Help keep Salon independent

“I haven’t seen anything like this”: GOP pollster says Harris took massive “advantage” from Trump

Veteran GOP pollster and political strategist Frank Luntz told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday that Vice President Kamala Harris, riding a surge of enthusiasm surrounding her candidacy and bringing in people uninterested in supporting either former president Donald Trump or President Joe Biden, has changed the pool of voters who will decide the November election. If trends continue in this direction, Luntz suggested, Democrats may not only win the presidency and retake the House, but also cling on to the Senate despite a lopsided map that favors Republicans.

"The people who were undecided have all collapsed towards Harris. The people who were weak Trump have all collapsed towards undecided. It's a broad shift," Luntz explained. The previously disenchanted voters Harris is adding to her coalition might not amount to more than a one- or two-percent change in the electoral pool. But that's enough to tip the election for Harris, he said.

Recent polls show Harris now tied or leading Trump in most battleground states, a swift and dramatic reversal in fortune from the closing weeks of Biden's struggling campaign. Luntz, wary of potential inaccuracies and undercounting of Trump supporters, has also relied on voter focus groups to understand the thoughts and feelings behind shifts in polling. Now, they're being "broken up by young women saying 'I'm not voting for [Trump] anymore.'"

"I'm trying to do a focus group tonight with undecided voters under the age of 27 for a major news outlet, and I can't recruit young women to this because they don't exist as undecided voters," Luntz said.

The increasingly dismal situation for Trump was no given; according to Luntz, Harris is surging against electoral headwinds, not with them.

"The issues and conditions favor Donald Trump. He should be winning this election. But the attributes are so much in Harris' favor that he's not," he said, pointing to Trump publicly backing Elon Musk's decision to fire striking workers as an example of the former president needlessly alienating the same voters he's been trying to poach from the Democratic coalition. "It's as though he's lost control. And I know there are billionaires who watch this show who are spending a lot of money on Donald Trump, and they don't understand why he's committing political suicide."

Meanwhile, Harris is still enjoying the momentum that has been building since she entered the race in late July. "She's got an intensity advantage. She's got a demographic advantage," Luntz said. "And I haven't seen anything like this happen in 30 days in my lifetime."

Columbia University president who called police on pro-Palestinian protesters resigns

Columbia University President Nemat Minouche Shafik announced her resignation in an email on Wednesday evening, leaving the university after a nearly two-year stint plagued by student protests and a highly criticized police crackdown.

Shafik, who oversaw the university’s response to solidarity encampments and other protests related to Israel’s assault on Gaza, which the Gaza Health Ministry operating under Hamas' government says has killed nearly 40,000 people, joins a long list of university administrators and Ivy League presidents to leave their positions. 

“This period has taken a considerable toll on my family, as it has for others in our community,” Shafik wrote in the email announcing her resignation was effective immediately. “Over the summer, I have been able to reflect and have decided that my moving on at this point would best enable Columbia to traverse the challenges ahead.”

Shafik’s decision in mid-April to invite the New York Police Department to raid a peaceful encampment on the university’s quad was seen as a severe escalation, prompting dozens of copycat encampments throughout the country, leading to more than 3,000 arrests nationwide.

Later that month, students occupied a building on campus, drawing media scrutiny and again prompting Shafik to send in the NYPD, this time drawing faculty criticism as an officer discharged a firearm during the raid.

"The students of Columbia will never forget the sheer violence unleashed upon us by Minouche Shafik, and we will not be placated by her removal," the Barnard College-Columbia University chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace wrote in a post to X on Wednesday.

Shafik, who avoided a Congressional hearing on campus antisemitism which led to the resignations of Harvard President Claudine Gay and University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill, faced a no-confidence vote from faculty in May.

Even after campus activities and protests wound down for the summer, Columbia’s campus has remained on “orange level” alert for much of the last several weeks, restricting off-campus guests and closing numerous points of entry.

Big Pharma “unleashed an army” of lawyers to avoid lowering Medicare drug costs: report

Manufacturers of the 10 medications listed under the novel Medicare price-negotiation program exploited patent laws to keep costs high for patients, according to a new report from the watchdog group Accountable.US.

The report comes nearly two years after President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act and with it launched the historic Medicare negotiation program, which allows the Department of Health and Human Services to directly negotiate with drug companies to lower the prices of some of the most expensive but commonly used prescription drugs. 

“Despite taking billions of taxpayer dollars for drug development, these Big Pharma companies unleashed an army of patent attorneys to keep life-saving medicine exclusive and more expensive for seniors and other patients,” Tony Carrk, executive director of Accountable.US, said in a statement.

The initial negotiation list included 10 drugs under Medicare Part D, which covers the cost of prescription drugs. When Biden announced the list, companies raced to ensure their life-saving medication remain “expensive and exclusive,” Carrk said at a press conference hosted by Accountable.US on Wednesday. 

The companies bent patent law to maintain a monopoly on certain drugs and prevent competition from entering the market, the report found. 

For example, Johnson & Johnson reached several confidential agreements to delay generic competition for the blood thinner Xarelto. Known as a ”pay-to-delay agreement," this entails a company paying its competitors to not release a generic version of their drug at a lower price. Johnson & Johnson also applied for nearly 50 patents on Xarelto, a tactic known as “patent thicketing," which creates barriers to competitors developing a similar product. 

The drug Imbruvica, used to treat cancers like Leukemia, is protected by nearly 150 patents, giving manufacturers Johnson & Johnson and AbbVie market exclusivity on the drug until 2036.

Companies also used a strategy called “evergreening,” which is making “small, insignificant changes to their drugs to acquire new patents to extend their exclusivity,” according to the report.

We need your help to stay independent

AstraZeneca’s Farxiga is the most "evergreened" drug on the Medicare negotiation list and is protected by 36 patents until 2030. Farxiga costs over four times as much in the United States as it does in Canada or the United Kingdom, both countries where the government can negotiate for lower prices.

These tactics are a part of an apparent strategy to boost medication prices heading into negotiations with the DHHS. The negotiated prices for the 10 drugs are set to be released in September, with prices set to go into effect in 2026.

Spokespersons for AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“They’re negotiated to a price that is affordable for patients, but also allows for plenty of pharma profit,” Merith Basey, executive director of Patients for Affordable Drugs, said at the press conference Wednesday. “But in the United States, as we've heard, Big Pharma manipulates the system loopholes and extends patents far beyond their normal limits."

The average price of the 10 drugs listed on the Medicare negotiation list is three to eight times the price of those drugs in Australia, Germany, France, the U.K., Canada and Switzerland, according to a study by the Commonwealth Fund. 


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


Allowing Medicare to negotiate “alters the trajectory of drug pricing in the United States,” Basey said. Though price negotiation is likely to have a bigger impact over the long term, the IRA has already made a difference in the lives of Medicare Part D enrollees, even with some companies' efforts to avoid lower prices.

Jackie Trapp, who has been treating her incurable blood cancer with Xarelto, a drug manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, said Wednesday that she cannot “overstate the significance” the legislation has had on her life. 

The IRA introduced a price cap on out-of-pocket drug costs at $3,500 a year. Before the cap, the co-pay for her medication cost her $15,000-$22,000 a year. She and her husband had to sell their cars and refinance their homes to afford the medication. 

But the price of Xarelto and other brand-name drugs in the United States is still extremely high. In 2022, one in five U.S. adults aged 65 or older were forced to skip or delay filing a prescription due to high drug costs.

“It’s not hyperbole to say these are life and death changes for people,” she said at the press conference.

Pharmaceutical companies have long argued that patents protect innovation and are necessary to further research and development. Yet the report points out that a good chunk of research for these drugs has been funded by tax-payers, not the companies themselves.

A study by The Institute for New Economic found the federal government spent a combined $11.7 billion on basic and applied research that led to the development of these drugs. Some $6.5 billion of that was spent on developing Stelara, a Johnson & Johnson drug used to treat Crohn's disease, arthritis and psoriasis. 

“Pharma lobbyists and lawyers continue insisting innovation depends on price-gouging seniors, even though the industry’s investment in R&D pales in comparison to their spending on politics, lobbying, and advertising,” Carrk said in a statement. “This is a stark reminder that Big Pharma won’t put seniors and other patients ahead of their profits without Medicare’s historic new authority to regulate their greed.” 

The babysitter factor: Democrats have one big question to answer with their convention

Donald Trump doesn’t hold press conferences, he stages press events. And he doesn’t want you there if he can’t control you.  

Shortly after lunch on Wednesday, I checked my email and was told Trump would hold a press conference at his Bedminster golf resort in New Jersey on Thursday. I had until 5 p.m. to request credentials. I immediately did so. Before the deadline to request credentials had expired I received, in damn near record time, a notice (highlighted in red, no less) that my request had been denied.

Trump hasn’t the temerity nor the ability to handle reality. Despite his campaign’s heralding of Trump’s willingness to speak with so-called hostile media, he lacks the courage to accept a challenge to answer tough questions. Trump has no answers to real questions and is afraid he’ll be in prison shortly after the November general election.

With that said, and with Trump being as despicable and demented as he is, there is no guarantee he won’t win another trip to the White House. Much like a spoiled child who walks into a room to destroy a Lego village built by others, Trump got halfway through the act during his last administration before being dragged out of the room. Now he wants back in to finish the job. 

To prevent this wanton destruction at the hands of a blithering idiot, Democrats must show unity at their in Chicago next week. If they can, then it may be akin to the teacher grabbing the spoiled kid before he’s able to re-enter the classroom and stomp the Lego village into garbage.

When the Democrats show unity, they are hard to stop. At the 1996 Democratic convention, also in Chicago, Al Gore danced his version of the Macarena in front of thousands at the United Center. It was cringeworthy to watch, but the whole arena danced along with him, and the Democrats won that year. This is not a call for the Democrats to reintroduce the Macarena in 2024, just a reminder that all isn’t necessarily what it appears to be. The Democrats looked silly in 1996 (and let’s be honest: they often look silly) but they looked silly together. In 2016, the Democrats came out of their convention in Philadelphia in a serious state of mind, and seriously fractured. At least some of the so-called Bernie Bros said they either wouldn’t vote at all or would vote for Donald Trump out of anger with the party for choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. During her floor speech, Clinton appealed to Republicans to join the Democrats — noting that if they really supported the Republican Party, they’d vote for her. That only served to further alienate the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.  

Democrats must show unity in Chicago at their convention. If they can, then it may be like the teacher grabbing the spoiled kid before he can re-enter the classroom and stomp the Lego village into garbage.

The Democrats looked silly, but not unified. You know what happened that fall.

The Macarena got everybody dancing together and that, metaphorically speaking, is where the party needs to be after next week. The Democrats right now are still riding a sugar rush after Vice President Kamala Harris took over as the presidential candidate nearly a month ago. Of course, she’s been the recipient of unintentional gifts from Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, in the last few weeks, including but not limited to random rants about abortion and drag queens. At the same time, Trump's have started to go stale and he looks more and more like a delusional dilettante with the demeanor of a dawdling dweeb on downers.

Then there’s that Trump interview.

Trump’s appearance this week with Elon Musk on X (formerly known as Twitter) did neither of those two any favors, outside the existing members of their own cults. It began with a bunch of glitches and ten Trump slurred his way through the interview as if he had a bad lisp. Both men talked about nuclear bombs in an eerily flippant manner (I guess they’ve got bunkers built, just in case). But what was even more frightening was how frank and candid they both were about their disdain for unions and working people.

On Tuesday, the United Auto Workers filed federal labor charges against Trump and Musk for threatening to intimidate workers who go on strike. The pair discussed a potential role for Musk in a second Trump’s administration. Trump called Musk “the cutter,” praising his anti-union stances.

“I look at what you do," Trump said. "You walk in and you just say, ‘You want to quit?’ They go on strike — I won’t mention the name of the company — but they go on strike, and you say, ‘That’s OK, you’re all gone. You’re all gone. Every one of you is gone,”

Musk laughed and said, “Yeah.”

UAW president Shawn Fain, a harsh Trump critic who has previously called him a “scab,” singled out Tesla, the largest non-union American automaker, as a target for organizing efforts.  

We need your help to stay independent

For those Republicans who can still think independently, there has been talk of Nikki Haley joining the ticket, replacing Vance, or maybe even Trump. Either seems like a pipe dream considering that Trump controls all the levers in the GOP, and recently doubled down on Vance. Trump would never leave the race of his own accord, because winning the presidency still affords him the best chance of avoiding spending his days in an orange jumpsuit staring at blank walls.

That brings us back to Harris and the Democrats. She is the beneficiary of Trump's missteps, but there are plenty of people who are still unsure about her ability to do the job. While the Democratic base is juiced by the energy her campaign has generated, it remains to be seen if she can convince undecided voters in six or seven key states that she’s the leader the country needs. I have no idea why anyone would still be on the fence, even if the Democrats nominated a potato to run against Trump. But such voters do exist. It's both tragic and comical that Harris could win the popular vote overwhelmingly, yet still lose in the Electoral College. That’s a different and longer story, however.

This week, I tuned into was a statement by an undecided voter in Michigan. He is age 60 and Black, and lives in a Detroit suburb with many Arab American residents. Those neighbors of his "don’t like Harris or the Democrats and may not vote,” he explained. “But I ask them this; If you’re going out with your significant other for the night and your choices for babysitter are Harris or Trump, or Walz and Vance, who would you pick? Man, for most of them, it’s not even close.”

There you have it: The babysitter factor. 

The Democrats argue that this election is about saving democracy and the Harris/Walz ticket respects the Constitution while the felony-convicted/crush-with-eyeliner ticket is authoritarian; a wannabe king with his talentless court jester. But maybe it’s about something simpler. After all, we’ve heard this political rhetoric before. Every presidential race in recent memory has evoked those metaphors. They’re as tiresome as watching Trump and Musk grooming each other while telling us that nuclear bombs aren’t so bad. They’re as boring as a Trump rally. They’re as loathsome as Vance’s fictional upbringing and as irritating as Trump and Vance screaming about woke culture. 


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


So who are we as a nation?

Arguing policy or political ideology doesn’t work, and plenty of people have gone completely numb to national politics. Former House Speaker Tip O’Neill famously said that all politics was local, and my own grandfather, a circuit court judge, said that all politics boils down to a backyard barbecue. With that in mind, maybe to reach the undecided voter in key states, you ask a very simple question: Who would you trust to watch your children for a night? 

We certainly don’t need to hear any more of Trump’s lies. He has nothing new to say, and what he says is nothing more than verbal diarrhea. Take this gem released by the Trump campaign, attempting to blame Harris for inflation that doesn’t exist and for which she isn’t responsible: 

It has been 24 days and Kamala Harris continues to duck and hide from the media — no interviews and no press conferences since she announced. Since Kamala is not doing any press, she can’t explain why crippling inflation rates have resulted in a 20% increase in prices since she took office. Her campaign is hiding Kamala in the basement because they know she owns every single disastrous policy record of the Biden-Harris administration. Voters are often faced with the question, ‘Are you better off now than you were four years ago?’ The answer is clearly NO. Instead, Kamala should be asked, ‘Are you proud of the disaster you have created for every American family?’ Judging by her silence, her answer is a resounding YES.

Of course, we could clean this all up if Trump held an actual news conference and not a staged event attended by sheep in a pen. And yes, I’m well aware that Harris hasn’t held a press conference either. As a reporter, I want her to, of course. But I'm sure folks in the Harris campaign are asking themselves: Why should we? As long as Donald Trump keeps on eating his own tail, you might as well let him.

After all, nobody wants him to be a babysitter.

“Stark comparison”: Union leaders praise Tim Walz as JD Vance tries to rebrand GOP as pro-labor

Even before Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz was selected as Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, he built a reputation as a pro-labor politician.

Last fall, Walz joined a group of striking auto workers on the picket line in Plymouth, Minn., garnering respect from one of the country’s largest unions. 

"That's who we believe would be best for labor and for working class people but you know, that's her decision," said United Auto Workers Union (UAW) president Shawn Fain of Walz and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, before Harris selected her VP candidate.

Since he was chosen as the Democratic vice presidential candidate last week, Walz’s support from labor groups including teachers and farmworkers has only grown on the national stage. 

“Farm workers have long known that Vice President Harris is someone who listens to labor and really internalizes our concerns – her selection of such a pro-labor champion like Governor Walz as her running mate is just further proof,” the United Farm Workers President President Teresa Romero said in a statement to Salon.

As a former high school teacher, Walz was once a union member himself. Long before Walz joined the national ticket, he helped make Minnesota one of the most worker-friendly states in the country.

“He's done great work here with labor, and we appreciate his willingness to always be at the table with us,” said Bernie Burnham, the president of Minnesota AFL-CIO, the president of Minnesota American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).

“When you see Tim Walz, you can see he's as comfortable getting down the floor and talking to a toddler as he is listening to senior citizens and hearing about what their needs are,” Burnham said.

In 2023, Walz passed one of the country’s most comprehensive worker protection bills in Minnesota. The bill, SF3035, mandates paid sick days, bans non-compete agreements, expands collective bargaining terms, gives more funding to workplace inspectors and  increases safety protections for workers in nursing homes, warehouses, meatpacking plants and construction sites.

“I think it's a great bill, and I think that people workers for sure, know that they can go to work and feel safe and that they are respected, you know, that we're looking out for them,” said Bernie Burnham.

We need your help to stay independent

Along with passing SF3035, Walz established a minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers despite fierce opposition from rideshare companies. No other state has established a similar pay minimum. 

He also passed protections for Amazon warehouse workers. Amazon must now provide warehouse workers with a written description of their expected quota to prevent injuries related to working too quickly.

But a lot of what Walz has fought for goes beyond just putting money in workers’ pockets, said Jake Schwitzer, the executive director of North Star Policy Action, a Minnesota-based think tank. Walz has built an eco-system of policies that support working-class families, Schwitzer said.

Walz signed into a law a nation-leading child tax credit of $1,750 per child with no limit on the number of children claimed. In 2024, over 437,000 children benefited from the claim. He also made school lunches free for all children and cut in-state college tuition for families earning less than $80,000 per year. 

“Things like strong support for our public schools, that really matters to working families. The child tax credit, that's not a union or a non-union issue that's supporting families and working class folks,” Schwitzer said.


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


While Walz has a long pro-worker track record, Trump’s running mate Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, has made similar claims, attempting to rebrand the Republican party as pro-labor.

"We need a leader who's not in the pocket of big business but answers to the working man, union and non-union alike,” Vance said at the Republican National Convention. 

Yet Trump’s first administration was staunchly anti-labor. He restricted the unions rights to organize and weakened worker protections. On Tuesday, the UAW announced the union is filing federal charges against Trump for arguing that striking workers should be fired. 

Vance too has faced criticism for his worker-friendly facade. Recent allegations have surfaced that workers at a startup funded by Vance faced “nightmarish” conditions. 

“I think it's a pretty stark comparison. JD Vance likes to point out problems and blame people for those problems existing,” Schwitzer said, comparing Vance to Walz. “Tim Walz, when he identifies a problem, he uses collective effort and the power of the government to improve people's lives.”

Don’t ask AI to make life-and-death decisions

Sometimes, AI really can be a matter of life and death.

Last year, a Belgian man tragically ended his life after allegedly being persuaded to do so by a chatbot. In the Netherlands, there’s an ongoing debate over whether to allow the use of artificial intelligence, or AI, to support decisions around doctor-assisted suicide. Elsewhere, researchers are using AI to predict how likely late-stage cancer patients are to survive the next 30 days, which could allow patients to opt out of unpleasant treatments in their final weeks.

I’ve seen the tendency to ask AI life-and-death questions first-hand. After hearing I was a computer scientist, a professor at a university I was visiting immediately asked: “So, can your algorithms tell me the best time to kill myself?”

The woman wasn’t at risk of self-harm. Instead, she feared the onset of Alzheimer’s disease as she aged, and longed for an AI model capable of helping her determine the optimal time to end her life before cognitive decline left her unable to make consequential decisions.

Fortunately, I don’t often get such requests. But I do meet plenty of people who hope new technologies will eliminate existential uncertainties from their lives. Earlier this year, Danish researchers created an algorithm, dubbed the “doom calculator,” that could predict people’s likelihood of dying within four years with more than 78 percent accuracy. Within weeks, I found that several copycat bots purporting to predict users’ death dates were appearing online.

From “Seinfeld” jokes to sci-fi stories and horror movies, the notion of an advanced computer telling us when we’ll die is hardly new — but in the age of ChatGPT, the idea of AI doing amazing things seems more realistic than ever. As a computer scientist, however, I remain skeptical. The reality is that while AI can do many things, it’s far from being a crystal ball.

Algorithmic predictions, like actuarial tables, are useful in the aggregate: They can tell us, for instance, approximately how many people will die in our community over a given time period. What they can’t do is offer the final word on any individual’s lifespan. The future isn’t set in stone: A healthy person might get hit by a bus tomorrow, while a smoker who never exercises might buck the actuarial trends and live to be 100.

In the age of ChatGPT, the idea of AI doing amazing things seems more realistic than ever. As a computer scientist, however, I remain skeptical.

Even if AI models could make meaningful individual predictions, our understanding of illnesses is constantly evolving. Once, nobody knew that smoking caused cancer; after we figured it out, our health predictions changed dramatically. Similarly, new treatments can render prior predictions obsolete: According to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the median life expectancy for people born with the disease has climbed by more than 15 years since 2014, and new drugs and gene therapies promise greater gains in the future.

If you want certainty, this might sound disappointing. The more I study how people make decisions with data, though, the more I feel that uncertainty isn’t necessarily a bad thing. People crave clarity, but my work shows that people can feel less confident and make worse decisions when given more information to guide their choices. Predictions of bad outcomes can leave us feeling helpless, while uncertainty — as anyone who plays the lottery knows — can give us license to dream of (and strive toward) a brighter future.

AI tools can be useful in low-stakes situations, of course. Netflix’s recommendation algorithm is a great way to find new shows to binge — and if it steers you towards a dud, you can click away and watch something else. There are higher-stakes situations where AI is useful, too: When a fighter jet’s onboard computer intervenes to avoid a collision, say, then AI forecasting can save lives.

The problems begin when we see AI tools as replacing, rather than augmenting, our own agency. Although AI is good at spotting patterns in data, it can’t replace human judgment. (Dating app algorithms, for instance, are notoriously terrible judges of compatibility.) Algorithms are also prone to confidently fabricating answers rather than admitting uncertainty and can also show worrying biases based on the datasets used to train them.

The more I study how people make decisions with data, though, the more I feel that uncertainty isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

What should we make of all this? For better or worse, we need to learn to live with — and, perhaps, embrace — the uncertainties in our lives. Just as doctors learn to tolerate uncertainty to care for their patients, so we must all make important decisions without knowing exactly where they will lead.

That can be uncomfortable, but it’s part of what makes us human. As I warned the woman who feared the onset of Alzheimer’s, it’s impossible for AI to quantify the value of a single lived moment — and the challenges that come with being human aren’t something we should be too quick to outsource to an unfeeling AI model.

The poet Rainer Maria Rilke once told a young writer that we shouldn’t try to eliminate uncertainty, but instead learn “to love the questions themselves.” It’s tough not knowing how long we’ll live, whether a relationship will last, or what life holds in store. But AI can’t answer these questions for us, and we shouldn’t ask it to. Instead, let’s try to cherish the fact that the hardest and most meaningful decisions in life remain ours, and ours alone, to make.


If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988. There is also an online chat at 988lifeline.org

Samantha Kleinberg is the Farber Chair Associate Professor of computer science at Stevens Institute of Technology and the author of “Why: A Guide to Finding and Using Causes.”

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Republicans tell Trump to focus on issues, not “crowd sizes.” Project 2025 shows that will backfire

Donald Trump beat Nikki Haley in the Republican primary by repeatedly calling her "birdbrain," and even driving home the insult by sending a birdcage and bird food to her hotel room. Yet she still wants to offer him advice on how to win the White House in November. 

"I want this campaign to win," the former governor of South Carolina told Fox News Tuesday. She begged Trump to "quit whining" about Vice President Kamala Harris and instead "focus" on what she believes voters care about, policy. "The campaign is not going to win talking about crowd sizes. It’s not going to win talking about what race Kamala Harris is. It’s not going to win talking about whether she is dumb," Haley told Fox host Bret Baier. She added that the campaign "needs to focus."

Trump won't listen to a woman, of course, but Haley is speaking for a larger crowd of Republicans who are anxious that their candidate's odious personality will lose this election for them. Reports from across Capitol Hill quote GOP advisors and officials from all corners begging Trump to stop fantasizing about President Joe Biden rejoining the race or falsely claiming crowds at Harris rallies are AI-generated. Fox News pundits like Sean Hannity and even Jesse Watters are imploring Trump to stop "talking about [the] nationality or background" of his opponent and tell himself "it's not about her, it's about her policies." 

All that is unlikely to happen.

The New York Times reported over the weekend that Trump told "rattled donors" he thinks "I was right" to mock Harris for being biracial. He shrugged off concerns about his gutter-style politics, saying, "I am who I am." Certainly, the Harris campaign is only too happy to let Trump continue confirming their accusation that he's "old and quite weird." But Republicans may be overly optimistic that a pivot-to-policy approach would do much better for Trump. If there's anything the majority of Americans hate more than Trump's vile personality, it's his policy agenda. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


We can see this in the reaction to Project 2025, which was set up to be a substitute for the usual policy arm and transition team that a presidential campaign would employ, with a separate website and funding from the campaign itself. It was structured this way because it wasn't too long ago that Republicans understood that voters hate their policies. The goal was for donors and advocates to know about Project 2025, but not most voters. The strategy backfired, however. The secretive nature of the project drew more journalists and public attention since people love uncovering hidden information. Soon far more people were talking about Project 2025 than would have ever spoken about an official Trump agenda. 

Polling shows at least 7 out of 10 Americans now say they've heard of Project 2025 and they do not like it. Just based on the name, 43% of Americans oppose the program, and only 11% say they favor it, with the rest saying they don't know enough to decide. When respondents are asked about specific policy items in Project 2025, disapproval soars even higher, pollsters at the University of Massachusetts Amherst found:

Large majorities of Americans oppose the key pillars of Project 2025, such as the replacement of career government officials with political appointees (68% opposed), restricting a woman’s right to contraception (72% opposed) and eliminating the Department of Education (64% opposed)…. Even former Trump voters exhibit opposition to many of these policies, a bad omen for the Republican Party and Trump campaign.

Facing these numbers, the Trump campaign panicked, forcing the head of Project 2025 to resign and pretending the initiative was "disbanded." It's all a lie, of course. The people who put it together are still doing the work and secretively collaborating with the Trump campaign, even without the official banner of "Project 2025." As Sabrina Haake pointed out for Salon, the first phase of the plan is already in action, due to multiple far-right decisions by the Supreme Court. Over the weekend, ProPublica leaked training videos developed by Project 2025 to prepare Trump's potential appointments on how to get away with breaking the law if he gets into office. Photos of Trump hanging out with Kevin Roberts, a Project 2025 leader he claimed not to know, were also leaked. 

Roberts was also set to publish a book this fall that is a shorter, more readable version of the Project 2025 playbook, complete with a foreword by Trump's running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio. Realizing the last thing Trump needs is for more information about his policies to be in the hands of the voting public, Roberts delayed the release of "Dawn's Early Light" until after the election, but Media Matters got their hands on a galley copy anyway.

If there's anything the majority of Americans hate more than Trump's vile personality, it's his policy agenda. 

It's easy to see why Trump worries about people learning his policy positions. Roberts denounces contraception because it "made having a child seem like an optional and not natural result of having sex." He denies that workers have a right to unionize and demands the public school system be gutted. He even comes out against dog parks, echoing Vance's weird complaint about "childless cat ladies," positing that people get pets instead of having children. 

Trump and Vance's strategy to hide these unpopular views is to lie about them. Lying has worked well for Trump in the past, so one can see why he thinks it would work. But he and Vance keep letting their true views leak out during interviews. When Vance is asked about his "childless cat lady" remarks, he can't help but let slip his belief that child-bearing should be compulsory. Trump insists he won't sign a national abortion ban (he would), but, in his babbling way, let on to reporters that he's fine with the Project 2025 scheme to create a back door ban by forcing the FDA to repeal approval of abortion medications. Even in the pseudo-interview Trump did with Elon Musk on Monday, the few times Trump mentioned policy views, they were unpopular, like his suggestions that employers should fire workers for joining unions and that nothing should be done to slow climate change.

Trump doesn't talk about policy because it bores him and he will never take the time to learn enough about it to say anything meaningful about it. Project 2025 was set up precisely because Trump doesn't care about such things, and will delegate all those decisions to the wild-eyed fanatics who populate the conservative activist world in the MAGA era. When Republicans beg him to talk about "the issues," the best they can hope for is that he will offer incoherent non-answers like "we're going to look into that" and "we'll have a policy in two weeks," or his other strategies to pretend he has answers while avoiding any actual details. But he'll get bored with that, inevitably. So there's almost no chance he doesn't return to his favorite well: being a loudmouthed, racist weirdo. 

New species of extinct walrus discovered in the North Atlantic

Walruses (Odobenus rosmarus) are distinct for their massive, long tusks and fuzzy mustache-like faces, but a recently discovered extinct species looks slightly different from the creature that chilled with Alice in Wonderland. Imagine a walrus-like creature with dentition remarkably similar to modern walruses: A quartet of post-canine teeth, a large lower canine tooth and a short, fused vertical midline on their lower jaw.

It may look like a walrus, but the newly-discovered Ontocetus posti is actually an ancient beast. As reported by paleontologists led by the University of Tsukuba's Dr. Mathieu Boisville in the journal PeerJ Life & Environment, fossils of the primordial pinniped were initially believed to be a different extinct walrus predecessor, Ontocetus emmonsi, after being discovered both in Antwerp, Belgium and Norwich in the United Kingdom. Upon further scientific analysis, however, the researchers determined that the walrus' tooth structure distinguishes it from any previously known extinct species — yet are remarkably similar to surviving walruses. Specifically, "These features include the presence of four post-canine teeth, a larger lower canine, and a fused and short mandibular symphysis," according to a press release.

Though its teeth were different, the ancient walrus evolved separately from O. rosmarus, an example of convergent evolution or when similar traits arise spontaneously in different animals. Dolphins and bats both utilizing echolocation or birds and bugs both having wings are other examples of convergent evolution. Nonetheless, Ontocetus posti probably had a similar suction-feeding form of eating.

The study authors point out that the Odobenus rosmarus is the only surviving walrus species and predominantly inhabit the Arctic, but that this was not always the case for these charismatic animals.

"Their extinct relatives once occupied temperate and subtropical latitudes, mainly in the Miocene eastern North Pacific realm, with a wide range of shape and size, from small sea lion-like ‘imagotariines’ to bizarre unique double-tusked dusignathines," the researchers write.

“I do not see any light on the horizon for Trump”: Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson on MAGA’s retreat

No plan survives first contact with the enemy. This is especially true if one ends up fighting an enemy they did not prepare for.

Donald Trump and his campaign developed a strategy specifically to defeat President Biden in the 2024 Election. Once Biden was defeated Trump would become the country’s first dictator and systematically destroy multiracial pluralistic democracy. As detailed in Project 2025, Agenda 47, and elsewhere, Donald Trump and his regime are very well-prepared to accomplish that goal.

Their plan was working. Trump was leading or tied with President Biden in the polls, both nationally and in the key battleground states. Trump continued to bypass or smash through the obstacles in his path and to turn the (incorrect) conventional wisdom on its head about how “the walls were closing in” and that “the rule of law,” “the institutions,” and “American decency” would stop him and the MAGA movement.

President Biden and the Democrats were not mounting an effective defense—never mind a counterattack. The one direct confrontation between President Biden and Donald Trump during the first debate went horribly. Biden imploded and appeared to be impotent before Trump’s barrage of lies and manic energy.

Sensing imminent defeat, President Biden made the wise decision to step aside and allow Kamala Harris to become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. Donald Trump and his campaign’s strategy is now falling apart, nullified and frustrated by an enemy they did not plan for. Trump’s leadership is also being tested. At this point, he is failing the test.

Kamala Harris is now tied with or leading Trump in the national polls and key battleground states. The Democratic Party’s base is energized. Fundraising has increased dramatically. With the selection of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her vice-presidential running mate, Harris has infused the party (and campaign) with a type of populist energy and vibrance it has lacked for a long time.

It has only been three weeks since Kamala Harris became the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee. In that very short time, Donald Trump appears to be experiencing one of the greatest reversals in political momentum in recent American history.

In an attempt to gain a better perspective on these whiplash-like changes, I recently spoke with Rick Wilson. He is a co-founder of The Lincoln Project, a former leading Republican strategist, and the author of two books, "Everything Trump Touches Dies" and "Running Against the Devil: A Plot to Save America from Trump – and Democrats from Themselves."

In this conversation, Wilson explains how and why Donald Trump’s campaign has lost momentum and focus so quickly. He also details the advantages that Kamala Harris possesses against Donald Trump — advantages that may be very difficult for the corrupt felon ex-president to counter.

"Donald Trump had a period of time which were, to be frank, the best six weeks I've ever seen in politics."

Wilson warns that Donald Trump and his campaign will attempt to use racism and misogyny against Kamala Harris in ways that will likely shock many members of the public — but that such a tactic may actually backfire.

At the end of this conversation, Wilson cautions against premature celebrations and the bandwagon effect because the 2024 election will be a long one and a Kamala Harris victory, at this early stage, is far from guaranteed.

These last few weeks have been a whirlwind. How are you feeling? How are you managing this torrent? 

I'm doing alright. Donald Trump laid a trap to try to beat Joe Biden, and that trap was to tell every American that the old man couldn't hack it, and now Trump is the old man who can't hack it in the race. We’re in a much different and better position than we were in a few weeks ago. Here at the Lincoln project, we've had a remarkable run of communicating to the voters we're trying to persuade. Over the last few weeks, we've seen a lot of movement in the polling. The 2024 election is fundamentally changed. This is not Donald Trump's race anymore. Trump no longer controls the narrative. He doesn't have control of the flow of information, and it's really hurting Trump. 

Given your decades of experience in American politics at the highest levels, have you experienced anything like these twists and turns these last few weeks in the story that is the Age of Trump?

Both the frequency and the amplitude of the changes are increasing. We are seeing an election that has really been shaken up and redefined in a way that has not occurred in a political campaign in my lifetime. We are in a moment where the politics of the country are demanding that we pay attention every day. Our team at the Lincoln Project is very seasoned at this point. They've been around this fight for four years. Our staff is now very accustomed to the cadence and the work and the pace that we maintain. That is great. But we try to emphasize balance here. People need time to rest and to take a breather. This is going to be a long fight. 

When people email me seeking guidance about what to do about the election and just trying to make sense of the Age of Trump and its misery and how to manage it, I tell them it is going to be a long war and not a fight. I also counsel that they must fight small battles each day. 

There will be good days and bad days for Vice President Harris and her campaign from here to Election Day in November. One of the lessons that I emphasize with my colleagues is that "perspective in politics is a weapon." It's a superpower. Knowing how to manage your own expectations for what good days and bad days look like is really important. Donald Trump had a period of time which were, to be frank, the best six weeks I've ever seen in politics. Those six weeks culminated with a coronation at the Republican National Convention. Some broke that night when Trump took the stage. Guess what? Vice President Harris has had three amazing weeks where she has consolidated the Democratic Party base, won over a cohort of Republican women voters who are pro-choice, and has made a ton of progress in redefining not only what the Democratic Party can look like for Americans, but also in what people should expect from a campaign. The hope and optimism element of her campaign is driving the Republicans crazy. Why? Because the Republicans view campaigns as reductive and negative, and they're really having trouble processing how to counter that. 

After the assassination attempt when Trump rose from the ground and pumped his fist in the air while saying "fight! fight! fight!", I watched that iconic moment and said aloud that is the next president of the United States. Then Trump is elevated as some type of fascist god king at the Republican National Convention and what should have been something out of "Triumph of the Will" and Hitler and the Nazis was something more somnolent and akin to a tired premier giving a speech before the Supreme Soviet.

Now, Harris is leading Trump, and the momentum is decidedly hers. How did things go so wrong so quickly for Donald Trump and his campaign? 

Donald Trump has no one but himself to blame for his political fortunes right now and how he has lost the momentum so fast. I will say this about the assassination attempt. There was an attempt by the Trump campaign, smartly to show or to say that this was part of a larger conversation in America, and this was about hatred of Donald Trump, and the overall tone of our politics in the country right now. But it turned out we very quickly learned it was about a sick young man who like a lot of other lost young men in this country, has easy access to guns but does not have friends. They have the internet but no real meaningful relationships. This young man went out to shoot a famous person.

We need your help to stay independent

The narrative that Trump and his people were trying to impose on this horrible event did not match up to what the motivation turned out to really be. And then Trump himself turned it into a clown show, with the huge bandage on his ear. The drama Trump tried to create around the assassination attempt did not work. Trump himself has conditioned Americans to change the subject and he has conditioned Americans over and over again, to believe and to know that everything's going to change. The American people know that Trump is going to change his mind. He is going to change his message. That is not going to change. Trump's own temperament and behavior redounded against him in this case because he wanted everybody to think of him as a glorious martyr. He isn't. 

Earlier in our conversation, you said that Donald Trump has a "superpower" and that he also built his own trap. Trump is a character in a story that he is writing in his own mind in real-time where he is the hero. How did he lose control of his own story? 

"Donald Trump has no one but himself to blame for his political fortunes right now and how he has lost the momentum so fast."

You have to maintain pressure on Donald Trump all the time. Trump is like trying to give a cat a bath. You're going to have to make sure that you are prepared to get cut up and scratched and bitten. You have to be sure you are never going to take your hand off the scruff of that cat's neck until you get it into the bathtub. Trump will fight and scrap and twist and turn and do everything he can to get out of trouble. Once you deliver a message about Donald Trump, you have to keep hammering that message home. You can never give Donald Trump even 10 seconds to come up off the mat. You can never give Trump a break or a breather or grace or any respite. The assassination attempt on Trump's life does not change that fact. That event changed nothing about him and how we should approach defeating him. Donald Trump is still exactly who and what he's always been. Period. 

Kamala Harris's campaign is very different in terms of style, messaging, and tone. To this point, it is much more effective than was President Biden's. Where was this approach from President Biden and his campaign team? 

Every campaign is an organic creation. Every campaign is its own thing. This means that every campaign reflects the person leading the campaign, the candidate. Right now, this campaign is reflecting Vice President Harris pretty well. Her campaign is giving the public a look at who she really is. She is not the same sort of institutionalist figure that President Biden is. I don't mean that as a critique of President Biden. Not at all. Kamala Harris is just a different person. She is also of a different generation. She has a different energy, pose and stature. Kamala Harris has a different kind of delivery. That presentation as somebody who is younger, sharper, more and more connected to pop culture and the world as it exists now is going to be the focus of how she is presented to the American people. She's a different candidate than Biden which means that we are going to see a very different type of campaign. 

The New York Times recently reported that Trump has been "triggered" by Kamala Harris and the early success of her campaign. There is other reporting about how Trump's campaign is in tumult, and he is raging and lashing out. What is your assessment of Trump's behavior and reaction to Harris?

Donald Trump is shook. He's not happy. Trump is particularly upset about how on paper, the 2024 election looked like it was in the proverbial bag for him already. And when that didn't work out, as it is slipping away, Trump's reaction has been extremely ugly internally. All of Trump's people are leaking information to the press now. That is a sign of a bad campaign, one that is in real trouble. Everybody's trying to defend themselves; they're trying to blame shift. Kamala Harris is taking the lead in the swing state polls. That has really upset Donald Trump. He really thought he had a campaign that was absolutely perfect for this, for this moment and targeting Joe Biden. Now that is all thrown out the window. 

Donald Trump and his agents, especially JD Vance, are already launching racist and sexist attacks on Kamala Harris. What they are going to try to do to Kamala Harris will make Birtherism look kind. This is going to be some old school racism and white supremacy and hatred of Black women. I have been trying to warn people that what Trump's campaign is going to do will be Willie Horton 2.0—if not worse. How does Trump's campaign balance those types of racist and sexist attacks on Harris with not turning off larger portions of the American electorate?

When the Willie Horton ad was put out, that was the late 1980s, the average voter was much more likely to be older and more suburban and rural and whiter. We are in a very different time now. That was also an era where it was harder to fact check, and harder to vet and verify the claims being made in political ads. You could get away with stuff back then that you in no way could get away with now. 

"This is not Donald Trump's race anymore. Trump no longer controls the narrative."

There are plenty of ways where the countervailing messages to push back on Trump's use of racism and sexism can become very painful for him and his campaign. I have no doubt they are going to try some Willie Horton old school racism attacks. Trump and his people in the media and elsewhere are going to do everything but say the N-word in public by the time this is over. I 100% believe in private that Trump is saying such things. We're in a moment where the desperation on their side is showing. You can see it in their communications. You can see it in the media coverage. You can see it in Trump's behavior on social media. You can see it in the campaign’s press releases and statements. Donald Trump does not know how to get out of this. Kamala Harris's rise is a dark moment for him. I do not see any light on the horizon for Trump. Yet, we've got a long way to go. The vice president has moved up in the surveys by some three to seven points, depending on the state. The Democratic National Convention in Chicago is going to be unified and happy and raucous and fun. That's going to help her win a few more points here and there. I won't say the whole race is stacked against Trump right now. But it sure is not built for him.

How do you assess the matchup between Tim Walz and JD Vance?

Walz connects with ordinary people. He gives a lot of moderate sort of midwestern north central American Republicans a way to go. I know that guy. Yeah, maybe he's a Democrat, but he knows about ice fishing and he is of their culture. Vance is weird. That is obvious. But he is playing that part, almost like a stereotype, every day. I am deeply amused by Vance's inability to connect with regular people.

What are the public opinion polls, which are a snapshot in time, indicating about the 2024 Election at this point?

What I find most surprising is all the growth that's left is in the middle. Harris is solidifying the Democratic base at a breakneck pace, Trump has not been able to solidify more moderate Republicans, those Nikki Haley voters, those non-Trump voters, and I don't think he can at this point. When the Republicans do a post-mortem of this era, if they are being honest with themselves, they will see that the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade was the most fatal political moment in their party's modern history. 

I am very concerned about how too many members of the news media and pundit class (and general public) are leaping to far too early conclusions about Harris and her momentum being somehow determinant of a victory over Trump in November. The lesson from history I keep coming back to is how Michael Dukakis was way ahead of George H.W. Bush and then lost to him in the election.

That was my first big campaign, 1988. At this point in the election contest, Dukakis was ahead by 17 points. Here are the lessons from that defeat. Don't ever take anything for granted. Run through the tape. Never take your foot off the pedal. It's a simple and what should be an inviolate rule. You have to run all the way through. You have to fight all the way down. You can never, ever, take a break from the campaign at this early point. You've got to drive through the tape.

One of the things we have to watch for here is that Trump can beat Trump. Harris can beat Trump. Trump I do not believe can beat Harris with the popular vote. But Trump could beat Harris because of the Electoral College.

How is your hope tank doing as compared to a few weeks ago? What about your worry tank?

My worry tank is diminished meaningfully. My hope tank is on three-quarters, but I'm going to stop for gas again soon before Election Day in November.

“Really scary”: Experts alarmed by Trump plot to “weaponize” DOJ by mass firing career officials

Former President Donald Trump has again vowed to take on the so-called “deep state” with a mission laid out on his own website to “root out wrongdoers,” “fire corrupt employees” and “get woke Leftwing Democrats fired as soon as possible.” 

Trump has repeatedly railed against the "deep state" as a core theme of his rallies and promised revenge on his political enemies — including President Joe Biden and his administration officials.

Trump failed to eliminate the administrative state in his first term, and courts prevented many of his administration's attempts to flout settled agency law.

But Trump is poised to go farther than previous Republican administrations in his efforts to try to replace civil servants en masse with political appointees if he wins a second term, University of Illinois Chicago political science professor E.J. Fagan, told Salon.

"They want to fire lots of people, so lots of people working in expert roles in places like the Environmental Protection Agency, across the Justice Department, et cetera," Fagan said. "And that's kind of scary, right? Especially you think about those places like the Defense Department, Justice Department. You do a lot of bad things if you remove everybody who's willing to say no to you."

Conservatives have long argued that Ivy League, liberal-leaning experts in federal agencies hold far more power than Congress ever envisioned, and that their budgets are a burden on taxpayers.

Such ideology fit well with Trump's style of campaigning, featuring rallies where he rails against shadowy, deep state, elite and liberal enemies — whom he often refers to as a nebulous "they" — to raucous applause.

Pomona College politics professor Amanda Hollis-Brusky told Salon that Trump is "saying the quiet part out loud" about the modern conservative movement's decades-old fight against the administrative state.

"Since Reagan, I would say conservatives have tried to rein in what they saw as a largely unaccountable bureaucracy," Hollis-Brusky said.  "They rail against the civil service because they believe that civil servants are enacting their own mostly liberal agendas, and they're not able to be controlled through political accountability."

Trump's expected focus on loyalty above all as a requirement for his new administration could weaken the power and competence of federal agencies, according to Wake Forest University School of Law professor Sidney Shapiro.

"If loyalty really is the watchword, then competence isn't and that's a really scary prospect for everything the government does right now, whether it's delivering the mail or Social Security or you name," Shapiro told Salon.

Shapiro said federal agencies do everything from tackling complex issues like climate change to ensuring people get their mail.

"Politicians come, politicians go," he said. "But when we've had the right combination, and the country wants to make big improvements and do important things, it's really these folks that have driven all that. And I think it's really scary that the most experienced of them, the ones who really day to day make this work, could get replaced."

Over the past year, Trump allies have argued they have the plans and personnel to take Trump's fight against the administrative state to the next level.

Project 2025 – the 922-page manifesto backed by the Heritage Foundation, other conservative groups and scores of former Trump officials – outlines a plan to “remove thousands of bureaucrats” and replace them with Trump’s own appointees. The manifesto also calls for placing the Department of Justice and FBI under the president's control.

In his own Agenda 47, Trump promises he "will clean out all of the corrupt actors in our National Security and Intelligence apparatus, and there are plenty of them."

"The departments and agencies that have been weaponized will be completely overhauled so that faceless bureaucrats will never again be able to target and persecute conservatives, Christians, or the left's political enemies, which they're doing now at a level that nobody can believe even possible," reads part of Agenda 47.

Trump’s allies are also “drawing up lists” of loyalist, right-wing lawyers for his second administration, according to The New York Times. That's a stark contrast with the Trump administration's reliance on Federalist Society recommendations for executive branch legal roles during his first term — Trump often called his lawyers "weak" and "stupid."

Conservative nonprofits have said they're coming up with their own lists of loyalists who could serve as lawyers or fill the 4,000 appointments potentially available in a Trump administration.

THE THREAT OF SCHEDULE F

In Agenda 47, Trump also said he would "immediately reissue" a sweeping 2020 executive order that launched what he called Schedule F: a plan to make it much easier to fire federal employees in policy positions.

"First, I will immediately re-issue my 2020 Executive Order restoring the President's authority to remove rogue bureaucrats," reads Trump's Agenda 47. "And I will wield that power very aggressively."

Biden rescinded the order in the first month he took office.

But University of Cincinnati College of Law Dean Emeritus Joseph Tomain said talk of re-instituting Schedule F alone has "demoralized many civil servants already."

Trump's plan would have impacted an estimated tens of thousands of the more than three million civil servants who work in federal agencies from the EPA to the Department of Education to NASA.

"It's really a way of making sure that there is no substantive pushback on the crazier things that they want to do"

"You take a job in government, which I think is a noble thing to do, historically, you've had a lot of freedom and civil service protections so that you could do your job as a professional," Tomain told Salon. "These agencies have an internal professional culture. I want to be a good economist, I want to be a good lawyer, I want to be a good scientist, and so that my reputation in the profession is respected. If I'm under the gun all of the time, that's going to put a real damper on how I could actually do my work."

Trump's executive order directed agencies to provide lists of all the civil service positions with substantial decision-making responsibility.

Trump sought to classify those employees as at-will workers and exempt them from civil service protections and processes include seniority and testing, according to Bowdoin College government professor Andrew Rudalevige.

"Trump folks would say that they were rooting out the deep state. Those more sympathetic to bureaucratic expertise would say it's really a way of making sure that there is no substantive pushback on the crazier things that they want to do," Rudalevige told Salon.

This year, the Biden administration issued regulations aimed at ensuring civil servants have protections including hearings and due process.

Congress, however, hasn't passed a law providing stronger protection against a renewed Schedule F.

It's unclear how long it would take Trump to fire or replace disloyal civil servants en masse.

"Now, would all those people all be fired immediately and replaced?" Rudalevige said. "I don't know, but maybe it would be potentially possible. It would take some time."

Rudalevige said the Biden regulations could "probably delay the implementation of a new Schedule F" if Trump tried again.

But, Rudalevige added: "I don't think it completely cancels it out, because, if nothing else, a new Trump administration could issue regulations rescinding Biden's regulations."

Kenneth Warren, a professor at St. Louis University whose research includes the administrative state, told Politico that it is ordinarily "very, very tough" for federal agencies to undo and replace regulations.

And the Supreme Court's string of administrative rulings limiting the power of federal agencies could also backfire for a renewed Schedule F effort. Berkeley Law School Daniel Farber told Politico that such rulings mean courts won't defer to agencies without clear approval from Congress.

In March, Trump's running-mate Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, told Politico that if the Supreme Court tries to prevent Trump from firing scores of midlevel federal employees, he believes Trump should defy such an order.

"You need the bureaucracy to be responsive to the elected branches of government,” Vance told Politico. “The counterargument is, you know, ‘Aren’t you promoting a constitutional crisis?’ And my response is no — I’m recognizing a constitutional crisis. If the elected president says, ‘I get to control the staff of my own government,’ and the Supreme Court steps in and says, ‘You’re not allowed to do that’ — like, that is the constitutional crisis. It’s not whatever Trump or whoever else does in response."

Dartmouth College sociology professor John Campbell said he expects "a major battle in the courts" about whether Trump could invoke a new version of Schedule F.

"You can assume if he gets elected again, part and parcel of this Schedule F business, he would try to weaponize the Department of Justice by putting people in that he wanted," Campbell told Salon. "You can bet that there would be major pushback."

We need your help to stay independent

THE POTENTIAL FOR A WEAKENED CIVIL SERVICE

Fagan said modern civil service protections date back to Watergate and stem from concern about corruption and incompetence.

"Civil service protections were originally created because parties were given jobs to people who were unqualified in return for political work, in return for campaign work, campaign contributions, et cetera," Fagan said. "And that has created a professional class that has been very important to American policy making, regardless of who's president. Republicans have clashed with this class of people many times."

Fagan said federal employees have traditionally felt empowered to question the legality of executive branch decision-making.

Congress, he said, has intentionally provided checks and balances by delegating authority to agencies to roll out policy — rather than leave all the decisions to the White House.

But he said he questions whether federal employees could still serve that role under a Trump administration with weakened civil service protections.

"If it's illegal, the HHS secretary can say, or the Defense secretary can say, 'I'm going to resign if you make me do this.' The president can fire that person," Fagan said. "And eventually it gets down to a civil servant, who he can fire, and if it's illegal, they won't do it. And I'd worry about what Donald Trump will make people do or else they get fired."

Republican attorney George Conway said if Trump weakens civil service protections to make it easier to fire civil servants, they would face enormous pressure to fall in line or lose their livelihoods.

"I'd worry about what Donald Trump will make people do or else they get fired."

"You're going to see a lot of other people who are just going to say: 'That's enough, I've had enough. I don't want to do this anymore. I could make more money on the outside, or I'm just going to sit out quietly and hide out my next two years," Conway said at a July panel, later adding: "People who would have been respectable aren't going into this administration, and everybody else is going to have to basically choose between fighting or succumbing. And that's a scary thought."

In 2017, Trump's EPA head ousted scientists who had received EPA grants from key advisory groups, including the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee.

In 2019, the Trump administration purged Homeland Security Department leaders including general counsel John Mitnick, who The New York Times reported was replaced by an ally of far-right Trump senior policy adviser Stephen Miller. 

And in January 2021, senior members of the Justice Department threatened to quit en masse if Trump followed through with his plan to install loyalist Jeffrey Clark as Attorney General and have Clark pressure Georgia to flip its vote for Trump, The New York Times reported at the time.

Clark – who served as acting head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division under Trump – faces a two-year suspension of his bar license for his role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

A series of Supreme Court rulings this year further reigned in agency power — a trend that Hollis-Brusky said could be amplified if Trump were to restructure the bureaucracy into a system of political appointees.

She said federal agencies increasingly must ensure their regulations are "exactly in line with the Congressional meaning" of statutes.

"It forces Congress to do the job of a civil servant and a policy expert, and if they don't, the judges are going to step in and become policy experts," Hollis-Brusky said.

PROMISES OF REVENGE

Trump would enter his second term with a longer list of perceived grievances he blames on the deep state: from his erroneous belief that he truly won the 2020 election, to his lengthy list of criminal and civil trials.

On posters lining the walls of Trump's Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, one quotation stood out for capturing Trump's self-styled image as the selfless victim of a vast leftwing witch hunt who's vowed to fight to "obliterate the deep state" he claims is behind it all.

"They’re not after me, they’re after you… I’m just standing in the way!” reads the quotation.

Trump has said he will “appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family.”

Trump has erroneously claimed that Biden had authorized deadly force in the 2022 raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.

Last year, a D.C. federal grand jury indicted Trump on four charges in August 2023 accusing the former president of conspiring to thwart his 2020 electoral defeat and the peaceful transfer of power to President Joe Biden. 

The Supreme Court's immunity ruling granted Trump immunity for talking to administrational officials such as his acting attorney general about investigating purported election fraud and sending states letters about such concerns.

The ruling also tasked the judge in that case with weighing whether Trump has immunity for other conduct that could count as official acts.

Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed his classified documents case last month, agreeing with Trump's lawyers that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith by the Department of Justice violated the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers,” Cannon wrote in her order, calling for Congress to specifically provide that authority.

Smith has filed a notice of appeal, and a spokesperson told The Associated Press that Cannon's dismissal "deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a special counsel."

Despite legal victories, Trump has promised he'll seek "revenge" against perceived deep state opponents.

"Look, when this election is over, based on what they’ve done, I would have every right to go after them, and it would be easy because it’s Joe Biden," Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity in June. 

In a June interview with TV personality Phil McGraw, Trump offered his thoughts on whether revenge would impact his agenda.

“Well, revenge does take time. I will say that,” Trump said. “And sometimes revenge can be justified, Phil, I have to be honest. You know, sometimes it can."

Texas women denied care for ectopic pregnancies proves exceptions are a “farce”, experts say

Several days after Kelsie Norris-De La Cruz found out she was pregnant in Texas, she started to experience bleeding and cramping. When she went to the emergency room, she was told that she was likely having a miscarriage and to seek medical care if the symptoms continued. 

Over the next several weeks, her symptoms worsened. She went to the emergency room at Texas Health Arlington Memorial Hospital, where staff noted she was showing signs of an ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg implants and grows outside of the uterus in the abdomen, a female's cervix or more commonly, the fallopian tubes. An ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening condition; there is no way that an ectopic pregnancy can become a full-term pregnancy.

But when Norris-De La Cruz spoke to the hospital’s on-call OB-GYN, the doctor said once again she was experiencing a miscarriage. After being denied care, and being told hospitals around the state were delaying treatment for ectopic pregnancies, Norris-De La Cruz explained her situation to a friend who was an OB-GYN. She showed the doctor a photo of her sonogram. Immediately, the OB-GYN friend brought her in for emergency surgery. However, it required the removal of most of her right fallopian tube.

“Despite the fact that my life was clearly in danger, the hospital told me that they could not help me,” Norris-De La Cruz said in a media statement. “I ended up losing half of my fertility and if I was made to wait any longer, it’s very likely I would have died.” 

This week, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed two complaints against two Texas hospitals —  Texas Health Arlington Memorial Hospital and Ascension Seton Williamson Hospital — alleging that the two hospitals violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and refused to provide “stabilizing treatment,” including emergency abortion care for ectopic pregnancies.

"I was left completely in the dark without any information or options for the care I deserved."

Similar to Norris-De La Cruz’s story, a Texas woman named Kyleigh Thurman was turned away from an emergency room while experiencing cramping and dizziness. Several days later, she experienced severe pain on her right side, bleeding, and almost passed out. She was eventually rushed into surgery and also had to have her right fallopian tube removed. Her story is told in the second complaint filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights.

“For weeks, I was in and out of emergency rooms trying to get the abortion that I needed to save my future fertility and life,” Thurman said in a media statement. “This should have been an open and shut case. Yet, I was left completely in the dark without any information or options for the care I deserved.”


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


In 2022, Texas enacted laws that prohibit all abortions except when the life or health of the pregnant patient is at risk, including an exception to terminate ectopic pregnancies, which are always nonviable and life-threatening. Still, these complaints show that some doctors in Texas are fearful of terminating ectopic pregnancies. If physicians violate the law in Texas, they face up to 99 years in prison, loss of their medical license, and at least $100,000 in fines.  

“This is the first time that patients with ectopic pregnancies who were denied timely care have submitted EMTALA complaints since Roe was overturned,” Molly Duane, a senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told Salon. “And I think that is an indication of something much more insidious about state abortion bans.”

"I think that is an indication of something much more insidious about state abortion bans."

Duane emphasized that Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, would “surely agree” that this is an EMTALA violation. “The Attorney Generals in Idaho and Texas and everywhere else are fond of saying there's an explicit exception in our lives for at ectopic pregnancies, but the reality is that when the rubber hits the road, that is not how medical care functions in practice,” Duane said. 

In fact, in June, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the state’s abortion bans are clear in their exceptions. “Texas law permits a life-saving abortion,” the court wrote. “Under the Human Life Protection Act, a physician may perform an abortion if, exercising reasonable medical judgment, the physician determines that a woman has a life-threatening physical condition that places her at risk of death or serious physical impairment unless an abortion is performed.”

Duane said medical professionals are “deeply confused” and “concerned” that if they are wrong about, for example, an ectopic pregnancy diagnosis, they're going to spend the rest of their lives in jail. 

“I think it is really important in this situation, regardless of what the Supreme Court does and when, that the federal government clarifies that patients with ectopic pregnancies need to be treated immediately,” Duane said, adding that since the complaints have been public she’s received outreach from other patients in Texas. “Saying ‘the same thing happened to me with my ectopic pregnancy,’ these are not one-offs, this is a pattern of behavior that is continuing to harm patients every single day.”

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court had an opportunity to clarify EMTALA beyond the state of Idaho. Instead, it dismissed the case "improvidently granted” without considering the core issues in the case, returning it to the lower courts for further litigation leaving access to emergency care for pregnant people across the country in a precarious situation. 

According to Planned Parenthood, one in 50 pregnancies are ectopic.

“Texas law clearly allows for abortions to treat ectopic pregnancies, and federal law requires it. Yet, Kelsie and Kyleigh were denied absolutely urgent care,” said Beth Brinkmann, senior director of U.S. Litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “It’s impossible to have the best interest of your patient in mind when you’re staring down a life sentence. Texas officials have put doctors in an impossible situation.” 

“It is clear that these exceptions are a farce,” she added. 

Gena Rowlands, legend of film, stage and television, dies at 94

Gena Rowlands, the award-winning actor who transitioned from her beginnings in theater to star in her debut film role, “The High Cost of Loving,” in 1958, died Wednesday at her home in Indian Wells, California, at the age of 94.

The news of Rowlands' death was confirmed by the office of her son Nick Cassavetes' agent and while a cause of death was not immediately shared, word spread in June that her health had taken a turn following an Alzheimer’s diagnosis. 

Cassavetes, who directed his mother in the 2004 film "The Notebook," told Entertainment Weekly at that time, “I got my mom to play older Allie, and we spent a lot of time talking about Alzheimer’s and wanting to be authentic with it, and now, for the last five years, she’s had Alzheimer’s. She’s in full dementia. And it’s so crazy — we lived it, she acted it and now it’s on us.” Rowlands' mother, actor Lady Rowlands, also suffered from the disease. 

“I went through that with my mother, and if Nick hadn’t directed the film, I don’t think I would have gone for it — it’s just too hard,” Rowlands told O magazine in 2004. “It was a tough but wonderful movie.”

Rowlands, who appeared most recently in TV shows including "Monk" and "NCIS," was awarded four Emmy awards during her lustrous career.

The star, who graced the screen for decades alongside her husband John Cassavetes, who passed in 1989, was honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award by the Los Angeles Film Critics Association in 2015 and was given an Honorary Academy Award that same year.

 

RFK Jr. hit up Kamala Harris for a Cabinet role

A day after his already microscopic path to victory took a beating when he was tossed off of New York ballots for lying about his home address, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is once again looking for an off-ramp in his bid for the presidency. 

Per the Washington Post, Kennedy sought a meeting with Harris last week to discuss dropping out and endorsing the Democratic candidate in exchange for a job — perhaps Cabinet secretary — an ask which Harris’ team brushed off.

“I think it is a strategic mistake for them. That’s my perspective,” Kennedy told the Washington Post on Wednesday. “I think they ought to be looking at every opportunity. I think it is going to be a very close race.”

Kennedy’s team reportedly tried to present polling demonstrating that his endorsement would give a boost to either the Trump or Harris campaign.

Kennedy, whose bizarre admissions that he picked up a dead bear and left it in Central Park and that worms had eaten part of his brain sullied his name in the news cycle since announcing his presidential bid, has polled at roughly five percent in recent counts.

Scooping up endorsements from social media influencers including Joe Rogan, and far-right commentators like Tim Pool, Kennedy has gained support from voters on the right, despite his past advocacy for environmental defense advocacy.

A vocal critic of vaccines, he has run his campaign on the same conspiracies he’s amplified for nearly two decades, promising more vaccine scrutiny and greater transparency on 9/11 records.

The independent presidential candidate, who is seemingly siphoning support away from the Trump campaign, not Harris, also pitched himself to the former president, who previously sought Kennedy’s endorsement and championed his anti-vaccine conspiracies in a phone call captured on a since-deleted video.

In resurfaced clip, JD Vance co-signs idea that “postmenopausal females” exist to help raise kids

Republican VP nominee JD Vance seemingly endorsed the idea that “post-menopausal females” exist to help parents raise children, expressing his gratitude to his mother-in-law for the “unadvertised feature of marrying an Indian woman," in an unearthed podcast clip.

In a 2020 appearance on the Portal podcast — hosted by Eric Weinstein, the Managing Director of Peter Thiel’s Thiel Capital — the then-venture capitalist expressed his weird take on elderly women and how his mother-in-law has helped raise his son — he now has three children.    

“There's sort of all the classic stuff that grandparents do to grandchildren — it makes him a much better human being to have exposure to his grandparents,” Vance told Weinstein.

“That's the whole purpose of the post-menopausal female, in theory,” the podcast host said, as Vance chimed in, “Yes.”

Vance agreed that the “weird, unadvertised benefit of marrying an Indian woman” was the support network of Vance’s mother-in-law, who took a sabbatical from her role as a biology professor at the University of California, San Diego to help raise Vance’s youngest child at the time.

Vance proceeded to launch into an attack on liberalism, which he claimed demanded families have less of a hand in their children’s lives.

“Why didn’t she just keep her job, give us part of the wages to pay somebody else to do it? Cause that is the thing that the hyper-liberalized economics wants you to do,” Vance said, concluding that it was more advantageous for older women to work in the domestic sphere than return to their workplaces.

Vance, who has garnered scrutiny for his past suggestions that women should remain in abusive marriages for the sake of their children, and his assertion that “childless cat ladies” who run the Democratic party should have less of a say in how the country is run than parents, has proved to be somewhat of a liability for the Trump campaign in the early weeks of his candidacy.

Vance was chosen to join the Republican presidential ticket after the Trump campaign compiled a 271-page opposition research dossier that has now reportedly been obtained by hackers, who have apparently unsuccessfully attempted to leak the dossier to news outlets including the New York Times and Politico for publication.

Vance holds a roughly 50% unfavorability rating, per recent polls.

Tim Walz confirms participation in CBS News VP debate — Vance slow to respond

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has agreed to an Oct. 1 vice presidential debate with CBS News against Ohio Senator JD Vance, who has yet to confirm his participation.

Walz confirmed in a post to X, just over a week after joining Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign and headlining massive rallies in a number of swing states.

The vice presidential nominee joined the race to fanfare from Democrats, who say he’s brought more enthusiasm to the ticket and has maintained an edge over Vance in favorability polling, the latter candidate posting near-historic unlikeability numbers. 

Vance, who dodged the question of whether he’d commit to the date earlier on Wednesday, previously said he’d debate presidential nominee Harris after she’d become her party’s presumptive nominee.

Walz gained national notoriety during the search for Harris’ running mate for coining a now-widespread line of attack on Vance and the Trump ticket, that they are “weird,” and has since continued making the case that Vance and Trump are fixated on the wrong issues.

In rally appearances, Walz has aimed at Vance’s history of comments against women, and joked about explicit rumors involving Vance and a couch, while the Ohio Senator has attacked Walz for his service record and for making feminine hygiene products available in boy's bathrooms.

In addition to the vice presidential debate, Harris and former President Donald Trump are set for at least one face-off on ABC News on Sept. 10, while at least two other offers from the Trump campaign remain on the table.

Trump warns of “Kamala economic crash” in North Carolina rally rant

In an Asheville, North Carolina rally focused on the economy on Wednesday, Donald Trump took credit for a strong stock market — more than three years after he left office — and a major Biden administration healthcare victory.

The rally, or “intellectual speech,” as Trump called it, comes as his fortunes in the race appear to have changed — and here he finds an opportunity to seemingly try to interrupt Vice President Kamala Harris’ momentum, as she overtakes him in key swing state polls, national election projections, and betting markets. 

“The only reason that the stock market is up is because people think I’m going to win, did you ever hear that?” Trump, who capitalized on a market dip earlier this month to attack the Biden-Harris administration’s economic record before it recovered, said. 

“This will be a 1929-style crash,” Trump boldly predicted, dubbing it a “Kamala economic crash.”

Having overseen the largest single-day stock market point decline in history, he went on to call Harris an “incompetent socialist lunatic” who was “breaking our economy,” hours after newly-released figures indicated that year-over-year inflation levels had fallen below three percent for the first time since 2021.

Trump later falsely took credit for the Biden Administration’s efforts to cap the cost of insulin at $35 per month.

Harris, who took the edge this week over Trump in a Financial Times poll of prospective voters over who would better handle the economy, a feat President Biden never accomplished, is slated to appear at her own rally in North Carolina on Friday, which the campaign reportedly said would focus on lowering the cost of living for middle-class families.

Just days ago, Trump’s slurring, lisped performance in a one-on-one conversation with Elon Musk on social media platform X raised eyebrows on the candidate’s grip on the race, with a former staffer telling MSNBC news that Trump was showing signs of panic.

“I think that he feels this election slipping away from him, and that’s where you’re beginning to see him spiral,” former Trump aide Sarah Matthews told MSNBC’s Jen Psaki. 

“Double haters” who loathed Trump and Biden actually seem to like Kamala Harris, poll suggests

Democratic nominee Kamala Harris has become more popular among voters who previously weren’t a fan of President Joe Biden or former President Donald Trump, a new Monmouth University poll shows. 

This group of voters, known as “double haters,” has been cut in half since Harris took over from Biden as the Democratic presidential candidate. When Biden was still running, nearly 1 in 5 voters did not have a favorable view of either Biden or Trump. Now, just 8% of voters have a negative view of both Harris and Trump.

In June, a previous poll found that 54% of “double haters" did not support Biden or Trump. In the current poll, Harris now has the support of 53% of that same group, with just 11% backing Trump.

“Taking Biden out of the mix and replacing him with Harris has significantly altered a key metric in this race,” Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth poll, said in a statement. “As we reported last month, Trump-Biden double haters want to shake things up, but they are wary of change that is too authoritarian. Harris appears to provide most of this group with the fresh outlook they desire.”

Harris’ nomination also increased support for Democrats among voters aged 18-35, with 53% supporting her compared to just 33% who supported Biden. 

Another recent poll conducted by The Swing State Project shows Harris leads Trump by 48% to 47% across seven combined battleground states. She is tied with Trump in Georgia, but leads in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Trump leads Harris in Nevada by 47% to 42%.

From orchard to aisle: An uncertain path for emerging crops

In the shady hills of Appalachia, a small fruit tree grows in the shadow of taller oaks and maples. In the spring, maroon flowers droop from the branches. Little fruits emerge later in the summer and fall — alien green, bean-shaped, and about the weight of one or two large peaches.

The fruit is ready for picking once it's soft to touch and emits an aroma similar to tropical fruits. Inside, large espresso-brown seeds dot the yellow pulp, which tastes of tangy, mango-banana-pineapple and has the texture of custard.

This is the common pawpaw, a fruit whose native range extends from Ontario down into Florida and as far west as Kansas. Pawpaws aren't widely accessible in stores, but this hard-to-get fruit has gained a cult following in recent decades — and the supply simply isn't meeting the demand. Growers can sell out within hours. Festivals celebrating the fruit have popped up across the country. At farmers markets pawpaws typically cost $2- 15 per pound, while online retailers often charge even more.

Pawpaws aren't the only promising crops piquing people's interest. New, emerging, and under-cultivated crops like honeyberries, hazelnuts, and Kernza are also gaining interest for reasons ranging from their purported health benefits to their potential climate resilience. Importantly, these crops can add economic and ecological diversity to farms.

But the excitement comes with a reality check: "If it was real easy, I think it would have probably taken off," said Andrew Thomas, a horticulturist at the University of Missouri who has worked on edible yet under-utilized native plant species. Growers and researchers must study everything from cultivation to marketing, said Steffen Mirsky, an emerging crops program outreach coordinator at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

As an emerging crop, pawpaws pose their fair share of challenges — namely, they're difficult to store and ship. While processed products, which are more durable, seem promising, such techniques still need improvement. That work requires funding, though, which can be hard to procure for an unestablished crop.

Still, all crops start somewhere. Anya Osatuke, a small fruit specialist at Cornell Cooperative Extension, explained that it takes concerted effort to produce the appealing, durable foods we see in produce aisles. "You don't even notice it," she said.

"I don't think any of us expected it to be the next kiwi at Kroger," said Kirk Pomper, a horticulturist and research lead of Kentucky State University's pawpaw research program. But he still sees expansion in the pawpaw's future: "It just has a lot of potential."


Though thousands of edible plants species exist — estimates range from 7,000 to 30,000 — only a small fraction are widely cultivated. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, just 10 crops account for 65 percent of crop harvested areas across the globe. Yet, crop diversity is critical for agricultural success. Homogenous farming is more susceptible to the ever-growing list of threats agriculture faces: increasing temperatures, shifting weather patterns, and low soil quality, to name a few.

Crops vary in their vulnerability to different threats, so if one plant does poorly, a diverse farm could fall back on others to produce food, said Osatuke. Some new crops also introduce opportunities to test sustainable growing techniques onto a farm and to add new nutrients into people's diets.

"If it was real easy, I think it would have probably taken off."

But many emerging crops, including the pawpaw, aren't going to solve existing problems alone; still, farmers see the crop as an opportunity for profit. With the current demand for pawpaw exceeding supply, Pomper said, it could bring in a lot of money for those who decide to grow it.

Though fossil records show that plants similar to the modern pawpaw have grown in North America for millions of years, and written records note that Native Americans were cultivating the fruit in the 1500s, growers and researchers didn't start seriously looking to the fruit as a viable crop until a few decades ago. Mirsky explained that many new crops require a champion to push them forward. In the 1970s, pawpaws found their champion in R. Neal Peterson.

Peterson tasted his first pawpaw, from a wild growing tree, in his university's arboretum as a graduate student studying plant genetics. "By intuition, I just immediately imagined the potential," he said.

But wild-growing pawpaws were inconsistent in flavor. So, outside of his day job as an agricultural economist, Peterson began breeding pawpaws in Maryland with an eye toward developing fruits suitable for commercialization. He tracked down historic collections of cultivated pawpaws based on library records and then selected seeds for his own orchard. Over the past five decades of careful plant selection and crossing, he developed seven cultivars (akin to Granny Smith or Fuji for apples), building upon what he describes as the centuries-long undocumented work of Native American fruit cultivators.

Then, in 1990, the pawpaw got another push. Kentucky State University established the only full-time dedicated pawpaw research program centered around developing the fruit as a commercial crop. More than three decades later, the USDA included pawpaws in the Census of Agriculture for the first time ever, reporting almost 800 acres of pawpaw crops spread across nearly 1,500 farms in its 2022 census.

While large supermarket chains have approached Pomper and the Kentucky State program to note their interest in stocking the fruit in stores, he told Undark, most growers are producing small crops and would not be able to supply the supermarkets' needs at present. Despite the rising recognition of the pawpaw, its uniqueness is at once a valuable trait and a major roadblock.


This past spring at KSU's 12-acre pawpaw orchard, researchers caged some of its flowers with sticky traps. Pawpaws' maroon flowers and fetid odor suggest that flies and beetles are the plant's primary pollinators. Other plants with the same traits attract those types of insects, and growers have spotted the bugs on the trees. So far, though, the specifics of pawpaw pollinators have not been well documented in the scientific literature; the Kentucky researchers are currently analyzing insects that they have trapped from the trees and plan to publish their results in 2025. "There's certain things that we all see, we all kind of say, but then confirming them is an important thing," Pomper said.

The pollinator question is just one example of missing knowledge for an emerging crop. Without a large pool of research and data to reference, even information that seems fundamental can remain elusive. Researchers and producers have to discover the best way to plant, prune, treat, and harvest crops to ensure they can get them to consumers. For pawpaws, the lack of precedent becomes most evident when it comes time to harvest and store the fruit.

Unlike the tomato, for example, which reddens as it ripens, pawpaws don't reliably change in color as they grow — so farmers must test each pawpaw by hand to see if they give like a ready-to-eat peach. Pomper explained that developing a pawpaw cultivar with a ripening gradient would be a critical step in advancing the fruit, but plant breeding is a slow process, with cultivars taking up to 20 years to develop.

In the meantime, researchers have attempted to identify color breaks in existing pawpaws. A 2023 study co-authored by Bezalel Adainoo, a food science graduate student formerly at the University of Missouri who collaborated with Thomas, found that riper pawpaws tend to have darker skin, but noted that could result from bruising during harvesting.

This wouldn't be surprising since pawpaws are incredibly fragile. Growers can harvest many types of fruits — like apples or bananas — before they're fully ripe and then store them under specific conditions so they remain fresh until they're ready for sale, but this doesn't work for pawpaws. If harvested too early, they'll never fully mature. And once they're ripe, they become unappetizing fast.

Like peaches or pears, pawpaws produce ethylene, a hormone that causes the fruit to soften and brown. The fruit stays fresh at room temperature for about three days after picking. A 2008 study found that storing the fruit around 40 degrees Fahrenheit can preserve pawpaws for about four weeks, but anything longer leads to poor quality. So far, though, that has been the most successful postharvest storage technique to keep the fruit fresh.

Without a large pool of research and data to reference, even information that seems fundamental can remain elusive.

Puzzlingly, the pawpaw resists other techniques that have extended the shelf-life of even fragile foods like avocados, but researchers continue to test new methods. For example, Adainoo and his co-authors found that edible coatings — similar to those used on apples and mangoes — extended the shelf life of room-temperature pawpaws by almost two weeks. Pomper is also interested in testing whether low oxygen levels can help preserve pawpaws longer in the cold.

But Thomas, a collaborator on the edible coating project, doesn't necessarily think extending the shelf life of fresh pawpaws is the way to go. Instead, he sees a future in processing whole fresh fruits for use in other food products. "It really revolves around the processing," he said. "The pulping and the storage of the pulp."


Other crops have found great success through processed products, which keeps them available year-round. For instance, fresh cranberries only appear in stores the last few months of the year, but dried berries and juice are always in stock.

At least one small study has shown that pawpaw pulp can maintain its flavor even after months of storage, despite browning. Growers and processors can use this pulp for a variety of pawpaw products, to which consumers have responded favorably.

But developing safe, desirable products requires more than just interest. Producers also need to understand nutritional information for labeling. Robert Brannan, a food scientist at Ohio University, has been working with the USDA to add pawpaw nutrition information to their FoodData Central database for about a decade. According to Brannan, it's likely pawpaws will show up in the 2025 edition of the database, setting groundwork for more nutritional awareness and probably product development.

Processing and food safety techniques are also unrefined. Separating the skin from the pulp is still too time-consuming for a quick turnaround in large scale operations, said Pomper, who hopes to see more research into processing tools. Plus, certain types of processing, particularly drying and freeze drying, aren't safe: They leave eaters with gastrointestinal distress. It's unclear why this occurs, but growers see it as an opportunity for more research. According to Thomas: "You just need a lot of practice and people trying different equipment."

Still, there are plenty of pawpaw recipes. People have experimented with pawpaw ice cream, beer, salsa, jams, dressings, and baked goods — some with great success. That experimentation doesn't come free, though, and for an under-recognized crop like a pawpaw, the resources aren't always easy to procure.

Sometimes, crops receive a fortunate bump in public and private interest. Maybe they garner attention for purported health benefits, as did the native elderberry. Maybe they have an organized co-operative of growers, as does the cranberry. Or maybe they just have an effective rebrand, as did the kiwi — formerly called the Chinese gooseberry.

"The USDA wants to fund winners," Brannan said. "They don't want to put all this money into something and find out that it's not going to turn out to be blueberries or cranberries," two other native, formerly under-cultivated crops.

"It's really easy to get swept up in the hype around certain crops."

Crop funding in the U.S. tends to elevate large commodity crops like corn and soybeans. While the USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture sets aside roughly $75 million in grant money specifically allotted for specialty crop research, that makes up less than 4 percent of the institute's budget.

In an email to Undark, Jessica Shade, a national program leader with NIFA, wrote that projects focused on emerging crops can struggle to compete for grant funding if they don't have much preliminary research to draw from. However, emerging crops can stand a chance: Shade wrote that 14 percent of funded projects from 2019 to 2023 focused on unique crops.

Some crops might also find funding successes through industry groups. Although organizations like the Northern Nut Growers Association have funded pawpaw research in the past, new crops simply lack the resources of a multi-billion-dollar industry, like the one for apples. Plus, privately funded research risks conflicts of interest that can threaten the integrity of the data.

However, caution toward investing in new crops can be reasonable: "It's really easy to get swept up in the hype around certain crops," Mirsky said. He, along with other experts, brought up the frenzy around hemp, whose production has declined in recent years due to regulatory challenges. Governments and growers over-invested in the crop without having a steady market, leading to a huge loss of money. "It's a perfect example of under-realistic enthusiasm," Pomper said.

So far, Osatuke says she hasn't seen people over-invest in pawpaws the way they have with other crops. If anything, she said, pawpaw hype tends to come from consumers and media more than growers themselves. Pomper agreed, noting that the growth seems healthy: "Pawpaw continues to just kind of keep on going up."

Indeed, as more researchers begin to study pawpaws — focusing on agroforestry, food science, and operations management — other entities continue to push the crop. Organizations like the North American Pawpaw Growers Association hope to educate growers and consumers alike about the fruit. Next year, the fifth International PawPaw Conference will gather experts to discuss the future of the fruit.

"Pawpaw continues to just kind of keep on going up."

"This is a really good time to be working on these kinds of crops," Mirsky said, noting the increasing interest and availability of resources for non-mainstream plants

Still, Peterson, now in his fifth decade of breeding pawpaws, doubts he'll see fresh fruits available in large chain stores in his lifetime. And he doesn't necessarily hope to, he said, which "makes me a bit of a heretic." While he believes the industry will probably move in the direction of processing, he sees nothing wrong with enjoying the pawpaw as a seasonal fruit that lies outside the system of mass distribution and consumption.

But those in the pawpaw community can't help but aim higher, including Pomper: "Many of us are kind of bitten with the pawpaw bug."


Lily Stewart is a freelance science writer and former editorial intern at Undark. Her work has also appeared in Environmental Health News and Great Lakes Now. 

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

How food banks prevented 1.8 million metric tons of carbon emissions last year

The latest annual impact report from the Global Foodbanking Network — a nonprofit that works with regional food banks in more than 50 countries to fight hunger — found that its member organizations provided 1.7 billion meals to more than 40 million people in 2023. According to the nonprofit, this redistribution of food, much of which was recovered from farms or wholesale produce markets, mitigated an estimated 1.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

These numbers reflect an ongoing, high demand for food banks. Last year, the Global Foodbanking Network, or GFN, served almost as many people as it did in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic sent food insecurity soaring. In order to respond to this pressing need in their communities, many of GFN's member organizations have invested in agricultural recovery, working to rescue food from farmers before it gets thrown out. 

Their efforts show how food banks can serve the dual purpose of addressing hunger and protecting the environment. By intercepting perfectly good, edible food before it winds up in the landfill, food banks help mitigate harmful greenhouse gas emissions created by food loss and waste.

"There is always food that is unnecessarily wasted," said Emily Broad Leib, the founding director of the Food Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School, who has worked with GFN before but was not involved in the recent study. All that unnecessary waste means "there is ongoing need for scaling up food banks and food-recovery operations," Broad Leib added.

A recent analysis from the United Nations Environment Programme estimated that 13% of food was lost while it was making its way from producers to retailers in 2022. Subsequently, 19% was wasted by retailers, restaurants, and households. The world's households alone let 1 billion meals go to waste each day. The scope of food wasted around the world has been shockingly high for years: In 2011, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations released a study that suggested roughly one-third of food produced globally is never eaten. 

Food waste at this scale comes with massive planetary impacts. When food goes uneaten, all of the emissions associated with growing, transporting, and processing it are rendered unnecessary. Furthermore, when food rots in landfills, it emits methane, a greenhouse gas that is roughly 80 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year period. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency reported that 58% of methane emissions from U.S. landfills come from food waste. Globally, food loss and waste have been estimated to be responsible for 8% to 10% of greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing them is essential for achieving climate targets. 

Food banks can play a special role in that reduction by rescuing more food before it's lost and redirecting it to people in need. 

"Our members have been building out their redistribution capacity," said Lisa Moon, the president and CEO of GFN. "I think that was our first challenge in the face of this rising need: How do we as an organization capture more supply?"

In order to do this, food banks within GFN member organizations have been coordinating more closely with farmers to redirect surplus food from landfills. GFN defines surplus food as food from commercial streams that was grown for human consumption but that, for some reason or another, cannot be sold. So-called "ugly" produce — misshapen food that never makes it to the grocery store because of its looks — falls into this category.

Some of this redirection actually looks like cutting out food banks as the middleman. Moon gives the example of a food bank that receives a call from a farmer with excess green beans. Instead of traveling to the farm to pick them up, traveling back to the food bank's distribution hub, storing the green beans, and having folks wait for the next distribution day to collect them, the food bank in question might simply reach out to beneficiaries in the area (think: soup kitchens) to inform them of how many green beans are available and where so they can pick them up. GFN refers to this as "virtual food banking" because of how members are using tech platforms to match farmers with beneficiaries, rather than physically moving the produce themselves.

The result of this emphasis on agricultural recovery is that fruit and vegetables now make up the largest portion — 40% — of food redistributed by GFN members by volume. Moon says the organization is "just only scratching the surface" of possibilities for recovering fresh produce. 

In order to calculate that 1.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent was mitigated by these efforts, GFN utilized the Food Loss and Waste Protocol developed by the World Resources Institute. This framework takes a number of things into account, including where recovered food would have ended up had it not been intercepted from the waste stream. These waste destinations can be landfills but also include animal feed, compost, and anaerobic digesters (a waste management technology that converts organic waste into biogas — but that can come with its own emissions problems). Moon acknowledged that GFN does not know in every case what would happen to the surplus food if it were not rescued by a food bank — but pointed out that most of the places where the network operates do not have a robust circular economy for food.

Broad Leib, the Harvard Law food policy expert, described GFN's estimate of carbon dioxide equivalent mitigated as "a good proxy for impact." While other waste destinations are possible, "we also know that the large majority of wasted food globally goes to landfill," she said. "I think their estimate is likely not far off from actual emissions avoided."


                 

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/food-and-agriculture/food-banks-mitigated-1-8-million-metric-tons-of-co2-emissions-globally-last-year/.

                 

                 

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

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

                

Kit Harington admits he took “Eternals” role but not because it was “different and interesting”

Actor Kit Harington has elaborated on his past role in the Marvel Cinematic Universe in an interview with GQ, saying that passing up the opportunity was simply not an option. 

“I’m not gonna pretend I took that [role] because it was different and interesting," the "Game of Thrones" star shared. "If Marvel calls, you gotta do it.”

In 2021 Harington made a brief appearance in Marvel's "Eternals," playing the role of Dane Whitman. The movie was reportedly meant to establish Harington as the Marvel character Black Knight, setting the stage for a subsequent "Blade" film that would feature the character. However, a poor box office showing for "Eternals" ultimately saw the planned follow-up movie scrapped. According to GQ, Harington still enjoyed playing Dane, however, and is down to reprise the role should Marvel reconsider.

"Blade" isn't the only potential franchise return of Harington's that fell through. In April, he confirmed that a spinoff series based on his "Game of Thrones" character Jon Snow,was no longer in the works at HBO. "Currently, it's off the table, because we all couldn't find the right story to tell that we were all excited about enough," Harington told Screen Rant. "So, we decided to lay down tools with it for the time being. There may be a time in the future where we return to it, but at the moment, no. It's firmly on the shelf."

 

Why did she stay? The same reasons I did

The movie adaption of the BookTok-viral Colleen Hoover novel "It Ends with Us" exceeded expectations with a $50 million opening weekend. Much like the "Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour" concert film, its premiere was fashion-forward, glittering with florals evocative of the main character, florist Lily Bloom. Hoover’s readers, known as CoHorts, have taken a page from the Swiftie playbook alongside the film’s star Blake Lively, the human embodiment of “we all got crowns.” With enough purchasing power to upend the publishing industry, outsell the Bible and necessitate a dedicated BookTok table at Barnes & Noble, Hoover’s readership is a force. Whether you’re Team CoHo or no-go, there’s reason to pay attention: Hoover has hit a cultural nerve.

I have never known a woman for whom leaving was simple.

The story of a woman’s reckoning with domestic violence, "It Ends with Us" has been called “trauma porn” and criticized for romanticizing abusive relationships, at least in part because readers are asked to empathize with the abuser; which is tricky, because good writing (and good living) invites empathy for every character. The onscreen version of Lily’s love interest, neurosurgeon Ryle Kincaid, is portrayed by the film’s director and producer Justin Baldoni, best known for winning the final rose on "Jane the Virgin." The florist shop Lily Bloom’s is an enchanted wonderland, gleaming nearly as much as Ryle’s teeth. Who’s to say this is not realistic? Abusers do not arrive scowling like The Prick on "Bad Sisters." The road to domestic violence is paved with Cartier bracelets and Hallmark cards. 

Which is perhaps the beating heart of so much emotion surrounding the story. Women identify. According to the National Institutes of Health, 1 in 4 women have experienced intimate partner violence, with the highest incidence among women age 18 to 34 (not coincidentally, the demographic responsible for 60% of the weekend box office). The UN defines domestic abuse as “a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner.” So, that time he mocked me in front of our friends because he was feeling insecure? You’re in the pot, and the water has started to boil. 

Why did she stay?

Hoover explains in the novel’s afterword that she wrote "It Ends with Us" – based loosely on her parents except for, I’m assuming, the smokin’ hot sex – “for all the people who didn’t quite understand women like [Hoover’s mother]. I was one of those people,” the author confesses. “I quickly realized it’s not as black and white as it seems from the outside.” 

Why did she stay? Fielded by every survivor I’ve counseled during my 20-plus years as a psychotherapist in private practice, the question is back in the ether 10 years after #WhyIStayed first trended on Twitter. Women don the mantle of emotional labor like the latest crossbody bag, determined to make our relationships work. I’ve witnessed women agree to have, or not have, children against their will. Convert to a different religion. Invite unwanted third partners into the bedroom. I once knew a woman who’d been a competitive gymnast and as an adult, she earned two graduate degrees – who considered having undesired plastic surgery because her partner asserted his right to “what he considered beautiful” — and that woman was me

Healing is slow. I understand why it’s Hoover, a generation removed, who tells her mother’s story.

A master class in love bombing, my early relationship started with letters, trips and “You’re the most beautiful woman in the world.” It ended with my phoning a friend for instructions on how to remove the bullets from my then partner’s handgun, my fingers shaking, terrified he would kill me or himself. My friend had known us from the beginning, the glimmer of limerence still in my eyes. Even back then, she knew never to call me on a Friday. That was his day off, when he required my full attention.

Healing is slow. I understand why it’s Hoover, a generation removed, who tells her mother’s story. Survivors of abuse are three times more likely to meet the criteria for PTSD. We’re six times more likely to struggle with addiction. I have been sober since 2022, but I self-medicated for years after leaving my relationship. It’s only with the passage of time and the benefit of therapy (as client, not practitioner) that I dare speak up now.

“[S]ometimes the reason women go back,” writes Hoover, “is simply because they’re in love.” I have never known a woman for whom leaving was simple. Trauma bonding is real. The emotional connection a victim feels toward her perpetrator is only strengthened by his inconsistency. Remember those grainy videos from Psych 101, white rats pressing levers with eager paws? Wham! A hit of dopamine. Turns out, an intermittent schedule of reinforcement — occasional pellets of counterfeit love dispensed like unpredictable manna — proves most effective to keep us pressing. The greatest crime of Colleen Hoover is having depicted an extraordinarily lustrous lever. 

Other reasons for staying, implicit in the text, include financial insecurity, self-recrimination, lack of social support, concern for the welfare of children, conditioning from one’s upbringing, navigating a power differential, and — pay attention here, because this one’s a biggie: operating under the illusion that “we could work on his anger issues together.” Reader, if I had a dollar for every time I’ve said in couples counseling, “You can’t want it badly enough for both of you,” I could, well, pay for my own therapy. 

We need your help to stay independent

To the above reasons I would add fear. Fight, flight or freeze: fear of staying, fear of leaving, fear of doing nothing at all. “I’m scared I’m being too weak and that I should have had him arrested,” says Lily. “I’m scared I’m being too sensitive and I don’t know if I’m overreacting,” Too sensitive: the accusation abusers apply like masking tape to the mouths of their victims. Aided by screen time filled with "Inside Out," any modern child can tell you (like, duh) our emotions are lights on the dashboard, ignored at our peril.

Another, more amorphous kind of fear is anxiety, or fear of the unknown. What would leaving even look like? Sure, this pot is hot, but I’ve gotten so used to the water. Sometimes I assign my clients the homework of imagining three scenarios for life outside the pot, er, relationship. (For inspo, try watching "Dark Matter" on Apple TV+ or reading "The Midnight Library.") Get specific, I say. Talk to me about Goodwill sofas and grocery bills. Or paying the divorce attorney’s consultation fee with cash stashed in a box of tampons. Think of this as the world’s most depressing vision board. Except the assignment is anything but depressing. Hope springs from empowerment, feeling a sense of personal agency as the locus of control shifts from the outside in.


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


Toward the end of my relationship, my then partner shook his head incredulously. “Nothing works on you,” he said out loud. And that is the goal. Spiritual warriors train in staying present and free. Our psychoemotional well-being depends upon casting a protective mental barrier like a post-change Bella Swan. Whatever or whomever works on you is the reason why you’ll stay. Sometimes days too long, sometimes years. Sometimes an entire lifetime.

“We all have a limit. What we’re willing to put up with before we break,” writes Hoover. “Every incident [of abuse] chips away at your limit . . . [until] you lose sight of your limit altogether.” 

What if the limit were zero? Women are so afraid of wanting too much, we don’t want nearly enough. But with standards that high, won’t I end up alone? You might. I lived alone for a decade. It had been indescribably worse living with contempt, insults and rigid rules as my joie de vivre dulled into depression. Thank God I missed sparkling. 

Perhaps Taylor Swift gave us the ultimate litmus test: Are you less sparkly in his presence? Then repeat after me, quoting Lily:

F**k.

That.

S**t. 

If you’re headed to the theater this weekend, I hope you wear sequins and florals, like the flower-embroidered shirt Ryan Reynolds donned to promote his wife’s new film. Or the book-themed sweatpants available on CoHo’s website for $60. Whatever you wear, I hope you share M&M’s and popcorn with someone who straightens your crown.

Nate Silver: Harris “momentum” now has her beating Trump in updated election forecast

Election forecaster Nate Silver updated his model on Tuesday to reflect the surge in support for Vice President Kamala Harris, who now ties or leads Donald Trump in most recent battleground state polling. According to Silver's Silver Bulletin polling average, which accounts for poll reliability, sample size and recency, Harris leads Trump in the presidential race by 3.1 points, 46.8% to 43.7%.

"We've seen momentum for Harris with her rising consistently to about a 2.5% lead in national polls," Silver said on MSNBC, identifying the main cause of the shift as the age issue that had mainly afflicted President Joe Biden. With Biden out of the race, it's Trump who is the oldest major-party candidate in history.

"I think it's 80 or 90 percent the age issue. Voters said consistently that it's the number one problem. I mean, Biden's approval ratings have gone up a little bit since he dropped out because people just thought it was not responsible to run for president until he was 86," Silvers said. "[Harris] has other issues, inflation and the border, but they've more than doubled their chances of winning the election overnight, and that's a pretty remarkable thing to do in the span of this crazy month we've had."

Silver's average matches the conclusions of other polling aggregators, with the Cook Political Report releasing new polling that shows Harris erasing Trump's lead in most swing states.

Before Biden dropped out, Democrats were despairing at poll numbers that showed Biden consistently trailing in all the battleground states he won against Trump in 2020, including the "Blue Wall" of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Now there's fresh hope that Harris has turned the tide.

Liquid water detected on Mars — but it’s buried deep beneath the red planet’s surface

For as long as humans have dreamt of discovering alien life forms, they have looked to Earth’s red dusty neighbor Mars as a prime contender. Astrobiologists know that water once existed on Mars, and given that water is considered an essential ingredient to creating life as we know it, it strengthens the chances that life forms could have previously existed on Mars… and may even still exist there today.

Now a recent study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals that there is a large amount of groundwater on Mars. To find it, just dig beneath the surface.

Using rock physics models and a Bayesian inversion algorithm, the researchers examined data about Martian lithology, porosity, pore shape and liquid water saturation within the planet’s mid-crust (11.5 to 20 kilometers or 7.15 to 12.5 miles). In the process they learned that “a mid-crust composed of fractured igneous rocks saturated with liquid water best explains the existing data.”

Study co-author Dr. Michael Manga, the chair of the University of California — Berkeley’s Department of Earth and Planetary Science, told Salon that the researchers anticipated this possible outcome.

“Mars once had liquid water on its surface in rivers, lakes and possibly oceans,” Manga said. “We knew that the liquid water being buried deep in the subsurface was one possible solution to the question of where Mars' ancient liquid surface water went.”

The new challenge, Manga added, is figuring out how to physically explore this undiscovered world.

“Drilling to these depths is very challenging,” Manga said. “Looking for places where geological activity expels this water, possibly the tectonically active Cerberus Fossae, is an alternative to looking for deep liquids. Planetary protection concerns would need to be addressed.”

Chipotle’s CEO turned the beleaguered chain around. Can he do it for Starbucks?

On Tuesday, Starbucks announced that Brian Niccol, the current chief executive officer of Chipotle, has been appointed as the coffee giant’s new chairman and CEO. He will replace the current Starbucks CEO, Laxman Narasimhan, who has been with the company for just over a year. 

“We are thrilled to welcome Brian to Starbucks,” Mellody Hobson, Starbucks board chair, said in a written statement. “His phenomenal career speaks for itself. Brian is a culture carrier who brings a wealth of experience and a proven track record of driving innovation and growth. Like all of us at Starbucks, he understands that a remarkable customer experience is rooted in an exceptional partner experience.” 

She continued: “Our board believes he will be a transformative leader for our company, our people, and everyone we serve around the world.” 

When Niccol took over Chipotle in 2018, the company was struggling as it faced a dip in customers, as well as a $25 million federal fine related to several foodborne illness outbreaks. However, he turned it around. Niccol expanded the Chipotle menu, improved its rewards program and, as a result, the company’s stock is up more than 800% since. Given some of Starbucks’ recent financial setbacks, it could be the company’s board is looking for a similar fix. 

The news of Niccol’s new role comes as Starbucks has struggled some during Narasimhan’s tenure. Its stock price has tumbled 21% during the 17 months Narasimhan has been in charge, while in-store traffic has also declined. In late July, the company reported its second-straight quarter of sales declines. 

Howard Schultz, the founder of Starbucks and chairman emeritus, handpicked Narasimhan as his successor, however Schultz has since been vocally critical of the direction the company has taken under Narasimhan’s leadership. In May, for instance, Schultz wrote an open letter on LinkedIn — which notably did not specifically mention Narasimhan by name — about why, in his estimation, the company “significantly missed shareholder expectations” during the prior quarter. 

“Over the past five days, I have been asked by people inside and outside the company for my thoughts on what should be done,” Schultz said. “I have emphasized that the company’s fix needs to begin at home: U.S. operations are the primary reason for the company’s fall from grace. The stores require a maniacal focus on the customer experience, through the eyes of a merchant. The answer does not lie in data, but in the stores.” 

Schultz essentially encouraged the company to return to the basics: coffee-based drinks and customer service. 

“The go-to-market strategy needs to be overhauled and elevated with coffee-forward innovation that inspires partners, and creates differentiation in the marketplace, reinforcing the company’s premium position,” he wrote. “Through it all, focus on being experiential, not transactional.”

We need your help to stay independent

(In a statement to CNBC at the time, a Starbucks representative said: “The challenges and opportunities he highlights are the ones we are focused on. And like Howard, we are confident in Starbucks long-term success”). 

The pressure on Narasimhan — who previously worked as the chief executive of Reckitt, which owns brands like Lysol and Mucinex — continued to mount when it was announced in July that activist investor Elliot Management had acquired a stake in Starbucks and when, on Friday, The Wall Street Journal reported that fellow activist Starboard Value also bought a stake in the company recently. 

An activist investor is an individual or institutional investor who buys a large amount of a company's stock to gain influence and pressure the company's leadership to make changes, so some analysts began to speculate whether leadership at Starboard and Elliot would make a push to replace Narasimhan. 

As such, many are not surprised that he is being replaced. 

“While not surprising that Laxman Narasimhan is out as Starbucks's CEO given activist investors and the company's steep sales reversal over the past 9 months, his replacement will send ripples throughout the industry," William Blair analyst Sharon Zackfia wrote in a note to Business Insider on Tuesday. 

Mellody Hobson, who stepped down as Starbucks board chair to become lead independent director, indicated in a Tuesday interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that the decision had been a few months in the making. 

"He knows this industry, and we thought he would be the right leader for this moment."

“Our board, a couple months ago, started to engage in a conversation about the leadership of the company, and I made an overture through someone to Brian, and he took the call,” Hobson said. “We thought we had the opportunity to engage with one of the biggest names in the industry, someone whose track record is just clearly proven, not only through the spectacular results that he’s had at Chipotle, but also before that at Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. He knows this industry, and we thought he would be the right leader for this moment.” 

In a joint statement on Tuesday, Elliot managing partner Jesse Cohn and partner Marc Steinberg said they view the announcement as “a transformational step forward for the Company” and Schultz also expressed confidence in the choice of Niccols as Starbucks’ new CEO.  

“Having followed Brian’s leadership and transformation journey at Chipotle, I’ve long admired his leadership impact,” Schultz wrote in a Tuesday statement. “His retail excellence and track record in delivering extraordinary shareholder value recognizes the critical human element it takes to lead a culture and values driven enterprise. I believe he is the leader Starbucks needs at a pivotal moment in its history. He has my respect and full support.” 

According to Starbucks, Niccol will start in his new role on Sept. 9. Starbucks’ current chief financial officer, Rachel Ruggeri, will serve as interim CEO until that time.