was and how much Trump loved that about him. He learned his lessons well. The thru line between Cohn's nefarious career and Trump's own ruthlessness is set to manifest in this second term. It's almost as if it's all coming full circle.

Cohn's first big splash in national politics took place when he was only 23 years old. He was one of the lead prosecutors in the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. He was so well-liked by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover that he recommended Cohn to be the lead counsel for Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy's communist witch hunt. (McCarthy had launched his famous crusade in Wheeling, West Virginia in 1950, by waving around a piece of paper that he claimed held the names of 205 communists in the U.S. State Department and his Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was off to the races.)

Cohn soon became a household name and was known as the "subcommittee's real brain" according to Time Magazine. He and McCarthy instigated a massive investigation and purge of government employees whom they accused of being communists or outed as homosexuals. (The latter was especially cruel on Cohn's part since he was gay himself.) This was the second Red Scare, the first having occurred in the years after WWI, but the focus on expelling people from the government, including the military, on thin suspicions of disloyalty was a specialty of McCarthy and Cohn.

When the fever finally broke, ("at long last sir, have you no decency…") McCarthy was censured and died before he could complete his second term. Cohn, on the other hand, went on to hobnob with the rich and famous including just about every powerful politician in America. He mentored the young Donald Trump in the ways of the world of business and politics and Trump took to his cutthroat philosophy very naturally.

Facing his second term in office today, Donald Trump and his transition team have hit the ground running with a series of stunning Cabinet appointments that have knocked the political establishment for a loop. Trump is drunk with power having staged an epic comeback after leaving office as ignominiously as any president in history, being indicted for federal and state crimes as well as losing lawsuits charging him with fraud and defamation. He believes he is invincible.

This one is a purge for the sheer pleasure of punishing people Donald Trump doesn't like and a message to all who might think of opposing him in the future.

According to various reports, while he's enjoying the fealty and attention of the richest man in the world who seemingly never leaves his side, he is making these decisions impulsively, totally relying on instinct which he believes are what got him to where he is today. No longer restrained by the need to get elected or fear for his freedom, he can do anything. And right now he appears to be obsessed with setting up the conditions for his revenge on the "Deep State" and the people he believes stabbed him in the back during his first term.

But there's a lot going on in Trumpworld aside from his high-profile appointments. And, interestingly enough, one of the most important projects harkens back to Cohn and McCarthy's government purge in the 1950s. It has been worked on for several years by outside groups preparing the ground for a Trump restoration. This time there's no national security pretense or a rationale that people are betraying the country. It's all about loyalty to Donald Trump and his MAGA movement. But then in Trump's mind, "l'etat c'est moi" so it adds up to the same thing.

CNN reported that just before the election the Department of Transportation received a pile of FOIA requests asking that emails and text messages pertaining to Elon Musk be turned over. Apparently, this was just the latest wave of such requests that have been received by all the various federal agencies sent by Trump-aligned groups over the last two years demanding to identify "perceived partisans." They have used a variety of methods to ferret out information, including searching for DEI programs or even just emails with the keywords "climate change" in them. CNN calls it a "massive fishing expedition."

We need your help to stay independent

One of the groups is the Heritage Foundation Oversight Project, another is the America First Policy Institute, a group with close ties to Trump’s transition team. And there are more, all to root out anyone suspected of not being sufficiently loyal to Donald Trump. They are looking at whether employees have ever donated to Democrats, written anything critical on social media or claimed that they have done something suspicious such as "helped immigrants who arrived in the US seeking legal status." The Heritage Oversight Project has even attempted to find out if any employees might be trying to subvert this investigation by seeking evidence of plots to subvert the president-elect’s expected purging by asking for emails that include the words “Trump” and “reduction in force.”

Trump signed an executive order at the end of his first term called Schedule F which allowed him to order mass firings of employees he believed he could not trust to do his bidding. Joe Biden rescinded it but Trump plans to reinstate it upon taking office. However, since there are millions of federal employees who could conceivably be disloyal to the Dear Leader, it was extremely helpful for these outside groups to do the investigative work ahead of time.

Unions and other advocacy groups say they are determined to fight, hoping they can find some allies in Congress to step up and "hoping public shaming and outrage may protect them." I'm pretty sure that's no longer operative in American politics but I suppose it's worth a try. The courts will undoubtedly be asked to determine whether a mass purge of employees because of perceived partisanship is constitutional but in the meantime it's scaring the hell out of many of them fearing that they are about to lose their jobs if they happened to have said something Donald Trump and his minions thinks is disloyal.

Roy Cohn would be so proud of his boy today. His witch hunt had to be conducted in the name of saving the country from communism. This one is a purge for the sheer pleasure of punishing people Donald Trump doesn't like and a message to all who might think of opposing him in the future. It's pure depravity, just the way Cohn taught him.

TikTok’s “no-spend” challenge is going viral. Does it work?

TikTok trends come and go, but one that’s rapidly gaining traction is the no-spend challenge. Under the #NoSpendChallenge hashtag on TikTok, everyday users and finance influencers share daily updates and reveal how much they saved by the end of the challenge.

It’s tempting to hop on this trend, especially with so many people glorifying the idea of zero spending. But does the challenge actually work? And is going to such extremes healthy?

Three experts weigh in on whether putting spending on hold is a good idea:

What is the no-spend challenge?

In short, for 30 days straight, the TikTok no-spend challenge requires you to not spend money on anything except the bare necessities, like bills and groceries. This means no online shopping, no trips to Sephora or Target, no brunches with the girls, no late-night McDonald's runs and definitely no lavish trips to the Bahamas. 

Does it actually work? 

Kendall Meade, certified financial planner at SoFi, believes the no-spend challenge could be a solid budgeting method for some people, especially if they’re saving for a short-term goal. But overall, she’s not a big fan. “Sometimes, when people cut their spending completely for a specified time, it can actually cause revenge spending,” she said. 

We need your help to stay independent

Tara Minetos, senior wealth planner at U.S. Bank Wealth Management, agrees. “I think the downsides of a no-spend challenge are similar to overly zealous dieting — unless you completely change your mindset and lifestyle, this budgeting method might be too restrictive to create lasting results,” she explained. In other words, when you deprive yourself of too much, you could end up overspending to compensate for the deprivation you experienced.

Lawrence Sprung, certified financial planner, author of Financial Planning Made Personal and founder of Mitlin Financial, also warns that the no-spend challenge could backfire if you’re not careful. “If you don’t use the challenge as a learning experience to change your habit going forward, you may feel like you missed out during these 30 days and go on a spending spree to make up for it once it ends,” he said. “This could end up costing you a lot more than what you would’ve spent during the 30-day challenge.” 

Who can benefit?

These experts might not be completely on board with TikTok's no-spend challenge, but that doesn’t mean it should be written off completely.

Minetos believes the challenge could make sense for people who need a “spending cleanse” or want to challenge themselves to practice financial discipline. 

“What’s also great about this challenge is that it could help you identify the spending cuts that can be made and recognize the luxuries that you’re unwilling to live without,” she said. “An ideal outcome would be walking away from the challenge with a budget that has room for a few luxuries that matter to you while prioritizing and making progress toward your long-term financial goals.” 

Pros and cons

Though many people swear by the no-spend challenge, it’s not right for everyone. Make sure you’re aware of these advantages and disadvantage before committing to a full 30 days of zero spending.

Pros:

  • Resets spending habits
  • Helps build a financial cushion for unexpected expenses
  • Hits pause on unnecessary spending 
  • Helps achieve short-term savings goals

Cons: 

  • Isn’t a long-term financial plan
  • Could cause revenge spending in subsequent months 
  • Requires a lot of discipline 
  • Being too frugal can ruin your relationship with money 

Do what works for you 

The no-spend challenge is like a crash diet for your finances. It’s popular for a reason, but it’s also easy to become obsessively frugal and let it damage your relationship with money. If you don’t want to go to extremes and risk a binge-purge cycle with your finances, consider making smaller, more sustainable changes. 

For example, rather than going cold turkey and cutting your daily $5 coffees or vowing never to eat out again, try scaling back to one to two times a week. And instead of saying “no” to online shopping altogether, give yourself a dollar limit each month.  

“To have long-lasting changes to your spending habits, you must find a balance that you can sustain in the long term,” Meade said. Think about it, if you’re trying to lose weight and keep the extra pounds off for good, eating nothing but salads for a whole month will most likely not work in the long term since your body can’t keep up with that kind of extreme restriction. The same applies to your finances. 

The verdict

The no-spend challenge can still be a solid way to hit the reset button on your spending habits and help you achieve short-term financial goals. The easiest way to find out if it works is to give it a shot and see how it goes. Plus, you don't have to commit to zero spending for 30 days straight. Try a week, three days, or set just one day a week as your no-spend day — whatever feels more doable. And if it still doesn’t work out, there’s no shame in pivoting to another budgeting method that better fits your lifestyle. 

The corruption of MAGA comedy

With Donald Trump winning the popular vote on his third shot, we need a fresh analysis of America’s prevailing political culture. Beyond sifting election returns, we must also attempt to see the world through MAGA eyes. They are the voting majority. 

We could start by parsing the jokes, gags, and laugh-riots that the president-elect and his allies crassly dispensed in the final weeks of the race. Much to the chagrin of his critics, Trump’s push to the finish was fueled almost entirely by edgy comedy, which has left many people feeling uneasy about our collective sense of humor.

American democracy cannot survive four more years of derisive laughter at the expense of our unity.

The contrast between Trump’s policy ineptitude and his razor-sharp comedy is remarkable. Asked about his plans to overhaul the Affordable Care Act, Trump sputtered lamely about “concepts of a plan.” When pressed for a specific proposal on how to provide affordable child care to American workers, Trump rambled incoherently through an embarrassing list of non-sequiturs. The election results show us such stumbles can be excused. That’s because when it comes to lambasting his opponents and tickling the funny bone of the MAGA base, the incoming comedian-in-chief pulls from a seemingly bottomless well of zingers.

We learned in the final week of the campaign, for example, that it would be hilarious, for Trump and the MAGA faithful if Liz Cheney, “a very dumb individual,” were put in front of a firing squad because—wait for it—that would teach her a lesson about reckless use of force.

 At a rally days before the election, Trump brought the house down once again by declaring open season on members of the press. “Weaving” through an imagined assassination scenario, Trump explained that political violence sometimes has an unexpected upside: “To get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news, and I don’t mind that so much.”  In a video from the event, audience members can be seen roaring at the thought of a media bloodbath. One attendee shakes her head and covers her mouth to stifle an outburst. The gesture appears to be a mix of delight and disbelief, as if to say, “Tell me he did not just go there.”

But, of course, he went there. 

Transgressive laughter is the fundamental element of Donald Trump’s mesmerism. Trump is a jester inside the palace, playing at the role of king, but mocking the very idea of principled leadership in the process. Flouting the rules is his schtick, and it seems MAGA cannot get enough.

Though he rarely laughs, the laughter of others — women, in particular — is one of Trump’s many bizarre preoccupations. He mocked Kamala Harris for laughing too often and too heartily, just as he once attacked Hilary Clinton for “laughing at our expense” during the hyper-partisan Benghazi hearings. 

After Michelle Obama scorched his record (and character) at the Democratic National Convention, Trump struggled to stay composed. When the slings and arrows finally proved too much, he went on the attack: “I think we’re going to start having a little fun with Michelle.” The promise of sadistic pleasure, as he knew it would, elicited hoots and guffaws from the crowd. 

Philosophers, going back to Plato and Aristotle, have observed a link between comedy and cruelty. In the seventeenth century, Thomas Hobbes pegged laughter as the companion of scorn. He framed humor as an act of self-aggrandizement premised on the debasement of others. 

Eventually, philosophers arrived at the superiority theory of humor, according to which every joke is, at its core, a hostile attack designed to affirm the comic’s dominance and assure the subjugation of its target. 

We need your help to stay independent

Most people value humor. It provides relief from life’s hardships, drudgery, and setbacks. But laughter performs serious social and political work, too. It produces new lines of solidarity, but it also reproduces borders between us and them. Laughter is a sudden, spasmodic expulsion air, but, at the same time, it is adjacent to other, more concerning practices of expulsion and denigration. It can be something sweet or cruel, depending on the power dynamics that surround it.  

Sweeping declarations about the motivations of MAGA voters have proven to be useless. We know that his coalition of giggles and guffaws is far from monolithic. But MAGA humor is a crucial aspect of Trump’s allure, and it could be our best window into the mentality of the radical right. 

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the 2024 election outcome boils down to fundamental differences regarding what we, as a nation, find to be funny and what we take to be indecent. The post-election reaction from several factions of the left shows that MAGA’s crude and cruel comedy is changing our larger political culture. Liberals laughing about the continued destruction of Palestine under Trump or cracking up at the thought of Trump voters with family members potentially deported have caved to the dark side.

Political fences can be mended, if there is goodwill on both sides. Cultural rifts, on the other hand, can be impossible to bridge. American democracy cannot survive four more years of derisive laughter at the expense of our unity.

Maryland is training more health workers to offer abortion care

In the two counties around nurse practitioner Samantha Marsee’s clinic in rural northeastern Maryland, there’s not a single clinic that provides abortions. And until recently, Marsee herself wasn’t trained to treat patients who wanted to end a pregnancy.

“I didn’t really have a lot of knowledge about abortion care,” she said.

After Roe v. Wade was overturned, she watched state after state ban abortion, and Marsee decided to take part in the first class of a new training program offered by the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the University of Maryland-Baltimore.

Marsee learned how to administer medication abortion pills, procedural abortions, and highly effective birth control methods, including hormonal implants and intrauterine devices.

She cares for patients with all sorts of everyday ailments and health conditions, including pregnancy. “I do have patients who come in for confirmation of pregnancies and then disclose they don’t want to continue with the pregnancy for whatever reason,” Marsee said.

Now, with her new training, she can help.

Expanding the pool of health care providers with reproductive health care skills outside of the state’s urban centers is vital, said Mary Jo Bondy, associate dean of the School of Graduate Studies at the University of Maryland-Baltimore. She helped create the new training program.

In 2022, Maryland lawmakers passed the Abortion Care Access Act, expanding the type of medical care nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certified nurse-midwives could offer, including abortion, and the training program “prioritized that group,” Bondy said.

Those types of professionals have long provided abortions to rural patients in other states, Bondy said, and “we have proof that receiving this care from an advanced practice clinician is safe.”

As many as 120 health care providers will be trained over the next two years. Some participants have said they are returning to communities that are hostile to abortion rights.

Even in Maryland, pharmacists are allowed to refuse to dispense medication abortion pills.

On Nov. 5, voters approved a ballot measure to protect reproductive rights in the Maryland Constitution, by an overwhelming margin, preliminary results show. The state is widely considered a safe haven for patients who live in states with abortion bans. The number of abortions in Maryland increased 29% from 2019 to 2023, driven largely by out-of-state residents. But one training participant, a family physician from the Eastern Shore, said providing abortions makes her concerned for her physical safety and asked not to be identified.

“The rural catchment and politics really drive it either out or at least into the quiet,” she said of abortion availability where she lives. She worries that her employer will question the prescriptions she writes for medication abortion pills and said pharmacists often refuse to give the medication to her patients.

Even in Maryland, pharmacists are allowed to refuse to dispense medication abortion pills.

As more health care providers are trained in abortion care, they need help from the state’s medical schools and health officials to overcome these barriers, the family physician said. She wants help with “access to medication and pushing in some ways the hand of our employers, or normalizing, ‘This is just health care.’”

For Marsee, the next step is to figure out how to let her patients know she can provide abortions. She plans to tell her current patients and hopes they’ll tell others.

“I’m working on a way to let people know that I’m here and can provide it,” Marsee said. “This is a conservative area, so it’s walking that line. I want people to know I’m here, but I don’t want to cause too much outrage and attention.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

One-party rule can be democratic or dangerous

The 2024 election has installed a regime of one-party government in Washington. Come Jan. 20, the presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives will all be controlled by Republicans, many of whom are dedicated foot soldiers in President-elect Donald Trump’s MAGA movement. Add to this the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, which has already shown itself willing to turn the Constitution upside down to serve the interests of the president-elect.

There is one positive aspect to total Republican domination: One-party rule can be a benefit in terms of democratic accountability.

Advocates of so-called “responsible party government,” going back as far as President Woodrow Wilson, define democracy as “the popular control of government through accountable rulers. To them, only coherence, discipline, and solidarity of political parties can keep the rulers accountable.” However, that assumes that members of political parties respect the norms of constitutional government and display greater loyalty to the prerogatives of the branches of government in which they serve than their political party. The post-election period has already brought worrisome signs that this will not be true of the Republican majority in Congress and on the Supreme Court under Trump.

One-party rule is fine so long as the dominant party does what Madison expected.

The idea of branch loyalty was paramount to the people who wrote the Constitution. Perhaps the best expression of their view is found in Federalist 51. There James Madison argued that the separation of powers among the president, the Congress, and the Supreme Court would be essential in protecting the liberty of Americans. But he warned that the scheme would only work if each branch of government had what Madison called a “will of its own.” As Madison put it, “the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack.” 

“Ambition,” he said, “must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.”

While Madison did not envision the rise of political parties of the kind that today dominate the political landscape, he hoped that members of Congress would defend the prerogatives of their branch, e.g. their role in giving advice and consent in the appointment of executive and judicial officials, their responsibilities for oversight of executive actions, the power of the purse, etc., against the president.

As Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution notes, "Such checks and balances as the Framers put in place… depended on the separation of the three branches of government, each of which, they believed, would zealously guard its own power and prerogatives. The Framers did not establish safeguards against the possibility that national-party solidarity would transcend state boundaries because they did not imagine such a thing was possible.”

Crucially for the present moment, they also did not “foresee that members of Congress and perhaps members of the judicial branch, too, would refuse to check the power of a president from their own party.”

Pointing to Trump’s two impeachments, Kagan suggests that “party loyalty has superseded branch loyalty, and never more so than in the Trump era.” Republican “members of Congress are willing to defend or ignore the president’s actions simply because he is their party leader.” This, Kagan says, renders impeachment and conviction virtually a dead letter.

There are, of course, other brakes on the tendency of one-party rule to subvert the system of separation of powers and checks and balances. One of the most important is the impact of intra-party conflict within the majority party. Law professor Gregory Elinson observes that “intraparty conflict can immunize our constitutional system from the pathologies that arise when partisan warfare is overlayed on the Madisonian model of separated institutions sharing power… Today, as was true at the Founding, Americans have no great love for intraparty conflict or party factionalism.” 

We need your help to stay independent

Elinson suggests that Americans “have failed to understand that the relative porousness of our parties—the very feature that drives internal party conflict—has helped to safeguard our republic…”

But, in recent years, such intraparty conflict has diminished significantly, at least as  reflected in the way members of Congress vote on legislation. In 2022, The Pew Research Center found that “Both parties have grown more ideologically cohesive. There are now only about two dozen moderate Democrats and Republicans left on Capitol Hill, versus more than 160 in 1971-72. Both parties have moved further away from the ideological center since the early 1970s. Democrats on average have become somewhat more liberal, while Republicans on average have become much more conservative.”


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


Thus, it is not surprising that, as David Davenport says, “party-line voting has become the new normal.  As recently as the early 1970s, party unity voting was around 60%, but today it is closer to 90% in both the House and Senate.” That continued during Trump’s first term when every Republican but one voted to support the president’s position on legislation between 80 and 100% of the time.

From 2017-2021, when Democrats controlled at least one chamber of Congress, Trump and members of his administration regularly defied congressional subpoenas. As Trump said in 2019, “We’re fighting all the subpoenas.” 

While in the White House, Trump tried to block multiple congressional investigations, and Republicans in the House and the Senate acquiesced without protest. Madison would have been dismayed by their failure to display branch loyalty.

It looks like Republicans in Congress will do no better in the face of a second Trump administration. The clearest example of Trump’s demand that Republicans in Congress toe the line and of their willingness to do so came when the president-elect posted the following on Truth Social: “Any Republican Senator seeking the coveted LEADERSHIP position in the United States Senate must agree to Recess Appointments (in the Senate!), without which we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner…Sometimes the votes can take two years, or more. This is what they did four years ago, and we cannot let it happen again. We need positions filled IMMEDIATELY!”

The response from three senators seeking the position of Senate Majority Leader would have been yet another grave disappointment to Madison. One of them, Florida Sen. Rick Scott, quickly endorsed Trump’s demand that the Senate waive one of its key prerogatives: “100% agree. I will do whatever it takes to get your nominations through as quickly as possible.” The other two, Texas Senator John Cornyn and the eventual winner, South Dakota’s John Thune, also agreed that Trump should have that power and use it if he wants.

The question of whether one-party rule can be reconciled with the Founders’ vision of constitutional government will face another test if the president-elect successfully presses the Congress to recess so he can appoint to his Cabinet people about whom even many Republican senators have grave reservations. And, as Trump’s second term proceeds, what, if any, oversight will the House or the Senate do? How will Republican majorities in Congress respond to instances of corruption if and as they occur in the administration?

The early signs are not good.

In the end, one-party rule is fine so long as the dominant party does what Madison expected. They must carefully guard and exercise what he called “the constitutional rights“ of the institutions where their members serve, even if it means defying the wishes of a president from their party.

Why MAGA won: Anger, resentment and “a sense of betrayal”

President-elect Donald Trump and his MAGA regime have promised revenge and retribution against a range of targeted groups such as the Democrats, “the deep state” and “the globalists,” “the Left,” “liberals,” “Woke,” the news media, i.e. “the enemy of the people,” nonwhite “illegal aliens," the LGBTQ community (specifically transgender people) and a range of other groups. Trump’s selections for his Cabinet are distinguished both by their personal loyalty to him as well as ferocity in pursuing his personal and political “enemies.” Trump has repeatedly threatened to remove these “enemies within” from society by using the Alien Enemies Act, the Insurrection Act and other means including prison. All indications suggest that Trump’s dictatorial presidency will begin by targeting those groups and individuals who are “the enemy” on day one.

On the other hand, Trump has repeatedly promised to pardon his followers who attacked the Capitol as part of his coup attempt on Jan. 6. They will likely serve as Trump’s personal MAGA street enforcers and paramilitaries.  

Central to Trump and his agents’ plans to impose their authoritarian vision on American society is Nazi legal theorist and jurist Carl Schmitt’s concept of a state of exception and the distinction between “friend and enemy” in a permanent state of emergency where the ruler, i.e. Trump and his regime, possess what is essentially unlimited power. In this model of citizenship and national belonging, support for Trumpism and MAGA is synonymous with being a “real American.” The enemy, however defined, is to be marginalized and oppressed as the Other.

In a must-read article at The New Republic, Nina Burleigh provides a roadmap and warning for how Donald Trump and his fascist regime will attack the core tenets of American democracy and civil society — and how there is little that normal politics and the institutions can do to stop him and his forces:

We are headed into uncharted territory as a people and a nation. Trump and his allies have promised to initiate their radical right-wing agenda the minute after he takes his hand off the Bible on Inauguration Day. We are about to experience an unprecedented assault on the Constitution and our civil liberties related to speech and assembly, and an abandonment of norms related to the military, the Justice Department, and government contracting that will make the first term look, well, normal….

In May and June, the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law invited 250 participants to take part in five tabletop exercises aimed at gaming out how a Trump presidency might use existing weaknesses in the American legal and constitutional system to implant an autocratic regime.

The results were disheartening at best, and at worst, frightening. The exercises demonstrated repeatedly that an authoritarian in control of the executive branch with little concern for legal limits holds a structural advantage over any lawful effort to restrain him. “None of the exercises left us sanguine,” the organizer, Bart Gellman, later reported. “Participants were almost uniformly sobered by the paucity of effective constraints on abuse of power.”

In a new article that not too long ago would describe life in a banana republic and not “the world’s greatest democracy,” The Washington Post examines how some of the high-profile targets of Trump and the MAGA movement are preparing for his return to power:

A retired U.S. Army officer who clashed with senior officials in Donald Trump’s first White House looked into acquiring Italian citizenship in the run-up to this month’s election but wasn’t eligible and instead packed a “go bag” with cash and a list of emergency numbers in case he needs to flee.

A member of Trump’s first administration who publicly denounced him is applying for foreign citizenship and weighing whether to watch and wait or leave the country before the Jan. 20 inauguration.

And a former U.S. official who signed a notorious October 2020 letter suggesting that emails purportedly taken from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden could be part of a “Russian information operation” is seeking a passport from a European country, uncertain about whether the getaway will prove necessary but concluding, “You don’t want to have to scramble.”

All spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid undermining their own preparations. The planning, they acknowledge, responds to a hypothetical worst case in which a second Trump presidency ushers in systematic suppression of free speech and criminalization of dissent. Trump’s victory alone has set off alarms among some of his most outspoken critics, as well as within parts of the intelligence and national security communities he denigrated as the “deep state” and accused of subverting his agenda.

Their anxiety has intensified amid the drumbeat of picks for critical Cabinet posts.

The Democrats and other pro-democracy Americans are going to have to quickly recalibrate their strategy and understanding of the core fundamentals of politics in the Age of Trump and American fascism if they are to find a way to take back the White House and country’s other governing institutions before it is too late and MAGA is widely synonymous with that it means to be a “real American” both here and around the world.

In an attempt to make sense of Trump’s victory, our collective emotions in this time of trouble and dread, what this election reveals about American values and character and what comes next when Trump takes power in January, I recently spoke with a range of experts. 

Randolph Hohle is a professor of Sociology at SUNY Fredonia and author of "Racism in the Neoliberal Era" and "American Housing Question: Racism, Urban Citizenship, and the Privilege of Mobility." He studies the nexus of racism and political economy.

I’m feeling a bit taken back and a little alarmed. It's not that Trump won, but how much the country moved to the right. To see Trump win 45% of the vote in New York State and sweep every swing state is telling the direction the US is heading. I won’t do anything special to manage the feelings. I’ll just continue to lift weights and exercise like I normally do. I don’t experience elections as trauma.

"MAGA is the streets for marginalized white men. 'Owning the libs' is just a middle finger back to mainstream society. There is no ideology. Just a gang mentality."

America’s mainstream news media and pundits got this so wrong because they don’t see that MAGA appeals to poor white men, uneducated white men and working-class white men because they don’t have anywhere else to go. It’s not about power or domination because they don’t have any power. It’s about them trying to find a place where they belong. They are socially isolated from mainstream institutions and MAGA gives them a purpose –- although I’m not sure what that purpose is. In the 1980s and 1990s, we talked about the need to create institutions to keep kids off the streets and out of gangs. MAGA is the streets for marginalized white men. “Owning the libs” is just a middle finger back to mainstream society. There is no ideology. Just a gang mentality.

The media and punditry’s other problem is their need to reduce social groups into simple binaries and abstractions that can provide a clean narrative but impose an incorrect logic on how America’s polity votes. They insist on reading the American polity through the lens of white/not-white. This creates a false impression that all non-white people are the same and opposed to whiteness (which is never defined) and only makes sense to someone whose knowledge of race and ethnicity comes from college seminars instead of actual people. They would be better served to read the polity as Black/not-Black and look for regional and economic differences between racial and ethnic groups.

This is also true in how the media class and pundits insist on viewing women as a unitary identity. The conservative movement and conservative women have their idea of feminism that views gender equality as possible without changing the system and does not see supporting abortion rights and voting for the MAGA movement as a contradiction. Race and gender matter, just not how they think it does.

We need your help to stay independent

I am not surprised by Trump winning. I would describe my reaction as being one of revelations. To say that the election revealed America as a racist and or sexist place is a lazy “analysis.” Instead, the election revealed that America’s political realignment is just about settled and that the neoliberal project, as we know it, has run its course.

There are three reasons. First, big tech replaced big finance as the primary driver of capital accumulation. This ushers in a new set of elites, still white, but with a disdain for neoliberal institutions that no longer serve their purpose. I think you can see this in their language of disruption in how they start new business plans and existing changes in K-12 and higher education at the state level right now. It’s apparent in how American Tech moguls want looser regulations on I-9 visas but also tariffs to protect America’s tech industry from China.

Second, Big Tech created a class affinity between elites, upper-middle-class professionals and working-class people away from coastal areas. Lastly, and perhaps the most important, is what and who counts as “white” that has been changing since 2000 and has incorporated some Asian and Hispanic citizens into the fold. The debates 25 years ago over a majority-minority nation that would usher in Democratic Party dominance were rooted in a belief that white was a fixed group classification. They ignored the history of immigration and ethnicity that pointed to the shifting notion of who gets to be white in America. There is still a normative account of good and bad whites, good and bad immigrants, etc. These groups don’t contrast themselves to whites, they contrast themselves to Black people and try to reflect good white citizenship.

What do I want to prepare the American people for? The first 100 days will be a whirlwind of policy proposals and changes. The Republicans have control of the House and the Senate. Don’t be distracted by anti-trans rhetoric. Trump will be set on removing regulatory agencies over the environment to appease the billionaires and corporations. Trump will likely abolish the Department of Education and federal education funding will switch to block grants to the states, which many will use to fund school voucher programs. I don’t think he will replace income taxes with tariffs, but there will likely be tax cuts and programs for businesses. The big one to watch out for, however, is that I think Trump and the Republicans will have their eyes on privatizing Old Age Insurance, what we commonly call Social Security. It may be a phased-out plan that keeps it for existing beneficiaries but replaces it with a private 401k plan for people younger than 50 or younger than 40. Be prepared for that fight.

Jason Van Tatenhove served as the national media director for the Oath Keepers. He documented his experiences with the Oath Keepers in his book "The Perils of Extremism: How I Left the Oath Keepers and Why We Should be Concerned about a Future Civil War."

Right now, I feel like I’ve woken up from a punch-drunk, handle-of-tequila dream, teetering between a bone-bruise sadness and a sharp, rising emotion I can’t quite label yet. Fear is right there too — fear for my daughters, for democracy, for this battered experiment of a country we still call home. Fear for the threat of actual repercussions, violent or otherwise. Maybe this is it — the beginning of the end we’ve all sensed creeping closer, even if we tried to shove it into the shadows.

So, what now? I’ll do the only thing I know: I’ll keep writing because that’s all I’ve got — the only way I know to get through the muck and the madness.

I think the mainstream news media and punditry get it so wrong because they’re looking through the wrong damn lens. They want to analyze Trump like he’s a series of scandals or controversies to unpack on a whiteboard — something logical, manageable. But that’s not what he is. His appeal isn’t rooted in reason or fact; it’s a gut-level, emotionally charged force, a dark mythic archetype tapping into America’s discontent. He embodies that seething, alienated rage of people who feel like they’ve been left to rot in the dark corners of the country, unseen, unheard and hopeless for far too long.

"The mainstream news media, in its detachment or perhaps in its denial, missed a momentous transformation unfolding in the heart of American democracy: the rise of a potent and insidious fascist movement, wrapped in the flag and wielding the cross."

The media can’t see this because they’ve insulated themselves from those shadows. They still don’t understand how deep that wound goes, how raw the resentment is. Eight years in and they still haven’t learned that facts and figures don’t shake a movement like this. People don’t rally around data. They rally around a voice that echoes their own anger, their own sense of betrayal. Someone drowning will reach out to any hand that offers hope (or even just survival) for a better future, even if it’s all lies and hatred. Until the media understands that we’ll be right back here, election after election, wondering how they missed it — again. I think we’re digging out for generations, not years

But even in the thick of it, there’s this weird glimmer of hope I can’t shake. It’s the idea that maybe — just maybe — we writers and storytellers can chip away at this. It’s up to us to hold up the mirror, to start thawing those stone hearts with stories that peel away the layers of fear and hate. It’s a long shot and something that will take years, but if we storytellers don’t try, who the hell will?

When Trump and his crew take the reins again, I expect the machinery of power to run on revenge, to silence those who dissent, to remake this place in a darker image. This won’t be a country of ideals and debates. It will be a land of hard lines and harsh realities where loyalties and allegiances revolve around one man Donald Trump. But this is where our work begins. In the face of that coming storm, it’s time to write harder, speak louder, dig deeper.

Hal Brown is a clinical social worker and was one of the first members of the Duty to Warn group. He has extensive expertise in working with multiple personality disorder (now called dissociative identity disorder).

There was always a part of me that knew Donald Trump might win. I have been psychologically preparing for this outcome even as much as I wanted to avoid that reality. At 3 AM the morning after the election, I felt myself already having moved from flight into fight mode. Earlier I watched MSNBC trying to put a semblance of a hopeful spin on the results but by 10 PM here in Oregon they had nothing but bad news as they reported results for Kamala. Once I saw she was doing as many as 10 points worse than Biden did in 2020 in the counties he easily won I knew she was doomed.

I expect I was not alone in feeling numb at first when the news hit and sunk in Tuesday night and early Wednesday morning with all the other feelings, especially anger and grief under the surface. These feelings haven't been overwhelming because I never succumbed to the flight impulse. Instead, I knew I had to figure out the best way to fight. I moved almost immediately into fight mode realizing that part of this was to do what I am best able to do, which is keep writing. Writing on how there are very few aspects of politics that can't be explained psychologically and that psychological understandings of behavior are often the best weapon I can share with others who want to figure out the best ways they can defend democracy.

Trump's power doesn't come from some kind of single enriched core like an atomic or hydrogen bomb. Too many of the people we call pundits looked at him and his ridiculous digital trading cards and saw the phantasmagorial grandiose delusions of someone with superpowers not to be taken seriously. In fact, many of his supporters looked at these images and didn't see the real Trump. They actually really did see him as Superman or Rambo. 


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


Trump’s power to sway people has always been multifaceted. The so-called experts, with some exceptions, missed the fact that added together his powers could reach a critical mass.

I do not believe that this election was a referendum on the morality, ethics, or essential qualities of the American people as a whole. To look at it this way is like looking through a kaleidoscope and seeing a harmonious landscape. The feral genius of Trump was that he was able to do the equivalent of corralling cats into a huge enclosure and locking the gate so even though there were numerous cohorts with different dispositions and desires when it came time to vote they decided to support him.

"I would also acknowledge that it took far too long for media pundits to use the term “fascist” to describe Trump. That was a fatal mistake."

We will have to wait to see whether Trump makes good on all his bellicose threats once he has realized that he has won and doesn't have to exact revenge on as many people as he possibly can with the power of the presidency. Trump, who revels in sadistic fantasies and disparaging his enemies with crude nicknames and descriptions and making threats against them may decide he's been vindicated and can find some comfortable way, the psychological term would be an “ego syntonic” way, to integrate this into his self-image. On the other hand, Trump may be totally committed to revenge and destruction because of his core personality and how his mind and emotions work.

Democracy-loving Americans have two things in their favor for surviving Trump and Trumpism. One is that even though Trump has won the popular vote not all of the voters are cut from the same fascist or bigoted cloth. Some were gullible, many were low-information voters getting their news, to the extent they paid attention to the news, from Fox and right-wing social media. There are millions of them but there are also millions of us.

What we know with some certainty is that in time millions of Trump supporters will discover they have been lied to and made into suckers, again. Those of us who can muster the strength to fight against Trumpism need to be able to be ready to reach out to the disaffected Trump voters as they realize his promises to better their lives were nothing but lies. We need to provide a safe and compassionate harbor for them.

Peter McLaren is Emeritus Professor of Education at University of California, Los Angeles. He is one of the architects of critical pedagogy and the recipient of numerous international awards for this work in education. He is the author of over forty books and his writings have been translated into twenty-five languages.

In November 2016, I developed an autoimmune condition that plagues me to this day and likely was brought on by the trauma of a Trump victory. It appeared to be a betrayal of the body as profound as the one unfolding on the nation’s political stage. My condition seemed to echo the larger affliction overtaking the land, a reminder of the profound toll that tumultuous times exact upon both body and spirit. Since that fateful day, I have been writing about the extraordinary dangers Trump poses for the country. Determined not to be blindsided a second time, I steeled myself for the return of this relentless specter in 2024. And indeed, the outcome, however disheartening, held no surprise. As in 2016, the people seemed unready for the transformative potential of a woman’s leadership, much less a woman of color — a vision that remains, tragically, beyond the nation’s collective horizon. Someday, history’s gaze will fall upon this chapter and in that mirror the nation may confront its own failures, enduring an international shame too deep to erase. As someone who has been an educator for over 50 years and who has lectured throughout the world, I know this reckoning will one day find its way to the nation’s conscience, a judgment as unavoidable as it is searing.

When I think of how the forces of MAGA are destroying human rights, I am inspired by the moral courage of anti-fascists such as Sophie Scholl, one of the most luminous figures of resistance within the darkness of Nazi Germany who was a member of the White Rose, a clandestine group dedicated to non-violent opposition to the Third Reich. She was executed for scattering leaflets at the University of Munich, decrying the inhumanity of the war. I am thinking of Las Treces Rosas, the 13 young women who were executed on Aug. 5, 1939, for their involvement in the socialist youth organization, Juventudes Socialistas Unificadas. I am also thinking of Walter Benjamin and Paul Robeson. They steel my resolve.

The mainstream news media, in its detachment or perhaps in its denial, missed a momentous transformation unfolding in the heart of American democracy: the rise of a potent and insidious fascist movement, wrapped in the flag and wielding the cross.

Rather than confront the gravity of this shift, the media seemed to avert its gaze from the depths of the MAGA phenomenon, misjudging the power that such a movement could unleash. In its neglect, it unwittingly allowed the floodgates of far-right rhetoric to burst open, giving a voice and platform to ideologies that once lingered in the corners of society. What might have remained on the margins has surged forward, rushing with alarming speed toward the centers of influence and power. Thus, a volatile mix of nationalism, conspiracy and exclusionary dogma has been carried not only into the streets but into the highest offices of the land, where it festers and reshapes the landscape of American governance in its attempts to create a more permanent, far-right populist order. 

Downplaying Trump’s incendiary threats of violence until just a few weeks before the election, provided both tacit and explicit sanction to xenophobic, racist and authoritarian impulses that have long simmered in the American undercurrent. Through its anti-woke crusade, the MAGA movement weaponized, naturalized, normalized and reified its crude, anti-intellectual punditry across the landscape of social progress, darkening ideals of fairness and equality until they became battles for survival on a field now extremely hostile to dissent. No longer mere debates, these ideals have been dragged into the public square, put on trial, accused of treachery and of fracturing the nation's unity. Thus, America now stands at a crossroads, where visions of a forward-looking nation clash violently with an ironclad grip on a past remembered more than it ever existed — a reckoning for the very soul of the republic.

I would also acknowledge that it took far too long for media pundits to use the term “fascist” to describe Trump. That was a fatal mistake. The cowardice of the press to compare Trump to fascist leaders of yesteryear has helped to normalize his words and deeds.  As long as the press remains shackled by the gilded chains of billionaire overlords, freedom lies in chains as well, leaving us in a world of corporate domination. 

The election reinforced my conviction that the majority of American voters were far from immune to the socio-political and historical forces at play that enabled them to become ideologically and emotionally seduced into a quasi-religious cult, a MAGA movement whose catechism consists of a toxic mixture of hatred, violence, misogyny, racism, homophobia and conspiracy theories — all crystalized into a swindle of revenge fierce enough to motivate them to elect a fascist for president of the United States. As a consequence, much of the world will view this election as a world-historical calamity, placing the international reputation of the US on the slaughter bench of history, especially insofar as the election of Trump revealed the American public to be complicit in the election of an authoritarian plutocrat, if not a die-hard fascist.  Am I surprised? Not at all.

In addition, the election revealed the extent that Trump’s escalation of the so-called “culture wars,” positioned him with his followers as a self-styled defender of reactionary values against the tide of progressive reform. His persistent vile, aimed at movements for racial justice, LGBTQ+ rights and accountability in policing worked. They made Trump an unstoppable force.

Let’s be clear, Trump’s victory is no “unprecedented mandate”; it is a dire warning, a narrow escape for the evangelical forces of Christian nationalism, one that lays bare how deeply fascistic thinking — rooted in race, gender and cultural supremacy — still festers within the body of this nation. This is a stark reminder of how seductive hollow patriotism and manufactured pride can be, especially in times of economic uncertainty.

The Trump administration will use its Project 2025 to dismantle every step we have taken toward a more just, inclusive society, striking at the very pillars of our constitutional republic. The Trump administration will villainize those artists, educators, influencers and writers who are fearless enough to acknowledge that this election was the calculated outcome of a strategy to hand America over to its wealthiest few.  

In the end, Trump may destroy America as a functioning democracy. Social Security will be at risk. Trump could very well change the Constitution to enable himself to remain on as president after his term expires. As the world warms and the seas rise, those who have committed themselves to meaningful climate action, aware that the health of the planet is tied inextricably to their own, will be drowned out by Trump’s populist refrain: “Drill baby drill.” We also need to understand that the war on “wokeness” will continue to intensify and the threat to social justice movements will increase. The fascist threat is, at its core, an assault on democracy itself — an anti-democratic force seeking to dismantle the protections hard-won by marginalized groups, to silence dissent and to dismantle institutions meant to uphold justice and equality. 

An Idaho regional health department banned COVID vaccines. Will others follow?

Last month, the board of a regional public health department in Idaho voted to ban its department from providing COVID-19 vaccines to residents in six counties. The move follows a disturbing trend, one in which anti-vaccine beliefs are influencing public health decisions that will have serious consequences on citizens. Previously, policymakers in Texas prohibited health departments from promoting COVID-19 vaccines. Florida’s surgeon general also publicly recommended against the COVID-19 vaccine in 2023. 

As reported by AP News, this appears to be the first regional health department in the nation to be restricted from giving COVID vaccines.

At the meeting, Dr. Perry Jansen, a district staff physician who gave a presentation before the vote, tried to make a case to convince the board to keep offering the vaccine, emphasizing that the vote wasn’t a vaccine mandate but would give citizens a choice. 

"We really serve as a safety net provider for people who can't get health care in any other way, largely because of finances," Jansen told the board. "We're able to offer free and discounted services for people who don't have access through private care."

But board members of Southwest District Health decided in a 4-3 vote to no longer offer the shots. Public health experts describe the move as devastating.

Such a trend is an "incredibly slippery road to go down."

“It breaks my heart, local public health departments are one of the most trusted sources of health information to communities,” Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist and author of the newsletter Your Local Epidemiologist, told Salon. “They also act as a safety net for accessibility and affordability to vaccines, given that 1 in 3 Americans don’t have a primary health care provider.” 

She added such a trend is an “incredibly slippery road to go down.”

In 2021, mRNA technology — which was novel at the time — allowed for an effective vaccine to be developed in record time. Yet what the scientific community saw as a historic moment for biotechnology turned into a polarizing debate among American lawmakers enticed by conspiracy theories and misinformation, marking a pivotal turning point for the anti-vaccine movement.

Typically, misinformation about vaccines doesn't appear out of nowhere. There is usually a kernel of truth to it, and the misinformation persists because it lacks context. While some have experienced very rare adverse effects from the vaccines, like inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis) they happen to only a small percentage of people. COVID vaccines are considered extremely safe.


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


Yet a significant number of Americans remain distrustful of the COVID-19 vaccines. According to a survey published in the journal Vaccine: X, 35% of adults reported that they did not trust COVID-19 vaccines, without much variation between 2021 and 2023. The growing distrust of the vaccines has led to hesitancy among parents getting their kids vaccinated to people not getting vaccinated for fear of loss of fertility. Notably, there is a partisan divide among those who trust and distrust the vaccines. Counties that voted Republican had significantly more deaths from COVID than counties that voted Democratic, in part due to reduced vaccine uptake.

What's happening in Idaho is part of a broader attack on public health. In 2023, state legislators introduced House Bill 154, which would make administering an mRNA vaccine a misdemeanor, effectively criminalizing most COVID vaccines. (Some, like Novavax, are not based on mRNA.) The bill is still pending. Idaho has also some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, causing an OB-GYN desert as reproductive health workers leave the state in droves.

"There is no rational reason to exclude COVID-19 vaccinations."

Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease and senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, said the latest news from Idaho is “more evidence of how politics and tribal mentalities have infused the control of communicable diseases.”

“Local state health departments have routinely provided immunizations in their jurisdictions; they are often places where individuals can find travel-related vaccinations, seasonal vaccinations, and routine childhood Immunizations,” he said. “Health departments are going to administer vaccines, there is no rational reason to exclude COVID-19 vaccinations.”

This week, president-elect Donald Trump picked Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, vaccines could be further under attack from a federal level as Kennedy has a history of vaccine skepticism and regularly promoting debunked claims about vaccines, including COVID ones.

We need your help to stay independent

Jetelina told Salon there are many reasons why COVID vaccines have been highly scrutinized and surrounded by misinformation since the pandemic. 

“Including vaccine mandates, disinformation campaigns, and, most importantly, frustration that people couldn’t find answers to their questions in a timely, understandable manner,” she said. Fewer Americans have been keeping up with their COVID shots. Only about 28% of Americans received updated shots last year, a decline from 69% when the first round of vaccines was released.

Jetelina said it’s important for the public to know that COVID vaccines are still recommended and needed. 

“COVID-19 vaccines are needed once a year, especially to those over 65, because this virus continues to mutate,” she said. “COVID-19 vaccines are safer than getting the disease itself and provide additional protection year after year.”

Trump DOD secretary pick Hegseth paid off sexual assault accuser: report

Former Fox News host and nominee to Donald Trump's Cabinet Pete Hegseth paid off a woman who accused him of sexual assault in 2017, per a report from the Washington Post

Hegseth was tapped by Trump earlier this week to lead the Department of Defense in the president-elect's second term. The sexual assault accusation from 2017 quickly resurfaced, with Trump transition team members admitting that it caught them by surprise. 

A memo shared with Trump's team detailed the allegations from the then 30-year-old staffer of a California Republican group. It laid out a version of events in which Hegseth raped her in a hotel room. A statement from Hegseth's attorney received by the Post maintained that the encounter between Hegseth and the unnamed woman was consensual and further alleged that the accuser was "the aggressor in initiating sexual activity.”

The Post reports that Hegseth paid the accuser as part of a non-disclosure agreement more than two years after the alleged assault. Hegseth's attorney said that the settlement was due to the host's fear that allegations “would result in his immediate termination from Fox.”

"Hegseth strongly felt that he was the victim of blackmail and innocent collateral damage in a lie that the Complainant was holding onto to keep her marriage intact,” attorney Timothy Parlatore shared with the outlet.

Parlatore took his version of events a step further in an interview with Breitbart, saying that Hegseth is "completely and totally innocent" and warning the unknown accuser against coming forward. 

"[If she tries to] pull some Christine Blasey Ford kind of crap, which I don’t think she will, then she’s going to very quickly find herself in the courtroom,” he said.

HBO’s “Dune: Prophecy” is a bold vision up to the task of matching its theatrical counterpart

What “Dune: Prophecy” offers on its face is bound to appeal to women who are sick of everything. Given the present circumstances, who wouldn’t want to escape into a universe where women could leave their inferior situation and join the Bene Gesserit, “a new family made up of women unafraid of their power”? 

Although they dress like nuns styled by Jean Paul Gaultier and hold titles like Reverend Mother, they adhere to a regimen of martial arts training and learn how to be living lie detectors. By sorting truth from deceit, holding the adage that humanity’s greatest weapon is the lie, the Sisterhood wields influence throughout the galactic Imperium by inserting their representatives at the side of every ruler. 

While that may not quite be “the dream,” a functioning stable society shadow-designed by women to sensibly govern the future sounds grand. Then we look at the fine print. 

The Sisterhood engineers bloodlines, manipulating matches between great houses to cultivate leaders the Bene Gesserit can control, thereby influencing the flow of power. Any marriage “choice” between nobles is an illusion. The person setting all this in motion is a Harkonnen, a name associated in the movie “Dune”-iverse with violent strongman rulership and all-purpose villainy.

It will be 10,000 years before the story reaches that inflection point with, I’m sure, many head-scratching twists and turns along that road that this series never has to deal with. The task before it is daunting enough, the same as every director and screenwriter had to confront when adapting Frank Herbert’s opus. Winning over audiences to these stories requires striking a balance between clarity and complexity without oversimplifying its dizzily complex politics and mythology.

Herbert wove a complicated universe with oddball technologies, bizarre competing factions and religions that are easier to digest over the methodical consumption of hundreds of pages. Denis Villeneuve conveyed the gist over the space of a couple of hours, aided by an impressive blend of sound and visual editing and cinematographic sorcery.  

“Dune: Prophecy,” a prequel based on Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson’s “Great Schools of Dune” trilogy, has about six hours to set the table and whet our appetite. Within the four shared with critics, showrunner Alison Schapker, who developed the adaptation with Diane Ademu-John, proves equal to that task. 

“Dune: Prophecy” continues HBO’s thematic streak of examining human nature from the heights of wealth and influence.

“Prophecy” sweeps us back to a long-ago time before Paul Atreides was a thought, although we quickly understand how the rivalry between his house and the one built by Valya Harkonnen began. 

The six-episode series moves between the start of Valya’s rise within the Bene Gesserit, when she’s played by Jessica Barden, and 30 years hence, when Emily Watson portrays her as a seasoned Mother Superior. 

Neither soft-sells Valya as sympathetic or even justified in her iron-fisted quest for supremacy; Barden’s version dispenses with an influential voice of opposition swiftly and cruelly soon after the mantle of leadership passes to her by the Order’s founder. The daughter of a disgraced house, Valya isn’t content to accept her family’s banishment to a life peddling whale fur and blubber.

Decades later Watson’s Valya is icy and entrenched in her seat of power with her loyal sister Tula (Olivia Williams) as her right hand. She bestows Truthsayers to select houses and denies others, including her own.

Dune: ProphecyEmily Watson and Olivia Williams in "Dune: Prophecy" (HBO)Watson's and Williams’ portrayals present the sect’s bloc as preferable to the chaos brewing in the Imperium threatening the rule of House Corrino under Emperor Javicco (Mark Strong) and Empress Natalya Arat (Jodhi May). Another unforeseen challenge emerges by way of a soldier who survives an assault on Arrakis, Desmond Hart (Travis Fimmel) whose true aims are cloaked from everyone, including the all-seeing sisters who read him.

“Dune: Prophecy” continues HBO’s thematic streak of examining human nature from the heights of wealth and influence, assuming its audience gleans joy from watching the rich cannibalize each other. 

With “Succession” gone the premium cable channel needs something to fill the yawning space between seasons of “House of the Dragon.” A facile “Prophecy” reader might joke that the channel is substituting spaceships for dragons. 

But there are similar allegorical tests at play within these episodes. Herbert’s novels came before George R.R. Martin published a letter concerning Westeros. Each franchise examines the corrosive nature of power when it’s consolidated into an insulated ruling class or, worse, one ill-suited custodian. Brian Herbert’s prequels may have only come out a few years ago, but his father planted his banner on that allegorical field first.

Since most viewers will come to “Dune: Prophecy” without having read these books, and possibly before watching Villeneuve’s movies, what matters most is the look and feel of it. The set design and especially the costumes are stunning, especially those of the Corrino clan; the home base of the Bene Gesserit is a palate of severe black and grays occasionally interrupted by white, for a change of pace.

Salusa Secundus, the Imperium’s seat, resembles a cross between a “Blade Runner” red light district and a Florentine court when the Medicis were running the show. 

Dune: ProphecyTravis Fimmel in "Dune: Prophecy" (HBO)Strong is in his element as a ruler who isn’t quite certain of how to handle the brewing insurrection among the ruling classes  — or Desmond Hart, who Fimmel plays with his usual feral unpredictability. Between his role in “Vikings,” “Raised by Wolves” and this, one gets the sense that the actor has less range than a specifically wacky type or part he commits to better than anyone else, and as long as it works, we’re not complaining.

We need your help to stay independent

His off-kilter demeanor looks especially dangerous in scenes he shares with Strong or May, whose Empress is stealthier than the strutting warrior she showcased in “The Witcher.” All of them leave more of an impression than their daughter Princess Ynez (Sarah-Sofie Boussina), in whom the Sisterhood places its trust because Valya believes they can steer her to the throne.

Winning over audiences to these stories requires striking a balance between clarity and complexity without oversimplifying its dizzily complex politics and mythology.

A certain popular dragon drama has a few lessons about such ambitions, along with explaining our recent election results. Either way, the Sisterhood’s aims are one of many colliding schemes and plans. I haven’t even gotten to the jockeying among the Bene Gesserit acolytes, four of whom are further developed after the first episode in ways that are welcome though not quite adequate to foster much of an emotional connection.

The shortcomings of "Dune: Prophecy" are akin to the obstacles typical of most Herbert adaptations — sprawl is the mind-killer, not fear. This isn't an easy story to commit to screen economically, and while the production design is lush and realistic (save for one obviously waxy cadaver mannequin), one quickly get the sense that six episodes isn't enough to give every subplot's thread and minor character their due.

Plus, coming into “Dune: Prophecy” as a stone-cold uninitiate is a challenge for which the script compensates using a combination of summary via narration and a brief, expository title card. The writers prudently refrain from dropping woo-woo terms like "prana-bindu" and other “Dune”-specific terminology and have the good fortune of operating in a timeframe long before phrases like the Kwisatz Haderach were tossed about like so much popcorn. (I mentioned a couple of descriptive phrases into Salon's workplace Slack and was met with the response, “I do not know what any of those words mean!”)


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


The benefit of being the first generation into a psychic sect is that there’s a lot they don’t or cannot know yet, which I’m guessing makes it somewhat easier on the poor scribes trying to figure out how to jam the legend of the giant worm god into naturalistic dialogue. 

Instead we have understandable stakes revolving around a struggle pitting an unpredictable prophet figure against a controlling matriarchy, coupled with a subplot concerning an Imperial ban on “thinking machines” a little more than a century after breaking free of their dominion. A.I. debates: can we ever escape them? A show investigates. Sort of. 

The thinking machine storyline lurks in the background of the episodes provided for review, which is forgivable considering everything and everyone else Schapker and her team must introduce.  And yet, we’re also sidetracked to a few nightclub scenes so we can meet a few rebels and a Fremen bartender (Shalom Brune-Franklin), and watch Princess Ynez and her brother Constantine (Josh Heuston) clandestinely get down with the hoi polloi and the help.

A little romping is welcome within a story this dark and serious, and across the board the performances sell it. Such detours are part of the production’s meticulous efforts to grab and keep our attention, rewarding us for watching closely. The gorgeousness and scope showcased in its opening hours hints that won’t be a challenge or a burden.

"Dune: Prophecy" premieres at 9 p.m. Sunday, Nov. 17 on HBO and streams on Max.

“Are morals still important?”: Tapper questions Johnson over Trump Cabinet picks

Jake Tapper thinks Republicans are trying to have it both ways. 

The CNN host laid into House Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday, asking the Louisiana Republican if the GOP can claim to have any morals if they confirm some of Donald Trump's more controversial Cabinet nominees. 

"Your colleagues…have real issues with Matt Gaetz as somebody to lead the U.S. Justice Department," he began.

Tapper focused on Gaetz, Pete Hegseth and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the segment. Gaetz has long had the stink of sexual misconduct allegations on him, though he's never been charged with any crime. Similarly, the former Fox News host Hegseth was accused of sexual assault in 2017 and reportedly paid off his accuser. RFK Jr. famously said he has “so many skeletons" in his closet and was one half of an alleged affair with former New York magazine reporter Olivia Nuzzi.

The scandals in the potential Cabinet were a bridge too far for Tapper, who grilled Johnson on the nominations during an episode of CNN's "State of the Union."

“You’re a man of faith, you’re a man of God, you’re a man of family. With some of these nominees, Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, RFK Jr., I wonder — does it matter anymore for Republicans to think of leaders as people who are moral in their personal lives?" he asked. "Is that still important to the Republican Party?” 

"They are persons who will shake up the status quo. And I think what the American people have believed and what they’ve delivered with the mandate in this election is a demand that we shake up the status quo. It’s not working for the American people," Johnson replied. "They will go into the agencies that they’re being asked to lead, and they will reform them. These agencies need reform."

Watch the entire chat below:

 

Red Lobster is making a comeback — without its famed endless shrimp deal

After receiving court approval for its restructuring plan to continue operating under a new firm, Red Lobster has announced that it’s revamping its menu and getting rid of the one deal that drove it into bankruptcy.

The popular seafood chain has been acquired by RL Investor Holdings LLC — an “entity created by funds managed by affiliates of Fortress Investment Group LLC” — alongside co-investors TCW Private Credit and Blue Torch, the company announced in a September press release. As part of the acquisition, which closed before the end of September, Damola Adamolekun, the former CEO of P.F. Chang’s, took over as the company's CEO, succeeding Jonathan Tibus.     

In an exclusive interview with Today, Adamolekun told Savannah Sellers that Red Lobster’s menu will include seven new items and re-introduce two fan-favorite dishes. “Relevant, compelling and exciting is what we want Red Lobster to be for the future, and so we’re working on that now,” Adamolekun said.

The new items include Lobster Pappardelle, Pasta Bacon Wrapped Sea Scallops, Lobster Bisque, Lemon Basil Mahi, Simply Prepared Mahi, Parmesan-Crusted Chicken and Roasted Asparagus. Red Lobster is also bringing back its hush puppies, which hasn’t been on the restaurant’s menu for several years. “There was a social media riot over us taking off the hush puppies a few years ago. So that is coming back,” Adamolekun said.

Popcorn shrimp is also slated to make its grand return. “I expect a stampede into our restaurants because we’re bringing back the hush puppies,” Adamolekun quipped.

Additionally, Red Lobster tweaked its tartar sauce recipe following complaints from several fans on TikTok. “It’s being fixed. I hear you, TikTok. … It’s going to be a better version, in my estimation, because we did try the old one and this new one, this new one’s better,” Adamolekun said. 

Lobsterfest, in which an array of special lobster dishes and sides and cocktails are served for a limited time only, will also continue to be a major showcase. “This year we want to make (Lobsterfest) bigger and better than ever. You know what we’re calling it? The GLOAT: the greatest lobster fest of all time,” Adamolekun told the outlet.

Despite the new happenings, Red Lobster is getting rid of its famed promotion: Ultimate Endless Shrimp. The limited-time deal, which has been around for 20 years, was cited as the restaurant’s source of downfall. Red Lobster’s top shareholder, Thai Union, a producer of seafood-based products, took advantage of the promotion, ultimately costing Red Lobster a whopping $11 million.


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food's newsletter, The Bite.


Adamolekun said the decision to lose the Ultimate Endless Shrimp deal was easy “because I know how to do math.” That being said, the deal isn’t gone for good and could come back in the future.

Despite the losses, Red Lobster still celebrated a few wins. Red Lobster saw a traffic increase of 2% compared to last quarter, and 4% compared to the previous year, CNN reported in November of last year.

In the wake of Red Lobster filing for bankruptcy, Public Enemy rapper Flavor Flav shared that he visited a restaurant location and ordered everything on the menu in an attempt to save the chain’s business.

“Ya boy meant it when I said I was gonna do anything and everything to help @redlobster and save the cheddar bay biscuits,,, ordered the whole menu,!!!” Flavor Flav wrote alongside a photo of himself posing in front of a spread of Red Lobster menu items like shrimp scampi, popcorn shrimp and clam chowder — just to name a few.

“Do a silly one!”: “Saturday Night Live” roasts Gaetz on “Weekend Update”

"Saturday Night Live" had plenty to say about Donald Trump's Cabinet picks this week, but they saved their most cutting material for "Weekend Update," where anchor Colin Jost unloaded on former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz

"On Wednesday, Trump nominated Matt Gaetz for attorney general. And Gaetz said the same thing he does when he sees a teenage girl: I’ll do it," Jost said. 

Gaetz resigned from the House of Representatives shortly after Trump nominated him for the Cabinet position. His resignation came as the House Ethics Committee was reportedly gearing up to release the findings of their probes into Gaetz's alleged sexual misconduct and drug use.

Gaetz went on to say that the would-be attorney general was an unholy amalgam of Dracula and Frankenstein and that he only got the job because "Trump's original pick" Jeffrey Epstein "was found dead in a jail cell."

Gaetz was far from the only Cabinet pick who earned the ire of "Weekend Update." Elon Musk — who was nominated alongside Vivek Ramaswamy to head the as-yet nonexistent Department of Government Efficiency — was targeted for posting a job without a salary.

“Elon Musk’s new Department of Government Efficiency posted a job listing saying that they are looking for people willing to work 80 plus hours a week for no money,” co-host Michael Che said. “But you can’t be surprised that the white African guy’s first idea is slavery.”

Jost went on to roast potential Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., saying his skin is cooked to a "perfect medium rare" and asking viewers to give the vaccine skeptic "a shot" over the image of a needle entering an arm.

Watch the entire sketch below:

 

“Alien vs. Predator”: Trump’s Cabinet picks, Musk get skewered on “Saturday Night Live”

After a week where Donald Trump unveiled one of the strangest Cabinets in recent memory, "Saturday Night Live" was champing at the bit.

They tore into Matt Gaetz and RFK Jr. immediately in the cold open, lampooning Trump's cast of oddballs using some of their own. 

The sketch focused on cast member James Austin Johnson's well-worn Trump and Dana Carvey's recent return as Joe Biden. The pair met in the White House, where Trump lamented the actual work of being president.

"I forgot how boring president is," Austin said. "Love running, hate being."

Carvey's Biden tried to sell Austin's Trump on the White House, which the president-elect had called "stinky and sticky" like a "Regal Cinemas." But he didn't have to push too hard, as Trump was eager to get away from his "winter White House" in Florida.

"I can't go back to Mar-a-Lago. Elon [Musk] is there, and he will not leave," Austin's Trump said.

Austin's Trump knew how to get through the next four years, though, saying he planned to surround himself with the "most dynamic, free-thinking, animal-killing, sexually criminal, medically crazy people in the country."

"We've got Elon and Matt Gaetz. That's an alien versus predator," he said. "We've got Kristi Noem and RFK Jr. They're killing the dogs! They're killing the bears!"

Some of the Cabinet picks stopped by the meeting. Cast member Sarah Sherman walked out in Gaetz makeup, complete with a high forehead and frozen, arched eyebrows. Sherman's Gaetz talked about their recent resignation.

"I had to resign from Congress because the confirmation process comes at the busiest time of year for me," they said. "Girl's volleyball season."

They capped the sketch with the return of Alec Baldwin, taking on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 

“I care deeply about a woman’s right to choose, to choose to give her child polio,” Baldwin said as Kennedy.

Watch the whole sketch below: