Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“It’s gonna be hysterical”: Fox News’ Watters can’t wait for “Dad” Trump to begin mass deportation

Jesse Watters unlocked new frontiers in conservative psychology on Friday, saying on Fox News' "The Five" that "dad" Donald Trump was going to kick off a "hysterical" program of mass deportation. 

Watters was jumping into a conversation about which of Trump's campaign promises were actually feasible. The host, who once claimed that Taylor Swift was a "girlboss psyop," said he thinks Trump would very easily be able to make good on his promise to deport millions of Americans

"That is a federal issue, and there will be massive clashes because you’re going to have cameras out there making sure that they capture the images of ICE coming along and taking these people away," Watters said. "And they deserve to be taken away. Sometimes, you have to do tough stuff, but AOC is going to be there tying herself to migrants. It’s gonna be hysterical."

Elsewhere in the segment, Watters called Trump a "dad" of the country making tough decisions. 

"It doesn't always look great," Watters said, briefly grappling with the reality of sending police to deport people en masse. "But that's what we expect."

A Fox News spokesperson told Salon that Watters did not mean that the reaction to mass deportations would be funny.

"Watters said that the left's reaction to deportations will be hysterical as in hysteria, he was not referring to humor," they shared,  

Mass deportation and an end to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment has been one of Trump's most consistent campaign promises. He has said he would instruct federal agencies to interpret the amendment long-held to grant citizenship to any person born on U.S. soil to exclude "the future children of illegal aliens." This plank of his platform has held for years as the president-elect has campaigned across the country.

 

Six big lies that won the election: How Donald Trump gaslit America

Nine days before Election Day, Donald Trump delivered his closing argument at a Madison Square Garden rally that drew comparisons to a 1939 pro-Nazi rally in the same arena and characterized by similar anti-democratic themes: demonization of immigrants and political enemies, invocation of strongman leadership, threats of violent retribution, denunciations of the press.  

Responding to criticism of this self-evident hate-fest, Trump characterized it as “a lovefest.” He wasn’t just lying. That’s too simple an explanation of how Trump behaves in general, and what he’s doing here. Lying is deceiving people about the state of the world, and Trump routinely does that too. But simply tallying up the lies gives no insight into their purpose. Bulls***ting is deceiving people about one’s motives — using true or false claims indiscriminately — and is a more accurate description of his routine behavior. But calling that rally calls a “lovefest,” is doing something more: That's gaslighting, an effort to undermine people’s entire sense of reality and impose an invented reality in its place

Trump was saying, in effect: The hate you saw was really love, and if you can’t see that, you’re the hateful one. It’s the kind of upside-down logic commonly found in abusive relationships, whenever the abuser is challenged. They may lie all the time, but when the chips are down, they gaslight. 

Trump’s reliance on gaslighting was flagged repeatedly in his 2016 campaign. That May, Emily Crockett wrote at Vox about Trump’s gaslighting in response to Megyn Kelly’s questions about misogyny during the first Fox News primary debate. In May, Andrea Grimes wrote at the Texas Observer about the Trump campaign’s gaslighting in defense of Melania Trump’s plagiarism of Michelle Obama in her convention speech. And in September, Brian Beutler wrote at the New Republic about Trump's attempt to disavow his role in pushing birtherism, and shift the blame to Hillary Clinton or her aides.

I cited all of those examples in a story here that October, highlighting a brilliant Twitter dissection (archived here) by Leah McElrath of Trump’s pseudo-apology for the "Access Hollywood" tape. "Trump's statement is an eerie replica of psychological manipulations made by abusers after episodes of abuse," she began, breaking it down in a series of 15 numbered tweets, starting thus: 

  1. "I'm not perfect" = Your expectations I behave like a human being are unreasonable
  2. "I've never pretended to be someone I'm not" = You fell in love with me so it's your fault
  3. "This more than decade old video" = It was a long time ago, why the fuss? You're so unreasonable.
  4. "These words do not reflect who I am" = The reality you just experienced didn't actually happen.
  5. "I said it … I apologize" = Get over it already — I said I'm sorry, you're being hysterical.

Four dynamics are highlighted here: self-excuses, blame-shifting, gaslighting and normalizing aberrant behavior. But “gaslighting” also describes the cumulative effect and the purpose of the whole interaction. That's what gaslighting looks and feels like on an intimate level, while for Donald Trump it takes on a much more public character.

There's another level where Trump operates as well: He's a conman, and conmen are all about gaslighting. His whole career has been based on conning people, and his entry into politics was no different. He used birtherism to puff himself up as a potential presidential candidate in 2012, but never bothered with the details of birther conspiracy theories and never abandoned the “just asking questions” pose that allowed him to fool two different audiences simultaneously. On one hand, he played to a red-meat base increasingly disillusioned with Republican leadership in the Obama era. On the other, he posed as an open-minded truth-seeker. 

Like the conman in the original film “Gaslight,” Trump spun elaborate fictions, claiming that Obama had come out of nowhere, demanding to see his college transcripts and inventing a team of investigators sent to Hawaii (who did not exist). That got the anti-Obama base fired up, while presenting a pseudo-serious facade to the broader public. This is how he gaslights routinely in politics, rarely engaging directly with the right-wing mythologies he taps into, but freely improvising his own fantasy extensions.  

In this election, Trump relied on five key themes of gaslighting in various different ways, all of them adding up to an overarching sixth theme: Democrats are the real threat to American democracy, and Donald Trump is its savior. 

In this election, Trump relied on five key themes of gaslighting, all of them adding up to an overarching sixth theme: Democrats are the real threat to American democracy, and Donald Trump is its savior. 

Trump did not originate any of these, and they've always involved elements of gaslighting. But Trump took them to a different level. As with birtherism his casual indifference to policy details, along with his made-up fantasy narratives, makes the gaslighting involved far more central. When he tells stories about windmills killing birds as a way of evading the climate crisis, he creates a shared space of bonding with his followers where any criticism only bonds them further, obliterating any contact with the reality of the harm being done. When the media just accepts this as normal political discourse, or observes that Democrats sometimes make false claims too, they do an enormous amount of work in enabling Trump's gaslighting, and leading us to what happened this past week. 

The climate crisis

This is the overwhelming challenge facing humanity, and Trump’s gaslighting — dismissing it as “a hoax” — has been astonishingly effective in keeping it off the political stage. For all our scientific and technological capacity, we simply have no way to comprehend how the climate crisis will damage human civilization over the long term. More immediately, tens of millions of people are already climate refugees, and hundreds of millions more surely will be.

Climate is arguably the main reason that Central Americans have replaced Mexicans as the largest population seeking entry to the U.S. since Trump first took office, so gaslighting on climate change was essential to making his “immigrant crime” narrative work. Hurricane Helene presented the perfect opportunity for bringing the climate crisis into the campaign. The damage done was almost 1% of U.S. national GDP, far exceeding annual government spending to combat climate change. It was the moment for a supremely important public policy discussion, but Trump’s gaslighting helped keep it entirely off the agenda. 

There are thousands of pages of documents making clear that the fossil fuel industry has known about the dangers of climate change for decades, and lied about them. But Trump of course claims the exact opposite: the scientists, or perhaps the Chinese, are pulling off “a hoax.” It’s classic gaslighting. 

The Great Replacement

This so-called theory has several variants, some explicitly antisemitic and others less so. All are effectively fantasies built on white supremacy. I wrote about this here at length in 2019. "The great replacement is very simple," French conspiracy theorist Renaud Camus, who coined the term, has said. "You have one people, and in the space of a generation you have a different people." This formulation equates immigration with genocide, which logically invites genocidal violence in response, and has been cited in mass murders across the globe. This replacement is allegedly enabled by weak or malicious cosmopolitan elites,  often identified as Jewish. 

As I wrote then, this conspiratorial worldview provides a new framework for the right:

If "invading hordes of immigrants" are the enemy, and falling white birthrates are key to the problem, then the right's misogynist agenda and its xenophobic agenda are much more tightly linked than ever before. 

Connections with Christian nationalism — an Old Testament-based worldview fusing Christian and American identities — are similarly strengthened. [It] "draws its roots from 'Old Testament' parallels between America and Israel, who was commanded to maintain cultural and blood purity, often through war, conquest, and separatism." 

In short, all the major electoral facets of American conservatism are more tightly unified …  in the days of William F. Buckley or Ronald Reagan. What's more, the practical need to suppress voters of color becomes a central ingredient. 

Trump mostly ignored the intricate conspiracy-tracing in favor of sweeping claims about hordes of criminals and mental patients being shipped to the U.S., and delusional narratives about "the late, great Hannibal Lecter."

In his tenure at Fox News, Tucker Carlson was a prime disseminator of Great Replacement narratives, particularly those connecting it the next key element of 2024 gaslighting: the voter fraud myth. As with birtherism, Carlson and those he relied on did the intricate conspiracy-tracing spadework, which Trump mostly ignored in favor of his sweeping claims about hordes of criminals and mental patients being shipped to the U.S. and his delusional narratives about "the late, great Hannibal Lecter" or Haitian immigrants eating pets  

Of course reality is radically different: Immigrants have much lower crime rates than native-born Americans, and are a net boon to the economy. It’s pure paranoid fantasy that blocks out the complex reality of a world in which the climate crisis will inevitably increase migration pressures. But it’s a simple story for a conman to tell, and the media’s willingness to normalize it radically shifted political discourse in Trump’s favor.

The voter fraud myth

This has been around at least since the 1960s, when former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist was involved in “Operation Eagle Eye,” a Republican voter suppression operation in Arizona. Decades of election data shows that individual voter fraud is extremely rare and organized voter fraud, beyond a single Republican example in North Carolina, is simply nonexistent. But through endless repetition, Carlson and others have made it a right-wing article of faith that Democrats are encouraging undocumented immigration and registering the undocumented to vote in significant numbers. This serves as the background rationale for a wide range of voter-suppression efforts and extra-legal intimidation tactics. For Trump, this mythical fraud serves to vindicate his self-image as a defender of American democracy, who’s sometimes forced to ask election officials to find him several thousand votes. Again, he doesn’t concern himself with the elaborate details of this or that discredited election-fraud conspiracy theory. He's just trying to sell the big con and gaslight the public into viewing him as the great defender of democracy. 

Roe v. Wade and abortion

Trump's gaslighting on this issue has been particularly brazen. He was elected in 2016 thanks to support from anti-abortion evangelicals, based on his pledge to appoint anti-choice Supreme Court justices from a pre-approved list. That support proved particularly vital in surviving the "Access Hollywood" tape. The anti-abortion movement has built itself on decades of organized deception, but Trump’s added twist is to take credit and reject blame at the same time. He tells anti-choice supporters, “I got rid of Roe,” while telling everyone else, “It’s back in the states, where it belongs.”

His claim that “everyone” wanted this all along is, by itself, spectacular gaslighting, as is his claim that women have nothing to worry about. “I will be your protector,” he says, one of the creepiest gaslighting lines that women in abusive relationships often hear. “You will not be thinking about abortion” may have even more sinister undertones. This example of gaslighting was particularly effective, in that state initiatives to protect abortion rights passed almost everywhere, with large numbers of Trump voters voting for them.

The great Trump economy

This outrageous fiction builds on decades of GOP puffery and media complicity. Republicans have long been trusted more on the economy, despite generations of evidence that the economy does better under Democrats. Job growth offers a particularly striking example: Nearly all of it since 1989 has occurred with Democrats in office. But Trump takes this gaslighting to new levels, and the media’s abysmal treatment of Joe Biden’s remarkable record offered him a big assist.

In the closing days of this year's campaign 23 Nobel economists issued a letter calling Kamala Harris’ agenda “vastly superior to the counterproductive economic agenda of Donald Trump.” But that assessment (echoing an earlier letter when Biden was the candidate) caused barely a ripple, compared to the widespread media echoing of Trump’s ludicrous claims that Democratic governance would bring on economic disaster.

Trump’s an old hand at gaslighting where money is concerned. The Trump University fraud was a classic example, as are his seemingly endless string of business failures: a startup pro football league, an airline, his Atlantic City casinos. But he's highly skilled at was exploiting weaknesses in the press, creating his own reality and getting just enough people to project it to the public at large. That reached a peak with "The Apprentice," the reality show whose producers built a set of fake Trump offices, because the real ones were far too shabby.


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


Coming into office in 2017, Trump inherited the longest economic recovery in U.S. history. “Yeah, it was pretty good because it was my economy!” as Barack Obama recently quipped. Trump left office as the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs rather than gain them. Despite his repeated claims about having the “best economy” ever, economic growth was sluggish even before COVID hit. What Trump did was to brag constantly, and the media ate it up, producing the illusion of much better performance than actually occurred. 

Biden, like Obama and Bill Clinton before him, was faced with the challenge of rescuing an economy that his Republican predecessor had left in shambles. Given the constraints, he was wildly successful. Under Biden, U.S. GDP has grown twice as fast as Canada's, the next nearest G7 nation. Inflation was a problem — a worldwide problem, overwhelmingly caused by supply-chain issues.

For Trump, the myth of voter fraud vindicates his self-image as a defender of American democracy, who is sometimes forced to ask election officials to find him several thousand votes.

Here again the media collaborated, consistently painted a gloomy picture for Biden. University of Wisconsin political scientist Mark Copelovitch, who tracks media coverage alongside real-world economic trends, reports more than 10,000 media mentions of "inflation" since Biden took office, compared to 1,226 of "recovery." Even though inflation is now down to normal levels, there have still been 1,017 mentions of it since Aug. 1, compared to just 16 for "recovery."

“Even in 2024, continuing into the general election season, media coverage of the U.S. economy has overwhelmingly and disproportionately focused on covering inflation and the (nonexistent) recession,” Copelovitch told me, “while barely mentioning the fact that unemployment remains incredibly low or the fact that we've experienced an unprecedentedly rapid and complete economic recovery from the pandemic during Joe Biden's presidency." 

Is it any wonder that even after Harris made early gains as the Democratic nominee, Trump still retained an advantage on the economy? In this case, he benefited from decades of skewed pro-Republican economic reporting. But the press largely echoed his other gaslighting claims as well. With the media’s assistance, Trump’s bottom-line gaslighting claim — that Democrats are the real threat to American democracy, and he's its savior — seemed far too credible to far too many voters. 

There are certainly many other factors to consider in unpacking what happened in the 2024 election, including that it was just one element in a global trend of incumbent losses. But gaslighting is a central factor in the operation of fascism, and the failure of media in liberal democracies even to recognize its existence, much less to fight it, puts the very survival of liberal democracy at risk.  

Earth on track for hottest year in recorded history, passing critical 1.5º warming threshold

The Copernicus Climate Change Service, a European Union organization that monitors global heating, announced on Thursday that the year 2024 will be 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial levels. That means humanity has passed a critical threshold established in 2015 in the Paris climate accord.

“After 10 months of 2024 it is now virtually certain that 2024 will be the warmest year on record and the first year of more than 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels according to the ERA5 dataset," Samantha Burgess, deputy director of the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), said in a statement. "This marks a new milestone in global temperature records and should serve as a catalyst to raise ambition for the upcoming Climate Change Conference, COP29.”

"This latest record sends another stark warning to governments at COP29 of the urgent need for action to limit any further warming," said Liz Bentley, chief executive of the Royal Meteorological Society, to the BBC.

The EU agency announced this moment as nations all over the world gather in the Azerbaijani city of Baku for the 29th Conference of the Parties. The ERA5 dataset found that global temperatures in 2024 were on average 1.55 degrees Celsius higher than the 1.48 degrees threshold measured in 2023. The report also noted climate change-fueled major weather events in 2024 such as torrential floods in Spain and rapidly melting Antarctic sea ice.

Speaking to Salon in August, Dr. Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology, warned that passing the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold would be a devastating benchmark.

"A year above 1.5 degrees Celsius is unprecedented in human history," Caldeira said. "Nevertheless, it is important to remember that each carbon dioxide emission causes another increment of global warming and so each emission avoided is an increment of global warming avoided."

With the recent reelection of Donald Trump, the United States is expected to renege on its recent commitments to protect the planet, as climate change experts express alarm over his denial of climate science and his history of eroding environmental protections. At the same time, the United States is not the primary culprit behind greenhouse gas emissions.

"There has been considerable progress in cutting carbon emissions in several countries, such as the United States, but those cuts are lost in the increases by the two most populous countries: China and India," Dr. Kevin Trenberth — a distinguished scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, worked for the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and has published more than 600 articles on climatology — told Salon in July. "Population matters. While developing countries continue to improve their standards of living, especially by bringing electricity to all, this should be done using renewable energy rather than burning coal, oil and gas. Because of the downstream effects on climate change, the real costs of using fossil fuels have not been properly appreciated. Indeed, there is a great need to decarbonize the economy of all nations and put an appropriate price on carbon emissions."

“Probably a winnable election”: Experts on how Dems blew it with Black, Latino and women voters

Exit polls taken on Election Day revealed notable voter shifts and opinions that, together, sealed President-elect Donald Trump's electoral victory. Survey data indicates that the Democratic Party lost small yet key margins of support from typical members of its coalition and Republicans successfully picked some of them up all while maintaining its base.

As Americans work to make sense of the 2024 election outcome, pollsters and political scholars told Salon the data shows American voters yearned for a change from the largely unpopular status quo under President Joe Biden — and they saw it in Trump. 

"The vast majority of Republicans voted for Trump, and the vast majority of Democrats voted for Harris, and voter turnout was relatively high," Bernard L. Fraga, a political science professor at Emory University in Georgia, said in a phone interview. "So in many ways Americans are expressing that they're dissatisfied on the economy and punished the incumbent party, and that party was Democrat."

The change experts most noted this election cycle was the shift in Latino voters' support for Trump relative to that in 2020. Most polls show Latino voters still largely voted for Harris this election. Exit surveys from NBC News and CBS News found that Trump received 46% of the group's votes, which is up from the 32% he saw in 2020 when running against Democrat Joe Biden.

The Associated Press Votecast, which uses a hybrid approach aimed at accounting for national increases in mail-in voting, noted a similar change, with 42% of Latino voters reporting they chose Trump compared to just 35% who said they did so in 2020. 

J. Miles Coleman, the associate editor of Sabatao's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, noted that Americans' dissatisfaction with the Biden administration could be seen in the 28% of voters in the CBS exit poll who said they needed change and the 32% of voters who said the economy mattered most in deciding their vote overwhelmingly choosing Trump. The dissatisfaction that likely drove Americans overall toward the president-elect may have been more pronounced in Latino communities, a historically strong Democratic group, this election cycle, he argued.

"They tend to have larger families, they tend to be more working class, so they are probably — compared to some other groups, like whites — more likely to be pinched by higher inflation," Coleman told Salon in a phone interview.

"Some of the first states we were watching on election night, when it came to actual returns, was Texas and Florida and, man, you could really see" the shift, Coleman added. "That's a group, especially working-class Hispanics, that the Democrats are really going to have to try to connect back with."

We need your help to stay independent

Breaking down the demographic's votes by gender indicates Trump made most of his inroads with Latino men, 55% of whom voted for him this cycle, compared to the about 6 in 10 who went for Biden in 2020. 

A similar dynamic bore out among Black male voters during the 2024 election, though far less pronounced in how it shaped the electoral outcome, Fraga and Coleman suggested. 

As one of the Democratic Party's strongest coalitions, Black voters routinely show up for the Democratic presidential candidate at levels around 85-87%. That support was even higher for former President Barack Obama, who received around 95% of the Black vote during both of his presidential bids, and Biden, who also drew more than 90% of the Black vote in 2020. Experts told Salon earlier this year that around 10% of Black voters have historically voted for Republican candidates each election and more than 15% of the demographic voting for Trump this year was unlikely.  

That remained the case for Harris' bid, though the demographic backed her less than Biden. Eighty-five percent of Black voters overall chose her compared to 13% who voted for Trump, per NBC News and CBS News exit polls. But Trump made headway among Black male voters that proved detrimental to the vice president's bid, argued Alvin Tillery, a Democratic pollster and founder of the Black Equality Alliance super PAC.

"This was probably a winnable election for the Democrats, but they allowed a segment of their base to slip away," Tillery told Salon in a phone interview, adding: "My biggest takeaway is that if they had started earlier with targeted messaging to Black men, spending more on digital ads to basically draw a contrast with Trump, she probably would have been in a better position."

To win in the Black community, Harris would have had to lock down around 84% of Black male voters, he said, citing his PAC's polling. Survey data indicates Harris only received 77% of their vote to Trump's 21%. That divide was more pronounced in the AP Votecast, which found 74% of Black men had supported Harris to Trump's 24%.


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


Tillery attributed this shift to the generational differences between young Black voters and older Black voters, who were more influenced by the presence of the Black church, Civil Rights leaders and Black elected officials to turn out at the polls in favor of the Democratic Party. The Democrats' failure to appeal to the younger cohort in their messaging ultimately cost Harris among Black voters, Tillery said.

"What's really happening with the Black community here in this election is that there was a lot of generational replacement," he said. "Older baby boomer voters are aging out of the population, and they're being replaced by younger, millennial and Gen Z voters who are not as attached to the Democratic Party. So nobody really knew that they had to make the case to these folks through aggressive targeting."

Fraga noted that Harris could very easily have offset the marginal gains Trump made with Latino voters with small pick-ups in support among white women in states like Georgia. Harris, however, only fared about just as well with white female voters as Biden did in 2020, according to a CNN exit poll

Though Harris won women overall 53% to Trump's 45%, according to the NBC News and CBS News exit polls, those numbers were reversed among white women, who voted for Trump 53% to 45%. 

The Harris campaign had hoped that hammering in on the Democratic Party's intent to preserve abortion access and protect abortion rights would lead to gains among women. Democrats had also hoped the same would happen if they emphasized Trump's successful effort to get Roe v. Wade overturned, findings of liability for sexual abuse in civil court and criminal indictments. Fraga said the exit poll data shows, if anything, that those predictions with respect to white women were unfounded. 

Outside of the economy, abortion and the state of democracy — another issue that Democrats drilled into their messaging — were deciding concerns for voters in the CBS News and NBC News exit polls. Thirty-four percent of surveyed voters said the state of democracy mattered most in who they voted for president, while 14% said abortion mattered most. Both contingents overwhelmingly chose Harris, which Coleman found notable given Harris' loss. 

"Harris lost when more voters collectively were thinking about abortion rights and democracy, compared to some of the issues Trump tended to do a bit better on," Coleman said, adding: "There were probably a critical mass of pro-choice voters who went with Trump."

Along with winning back the White House, the GOP regained control over the Senate. The House, though still up for grabs as of Friday afternoon, is likely to remain in their control.

Democrats' crushing loss, Coleman said, was characterized by stagnations — and at times even reversals — of the gains acquired during Biden's run like Trump's pick-ups this election cycle among voters without college degrees and younger voters, particularly young men. 

"We should take away that many Americans were willing to look beyond the various legal issues that Trump faced, were willing to look beyond some of the rhetoric that he used — along with, of course, a majority of his supporters who embraced the rhetoric that he used — and said they wanted change and that Trump represented that change," Fraga said. 

In the end, Fraga and Coleman said, Harris receiving the amount of support from American voters that she did was a feat in and of itself given how unpopular Biden has been. Biden's approval rating dropping below 40% in the final months of his presidency meant Harris faced an uphill battle attempting to recoup the Democratic backing her former running mate had hemorrhaged. Her failure to clearly distinguish herself from the president's policies and establish herself as a harbinger of change, all but set up Trump's likely sweep of the national popular vote. 

The popular vote win "once again another indication that the idea that Trump can only win through voter suppression or some kind of institutional failure is unfounded," Fraga said. "He won the support of a very large share of the American population, and that's the reality."

Will state laws protect abortion under a Trump presidency? Probably not

This week, the United States elected Donald Trump to be the country’s 47th president. Despite Trump previously bragging about appointing some of the Supreme Court judges that overturned Roe v. Wade via the Dobbs decision, which led many states nationwide to restrict abortion access, many people who voted for him also voted to expand access to abortion in their respective states. It might be a bit confusing when taking a closer look at this peculiar detail, as Harris made expanding access to abortion a key part of her platform. Trump did not.

“Most of his base believes that Trump will not pass more restrictions on abortion,” Gretchen Borchelt, vice president for reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund, said in a press conference. “That is what they voted for.”

Trump has indeed said he doesn’t support a nationwide abortion ban. At the same time, during the presidential debate with Harris, he declined to say “yes” or “no” when asked whether he'd veto such a ban. Later, on his social media platform, he said that he would veto a federal abortion ban if legislation reached his desk. But Project 2025, which was developed to replace the traditional policy arm for Trump's presidential campaign by the Heritage Foundation, says otherwise. 

“There's still every reason to believe that Trump and those he surrounds himself with will attempt to restrict access to abortion and other reproductive health care,” Borchelt said. “It is all laid out in Project 2025, but people are going to be watching.”

Everyone who voted to expand access to abortion via state ballot initiatives and for Trump "nullified their vote on the abortion amendments."

Exploring the reasoning why some Trump voters voted to expand access to abortion will be further dissected in the weeks to come, but another question remains: Will the states that just voted to protect access to abortion have protection in a Trump presidency? Or are these enshrined amendments in state constitutions a sense of false security? 

“This one's pretty easy: federal law — all federal law — trumps all state law,” David S. Cohen, a professor of law at Drexel Kline's School of Law, told Salon.

In the wake of the presidential election news, the Guttmacher Institute outlined 10 ways the Trump presidency could restrict access to reproductive rights. When it comes to blocking abortion access, it likely wouldn’t happen through an explicit nationwide abortion ban. Instead, the Trump-Vance administration could leverage the Comstock Act, an 1873 anti-vice law that bans obscene articles being used for abortion from being mailed. As explained by KFF, a literal interpretation of this could mean that material to produce all abortions would be prohibited from being mailed, which could affect other medical care, like miscarriage management, and stop medication abortion from being mailed.

“State constitutions provide no protection whatsoever against Comstock Act, against the Trump national abortion ban, against fetal personhood within the 14th Amendment," Cohen explained. "Which is why there were many of us who were trying to get the word out before the election, that if you really do care about reproductive freedom and vote accordingly in state ballot initiatives, there's only one candidate to vote for.” 

Cohen said everyone who voted to expand access to abortion via state ballot initiatives and for Trump “nullified their vote on the abortion amendments.” 


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


The U.S. Supreme Court has already signaled that it has eyes on such an interpretation of the Comstock Act. During arguments in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a case that would have restricted nationwide access to mifepristone, conservative Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas both brought up the Comstock Act. In questioning, Thomas said to a lawyer for Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of mifepristone, that the Comstock Act is "fairly broad, and it specifically covers drugs such as yours." 

“History has already shown that the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States will have devastating consequences for sexual and reproductive health and rights—and far beyond,” said Destiny Lopez, acting co-CEO of Guttmacher Institute, said in a statement. “Should his administration attempt to impose the dangerous Project 2025 agenda, it will unleash an all-out assault on rights and freedoms, using every lever of government — from attacks on abortion and contraception in the United States to reimposing the global gag rule and gutting U.S. international family planning aid.”

In the Republican Party’s “Make America Great Again” policy platform released last summer, it stated that the 14th Amendment “guarantees that no person can be denied life or liberty without due process and that the states are, therefore, free to pass laws protecting those rights.” As Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, previously told Salon, this statement signals “that embryos and fetuses are persons under the 14th Amendment, which is simply not true.”

We need your help to stay independent

“If that were the case, if embryos and fetuses had constitutional rights under the due process clause, states would be required to ban abortion,” she told Salon. This would mean states that have already enshrined abortion rights into their state constitutions would still have to pass abortion bans. 

Seema Mohapatra, a law professor at the SMU Dedman School of Law, told Salon, that when state law and federal law are in conflict, to expect this to play out in litigation in the courts, arguing it might not be such a clear-cut answer on how much protection state amendments can provide. 

“There’s going to be a conflict between federal and state law,” Mohapatra said. “We're going to have to wait and see how the court interprets it.”

But Cohen pointed to lessons from the Civil Rights Era, when "all these segregated states pointed to their state law and state Constitution to justify continuing to segregate,” Cohen said. “But ultimately the federal law and federal Constitution prevail, because that's how it works.”

Tech billionaires’ fashion is “a subtle demonstration of status”

Remember the version of Mark Zuckerberg whose wardrobe mostly consisted of gray T-shirts? That young Zuck feels leagues away from today’s Mark Zuckerberg, who’s now designing his own streetwear-inspired T-shirts, emblazoned with Latin phrases, which he’ll occasionally accessorize with a gold chain. 

Zuckerberg isn’t the only billionaire tech founder whose personal style has evolved in recent years, having shed the traditional minimalism and subdued hues we’ve come to expect from business leaders for a flashier wardrobe befitting an A-list artist or entertainer. Jeff Bezos, once a man of clean-cut navy suits and traditional business wear, now dons tight white pants, maximalist print button-ups and shiny leather bombers

And it wouldn’t be a conversation about tech billionaires without mentioning Elon Musk, whose wardrobe of button-ups and suits has evolved into something more streetwear-inspired. These days, Musk seems more at-home in black skinny jeans, custom sneakers and monochrome MAGA hats (so far seen in canary yellow-gold and black).  

These tech titans’ wardrobes are far from what we’ve come to expect from our richest business executives (can you imagine Bill Gates or Warren Buffett in a silk butterfly-print shirt?). In their own unique ways, Musk, Zuckerberg and Bezos are rejecting the pseudo-modesty of “stealth wealth” or “quiet luxury” — perfectly tailored shirts, designer sweaters, baseball caps the average passerby would never guess cost $700 — introduced to the non-billionaire class in HBO shows like “Succession” and “Industry.” 

In those shows, multimillionaires and billionaires adopt this style of “quiet luxury,” defined by Vogue as “a look that will stand the test of time, as it’s essentially a synonym for elevated basics,” in order to subtly express their status among others in their peer group, but otherwise retain the freedom to blend in among the masses. 

But according to Carolyn Mair, a behavioral psychologist who created the University of Arts London’s Psychology of Fashion department, the tech billionaires are “choosing not to adhere to the sartorial codes of old-money elites, who tend to favor refined, understated luxury.” Instead, the aesthetics of folks like Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg, and their rejection of traditional expectations, “highlights that they don’t need to conform to social rules, because they operate at a level where the rules don’t apply to them,” Mair told Salon in an email. “This is a subtle, psychological demonstration of status.”

We need your help to stay independent

Fashion psychologists like Mair study the behavioral science of fashion and all that goes into it: how we dress ourselves, how individuals use clothing to communicate and how things like cultural attitudes and social norms impact fashion. Dion Terrelonge, a fashion psychologist based in London, spoke about the “interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships” we have with our clothing. Sometimes, we wear clothes to communicate to onlookers; other times, we choose clothing that communicates something to ourselves.

All three billionaires, but Musk and Zuckerberg in particular, appear to be using style interpersonally, as a signal to onlookers that they’ve got more in common with traditional celebrities and public figures than those in tech, Terrelonge told Salon. “With them being these big, household names, they are probably looking more towards celebrities these days, and their style is communicating more celebrity,” she said.

“When you were in school, and you wanted to look confident, who did you look to? You looked to the popular kids,” Terrelonge said. “The popular kids these days are musicians, they’re athletes, they're performers. And what is that uniform they wear? It's the gold chains, it's the very conspicuous fashion.”

That might explain why these tech titans can look slightly out of place in gold chains and oversized jackets, Mair said. “Seeing artists, musicians and entertainers wearing these styles feels natural and authentic, as these professions are perceived as connected to the cultural and social contexts where these styles were born,” Mair said. “When business leaders wear streetwear, it can feel less like a natural expression of identity.”

“They appear awkward, even though they're trying to show that they’re dressing just like you,” Dawnn Karen, a fashion psychologist and the author of “Dress Your Best Life,” told Salon. 

In her research, Karen coined the phrase “fashion identity assimilation” to describe the ways individuals use style to gain acceptance by specific cultural or social groups. As individuals, we engage in this sort of assimilation all the time: We dress a certain way at work to communicate our professionalism to our bosses; we dress another way at parties to communicate that we’re up-to-date on the latest style trends. Most people, save for the most powerful and wealthy individuals, have to engage in this assimilation in some capacity. 

But billionaires, Karen noted, don’t have to engage in this stylistic assimilation. Their power doesn’t wax and wane depending on their clothing. 

"When the billionaires do it, you have to question it"

“When the billionaires do it, you have to question it,” Karen said. “They have all the authority and the power in the world. They can pull a lever and everything moves. So, you gotta kind of question why they’re doing that.” 

Their wardrobes began to change around the time their interests evolved beyond the tech that made their fortunes. In 2018, The New York Times dubbed Bezos a “style icon” for his evolving tastes; this was a few years after Bezos bought The Washington Post and after his rocket ship company, Blue Origin, began conducting test launches. For Zuckerberg, Business Insider pegs his shift away from gray tees and toward jeans and luxe sweaters as happening around in 2018, a few years after he’d bought Instagram and WhatsApp

In 2021, Zuckerberg’s rebranding of Facebook to Meta signaled a shift in his aspirations beyond social media and toward artificial intelligence and virtual reality. A few years have passed since then, and Zuckerberg’s style has undergone further evolution; those sweaters and jeans are now Japanese silhouette T-shirts and gold chains. At a backyard disco party he threw recently, Zuckerberg wore a sequin floral bomber jacket over a drapey shirt unbuttoned to the mid-stomach. 

And we all remember where we were when Musk bought X, then known as Twitter, for $44 billion in 2022, expanding his corporate portfolio beyond Tesla and SpaceX. His style evolution began sooner, as seen in this photo of Musk and Ye (formerly known as Kanye West) in matching sneakers in 2020. One could argue that his evolution officially began in 2018, when he and Grimes made their debut as a couple on the Met Gala red carpet.

As Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg’s individual personas continue to transcend their tech roots, they are using clothing to communicate a different kind of power: one that isn’t tied to a single company’s stock price, or even their standing in a particular industry. 

In September, at an event for Meta developers, Zuckerberg wore a T-shirt bearing one of his designs: the Latin phrase, “Aut Zuck aut nihil" in a blown-out serif font — a riff on the Latin phrase "aut Caesar aut nihil," which roughly translates to "a Caesar or nothing." 

“They're communicating that they’re so much more than that. They're standing apart from their contemporaries, from their peers, and they're almost in this new peer group,” Terrelonge said. 

 

“It’s hard to lose”: Walz talks moving on after loss in Minnesota

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz returned to his home state to offer a sobering message about his election loss.

In his first public remarks since he was spotted teary-eyed at Vice President Kamala Harrisconcession speech, Walz acknowledged the pain he and other Democrats are feeling.

“It’s hard to lose,” Walz said on Friday. “It’s hard to understand how so many of our fellow citizens, people Democrats have long fought to help, wound up choosing the path they did. And it’s hard to reckon with what that path looks like over the next four years.”

Shocked though he was, Walz championed the importance of looking across the aisle and seeing our neighbors not as enemies but as friends.

“Maybe when the campaign signs come down, we all get a little break from the rhetoric and the TV ads, and the fundraising texts – I’m sorry about those,” Walz joked, “we will sit down over coffee or a Diet Mountain Dew and just talk.”

The former candidate granted that the days ahead would be tough but emphasized hope was not lost.

“If you are feeling deflated or discouraged today, I get it. Take some time. Take care of yourselves, take care of your loved ones, take care of your community,” Walz said. “Get back in this fight when you are ready. And know that whenever you are ready to get back in that fight, I will be standing right here, ready to fight with you.”

Walz made it clear that he was serious about fighting, too, promising the North Star State would remain a “shelter from the storm” as long as he is the state’s governor. 

“As long as I’m governor of Minnesota, we’ll be a state that respects democracy, a place where we’re proud of our civic debate and where we don’t demonize people who disagree with us,” Walz said.

“What use was the rule?”: Vance quotes fictional serial killer to explain Trump’s victory

JD Vance invoked a fictional serial killer’s words to explain why Donald Trump’s critics shouldn’t be surprised he won the presidency.

Vance shared in a post to X that the best people he knows “constantly reevaluate assumptions,” adding that liberals and detractors shocked by Trump’s win “should question what else [they] 'know' about him.”

The comments were some of Vance's first since he completed his journey from a staunch Trump critic to his right-hand man and vice president-elect.

Ultimately, Vance left followers with a message from Anton Chigurh, a hitman in Cormac McCarthy’s bloody borderlands noir “No Country for Old Men.” 

“In the words of Cormac McCarthy, ‘If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?’” Vance wrote.

Vance attributed the words of wisdom to McCarthy himself, not the fate-obsessed contract killer he created in the 2005 novel, adapted by the Coen Brothers into a 2007 Best Picture winner.

The cash-hungry hitman's quote may seem an odd choice for someone soon to take the second-highest office in the land, especially one that essentially reads as a critique of any system of morality. Perhaps the fictional killer quote-drop is Vance’s attempt to align himself with President-elect Trump, who spent his summer raving about the “late, great Hannibal Lecter.” 

Pelosi says Biden should’ve quit race sooner, allowed an open primary to challenge Trump

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks Joe Biden could have stopped Vice President Kamala Harris’ electoral loss had he dropped out of the race even earlier.

The 84-year-old winner of a 20th House term on Tuesday was reportedly a central figure in Biden’s ouster from the top of the ticket, pressuring him in private meetings before he ultimately called it quits in July. Had Pelosi gotten her way, Harris would have had to duke it out with Democrats in an open primary.

“Had the president gotten out sooner, there may have been other candidates in the race,” Pelosi shared with the New York Times. “The anticipation was that, if the president were to step aside, that there would be an open primary.”

Biden billed himself as a “bridge” candidate who would serve just one term in 2020. Still, he ran for re-election with his path cleared, as is typical of incumbents. When he dropped out, the president endorsed Harris in part to avoid a costly and potentially messy primary.

Harris, to her credit, took the ball and ran with it.  Her presidential campaign pulled in over $1 billion in contributions despite getting out of the gate just three months and change before Election Day.

The way Pelosi sees it, that time-consuming primary would have been worth the hassle, as the process could have diminished the perception that Harris was an extension of the Biden administration.

“As I say, Kamala may have, I think she would have done well in that and been stronger going forward. But we don’t know that. That didn’t happen. We live with what happened,” Pelosi said. “And because the president endorsed Kamala Harris immediately, that really made it almost impossible to have a primary at that time. If it had been much earlier, it would have been different.”

“I was wrong”: Stewart was “prepared for all the scenarios” except Trump victory

Jon Stewart wasn’t prepared for Donald Trump’s decisive electoral victory on Tuesday.

During the latest episode of his “The Weekly Show” podcast, Stewart joked that the country had entered “season two of ‘America Presents: The S**tshow,’” but acknowledged Trump’s resurgence felt different.

“[2016] was a gut punch, in a way, because it felt like such a fait accompli that the Democrats were gonna win,” he said. “It felt like an anomaly. This feels different because it is a democratic victory.”

In the election post-mortem with historian Heather Cox Richardson, Stewart revealed that Trump winning the popular vote was not a possibility he had considered before Tuesday night.

“I feel like we were prepared for all the scenarios, and in each one of those scenarios, it was: ‘How is Donald Trump going to finagle his way back into [the White House]?'" Stewart said. "‘What measure of intimidation and underhanded [shenanigans] will this man use to worm his way back?’”

The part-time host of “The Daily Show”  said he never would have guessed Trump would “use our electoral system as designed.” 

“I was wrong,” Stewart said. “I’d love to sit back and think about the autopsy and where you move from there, but I think I still feel as though I’m in that moment of vertigo to some extent.”

Stewart continued to harp on a message he'd shared earlier the week, encouraging his fans not to despair. He said that he still believes in America in spite of Trump's victory.

“I still believe in this country, and I still believe in individuals, and I still believe in the power of change and organization, goodness, competence," he said. "I mean, for God’s sake, the Mets made the playoffs.”

Trump promises he won’t sell Truth Social shares, calls for investigation into rumors

Donald Trump promised not to sell off shares of Truth Social's parent company and called for an investigation into rumors that he would on Friday.

Trump's commitment to his stock came in a post to his social media platform, his first written post to the site since his election victory.

"There are fake, untrue, and probably illegal rumors and/or statements made by, perhaps, market manipulators or short sellers, that I am interested in selling shares of Truth,” the president-elect wrote. “THOSE RUMORS OR STATEMENTS ARE FALSE. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF SELLING!”

Trump’s shares in the company are worth over $3.5 billion. A merger between Truth Social's parent company, Trump Media, and Digital World Acquisition Corp took Trump's company public and left him with that multi-billion dollar stake despite the social media platform’s minuscule revenue.

The stock has been highly volatile for the duration of its existence, rallying and cratering in close connection with Trump’s personal and political fortunes. It’s been the subject of a massive short-selling campaign, leading the group’s CEO, Devin Nunes, to ask regulators to investigate market manipulators earlier this year.  

“I hereby request that the people who have set off these fake rumors or statements, and who may have done so in the past, be immediately investigated by the appropriate authorities,” Trump said on Friday.

DOJ alleges Iran plotted to assassinate Trump

The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps of Iran was working through agents to kill an American journalist and plot an assassination of President-elect Donald Trump, the Department of Justice alleged in a complaint shared Friday.

According to the DOJ, Farhad Shakeri, Carlisle Rivera and Jonathon Loadholt were all involved in a series of murder-for-hire plots on behalf of the Revolutionary Guard Corps. Shakeri was allegedly approached by the IRGC in October and asked to plot an assassination of Trump.

Rivera and Loadholt have both been arrested. The pair appeared in court on Friday over charges related to the journalist assassination plot. The journalist in question was not named in the criminal complaint but appears to be Masih Alinejad, a critic of the current Iranian regime. She shared her reaction to the arrest of Rivera and Loadholt on X.

"I am shocked. I just learned from the [FBI] that two men were arrested yesterday in a new plot to kill me at Fairfield University, where I was scheduled to give a talk."

Shakeri is still at large and believed to be in Iran.

“There are few actors in the world that pose as grave a threat to the national security of the United States as does Iran,” said Attorney General Merrick Garland in a statement announcing the charges. “The Justice Department has charged an asset of the Iranian regime who was tasked by the regime to direct a network of criminal associates to further Iran’s assassination plots against its targets, including President-elect Donald Trump."

Trump was the target of an assassination attempt in July and another apparent attempt in September. Trump blamed Iran for those attempts. The new charges center around an alleged plot headed by Shakeri that was hatched after the two attempts on Trump's life.

Tensions between Trump and Iran nearly escalated into war during his first term when he ordered the assassination of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020.

The president-elect previously fantasized about revenge against the state over the assassination plot, writing in July he “hope[s] that America obliterates Iran” in the event of his death.

Trump called Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, and brought Musk with him

Billionaire Elon Musk is already taking on a role in Donald Trump’s second term.

The Tesla head and Trump benefactor reportedly joined in on a call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday. The president-elect’s conversation lasted roughly 25 minutes and included Musk, who reaffirmed his commitment to provide Starlink satellite internet service to Ukraine, per Axios.

During the conversation, Trump also reportedly pledged to support Ukraine, in contradiction of statements he made on the campaign trail. Zelenskyy left the call somewhat reassured, according to Axios. In his first term, Trump frequently clashed with Zelenskyy and cut military aid to the country. The conversation with Trump and Musk “didn't leave Zelensky with a feeling of despair,” a source told the publication.

Musk’s presence on the call raises questions over his role in Trump’s administration.

The SpaceX CEO financed the Trump campaign to the tune of tens to hundreds of millions in PAC contributions and ran a potentially illegal lottery to turn out supporters. Trump has publicly publicly mulled Musk for a formal role in the White House, promising in September in September to hire him to lead a government efficiency commission.

“Unprecedented circumstance”: Smith seems to be giving up on Jan. 6 case against Trump

Special Counsel Jack Smith appears to be giving up on a prosecution against President-elect Donald Trump over his alleged role in a plot to subvert the results of the 2020 election.

In a Friday filing to Judge Tanya Chutkan, Smith’s office asked that the court vacate future scheduled proceedings “to afford the government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy.”

The DOJ has long held that they should not prosecute sitting presidents. Any consultation that Smith holds with his superiors will likely find that the case be paused, if not abandoned altogether. Recent reports claimed that Smith is already in the process of winding down the cases.

Trump was previously impeached for his alleged role in a scheme to overturn the election, but conviction in the Senate failed by 10 votes. Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November of 2022, nearly 2 years after the assault, to investigate Trump, but major delays plagued the probe.

The Supreme Court intervened at the request of Trump’s attorneys earlier this year, to consider whether Trump's presidential immunity covered his actions on January 6. The court's ruling greatly extended the legal immunity afforded to a president, but Smith was able to narrow the scope of his case accordingly. 

The case’s dismissal appeared inevitable following Trump’s Tuesday victory. He’s previously promised to clear out the Biden Department of Justice and fire Smith.

Chipotle says it’s offering customers “consistent and generous portions” following online complaints

After receiving countless customer complaints on social media regarding its inadequate portion sizes, Chipotle has confirmed that it has since been serving “consistent and generous portions” and prioritizing consumer needs.

Chipotle interim CEO Scott Boatwright told analysts Tuesday that the company is following through with its promise to serve up heartier portions. Back in July, former Chipotle chairman and CEO Brian Niccol — who is now at Starbucks — said the complaints have forced the company to reemphasize “training and coaching around ensuring we are consistently making bowls and burritos correctly.” He added that customers “expect this now more than ever” and the company is “committed to making this investment.”

Per Chipotle’s third-quarter earnings report, total revenue was $2.8 billion, an increase of 13% compared to last year’s third quarter. The increase was driven by new restaurant openings and an overall increase in comparable restaurant sales, the company specified. Chipotle opened 86 new company-operated restaurants, 73 of which included a Chipotlane, along with one internationally licensed restaurant.

Food, beverage and packaging costs were up due to inflation affecting several key ingredients, specifically avocados and dairy. The high costs were also due to greater usage of ingredients as Chipotle “focused on ensuring consistent and generous portions” and the introduction of a new limited-time-only protein option, Smoked Brisket. Chipotle said the increase “was partially offset by the benefit of menu price increases in the prior year.”

Despite the hike in costs, Boatwright said Chipotle is committed to serving its customers abundant portions.  

“We know that portioning is a core equity of ours in the organization,” Boatwright said Tuesday. “We are committed to ensuring that we give the right portion to every guest that walks into the building.”

“We’ve seen strong improvement, even through our social channels … Now it’s a reverse of what we saw earlier in the year, around people posting big burritos, big bowls, and really excited about portioning they’re getting in the Chipotle brand,” he added.

Jack Hartung, Chipotle’s former CFO turned president of strategy, finance, and supply chain, told Bloomberg in July that Chipotle customers would be given two hefty scoops of rice and four ounces of meat. Hartung said the increase in portions would cost the company an extra $50 million.

Chipotle decided to remedy its portion size issues after the company was hit with online claims of “shrinkflation.” In May, social media star and food critic Keith Lee complained about the lack of chicken in his burrito bowl, saying Chipotle’s “portions been crazy low.”


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


“This is out of the ordinary for me, but I used to love Chipotle,” Lee said in a review posted May 3. “Lately, Chipotle has not hit the same, in my opinion. Is it still like that, or has something changed? I truly want to find out.”

Shortly after, some customers began filming Chipotle workers making their meal and walking out mid-order if the portions seemed too small to their liking. Rumors claimed that customers who filmed Chipotle workers would automatically receive larger portions per company protocol. Although a few folks who tested out the “hack” said they received more food, Chipotle quickly shut down the misinformation, saying the “hack” is misleading. 

Laurie Schalow, chief corporate affairs and food safety officer at Chipotle, told Forbes and NBC’s Today that the company never instructed its employees to give more food to filming customers. Schalow told Forbes “there have been no changes in our portion sizes, and we have reinforced proper portioning with our employees.” The company maintained that it never shrunk its portion sizes. Its meals have always been “completely customizable,” meaning customers can “vocalize or digitally select their desired portions when choosing from the list of real ingredients,” Chipotle clarified.

“Your body, MY choice”: Emboldened far-right men taunt women on social media after Trump win

Far-right men are harassing women on social media with variations of a message that neo-Nazi livestreamer Nick Fuentes posted to his X account: "Your body. My choice. Forever." It's the inverse of the pro-choice slogan "my body, my choice," popularized in protest of Republican efforts to ban abortion and regulate women's healthcare choices.

The barrage took off after Donald Trump, who has bragged about his role in ending Roe v. Wade, was projected to win the election. Women reported a surge in misogynistic threats over the past week, with many of them concluding that sexist men, emboldened by Trump's victory, now feel empowered to go on the attack.

"'Your body. Our choice’ and 'We own your body now' comments are starting to pour in,” Hannah Cor, women's liberation advocate said on TikTok. “Men no longer have or be quiet in their hatred for women. They can hate us out loud and lose nothing."

TikTok influencer Camila Guadarrama revealed that she had to delete a video because several men commented that they couldn't wait until she got raped. Another user of the app posted a slideshow of some of the messages she received, which included users telling to "have fun losing your right" and "keep your legs closed."

While Fuentes' original post received a wave of condemnation, it has also encouraged like-minded people to issue their own declarations on social media. “They will never get to make decisions about their own body,” wrote a user whose bio states that “CHRIST IS KING.”

“REPEAL THE 19TH,” commented another user, referring to the constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote.

Many Americans fear that the posts and messages are a preview of the presidency Trump will assume in January 2025. While Trump has waffled on whether he'd back a national abortion ban, he is closely allied with many politicians who have spoken adamantly in its favor, and has himself supported the efforts of GOP-controlled states to restrict women's rights. The number of women's health clinics are decreasing, and maternal mortality rates increasing, as doctors and women alike face prosecution for potentially violating GOP-passed laws

In our hour of need, Calm gave us puppies on election night

Happiness is a warm puppy.

This bit of wisdom from Peanuts creator Charles M. Schulz was embraced Tuesday night by an increasingly frazzled American electorate seeking a refuge from potentially catastrophic news. One by one as the polls closed and states were called, anxiety began to rise. Would my candidate win? Were the polls misleading? Will I have to live in an America where I feel unsafe? 

Unfortunately, Steve Kornacki and his many manila folders were not immediately forthcoming with answers, and so we turned to friends, family and online communities for reassurance. Eventually, we heard whispers of a respite from all the stats, an oasis of peace:

"The Calm app IG page is [livestreaming] puppies playing if you need a moment away from election anxiety," posted TV host Nina Parker on X.

Sure enough, puppies rompin' and chompin', cruisin' and snoozin' filled the screen. "Paws and take a look!" read the Calm caption. "We're live with some fur-ever friends looking for homes."

Puppies were living their best puppy lives, blissfully unaware of any political upheaval. It was a welcome break from the growing unease of watching election results come in. Apparently, Calm isn't just meditations and Sleep Stories. It's also puppies.

Salon spoke with a Calm spokesperson about the puppy livestream, along with their "30 seconds of silence" ad that played Tuesday night and other initiatives to combat politically induced anxiety: 

Could you walk me through the origin of the livestreamed puppies concept? Who are the puppies? Someone's pets? Rescues?

Our goal was to create a calming corner of the internet through our Instagram Live. We streamed soothing sights of wildlife such as penguins and meerkats at the San Diego Zoo while the polls were still open. And as the polls closed, we followed that up with a stream of cuddly adoptable puppies from Hit Living Dog Rescue. This plan was grounded in research which shows that watching cute animals may reduce anxiety. 

What were the discussions like about how long the livestream should last? 

It was important for us to provide support for people as polls closed and as results started to roll in across the country. This is why we followed the livestream at the San Diego Zoo with the adoptable puppy livestream. As the sun set for the zoo animals and they headed to bed for the night, we could still provide calming sights of animals for people to tune into. 

Calm - Puppy LivestreamCalm puppies livestream on Election Day (Courtesy of Calm)

What's the feedback to the livestream been? 

"This plan was grounded in research which shows that watching cute animals may reduce anxiety. "

We had more than 145,000 people tune into these livestreams looking for a place of respite, and the response has been overwhelmingly positive with people sharing their appreciation across social channels. Across social, Calm mentions were up by more than 600% compared to the daily average in 2024.   

What is the lesson here – for those people who don't think that looking at puppies on an app will do anything? 

The response showed there was a collective need for a moment of respite and break from the 24/7 news and alerts. It was also important for us to meet people where we knew they already were going to be – scrolling on their phones – with a real-time moment of calm. 

This wasn't the only content surrounding the election. There have been blog posts addressing worrying about politics and election anxiety, not to mention the breathing posts on Instagram. I even saw an ad that offered 30 seconds of silence. 

In addition to the livestreams, Calm created supportive resources to help people find rest and relief during the election season including a free "Election Season Support" content collection (calm.com/election), "Navigating Through World Events" mindfulness series and bespoke, spirit-lifting Sleep Stories like the "The Nightlight." We’ve also been running calming ad breaks throughout election season to break up the news cycles with a moment of calm, including our first ever "silent ad," which ran throughout election night. 

How early were discussions had to have a variety of content for the election?

It was important for us to have supportive resources available for people throughout the election cycle spanning from debate nights through election week and beyond. This included creating a free resource page with a range of meditations, Sleep Stories and breathing exercises so anyone who needed support could access it. 

Can you walk us through that "30 seconds of silence" ad — from concept to execution?

Building on the meaningful impact of our 2020 CNN Key Race Alert sponsorship and in the heightened political climate, we knew providing moments of calm would be essential again this election season. Election Day (and week) comes with a lot of noise – from breaking news alerts to election results and political ads. As people look to stay informed and engaged, it can be hard to step away, resulting in heightened stress. We wanted to meet people where they were with a real-time moment of calm, delivered through a simple and unexpected 15- to 30-second silent ad break in between the updates and alerts. 

Do you have a calendar in place for high-stress events that you want to target? What's next?

"We are always creating new sleep content for our members including nap stories for adults."

Calm has always been committed to supporting people through life’s most stressful moments, and we will continue to be there as a resource whether it’s collective moments of stress or for individuals going through a specific challenging time. 

Calm is also known for partnering with celebrities who invest in and create content, most notably the Sleep Stories. Who's the most listened-to celebrity of all time? 

Our Top 5 most popular Sleep Stories are "Blue Gold" (read by Stephen Fry), "Wonder" (Matthew McConaughey), "The Waterfall" (Tamara Levitt), "The Nordland Night Train" (Erik Braa) and "Dream With Me" (Harry Styles).

Harry Styles Sleep StoryHarry Styles sleep story "Dream With Me" (Courtesy of Calm)Some of them are so bizarre and funny. The most recent one I can think of along those lines is Tom Hardy as Venom, which may on the surface may seem counterintuitive to sleep. Could you talk to me about that? Is it actually soothing?

We partnered with Sony on this Sleep Story to provide Marvel and Hardy fans a way to wind down after seeing “Venom: The Last Dance.” This Sleep Story gives fans a unique way to experience the characters while getting a good night’s sleep. Our expert content team has a way of sprinkling soothing magic on all of our Sleep Stories through the narrator's cadence to the background music to get people to lull to sleep.

I often seek nap stories, but many of them on Calm are for kids, which is what I default to (Sienna the sleepy sloth FTW). Will more be made for adults?

We are always creating new sleep content for our members including nap stories for adults as sleep is one of the top reasons people turn to Calm. 

How do you think Calm has evolved? Where does it want to go?

Calm started as a meditation app, but we have since evolved into a mental health company committed to supporting people along their mental health journey. With our resources, we’re helping people get better sleep, ease stress, build a daily mindfulness practice and navigate through the many experiences of being a human whether it’s becoming a parent, coming out, fostering healthy relationships, facing health challenges, changing jobs,and so much more. 

We are also focused on expanding access to Calm and our newest evidence-based mental health app Calm Health, through partnerships with health plans and employers. 

Do you have one tip or takeaway going forward about dealing with political anxiety?

Focus on what you can control. Worrying about things you can’t change can only increase anxiety. Focus on positive actions you can take, like volunteering or connecting with your community, to help you feel empowered.

“Listen here, sweetheart”: Trump ally threatens NY AG Letitia James with “prison”

President-elect Donald Trump's allies have been sending a clear message to law enforcement officials seeking to hold him accountable: do so at your own peril.

Speaking to a right-wing podcaster on Thursday, Mike Davis, one of Trump's key legal advisors, threatened prison time for New York Attorney General Letitia James, who successfully sued Trump for fraud earlier this year.

“Let me just say this to big Tish James: I dare you to try to continue your lawfare against President Trump in his second term,” Davis said on Benny Johnson’s “Benny Show." “Because, listen here, sweetheart: We’re not messing around this time, and we will put your fat a** in prison for conspiracy against rights, and I promise you that.”

“So, think long and hard before you want to violate President Trump‘s constitutional rights or any other American‘s constitutional rights,” he continued. “It’s not gonna happen again.”

In 2022, James charged the Trump Organization with presenting misleading lenders and tax officials with vastly disparate property values. She won the case in February 2024, and the judge fined Trump $355 million and him from operating any business in New York for three years. Her actions enraged Trump, who called her "racist," "grossly incompetent" and a "total disaster." The ruling is now being appealed.

After Trump's 2024 election victory, James declared in a press conference that she would "do everything in my power to ensure our state and nation do not go backwards. … We will work each and every day to defend Americans, no matter what this new administration throws at us. We are ready to fight back again.”

James is not the only opponent of Trump to be targeted by Davis' inflammatory and violent rhetoric. Recently, he suggested proposals to throw journalists in gulags and drag the the "dead political bodies" of Trump's perceived enemies "through the streets, burn them and throw them off the wall (Legally, politically, and financially, of course.)” In 2023, he said with unbridled glee on the "Benny Show" that mass deportations and "putting kids in cages" would be "glorious." His loyalty to Trump has been rewarded with a promise by president-elect to put him in an office of "high capacity" in his incoming administration.

But in an X post written Friday, Davis said he was not interested. "I am not going into his administration and am not under consideration for Attorney General," he claimed, while reiterating his strong support for Trump.

Nicole Scherzinger’s run in “Sunset Blvd.” marred by “Trumper” accusations

Fans and foes of Nicole Scherzinger, the Pussycat Doll turned star of Broadway’s new production of “Sunset Blvd.," are dragging her name on social media after she was discovered to have favorably engaged with an Instagram photo of Russell Brand’s new red hat. And while the hat in question wasn't a MAGA hat, specifically, a vast majority of the internet is ruling that "Make Jesus First Again" — as the text on Brand's accessory reads — is close enough. 

The buzzy controversy kicked off on Thursday after Brand shared the photo of himself beaming, holding his red hat up for all to see, to which Scherzinger commented, “Where do I get this hat?” And though she has since deleted this comment, she didn't delete it fast enough, and feeds soon flooded with commentary from an expanse of people calling for her head. 

"Well the Best Actress Tony race just got a little less competitive," Adam Feldman, Time Out New York's theater editor wrote in a post to X. With hundreds of others falling in line throughout the night and into the morning hours.

"Nicole Scherzinger really thought it was a great idea to come out as a Trump supporter? When she's literally on the verge of a Tony nomination. Broadway is run by gay and trans people. After a flop attempt of a solo career, she finally found her niche and ruins it," another person chimed in

And somehow, as the mess unfolded, even the legendary Patti LuPone got pulled into it, having infamously been canned by Andrew Lloyd Webber from her role as Norma Desmond in the 1993 London production of Sunset Boulevard, dissing the revival in a recent appearance on "The View" where she called it "lumbering."

"Oh Nicole Scherzinger it is over for you," a Broadway fan remarked on X regarding the above. "Patti Lupone wins EVERY single time."

According to Variety, Scherzinger has yet to comment on the controversy.

Beyoncé and Taylor Swift top the 2025 Grammy nominations

The biggest night in music is just around the corner — and this year, the competition is stiff after a summer dominated by pop divas and male country stars.

In the last year, some of music's biggest and most recognizable faces have released chart-topping, infectious pop music. Artists like Chappell Roan, Sabrina Carpenter and Charli XCX reached stratospheric heights after years of slowly rising in the industry. The Recording Academy's best new artist category is a competitive entree this year with women in pop like Carpenter, Roan and British artist Raye finally earning their flowers.

Even seasoned artists like Beyoncé and Taylor Swift made it a year worth celebrating in music with their spring album releases "Cowboy Carter" and "The Tortured Poets Department."  Respectively, these dominating pop forces received nods for the prestigious album of the year recognition for their work, which marks Beyoncé as the most Grammy-nominated artist in history with 99 nods. Pop wasn't the only music this year that resonated with people. Country hits from Teddy Swims, Shaboozey and Post Malone also received recognition. 

The 67th Grammys are set to be on Sunday, Feb. 2, at Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles.

Here 's a list of the top nominations for the 2025 Grammys. Check out the full list here:

 
Best pop solo performance

"Bodyguard" – Beyoncé

"Espresso" – Sabrina Carpenter 

"Birds of a Feather" – Billie Eilish 

"Apple" – Charli XCX 

"Good Luck, Babe!" – Chappell Roan 

 
Best pop duo/group performance
"Us" – Gracie Abrams featuring Taylor Swift
"Levii's Jeans" – Beyoncé featuring Post Malone
"Guess" – Charli XCX and Billie Eilish 
"The Boy Is Mine" – Ariana Grande, Brandy and Monica
"Die With A Smile" – Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars
 
Best rock album
"Happyness Bastards" – The Black Crowes
"Romance" – Fontaines D.C.
"Saviors" – Green Day
"Tangk" – Idles
"Dark Matter" – Pearl Jam
"Hackney Diamonds" – The Rolling Stones
"No Name" – Jack White
 
Best alternative music performance

"Neon Pill" – Cage The Elephant

"Song of the Lake" – Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds

"Starburster" – Fontaines D.C.

'Bye Bye" – Kim Gordon

"Flea" – St. Vincent

 
Best new artist

Benson Boone

Sabrina Carpenter

Doechii

Khruangbin

Raye

Chappell Roan

Shaboozey

Teddy Swims

 
Best R&B performance

"Guidance" – Jhené Aiko

"Residuals" – Chris Brown

"Here We Go (Uh Oh) – Coco Jones

"Made for Me (Live on BET) – Muni Long

"Saturn" – SZA

 
Best R&B album

"11:11 (Deluxe) – Chris Brown

"Vantablack" – Lalah Hathaway 

"Revenge" – Muni Long

"Algorithm" – Lucky Daye

"Coming Home" – Usher

 
Best melodic rap performance

"Kehlani" -–Jordan Adetunji featuring Kehlani

"Spaghettii" – Beyoncé featuring Linda Martell and Shaboozey

"We Still Don't Trust You" – Future and Metro Boomin Featuring The Weeknd

"Big Mama" – Latto

"3:AM" – Rapsody featuring Erykah Badu

 
Best musical theater album

"Hell's Kitchen"

"Merrily We Roll Along"

"The Notebook"

"The Outsiders"

"Suffs"

"The Wiz"

 
Best country solo performance

"16 Carriages" – Beyoncé

"I'm Not Okay" – Jelly Roll

"The Architect" – Kacey Musgraves

"A Bar Song (Tipsy)" – Shaboozey

"It Takes A Woman" – Chris Stapleton

 
 
Best country album

"Cowboy Carter" – Beyoncé

"F-1 Trillon" – Post Malone

"Deeper Well" – Kacey Musgraves

"Higher" – Chris Stapleton

"Whirlwind" – Lainey Wilson

 
Song of the year

"A Bar Song (Tipsy) – Shaboozey 

"Birds of a Feather" – Billie Eilish

"Die With A Smile" – Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars

"Fortnight" – Taylor Swift featuring Post Malone

"Good Luck, Babe!" – Chappell Roan

"Not Like Us" – Kendrick Lamar

"Please Please Please" – Sabrina Carpenter

"Texas Hold 'Em" – Beyoncé

 
 
Record of the year

"Now and Then" – The Beatles

Texas Hold 'Em" – Beyoncé

"Espresso" – Sabrina Carpenter

"360" – Charli XCX

"Birds of a Feather" – Billie Eilish

"Not Like Us" – Kendrick Lamar

"Good Luck, Babe!" – Chappell Roan

"Fortnight" – Taylor Swift featuring Post Malone

 
Album of the year

"New Blue Sun" – André 3000

"Cowboy Carter" – Beyoncé

"Short N' Sweet" – Sabrina Carpenter

"Brat" – Charli XCX

"Djesse Vol. 4" – Jacob Collier

"Hit Me Hard and Soft" – Billie Eilish

"The Rise and Fall of a Midwest Princess" – Chappell Roan

"The Tortured Poets Department" – Taylor Swift

Researchers find 22 pesticides may raise prostate cancer risk and death rates

A recent study published in Cancer: An International Interdisciplinary Journal of the American Cancer Society found that 22 pesticides “showed consistent, direct associations with prostate cancer incidence” across two population cohorts. Four of these pesticides were also associated with prostate cancer mortality. The study analyzed county-level data on the annual use of 295 pesticides and prostate cancer rates across the contiguous United States. 

That data was collected from 1997 to 2006 and analyzed numerous times through 2020.

The study notes that while "prostate cancer is the most common caner among men in the United States . . . modifiable risk factors remain elusive,” while the authors of the study note that “these findings warrant further investigation of these specific pesticides to confirm their role in prostate cancer risk and to develop potential public health interventions."

According to Stacey Leasca with Food & Wine, some of the identified pesticides included "widely used herbicides like 2,4-D and a mix of fungicides, insecticides, and a soil fumigant," as well as "three herbicides — trifluralin, cloransulam-methyl, diflufenzopyr — and one insecticide — thiamethoxam,"which could also have a link to prostate cancer. Leasca also writes that those living or working in "rural, farming-intensive areas" might be more susceptible to exposure to these chemicals.  

“Pack your bags” RFK Jr. tells FDA. His war on public health under Trump would only accelerate

President elect Donald Trump says he plans to give Robert F. Kennedy Jr. a “big role” in health care in the new administration and let him “go wild” on health, food and medicine. Although Trump hasn’t confirmed what that role would be or what precisely “going wild” means, Kennedy could potentially be elected to any number of leadership positions in the administration, including as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Kennedy — an environmental lawyer with no scientific degrees — has made multiple false or misleading claims about vaccines and once relied on a fringe far-right supporter base. But he is rapidly inching closer toward influencing the federal response to infectious disease, vaccines and public health — which many scientists say would be detrimental to the nation.

“If RFK has a significant influence on the next administration, that could further erode people's willingness to get up to date with recommended vaccines,” Dr. Jerome Adams, who served as Surgeon General during Trump's first administration, said at a public health conference in Minneapolis last week, as reported by The New York Times. “I am worried about the impact that could have on our nation's health, on our nation's economy, on our global security.” 

In the last weeks before Trump won the 2024 election, he made an alliance with Kennedy in a final campaign push under the slogan and super PAC, “Make America Healthy Again.” MAHA is largely centered around the so-called medical freedom movement, which operates on a platform that values personal liberties above the medical establishment and opposes government public health and regulatory agencies.

"He's influenced by conspiracy theories on social media, and he has no fidelity to science and evidence."

In an interview with NPR on Wednesday, Kennedy said Trump had already assigned him three tasks: to reduce the “corruption and conflicts” in regulatory agencies like the FDA, return those agencies to the “evidence-based science and medicine that they were once famous for,” and to end chronic disease with measurable impacts within two years. 

“FDA’s war on public health is about to end,” Kennedy posted on X, formerly Twitter, in October. “If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, I have two messages for you: 1. Preserve your records, and 2. Pack your bags.”

Should Kennedy be appointed to a role like the FDA commissioner, he could influence whether the agency withdraws approval for vaccines or reduce expanded access to drugs like mifepristone, which is used to end pregnancies, said Lawrence O. Gostin, an expert in public health law at Georgetown University. Previously, Kennedy said he would redirect half of the national medical research budget to go toward “preventive, alternative and holistic approaches to health” and threatened to prosecute Dr. Anthony Fauci “if crimes were committed.” Fauci was formerly the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and during the COVID-19 pandemic became the center of multiple conspiracy theories. Kennedy did not respond to Salon's request for comment.

“There are entire departments, like the nutrition department at the FDA that have to go,” he said in an NBC interview. “They are not doing their job.”

Kennedy also said he wants to reform the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which regulates the funding the FDA receives from pharmaceutical companies when they apply for new drugs to be approved. This has long been a point of contention, but removing this funding would likely hobble the agency. These fees account for nearly half of the FDA’s budget used to pay its employees and sustain the process of approving and evaluating the medicines the country relies on.

“The pharmaceutical industry certainly doesn’t do everything right and I have a lot of criticisms about it, but nonetheless, we need a strong pharmaceutical industry to develop the vaccines and medicines we need,” Gostin told Salon in a phone interview.

While several scientists agree that parts of Kennedy’s platform like reducing chronic illness and obesity are important issues that should be getting attention, some criticize Kennedy for not laying out a clear plan on how to tackle these major health crises and using conspiracy theories to back up his claims.


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


“There could be certain areas where he would be beneficial, but to be very honest, I don't trust him, because he shoots from the hip,” Gostin said. “He's influenced by conspiracy theories on social media, and he has no fidelity to science and evidence.”

On the weekend before the election, Kennedy said the new administration would remove fluoride from public water systems, making several false claims about its health effects. Although adding fluoride to water is generally hailed as one of the greatest achievements in public health in recent history, Trump replied by saying it sounded “OK” to him. 

Similarly, the Trump-Kennedy alliance has alluded to taking certain vaccines off the market. Both have made claims that vaccines are linked to autism, despite the fact that this has been repeatedly debunked in scientific studies across several decades. Nevertheless, Trump didn’t rule out the possibility of banning some vaccines in an interview with NBC News on Sunday — worrying many public health experts who are closely monitoring reduced uptake for routine childhood vaccinations and declining life expectancy in the U.S. largely driven by the million-plus lives lost to COVID.

It’s unclear whether these policies can even be enacted. Adding fluoride to water is a policy under local, not national jurisdiction, and vaccine mandates are regulated at the state level. Nonetheless, a position of leadership central to the administration could give Kennedy a new platform to spread misinformation, which is of increasing concern amid emerging threats like bird flu and any future infectious disease outbreaks or pandemics.

“This would be the most damaging appointment for public health and science in living memory,” Gostin said. “Trump would be appointing someone who is openly hostile to public health and life-saving public health interventions like vaccinations and fluoridation of water — and both of those issues affect children primarily, who did not participate in this election and can’t vote.”

Some of the policy changes Kennedy has proposed would need to be passed through other branches of government before enacted. For example, any withdrawals of vaccines would likely be challenged by the Supreme Court, Gostin said. Any decision to shrink agencies like the FDA would have to go through Congress, and changes in mifepristone regulations could also face legal challenges.

We need your help to stay independent

“I have doubts whether or not the Trump Administration, even influenced by RFK Jr. would be able to accomplish this,” Gostin said. “Nonetheless, I think there's a great deal of damage that a Trump administration can and will have on public health and safety.”

Both the Senate and the Supreme Court are now ruled by a majority of Republicans, so there is a greater chance of both of these branches supporting the Trump Administration’s initiatives, noted Wendy Parmet, the  co-director of the Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University. 

“The judges Trump appointed in his first term have done a lot of damage to the health of Americans, from limiting the EPA to striking public health powers to all kinds of things,” Parmet told Salon in a phone interview. “I’m very scared about where this is going to go with health.”

In addition to a role at the FDA, Kennedy could be elected as the secretary of the Health and Human Services (HHS) or the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). These roles, in addition to an FDA commissioner appointment, would require confirmation from the Senate.

“I would be surprised if he were confirmed by the Senate given his record of science denialism and anti-vaccine activity,” said Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I would be surprised if he was appointed to either of those two positions because these are science agencies, and he's a science denialist.”

Nevertheless, the left’s perception of public opinion in the U.S. has repeatedly been challenged by the Trump Administration, which continues to push the boundaries on health and science. Although the administration’s Operation Warp Speed is generally lauded for delivering millions of life-saving COVID vaccines, Trump and his acolytes also sowed deep seeds of distrust in public health that seem to be sprouting in a renewed vigor for science denialism and anti-establishment MAGA — or MAHA — sentiments.

"Given Trump's track record, I think one can say it's unpredictable," Offit told Salon in a phone interview.

Even if Kennedy does not secure a spot in one of these agencies, he has said he could potentially serve as a “health czar,” where he could have plenty of influence regardless.

“Remember that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump Administration censored the CDC website,” Gostin said. “So as an unofficial advisor at the White House that doesn’t require Senate confirmation, he could really do damage at critical public health agencies like the FDA and the EPA.”

“Unprecedented opportunity”: For-profit prison execs salivate at potential mass deportation camps

President-elect Donald Trump's promise to enforce a mass deportation of immigrants is exciting private prison executives, who on earnings calls Thursday salivated at the "unprecedented opportunity" that a second Trump presidency will bring for their profits.

The mass deportations would wrench apart families and shatter the lives of millions of people who possibly spent years or decades establishing themselves, their families and their communities in the country, critics warn. Trump defined much of his campaign by claiming, in dehumanizing and racist terms, that deporting them would improve the economy and reduce crime. Policy experts said that doing so would undermine businesses that hire them, cause an inflation spike and do almost nothing to address crime, since undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the average American.

Trump advisors are openly discussing the construction of mass deportation camps along the southern border, where tens of thousands of people will be detained as judges process their cases. While Democratic presidents have expanded the incarceration and deportation complex in the last two decades, Trump's first-term record and second-term proposals represent a massive and unprecedented escalation. Private prison executives believe that whatever the effect of the deportations on the rest of American society and economy, they at least will make a lot of money from it.

The first hint of their impending good fortune came as Trump was projected to win the presidential election; as the news came, their stock prices soared. “One HUGE winner from Trump’s win: Private prison companies GEO Group Inc. and CoreCivic Inc.,” observed Bloomberg News' Steven Dennis on Wednesday. “Their stocks, which could benefit from Trump’s plans for rounding up millions of immigrants, rocketed higher today 41% and 29% respectively.”

As Thomson Reuters Foundation journalist Avi Asher-Schapiro noted, the incarceration giant Geo Group already has over a billion dollars in ICE contracts to manage existing immigration detention facilities and a GPS monitoring system of 175,000 migrants. If the House GOP immigration bill passes, he wrote, that number of people under surveillance could expand to 7 million.

Private prison executives did not passively wait for their "unprecedented opportunity" to come. Instead, companies like Geo Group have poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into pro-Trump Super PACs, as well as the maximum $5,000 donation to his official campaign and donations to other Republican candidates for House and Senate. Trump, in return for their longstanding support, has not only pursued the kinds of policies that would reap windfall profits to private prisons, but also reversed an effort by former President Barack Obama to phase private prisons out of the process.

In the earnings calls Thursday, executives celebrated the prospect of a “much more aggressive” policy framework from the incoming Trump administration, and with it, increased government funding of private contracts for mass detention, electronic tracking devices and the transportation of detainees within the United States and to other countries. “The GEO Group was built for this unique moment in our company’s– country’s history, and the opportunity that it will bring,” George Zoley, the company's founder and executive chairman said in a call, assuring participants of his company's "capability to rapidly scale up" their services and the potential influx of $25 million in revenues for air transport alone.

We need your help to stay independent

"It feels like with this election this year, we’re heading into an era that we really haven’t seen, maybe only once or twice in the company’s history, where the value proposition of the private sector for both our state partners and our federal partners are going to be not only strong today, but even stronger as we go in the next couple of years," Damon Hininger, CEO of CoreCivic, crowed to his own shareholders.

While Zoley and Hininger will be amply compensated for their work, such an effort would potentially cost the federal government and its taxpayers as much as $88 billion a year. In a round of post-election press calls, however, Trump appeared unconcerned. "It’s not a question of a price tag. It’s not — really, we have no choice. When people have killed and murdered, when drug lords have destroyed countries, and now they’re going to go back to those countries because they’re not staying here. There is no price tag," he told NBC News.

For all the influx of federal money and other profits, private prisons are known for providing substandard care for people in their custody. A recent Human Rights Watch report found that inadequate medical care contributed to half of the deaths that occurred in their facilities; another from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights revealed that private prisons failed to adhere to detention health care standards, protect LGBTQ people from abuse, comply with standards to prevent and respond to sexual assault, provide access to legal services or provide sufficient nutritious food, especially compared to public prisons.

The reported neglect has been occurring with ICE's knowledge, but according to a 2014 report from the Government Accountability Office, the agency often either ignores the fact that at least 125 facilities have been operating under outdated standards from 2000 or waives certain standards for contractors at its discretion. Under the existing quota model, private prisons are driven to fill as many beds with detainees as possible — there's hardly any financial incentive to make the quality of their stay more tolerable.

The degree to which ICE can expand its contracts under Trump will depend heavily on how much funding Congress authorizes for the project; while the GOP is expected to take control of the Senate, the House looks less certain. But the president-elect can set much of his plans in motion by executive order, and private prison executives seem confident in their man to deliver.

Donald Trump’s win is a grim reminder: The COVID era hasn’t ended

Now that we've had a chance to catch our breath a little bit and get through the grieving process over last Tuesday's election, the inevitable recriminations have begun in earnest. Social media is awash with accusations against the Biden administration, the Kamala Harris campaign, the left, the right and everything in between. The Democrats are out of touch with Real America, they don't know how to talk to Latinos, men, young voters or anyone really except college-educated women. Was it an expression of deep desire for fascism, misogyny and racism or a simple admiration for the reality show ringmaster who tells them what they want to hear? I suspect we will spend many years dissecting what happened that put Donald Trump back in the White House this year.

Trump was one of the earliest casualties of this anti-incumbent movement. Unfortunately for us, we could not vanquish him sufficiently to prevent his return.

There is no doubt a kernel of truth in much of what people are saying. Any losing team has to look at their game plan and question where they went wrong. This campaign was especially fraught with President Joe Biden belatedly realizing that he wasn't capable of campaigning, and the party taking the risk of running a woman and person of color against one of the most racist, misogynist demagogues ever to run on a major party ticket. It was never going to be easy. It's astonishing that we ever thought it would be. As Salon's Andrew O'Hehir observed, liberals will have to do some deep soul searching to determine what the party really is and how to adjust itself to what is clearly a new political landscape.

I think many of us just assumed that the nation would never elect Trump again because he had not only been repudiated once, he had subsequently attempted a coup, incited an insurrection and had been found guilty of fraud and defamation and is currently under criminal indictment at both the federal and state levels. He has already been convicted of 34 felonies. How could it even be possible that such a person would be returned to the White House?

The clues were there. The opinion polls had Kamala Harris and Donald Trump essentially tied for months with the margin of error showing that either side could have had a blowout. Joe Biden had been extremely unpopular for the past two years and the wrong track numbers are very high. People have lost faith in virtually all institutions, particularly the press, which they believe is corrupt. There has just been an overwhelming feeling of discontent and unhappiness in the cultural zeitgeist for the past four years. It's like a long post-COVID hangover. 

People are angry about immigration even though most of them aren't affected by it at all. They are upset about culture war issues like diversity training and transgender kids even though they aren't personally affected by that either. But mostly they are distressed about the economy, specifically inflation. Everyone complains about higher grocery prices and restaurant tabs to the point where it's become a sort of national bonding exercise. If there's one thing everyone can agree on in this politically polarized country it's that prices are just too damn high.

All of this is in spite of the American economy being literally "the envy of the world" with a robust job market that hasn't been seen since the 1960s, roaring markets, high consumer spending on durable goods and travel and what would normally be considered a very reasonable inflation rate. But as the New York Times' Paul Krugman has discussed at length while most people feel they're doing ok they believe the rest of the country is in terrible shape. Nonetheless, most voters cite inflation as their most important concern. (Those numbers are highly driven by partisanship, so I think we can be sure they'll turn around pretty quickly once Trump is in office and Republicans attribute the already good economy to his magical genius.)

People have been very unhappy for the past four years in this country and I think inflation has simply become the symbol of that unhappiness. It represents that feeling of things being out of control, that nothing is working right anymore. It is a daily reminder of how things went bad in 2020 and never fully recovered. And, as it turns out, this is true all over the world.

We need your help to stay independent

There's been quite a bit of discussion over the past couple of days about the startling fact that the Democrats are just the latest in an unprecedented string of elections over the past few years in which the incumbent party has lost vote share and its leadership ousted. It is a global phenomenon.

As Derek Thompson in The Atlantic put it:

A better, more comprehensive way to explain the outcome is to conceptualize 2024 as the second pandemic election. Trump’s victory is a reverberation of trends set in motion in 2020. In politics, as in nature, the largest tsunami generated by an earthquake is often not the first wave but the next one.

The pandemic was a health emergency, followed by an economic emergency. Both trends were global. But only the former was widely seen as international and directly caused by the pandemic…

Many voters didn’t directly blame their leaders for a biological nemesis that seemed like an act of god, but they did blame their leaders for an economic nemesis that seemed all too human in its origin. And the global rise in prices has created a nightmare for incumbent parties around the world. The ruling parties of several major countries, including the U.K., Germany, and South Africa, suffered historic defeats this year. Even strongmen, such as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, lost ground in an election that many experts assumed would be a rousing coronation.

Trump was one of the earliest casualties of this anti-incumbent movement. Unfortunately for us, we could not vanquish him sufficiently to prevent his return. The consequences of that are going to be particularly bad. The mainstream press managed to normalize him over the past four years, first by refusing to remind Americans how bad he was while he was in exile as he openly plotted his revenge and then by "sanewashing" his absurd lies and mental deterioration. As a result, Trump as a viable alternative made sense to a lot of people we didn't expect to vote for him. They thought by doing so that maybe we could just erase the last five years and pick up where we left off.

This election was an emotional tidal wave, one that's engulfed the whole world in the wake of the pandemic, the trauma of which we clearly have yet to fully process. We will eventually pull out of this. The problem is that when tidal waves recede they leave a tremendous amount of damage in their wake and I'm afraid it's going to be especially devastating in America.