Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Boomers wanted to help their kids. Instead, they’re getting resentment

It’s time to challenge the conventional wisdom around baby boomers, millennials and Gen Z. At the risk of sounding slightly conspiratorial (I’ve already had four cups of coffee), plenty of headlines will have you convinced that these generational cohorts are locked in an epic battle of good versus evil, whether that’s the liberal underdogs versus the conservative rich, or a face-off between a hard-working, traditional generation and spoiled, unrealistic liberal youngsters. 

But like all sorts of tribalistic feuds, things aren’t as black and white in most Americans’ everyday experiences. As I wrote about earlier, new insights from Savings.com show boomers as largely sympathetic to younger Americans’ financial plight, rarely viewing their own millennial or Gen Z offspring as lazy or entitled, and often willing to help their adult kids — quite generously — cover financial odds and ends. 

In that piece, though, I didn’t get into the real resentment between the generations — particularly the ire that millennials and Gen Zers feel toward boomers. After all, how could there not be tension when they are locked in a more intimate financial relationship than any recent generation? Millennials and Gen Zers' present-day hardships are so directly correlated to boomers’ past gains; at the same time, they’re more dependent on their boomer parents than any other generation has been. It’s a socioeconomic and psychological cocktail that, experts explained, has calcified as a sort of baked-in resentment against older generations — but one that, when you consider things from their perspective, might be understandable.

Millennials and Gen Zers, no doubt, are on track to spend what are supposed to be a person’s prime working and earning years in a highly volatile economic and workforce environment, with flat earnings and stratospheric housing prices. Median household income has barely risen since 2000, according to the U.S. Treasury, rising 15% over that period compared to housing’s 65% hike. If you were able to afford a house around the early 2000s, you were made “relatively wealthy,” Albert Saiz, faculty director of the Urban Economics Lab at MIT, told Salon. “But people who are coming into the economy don't have that wealth, and they have to save harder and work harder to get there.”

We need your help to stay independent

Meanwhile, when boomers were in their 20s, 30s and 40s, they enjoyed higher relative incomes and were more likely to own their homes, amassing more long-term wealth than most younger Americans likely will. That alone would be enough for younger Americans to feel entitled to some of their parents’ earnings. But the underlying fundamentals make things a little stickier. As the writer Sean Illing put it for Vox in 2019, describing the underlying argument behind Bruce Gibney’s 2017 book "A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America," boomers “have committed ‘generational plunder,' pillaging the nation’s economy, repeatedly cutting their own taxes, financing two wars with deficits, ignoring climate change, presiding over the death of America’s manufacturing core, and leaving future generations to clean up the mess they created.”

It’s a potent economic fog to navigate, and younger Americans can point out the pollutant in a lineup. Add in conservative boomers’ framing of younger Americans as lazier than their more more traditional, hardworking predecessors — to say nothing of the scores of boomers who do, genuinely, believe that millennials and Gen Zers are indeed entitled brats — and it’s hard to deny that such a recipe would create anything other than a brewing, bitter resentment. 

Younger Americans “too often” feel their parents "overlook" their very real financial challenges, and feel their parents can’t “come to terms with the fact that their lives aren’t a bed of roses,” Dr. Michael Kane, a psychiatrist specialized in family medicine, told Salon in an email response to the Savings.com survey. 

“This shift in thought is revolutionary, and transforms the existing parent-child dynamic,” he added. It introduces “heightened emotional and financial stress that was not witnessed in the previous generations.”

Lindsay Bryan-Podvin, a financial therapist, podcaster and author of "The Financial Anxiety Solution," said younger Americans don’t necessarily resent their parents, or boomers more broadly, for having financial security. “It’s much more of a frustration of an unwillingness for their parents to say, ‘Yeah, things are different,’” she said. 

Melissa Cox, a certified financial planner at Future Focused Wealth in Dallas, said younger Americans “often look at their parents’ relative financial comfort and think, ‘Why is it so much harder for me when I followed the rules?’” 

"It’s much more of a frustration of an unwillingness for their parents to say, ‘Yeah, things are different'"

“It creates this quiet storm of guilt, pressure and unspoken expectations,” she said. And that gulf can “cause frustration and struggle, complicating family relationships and increasing the difficulty of free and healthy communication” about money, as Kane put it.

To that end, Bryan-Podvin stressed the importance of having financial conversations though perhaps from a more psychotherapeutic perspective than makes the mainstream. 

“We think about the way that the brain works — if we get something that is vague or uncertain or unclear, our brain fills in the gaps for what was missing, and our brain fills in the gaps in a negative way,” she said. “So, even if it feels anxiety-provoking to have a financial conversation with somebody else, being really clear prevents somebody else from filling in the gaps with something that isn't true, or is worse than they anticipated.”  

“Having these open and honest conversations really is about honoring the dignity and respect of this relationship,” she said. “Having that clarity is so powerful, and I think that also helps to dial down the overall tension and resentment.”

“This is Biden’s economy”: Vance dodges questions about downturn on Fox News

The economic downturn has every member of President Donald Trump's administration trotting out the Shaggy defense.

JD Vance ducked direct questions about the flagging economy on Thursday during an interview with Bret Baier on Fox News. Baier, who is not above fudging the facts in favor of Trump, came straight at Vance while discussing a disappointing first quarter.

"The economy shrank – first time in three years. People are pointing to the tariff policy," Baier said. "There are people looking at their 401(k)s that are worried. What do you tell them? Is this going to work?"

Like Trump before him, Vance laid the blame at the feet of former President Joe Biden

 "When you talk about the economy, this is Joe Biden’s economy," Vance said. 

 Vance went on to echo Trump's belt-tightening talk from recent days. 

"We inherited…a $1.2 trillion trade deficit, which fundamentally means we’re not making enough of our own stuff. And that the president came in and he said, ‘This is not always gonna be easy,'" Vance said. "It would’ve been very easy for Donald Trump to do what administrations in the past have done, which is borrow a lot of money and continue fueling the national debt. He said, ‘No. We need a reset. We need American workers to have better jobs.'"

That might be the intent, but many Americans felt that the economy was getting worse in the early days of Trump 2.0. And now, the data backs those bad vibes up. The U.S. economy shrank by 0.3% per the Department of Commerce, with most metrics showing that the wider economy either slowed down or contracted. 

Shuffling deck chairs: Trump nominates Waltz as UN ambassador after ousting him from adviser role

National Security Adviser Mike Waltz was the first Cabinet casualty of President Donald Trump's chaotic first 100 days in office. But if we've learned anything from conservative politics' cadre of traitors, criminals and sixth-place finishers in positions of influence and power, it's that no one goes away forever.

Waltz's new job came at something near the speed of monarchy. Trump simultaneously announced that Waltz would serve as ambassador to the United Nations and that Secretary of State Marco Rubio would take on Waltz's advisory role.

"I am pleased to announce that I will be nominating Mike Waltz to be the next United States Ambassador to the United Nations,"  Trump wrote on Truth Social. "From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation’s Interests first. I know he will do the same in his new role."

Rubio is the first person to hold both roles simultaneously since Henry Kissinger molded Nixon's foreign policy into his own ghoulish image.

Waltz's ouster was somewhat expected after he shouldered the blame for adding The Atlantic's editor-in-chief to a sensitive group chat about attack plans in Yemen. Goldberg embarrassed senior members of the Trump administration, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Vice President JD Vance, with a story on his inclusion in the digital confab. That scandal has garnered headlines for weeks as Hegseth has pushed back against the characterization of the embarrassing leak in the media.

The cornered head of the Pentagon has responded to the scrutiny of Signalgate with a series of purges, firing senior advisers and top aides over fear of leaks

Judge rules Trump’s Alien Enemies Act deportations unlawful

A federal judge in Texas ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration's recent deportations of Venezuelan immigrants were unlawful and blocked further deportations.

President Donald Trump deported the Venezuelan nationals to a maximum security prison in El Salvador in March. He invoked the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century law that allows for the deportation of citizens from foreign countries that are at war with the United States. The U.S. is not at war with Venezuela, but Trump danced around this by claiming that the gang Tren de Aragua was a sovereign nation that was invading the country. 

In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez said allowing Trump to widen the scope of the law would give the executive branch nearly limitless power.

"Allowing the President to unilaterally define the conditions when he may invoke the AEA, and then summarily declare that those conditions exist, would remove all limitations to the Executive Branch’s authority under the AEA, and would strip the courts of their traditional role of interpreting Congressional statutes to determine whether a government official has exceeded the statute’s scope," he wrote."The law does not support such a position."

The hasty deportation of immigrants without due process has led to a host of lawsuits against the Trump administration. Many judges have ruled against Trump's actions in part or otherwise barred the admin from carrying out further deportations. Rodriguez's ruling is the first one to find the deportations wholly unlawful.

Trump, for his part, has responded to checks on his power with calls to remove activist judges and taunts that the judiciary is "weak and ineffective."

Paul Feig doesn’t make movies with women to be political, they’re just more fun

Paul Feig is a little surprised to be here, too. The director of fan-favorite films like "Bridesmaids," "Spy" and "The Heat" — as well as, of course, the creator of the beloved TV series "Freaks and Geeks" — had long resisted the Hollywood imperative to franchise every blockbuster, sticking to a "pretty hardcore" policy against sequels. But there was something about the twisty alchemy of his 2018 surprise smash "A Simple Favor" that made him want to come back for more. "I love these characters and I love Blake [Lively] and Anna [Kendrick]," Feig explained during a recent Salon Talks conversation. So he and the team decided to take the women and throw them this time into a "very high stakes, glamorous, high money world" — with an inevitable body count — for a wedding in Capri for "Another Simple Favor."

Though Feig has of late carved out his turf as a director of thrillers — his next in the genre, "The Housemaid," comes out this fall — he's still most associated with his broad slapsticks. "I still consider all my movies to be comedies," he told me. "Just some are really, really dark comedies."

What is equally consistent is Feig's penchant for making movies centered on female characters, a knack that's afforded him tremendous box office success and also, at times, an unusual amount of pressure and scrutiny. Recalling the controversy over his 2016 reboot of "Ghostbusters" with Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig, he said, "Suddenly I'm getting death threats. I'm just trying to make a movie about funny people chasing ghosts."

And looking back on when it seemed as if the entire question of whether audiences would ever go to a movie about women was riding solely on the box office returns of "Bridesmaids," Feig said, "It was scary. I resented the fact that Hollywood put all that on us. I resented it for my cast and for all women in the business." Fortunately, the film was a massive success, helping pave the way for other female-centric projects. "It was really unfair, but thank God we did well," he said. "We were predicted to do badly right up until the day we came out, so thank goodness it worked."

During our conversation, Feig also opened up about the enduring legacy of "Freaks and Geeks," being the sartorial inspiration for Blake Lively's character in "A Simple Favor" and the secret to making a perfect martini: "Don't shake it like you're trying to kill something inside the shaker."

"Another Simple Favor" is streaming now on Amazon Prime. 

The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

You've said that you had a loose no-sequels policy for a long time.

It was a pretty hardcore policy, actually. 

What made you change your mind? 

I love these characters, and I love Blake and Anna. They're so fun to work with. The movie had hit streaming during the pandemic, and it just went through the roof. It was internationally all over the place, number one, it just made me go, "Well, maybe we break the rule and do it." My producing partner, Laura Fisher, and I were like, "OK, what would it be?"

I had been for a number of years obsessed with this wedding that I'd seen in Vogue. Giovanna Battaglia, the fashion editor, got married to this really rich guy, and they took over all of Capri. I just was fascinated by these pictures. It was so over the top and opulent. I was like, "I want to do something about that."

Then, we were trying to figure out what the story would be. "What if there's a destination wedding if we get Emily out of prison and we don't know why she's going there?" Our writer, Jessica Scharzer, took it and just ran with it. These movies are all about taking Anna Kendrick's character Stephanie and putting her in situations she's completely unprepared for. In the first movie, she conquered this weird world of Emily in the suburbs. It was like, "Well, we got to take her out of her comfort zone," and so [we] sent her off to Italy in a very high-stakes, glamorous, high-money world. 

Speaking of the glam, I saw you tell Drew Barrymore that Blake Lively wanted to base her aesthetic on you for the first film. 

The first one was very based on my look. She wanted to do all these power suits, and then she and Renee Kalthus, my amazing costume designer, came up with all this stuff. We got a lot of stuff from the Ralph Lauren archives because we're friendly with them. For the next one, we know that people love Emily's suiting, but I also want to take people in a new direction. We decided we'll start her off in these suits, and then she's a bride marrying a very rich guy in this very opulent world, so let's just take the fashion crazy. 

Working with Blake, she's so smart about that stuff, and she has the most amazing, crazy ideas. Even the first time we see her [character], she's like, "I should be in like a prison suit." Then Renee went with her designers and found this beautiful striped suit. Then, Blake added shackled jewelry and handcuffed earrings. There's a whole wedding sequence where Blake's like, "I want my wedding dress to be latex." They put together this amazing, amazing wedding dress with a bloody veil, which again was Blake's idea. She goes, "We should have blood on the end." She's so smart about that stuff. 

There are some new characters this time around. Tell me about some of the new people, because you've got an A+ list. 

I'm very lucky. We wrote a role for Allison Janney. I love Janney, and she was in "Spy," and we've become fast friends ever since then. I was just like, "I have to get Janney in this movie," and so we came up with this character, Aunt Linda, for her. Then it looked like she wasn't going to be able to do it because of her schedule, working constantly. At one point, it was like, "Well, we can't get her. We'll have to get somebody else." I was like, "Wait, no, come on. We're showbiz. We're Hollywood. We can make things work." We rearranged the entire schedule just to get her there. Thank goodness she's there. Then Jean Smart, she's the only original cast member who couldn't make her schedule work. Elizabeth Perkins is a pal. I worked with her on "Weeds" for years, and then she was in "Ghostbusters," and we've been buddies. 

She came in and took over the role that Jean Smart does [in the original] and just crushes it. She's so funny. Then we have our Italians, our wonderful Michele Morrone, playing Blake's fiancé, and then the legend that is Elena Sofia Ricci. We got to have her in the movie as his mom, and then Lorenzo de Moor. It was fun casting all these Italians. I had done a movie called "I Am David," a very unsuccessful film, by the way, back in 2002. We shot it in Bulgaria, but it was supposed to take place in Italy. I had cast a lot of Italian actors back then and kind of learned how to figure out who could speak the language and who could adapt it and all that. It was just really fun, and then we shot in Italy. 

"The problem with a lot of comedy over the years has been, it's funny, but you're not leaning forward going, 'Are they going to get through this? Are they going to get killed?"'

Now that you've broken your no-sequels rule, is this going to be a trilogy? 

It could be. I still want to stick to my no-sequels rule, but now that we've done it, there's no "no threequel" rule in my company. We set it up definitely where it could continue. I just love Blake and Anna, and it's just so fun to work with them. 

The way that the first movie hit, coming from you, was unexpected. People did not think of you as a guy who was going to make this sexy, funny, but dark movie. What drew you to this?

The first movie, they marketed "from the darker side of Paul Feig," which made me laugh because all my movies are comedies. It just depends on what the tone is. I like a darker tone. I like heavy stakes in comedy. The problem with a lot of comedy over the years has been, it's funny, but you're not leaning forward going, "Are they going to get through this? Are they going to get killed?" I think audiences need that, especially these days. Things that are just fluffy and [that people] can't invest in and feel danger in, they don't take it seriously. The best kind of comedy now is when it's in a very tense situation. Most comedy these days is in horror movies. That's where the most quality comedy you'll find because you're screaming and laughing at the same time. I like that.

When we did the movie, "The Heat," we had that one sequence where the bad guy stabs Sandra Bullock with a knife in the leg. She and Melissa take it out, and then they realize they have to put it back in so he doesn't know that they're untied. The reaction from the audience when Melissa has to put that knife back in her leg is so funny to me because people are screaming and laughing at the same time. I go, "If I can marry those two emotions together, that's even more fun than just getting a pure laugh." It's a fun way to go. 

When you talk about what people are looking for right now, we are not in a "Bridesmaids" moment. You've seen those ups and downs and you've weathered through them. What do you think it says about this moment? Do you think two years from now we're going to want a lighter, sweeter vibe? 

People don't like frivolous these days. I think the stakes have been so high for the last 10 years. Just pick your reasons why that is. People get very distrustful of things that look just silly and manipulative. I found that even on "Bridesmaids," when we were putting out the trailers, all this feedback would come in over the internet of, "Oh, clearly the funniest jokes are in the trailer and they're trying to fool us." It's like, "Why are you so hostile? We're just trying to make you laugh," but I get it. They've been burned in the past by things that were just too silly. Comedies, we don't get awards, but comedy is really hard because we have to make it look really easy.

It's what my editor from "Bridesmaids," Bill Kerr, used to call the Angry Villagers syndrome, which is [where] you get an audience and they come into a comedy like, "We're going to have fun. We're ready to have fun." If the first joke is just OK, they're like, "Oh, OK, well, that was kind of funny, but I thought that'd be funnier." Then, if the next joke is just OK, or doesn't get a laugh, they become angry villagers. They're like, "We paid to be in here. I want to burn the village down because clearly, these filmmakers don't know what's funny." That's why I have to test my movies like crazy, and we have to shoot all kinds of alternative jokes and lines, because if those don't work, get them out, put in the big ones. 

I think a lot of comedies were just OK, and people want to invest in this higher-stakes thing. That said, I do think we might be coming back to an age where maybe people are open to that. I saw the trailer for the "Naked Gun" remake, and it looks hilarious. I think that movie's going to do well just because it's just crazy silly. Even at that, there's a lot of violence in there. People need that extra bit of realism, or as we call them in the business, stakes. 

When you talk about "Bridesmaids," I remember so vividly feeling like all of feminism was riding on this movie. People were writing op-eds that it was our duty as women to make this movie a hit; the stakes were huge. What was it like for you when you realized that this was going to be a kind of movement? 

Well, it was scary. I resented the fact that Hollywood put all that on us. I resented it for my cast and for all women in the business because I've always wanted to do I doing female-led stuff. I just liked doing great, three-dimensional stories for women. I had a lot of female writer friends who were inspired by us. They're out pitching their female-led movies, and they were just hearing across the board, "Well, we have to wait and see how 'Bridesmaids' does." It's like, that's so screwed up. You never heard when "The Hangover" was coming out, "We're going to wait and see how this movie with three guys goes." It was really unfair, and I really resented it, but thank God we did well. We were predicted to do badly right up until the day we came out, so thank goodness it worked. 

I remember going to a screening and being afraid because there were men in the audience. I thought, "If they don't laugh, I'm going to lose the right to vote."

I will say what happened when we did "Ghostbusters" — my "all-female 'Ghostbusters,'" as they call it — people tried to make that a political thing. People just were like, "I don't want to want politics in this. I just want to go see a funny movie." I think it backfired on our movie because people were just like, "I don't want to get caught up in this." You keep thinking the business is moving forward, but look at what's happening right now with the women's movement. I thought we were moving forward so much, and now things are rolling back. It's depressing because I'm old enough to remember when in the '70s the feminist movement felt like, "OK, we're off and running." Then it dials back and it's really screwed up. 

Besides the backlash you've faced, you've had hugely successful projects, but also disappointments. When you release a movie and then it doesn't do well, what do you learn from those experiences and those disappointments?

"It wasn't a political thing for me. It was just, I got offered to do 'Ghostbusters.'"

It's gutting because you work so hard, and when you make a movie, it's 24 hours a day. It's all you dream about. It's all you think about. It sometimes takes a couple of years. The lessons you learn are really, why did this not work? This sounds very broad, but with "Ghostbusters," it got so caught up in politics, but that wasn't even something that we brought to it. That was external, other than the fact that I announced, "I'm going to make an all-female 'Ghostbusters.'" It wasn't a political thing for me. It was just, I got offered to do "Ghostbusters." Harold Ramis had just died. I'd been told Bill Murray didn't want to do it, so I'm like, "Well, how do I do this? Let's just reboot it and start it again." 

All my movies are filled with funny women. Let me just cast all the funny women I know. That was it. That was the only politics behind it. Then suddenly, the world blew up. It was 2015, 2016. Things were very tense around then with Trump coming in and all the bro backlash. Gamergate was going on. It was a very hostile environment at that point. It just got caught up in that. Sometimes I go, "Should I have even done that movie?" But no, I'm really proud that I did it. I just think sometimes there are just things you can't control. 

It's just supposed to be there to be funny. It's just there to entertain you. Suddenly, I'm getting death threats. I'm just trying to make a movie about funny people chasing ghosts. Why did this happen? 

When we talk about these projects that you've had that didn't do as well, the classic is "Freaks and Geeks." This is a show that was canceled, and yet it was this springboard for you, for Judd Apatow, for actors like Seth Rogen, Busy Phillips, Linda Cardellini, Jason Segel and Dave Franco. What was the experience like of getting a show made, having it canceled, but then it becomes a beloved, iconic piece of popular culture?

That's the salve on it, that it keeps going. Back then, it was awful because that was in the days before they were putting out TV shows on DVD. If you didn't have a show that went 100 episodes, once it was gone, it was gone. There was nowhere to see it. Some people [were saying], "Oh, I heard that was really good," but it's gutting. 

We could tell that it was sliding down. When we came out, we got the most amazing reviews ever, just like, "Oh, we won." On our opening night, we had these really big ratings, even though we were on Saturday night, which was a bad night for us for that kind of show. Then, even ratings dropped halfway through the pilot because we ended the second act with Eli, the handicapped kid in the school, breaking his arm and screaming in pain on the ground. I think the audience was like, "OK, I can't deal with this."

It was really hard for me when it got canceled, yet I saw the writing on the wall. My mother died two days before we got canceled, out of the blue. When that happened, when we got canceled, it was like, "I'm just in tragedy overload. I can't deal with it." Then, after that, the aftermath is really sad because when you create something and create these characters and have actors come in and flesh them out so well, you've created a family. Then suddenly it's like, "OK, your family's gone," and you can't keep these stories going and you can't keep writing for these people, and it's really sad. 

You're very good at getting people who seem natural together. The chemistry in "A Simple Favor," there's a through line from "Freaks and Geeks" there. Obviously, it's the casting director's job, but how are you as a director cultivating that intimacy? 

Something like "Freaks and Geeks" is working very closely with Allison Jones, our casting director, and just throwing the doors open wide. You just have to have everybody come in, see every kid, every actor you can. The mistake a lot of people make is that they cast to the script, meaning, "How do the people say these lines that we've written for them?" And, "Oh, they don't quite look like I imagine the character to look." I've heard so many times, "My God, they were so good, but they're just not quite right for the role." I'm like, "Rewrite the role to keep that person." You want these people who are coming in who are not just good actors but are going to inspire you, and they're going to have an inner life that will go beyond what you've written on the page. That's how I cast everything.

"I do a lot of research before I cast somebody, just to find out their reputation."

Now these days, when I'm working with big stars, obviously I'm not auditioning Blake Lively and Anna Kendrick or Sydney Sweeney, whoever I'm working with at the time. You get them going, "I hope this works." What I found is that at a certain level, actors are just able to have chemistry with each other. Sometimes you go like, "Oh boy, this isn't quite working." I found you kind of have an inner instinct on who's going to mesh, and then you go from there. I've had plenty of projects where the first day on the set, I'm like, "Hope this works." You get right into the first take, and wow, it is magical. It's a hard-to-define magical thing, but boy, you're so happy when you find it. 

You mentioned working with Sydney Sweeney. I can't wait for this next movie to come out. This one is also based on a book?

"A Simple Favor" was a book, but this is the first time I've done a book that has been a giant book. It's called "The Housemaid," and it's been on the New York Times bestseller list for a year and a half. It's a really good book, which is great. Back in thriller territory. It's really dark, but at the same time, I still consider all my movies to be comedies. Just some are really, really dark comedies. 

Sydney Sweeney is a dream to work with. Amanda Seyfried is a dream to work with. Brandon Sklenar is so wonderful. I am very lucky. I mean, I do a lot of research too before I cast somebody, just to find out their reputation. You have to dig deep because I've been told sometimes, "Don't work with them. They're terrible." I'll call other people just to find out, "Were they terrible in general, or are they terrible because you didn't work with them well?" I was an actor for 15 years. It's a very tough job. You're so exposed, and you're so dependent on the director. I can make anybody look terrible if I wanted to, by just picking the wrong takes and giving them an over-the-top direction, or giving them bad direction, or shooting them incorrectly. 

The trust has to be so high. You have to go into these projects like, "I'm on your side. What can I do to make you better? How can I create a safe environment for you?" The biggest part of my job is, how do I create a safe environment where you can try anything, you can mess up. They'll know I'm not going to use it if it doesn't work, or I'll use something that they don't think is good, but if I test it with an audience and people love it, then I'm going to put it in and they'll see why it's in there. I like to push them past their comfort level, too. 

I want to ask you one more thing, because you wrote a book about cocktails. Are you wearing a martini glass signet ring? 

It is. Designed myself, exactly. 

In the film, you have Blake Lively making the Vesper Martini exactly the way that you make it. I know, because I've watched you do it. What is the secret to a good martini so that I can go home at 10 a.m. in the morning and start stirring?

The secret is that it has to be very cold. Freeze your glasses. It has to be very dry. Everybody has personal taste. My friend Alessandro Palazzi, who's the famous bartender at Duke's in London, says, "Anybody who says they make the best martini is an imbecile because everybody's got different tastes." But as far as I'm concerned, just a drop of vermouth in, stirred or shaken. I like a stirred martini. You can shake it, but don't shake it like you're trying to kill something inside the shaker. You are supposed to roll it, because you don't want a cloudy, ice-chip-filled martini, but you want it to be very cold. Get it really cold and then a giant twist, not those little curlicue twists that they do sometimes. Those are worthless. You want a big, giant twist. You have to express the oil from the skin on top of the drink and then rub it on the lip, and drop it in, and you've got a perfect, beautiful martini. 

Wait, but I forgot the best part. You have to make it with Artingstall's Brilliant London Dry Gin, which is my gin. There you go. Plug. 

“They’re firing the wrong guy”: Schumer blasts ousting of Mike Waltz

President Trump waited a few months longer than in his first term to dump his national security adviser, ousting Mike Waltz on Thursday as a casualty of Signalgate and for not meeting strict MAGA criteria.

Waltz took responsibility in March for organizing a group chat about a military operation in Yemen on the Signal app and accidentally including journalist Jeffrey Goldberg. But The New York Times reports Waltz was also considered too much of a traditional Republican by pushing for sanctions against Russia in its war with Ukraine.

The news prompted an immediate rebuke from Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader from New York, who said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth should get the pink slip for sharing sensitive information in the chat. 

“They’re firing the wrong guy,” Schumer told reporters, per The Times. “They should be firing Hegseth.” 

Alex Wong, Waltz's deputy on the foreign policy team, is also expected to leave, The Times reported. 

It's the first major shake-up in the ranks of Trump, who has been trying to avoid the chaos of his first term when he went through four national security advisers, The Associated Press reported. He ousted the first one, Michael Flynn, four weeks after his 2017 inauguration. Trump also had four White House chiefs of staff and two secretaries of state.

Far right-wing Trumpers like Laura Loomer got in Trump's ear this time, complaining that she had been left out of the vetting process for National Security Council aides and that Waltz and others were "not-MAGA-enough," per The Associated Press. 

Climate change is both predictable and unpredictable. We don’t need certainty to know it’s a crisis

If you knew your home would burn down exactly one year from today, you’d take immediate action. You’d clear out flammable clutter, upgrade alarms, and perhaps install fireproof doors or sprinklers. You’d also prepare for the worst — updating insurance, setting aside savings, and making an evacuation plan.

The human brain responds best to threats when they are clear, and certain. That unfortunate truth helps explain why we’re struggling to take action on climate change. Despite broad scientific consensus and growing certainty that the climate crisis will continue to worsen, there’s no way of predicting how or where it will strike. Knowing the exact dates and locations of disasters may not make it any easier to prevent — but it would likely spur decisive action.

Remember Y2K, the impending doom that would befall us all when ill-equipped computer systems switched from “99” to “00” at the stroke of midnight on December 31, 1999? The threat didn’t materialize, and not because it wasn’t real. It had a deadline, and the world’s governments and companies invested some $300 to $500 billion in upgrading computer systems and critical infrastructure to avoid it.

The problem with climate change, and the floods, droughts, hurricanes and fires that come with it: the threats are only going to get more frequent and more intense, but they are, by their very nature, erratic. As carbon dioxide crowds the Earth’s atmosphere, the planet not only warms but also generates weather systems that increasingly behave in unstable and unprecedented ways. “Unpredictability” will be a predictable weather watchword throughout all of our lifetimes.

We can never actually achieve total certitude about the shapes climate change will take, nor do we need to arrive at certitude to take action.

It is precisely this uncertainty that makes the climate crisis so costly and even deadly. While many impacts are predictable, the exact form disasters will take remains unknown — complicating insurance and disaster preparedness. Earlier this year, fires hit Los Angeles. Next, it could be Palo Alto, Phoenix or any number of equally vulnerable cities and suburbs, just as science long warned.

All that leads to a straightforward messaging problem with anything but an easy answer: Over the decades, climate scientists have been striving to improve on their ability to be “certain” about the causes and impacts of climate change. (For their part, IPCC reports have steadily dialed their declarations up on their own likelihood scale, achieving the holy grail of “virtually certain” for many key conclusions.)

But that all-too-human desire to close in on perfect certainty is causing us to miss an important point: We can never actually achieve total certitude about the shapes climate change will take, nor do we need to arrive at certitude to take action.

Nobody takes out insurance because they know their home will burn down with certainty. In fact, no insurance company would offer such an insurance policy in the first place. Every investor, actuary or corporate risk manager understands that it is the element of not knowing that creates the impetus to invest in mitigating risks and adapting to those that remain.

Climate change is no different. Scientists have provided conclusive links between us burning fossil fuels and any number of impacts, from more intense floods and fires to lower student test scores and worker productivity on the one hand, and lower life spans and home prices on the other. All told, the social costs for each ton of carbon dioxide burned by now add up to numbers in the high $200s, with a wide range that is heavily skewed toward much larger costs. Providing such a range is anything but an “admission” of some kind, or a call to “wait and see” before we can be more certain.

We need your help to stay independent

Climate deniers often point to the unanswered — or unanswerable — questions about climate change and insist those are good reasons to wait, to second-guess, to preserve the status quo. Take Russell Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, who was pushing for the next version of the National Climate Assessment to include more “diverse viewpoints,” as Project 2025 puts it, before the Assessment was all but cancelled this week. A phrase like "diverse viewpoints" sets off warning bells for many climate scientists, pointing to the transparent effort to continue to foment confusion about the causes and impacts of climate change.

The uncertainty that is baked into this crisis is all the more reason to take urgent and decisive action to address it.

It’s nothing new: for decades now, uncertainty has been leveraged by those with an economic stake in the fossil fuel-powered status quo. In response, it’s tempting for us, as scientists, to point to all of the “virtual certainties” in our bodies of work, to insist that yes, we do know what the future holds for the climate.

When we get locked into this back-and-forth, we overlook something crucial: the uncertainty that is baked into this crisis is all the more reason to take urgent and decisive action to address it.

Scientists should not be afraid to acknowledge what’s unknowable about the future before us. Perhaps, if we humbly accept this uncertainty, and in fact, trumpet it as a reason to mobilize around rapid decarbonization, we can repurpose uncertainty from the barrier to climate progress that it’s long been into a benevolent cudgel on the side of spurring climate action.

Let’s finally acknowledge how much we don’t know, and from that new point of departure, do everything we can to save our home.

My family is food prepping at Costco for Trump’s trade war

A few years ago, as a single young professional in New York City, I went into a Costco store on East 117th Street and was quickly overwhelmed by the variety of products and the massive packaging… of everything. 

“Never again,” I thought to myself as I left the Manhattan store.

Fast forward a few years later, and I'm based in Wisconsin with my family of two adults, three pets and a toddler who loves food and says “I hungry” from the moment he wakes up to pretty much the minute he goes to bed. 

With the economy facing increasing inflationary pressures, the uncertainty over Trump's tariffs and the warning signs about food shortages, I decided to track back to Costco to give it another go.

Most analysts believe the impact of the 145% tax on Chinese imports might materialize soon in the form of “higher prices and fewer options,” as CNN reports. The CEOs of Walmart, Target and Home Depot warned Donald Trump in a private meeting that his tariff policy could “disrupt supply chains, raise prices and empty shelves,” Axios reported on April 23, citing sources familiar with the meeting. "Tariffs are highly likely to induce at least a temporary spike in inflation,” Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said on April 16 at the Economic Club of Chicago, according to CNBC. “The inflationary impact may also prove more enduring.”

While I appreciate the hunt for the deal as much as anyone, my more recent Costco experience was still overwhelming and made me feel like an ant shopping at a warehouse. But stocking in bulk, if you can afford it and have space for the extra produce, is clearly going to save money in the long term. 

We need your help to stay independent

I’ve stocked up on seafood, coffee, fresh produce — products expected to see the biggest and most immediate price increases, although it’s hard to estimate exactly which aisles will be most impacted by Trump's erratic tariff policies.

“We have a highly globalized food supply chain — much of what we buy and eat at the grocery store is not grown or raised in the United States,” said Adam Hersh, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute. “The president's indiscriminate tariff policy is going to hit prices for imported foods as well as for foods produced domestically that compete with foreign foods. Shoppers should expect that some foods they are used to won't be available on the shelf at any price.”

It’s also hard to predict which states are likely to be most impacted, although states like Wisconsin and Michigan — which are tied to local farming and food production — tend to have lower grocery prices, with the average weekly household spend at $221.

As I loaded my purchases in the car, I felt that I was stocking up a small restaurant with the amount of fresh fish and meat that I was going to store now. I woke up the next morning, slightly panicked, cataloguing in my head how I would need to freeze and label the meat and seafood so it doesn’t go bad before we use it all.

It’s definitely a bit of a mind shift from running into Trader Joe’s a couple of times a week with the latest recipe inspirations from TikTok in my head, or venturing to a local farmer’s market on a Sunday. This type of shopping requires commitment: You’re either going to love eating something for weeks on end, or you should stay away from Costco.

This type of shopping requires commitment: You’re either going to love eating something for weeks on end, or you should stay away from Costco

Outside of shopping in bulk, I’m definitely thinking through and prepping more meals ahead of time, seeing where I can cut waste.

As a millennial who got a dog and spoiled her during the pandemic, of course I cook food for my German Shepherd Zoya. She loves cottage cheese, ground beef with turmeric and coconut oil, peas and carrots as well as salmon leftovers. The cats are less spoiled. While we’re switching up suppliers and exploring cheaper options, their diet is basically the same. For now.

Experts like Ted Rossman, a senior industry at Bankrate, see the tariffs' impact on grocery prices as a broader "rising expenses" issue, rather than COVID-era shortages.

"The USDA says only about 17% of the U.S. food supply is imported," Rossman noted. "Tariffs could definitely cause us to pay more for imported seafood, fruits, vegetables, etc., but we should still be able to get those items."

He also recommends signing up for store loyalty programs, using coupons or cashback platforms like Ibotta, and then of course writing a shopping list and budget ahead of time.

"Meal planning in advance can ensure you pick more cost-effective ingredients and that you eat what you buy," he said.

Other food experts recommend exploring local options.

"The truth is that American farmers can grow so much more nutritious fresh food — if only shoppers demanded it. Probably the simplest advice is to sign up now to receive fresh food boxes from nearby farms," Alan Lewis, vice president of advocacy at Natural Grocers, said. "The more subscribers they have in advance, the more crops farmers will plant and harvest for you this summer and fall."

That's the silver lining to the tariff uncertainty, if there is one.

"Consumers can react to tariffs in a way that makes the U.S. food system better for everyone," he said.

As someone who is used to grocery shopping a few times a week, I’m hoping this will become a more mindful way of shopping that will help us brace for the impact of tariffs, but also might be a good long-term practice to save more and be less wasteful.

Generations before us have survived wars and famines. Plus, we’ve already lived through a pandemic. 

Economists warn, however, that this time the shortages are notably different from the COVID-19 era.

“The main difference is this situation is not an act of God, but was caused by the choice of just one man without much thought as to how and who it would impact,” Hersh said. “If he persists with this choice, it will mean a permanent change to the structure of global food production and trade that will raise prices and force families to change what and how they eat.”

This eyeball-scanning cryptocurrency wants to prove you’re a person

So you want to invest in cryptocurrency? You might need to prove you're a human first.

That's the requirement at World, formerly known as WorldCoin. The project, backed by OpenAI's Sam Altman, has launched in Atlanta, Austin, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville and San Francisco to test digital assets in the age of AI.

World uses devices called "orbs" to verify a user's identity by scanning their face and eyes. They get a Worldcoin (WLD) crypto token in return.

Crypto users aren't the only ones who might be required to prove they're humans. Dating apps are also interested in testing World's technology, media outlets report. 

World's orbs launched outside the U.S. in 2023 as “a way to make sure humans remained central and special in a world where the internet had a lot of AI-driven content," the Financial Times quoted Altman as saying. 

He told the publication that while the eye-scanning orbs have “a clear ick factor," the industry had to "earn people's trust." 

World hasn't been embraced worldwide, though. Spain blocked it last year, raising concerns it was collecting personal information about minors, media outlets reported. The company also faced pushback from Portugal, Hong Kong, South Korea and France. 

Regulatory concerns in the Biden era kept World from entering the U.S., Fortune reported. The administration took a more aggressive stance on crypto as the industry collapsed amid high-profile cases of fraud. Former FTX boss Sam Bankman-Fried, sentenced to 25 years in prison last year for defrauding customers on his crypto exchange, is one of the investors in the developer behind World.

World is one of several companies that have entered the U.S. in the crypto-friendly Trump administration, where agencies dedicated to investigating crypto businesses and enforcing rules have been disbanded or defanged and cases against top firms including Coinbase, Ripple and others have been dropped.

Trump, who accepted millions of dollars from crypto donors during his 2024 campaign, has since hawked meme coins featuring him and wife Melania, started a crypto business with his sons, proposed a U.S. "strategic crypto reserve," issued an executive order supporting crypto, created a task force to set up a regulatory framework and appointed a crypto advocate as head of the regulatory agency that oversees the industry. 

Trump had a different view of crypto in his first term. "I am not a fan of Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies, which are not money, and whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air," he posted in 2019. "Unregulated Crypto Assets can facilitate unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity."

When facts become seditious, it’s time to hit the panic button

Dear Leader had another open Cabinet meeting on Wednesday. For two hours, Donald Trump sat with his loyal sycophants and revelled in their professed unconditional love and appreciation.

Pam Bondi told Donald Trump no one has ever done anything better in the history of mankind, or something like that. So after listening to people like Pete Hegseth, who probably texted the entire meeting to his family and a reporter from the Atlantic on his Signal app, you’d have thought Trump was once again shooting rainbows out of his nether regions while handing out gold nuggets like candy to an adoring populace.

According to members of the Cabinet, and others including Elon Trump, or Donald Musk, who literally wore two hats on his head to celebrate the momentous occasion, the president has brought the world to the brink of Nirvana. Trump had placed promotional hats on the table for his Cabinet members (no word as to whether he sold those hats at discount prices, or just gave them away) but only Musk picked up the “Gulf of America” hat and put it over his black Doge hat. “Elon, I love the double hat,” President Trump said to him. Of course he did.

It was too much to take for those of us who had to watch this broken circus. Even Ann Coulter, who’s always making a bid to be relevant, criticized him, calling the meeting “Kim Jong Il-style tributes.” 

The best we can say is that we have all survived 100 days of Donald Trump’s second administration. There are only 1,360 days to go!

It wasn’t all fun and games, though. The economy has contracted for the first time since 2022, and Trump wants interest rates lowered, but Trump also had his favorite excuse ready for the downturn in the economy, and it has nothing to do with him being held accountable or responsible. On Truth Social, he said, “This is Biden’s Stock Market, not Trump’s.” That’s, of course, a contradiction to what he said on Jan. 29, 2024, when he posted, “This is the Trump Stock Market because my polls against Biden are so good that investors are projecting I will win.”

I know contortionists who aren’t as physically limber as Trump is verbally, but every limbo boy and girl has made it 100 days into this limbo world, yet no one knows how low Donald the limbo artist can go.

The best we can say is that we have all survived 100 days of Donald Trump’s second administration. There are only 1,360 days to go! A reminder: John F. Kennedy only governed for 1,036 days total. He’s still considered one of the best presidents we’ve had despite his shortened term. Wonder where we’ll be 1360 days from now? I do.

But whether you love him and claim his first 100 days are the best in history as the members of his junk box, err cabinet, claim – or you believe as Michael Cohen (his former fixer) does that Trump’s first 100 days have been a quick trip to hell, we have to come to grips with an unshakeable truth; free speech no longer exists.

Every positive thing that Trump claims he’s done, he can back up because he’s stifled dissent. Everything his detractors say he’s done to the detriment of the country begins and ends with the same reason. Without dissent, without facts, without the ability to speak truth to power, you cannot have due process. You cannot educate. You cannot inform, and you certainly can’t govern democratically.

The most recent example of this occurred in a Tuesday briefing when White House press secretary (forever after to be referred to as the “Pep” Secretary) Karoline Leavitt was asked a question about Amazon. The company said it would display tariff costs alongside its marketplace items’ original prices.

“Why didn’t Amazon do this when the Biden administration hiked inflation to the highest level in four years?” the Pep Secretary said, adding that “it’s not really a surprise” that Amazon would do such a thing since it has, per the Trump administration, “partnered with a Chinese propaganda arm.” 

Trump went further. He called it a “hostile and political act.” When providing facts to the American people so they can decide what’s best for them is a hostile and political act, then you are living under a dictator and facts become seditious. When facts are seditious, it’s time to hit the panic button.

The White House took aggressive aim at Amazon, with President Trump putting in a call to Amazon founder Jeff Bezos Tuesday morning. As CNN reported, two senior White House officials told them that Trump called Bezos to complain about the reports that Amazon was considering displaying the cost of US tariffs next to prices for certain products on the company’s website.  Amazon caved a short time later. Trump later said it was a “good call.”

“Jeff Bezos was very nice. He was terrific,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday. “He solved the problem very quickly. Good guy.” Of course, Trump would think that. Bezos already killed a Kamala Harris endorsement prior to the election to satisfy Trump.

We need your help to stay independent

Trump doesn’t like the facts. But does like to have his, ahem, ring kissed. When he was interviewed by ABC’s Terry Moran, he held up a poorly photoshopped photo of Kilmar Abrego Garcia (the Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador) and claimed Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang. When Moran pushed back, Trump said the reporter wasn’t nice and asked him why he just couldn’t admit it was proof that Garcia was a gang member.

Facts. That’s why. We need them. Trump does not and doesn’t want us to have them unless he dictates them to us.

Trump is at his absolute worst when he can’t accept the facts that counter things he has stated publicly. He exploded at the New York Times for that newspaper’s coverage of Trump’s implied threats against CBS’s parent company, Paramount, that led to executive producer Bill Owens of “60 Minutes” resigning. Trump sued CBS last year in a case stemming from an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris that Trump said was deceptively edited.

The New York Times piece included a comment from correspondent Scott Pelley, who said that Paramount “began to supervise our content in new ways,” and that Owens “felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires.”

Trump, of course, now wants to threaten the Times into silence with a lawsuit.

Seth Stern, the Director of Advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said that Trump’s lawsuits are classic examples of SLAPP, “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.”

“SLAPP strategy isn’t to win. The plaintiffs don’t intend to win. The point is to intimidate, to bleed opponents dry, that’s what Trump is doing,” Stern explained. “He can use those lawsuits as bargaining chips against corporations and media conglomerates that have other interests, other business before the government. He is essentially laundering bribery through the court system; file a frivolous lawsuit, demand a settlement. If this was done in a dark alley it would be an illegal bribe, but since a judge signs the settlement agreement, it’s okay – or at least it is so far.”

There are other examples of Trump’s dismantling of free speech, according to Stern. “We’ve got the weaponization of the FCC under Brendan Carr, an FCC chair who wears a golden bust of Donald Trump as a lapel pin who has pursued all sorts of frivolous threats against outlets from CBS to ABC to NPR to Odyssey-owned radio stations that had the nerve to report on an ICE raid.”

But nothing compares to how we in the press have failed to hold Trump accountable in the Brady Briefing room. Because the parent companies have fallen in line, most reporters have done the same. Trump asks who a reporter works for when asked a question, and makes a note if he likes or dislikes what comes out of a reporter’s mouth. How the question is asked, and who the reporter works for, could determine whether or not we ever see that reporter in the pool again.

We have done little or nothing to stand against the tide. As bad as this administration is, we in the press are worse. Congress is even worse than we are. When Trump was asked who he’d support as Pope, he said himself. Senator Lindsey Graham then tweeted out that while Trump was a “dark horse” candidate, he’d make an excellent Pope – and several media platforms took the bait and debated the merits of such lunacy. The jokes about it were even worse – simple hack comic stuff.


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


The Trump administration has successfully infiltrated the corporate media ranks and replaced the most experienced and critical reporters with mostly friendly reporters in the briefing room and in the press pool, or at least compliant reporters. Trump has taken it a step further and is now hosting special press briefings for the right-wing social media (“New Media”) in the South Court auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. You can imagine what that’s like. It's like the village idiot convention in a Woody Allen satire.

“My Uber drivers finally speak English again, so thank you for that,” MAGA influencer Arynne Wexler said before asking a question about transgender athletes in the first “New Media” press briefing Monday morning.

Former Trump Press Secretary Sean Spicer asked Leavitt why legacy media weren’t outright being excluded from the White House. After all, why ask for facts and challenge the president?  The room erupted in applause as Leavitt wrapped up the meeting. “Thank you, I’m going to walk off now,” she said as the influencers clapped and cheered.

Gone are the days when stalwart reporters like Sam Donaldson and Helen Thomas populated the ranks of those covering the White House and asked tough questions of any and all presidents. That used to be our job. Time after time it was drilled into me as a young reporter that even if you like a president, you ask them the hard questions. “Because if the guy I voted for can’t stand up to the challenge, I and the rest of the country need to know that,” I was told by Donaldson, Thomas, and every other reporter I admired back then. We knew we were battling the President – and the president knew it. It’s built into the Constitution. And as Mike McCurry, the best secretary I ever worked with, told me, “Brian, we learn as much from the reporters in those briefings as you learn from us. It’s necessary to hear opposition so we can adapt our policy. We can’t be brittle and refuse to listen to anything other than compliments. That does nobody any good.”

Today, if we’re not kissing the ring, we aren’t wanted.

What Trump wants and needs is a room full of sycophants like his junk drawer, errr, Cabinet, and media influencers who applaud the lunacy that has destroyed free speech.

That’s why Trump is an unmitigated disaster, and the next 1,360 days will be fraught with peril. But, on the upside, your Uber driver speaks English.

Punishable by death: Pam Bondi raises the stakes in the war on federal workers

I have been shouting into the wind for 15 years that the war on whistleblowers and government sources – started under Barack Obama and continued by Presidents Trump and Biden – was a backdoor war on journalists. Donald Trump has now brought the battle to the front door and his administration is using a battering ram to get inside.

Just ahead of his 100-day mark in office, the Trump administration set off two major earthquakes that shook the media landscape and threatened the foundation of a free press. First, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that federal authorities may once again seek reporters’ phone records and compel their testimony in leak investigations. Second, Bondi announced that she plans to pursue cases “where a Government employee discloses sensitive information for the purposes of personal enrichment and undermining our foreign policy, national security and government effectiveness.” She claimed that “this conduct could properly be characterized as treasonous.”

When the government first started using the Espionage Act to go after “leakers” (most of whom were whistleblowers), in every single one of the cases, reporters and news outlets featured prominently in the indictments. But there was always an unspoken understanding that the government would not go after reporters directly. When the government first tried to criminalize leaking in this century, the case against NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake imploded and the judge excoriated the government:

“We’re not going down the path of having reporters called to the witness stand because I’m not inclined to incarcerate a reporter who asserts a privilege . . . That’s the last thing we need right now…. To the extent that we even think about calling a reporter to the witness stand, I think we’re really going down a deep, dark hole.”

But that was nearly 15 years ago and Trump has shown himself more than willing to go down deep, dark holes, from soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election to inciting an insurrection to summarily deporting U.S. children without due process. Indeed, past examples of the government imperiling journalists are sufficiently chilling before we ever reach Trump and Bondi’s latest assaults on the First Amendment. 

The Nixon administration convened a grand jury to indict New York Times reporters Neil and Susan Sheehan for obtaining and copying the Pentagon Papers from Daniel Ellsberg. In 2005, reporter Judith Miller was jailed for 85 days for refusing to reveal her source in the Valerie Plame ordeal. In the 2013 leak case against State Department employee Stephen Kim, the government named a Fox News reporter as a co-conspirator. When the government subpoenaed reporter James Risen to testify about the identity of his anonymous source, he faced prison for contempt of court. And in 2024, Trump’s prosecution of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange became the first successful prosecution of a publisher under the Espionage Act.

During the Biden administration, the Justice Department enacted revised media guidelines, which contained protections such as requiring senior-level Justice Department approvals before seeking court orders for certain information. It also curbed the use of “compulsory process” – meaning search warrants, subpoenas, etc. to seize reporters’ records – except in limited circumstances, for example, if the information is imperative to prevent a serious crime or if a journalist is the criminal target.

But an internal Justice Department memo from Bondi’s office claims that dropping the reporter record policy is necessary to prevent the release of not just “classified” information, but “privileged and other sensitive information” — a much broader, undefined category that could expose reporters to law enforcement scrutiny and process for typical news-gathering activity, such as the protection of sources.

Bondi does not seem to understand how the government classification system works, which by its very nature protects sensitive information. The three main levels of classification are confidential, secret, and top secret. The desired degree of secrecy about such information is known as its “sensitivity,” which is based on a calculation of its potential damage to national security if released. Nor does Bondi seem to understand that information designated as “classified” does not necessarily make it related to the “national defense” – the definition in the Espionage Act, which is the law used in the majority of leak prosecutions.

Bondi also seems to misunderstand that “privilege” is a rule of evidence – not a classification category – which protects communications within certain relationships from compelled disclosure in a court proceeding (even if it may be relevant). It is shocking that the Attorney General doesn’t appreciate this distinction. It’s basic law school fare.

We need your help to stay independent

Under the reporter regime Trump wants to return to, investigators could secretly obtain journalists’ records through a court order without the journalists’ knowledge. News outlets reported in 2021 that prosecutors aggressively pursued communications data from reporters in an effort to identify their sources. A top lawyer at the New York Times revealed that both the Trump and Biden administrations tried to obtain the email logs of four of its reporters. A CNN reporter and reporters from the Washington Post and other outlets reported similar efforts.

Compounding all of this, while most states have reporter shield laws covering the right of news reporters to refuse to testify about information and sources of information obtained during the news-gathering process, there is no such federal law. The bipartisan “Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act” (PRESS Act), a federal shield law, could have helped cure this problem. It passed the House unanimously, but in November, Trump instructed congressional Republicans to block its passage, which they obediently did.

The most frightening part of this all, however, is Bondi’s bald assertion about prosecuting government employees for treason – a crime punishable by death – if they disclose undefined “sensitive” information for undefined “profit” (does that include getting a tv gig at Fox?) and undermine government effectiveness. That could conceivably include discussing DOGE’s myriad blunders or revealing the United States’ mistakes in deporting migrants. 

Bondi has now joined the sisterhood of the unraveling rants, echoing DNI’s Tulsi Gabbard and DHS’s Kristi Noem in failing to realize that the First Amendment actually elevates political speech above all other forms of individual expression, and that the most offensive speech is the speech most protected from government action. Perhaps they were too busy being mean girls in middle school to learn that “distrust in government” was baked into the United States, a nation founded on a rebellion against centralized, executive power. We fought a revolution against a monarch. They can nervously chuckle at the insecure, attention-starved class clown all they want, but it doesn't invert the paradigm by which the people control the government.Attempting to turn it the other way around is real treason.

 

Trump’s first 100 days will require a second Reconstruction

Donald Trump has been president for 100 days. He promised to “Make America Great Again!” Instead, Trump and his administration and the MAGA Republicans have made the United States less democratic, less free, less safe, less prosperous, less respected around the world, and much more unhappy.

Trump has been remarkably direct and transparent in his plans to become the country’s first elected autocrat, a “dictator” on “day one.” He and his enablers are following through on this plan with reckless abandon.

An avalanche of recent public opinion polls shows that Donald Trump is now the least popular president in 80 years at this point in office. Specifically, Trump’s handling of the economy and disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution and general abuse(s) of power have caused the American people to turn against him en masse. Trump’s MAGA voters, especially the Christian right-wing and other Christian authoritarians and theocrats, remain dedicated to him and the cause. They view Donald Trump as a type of prophet and god; they are fighting a type of crusade; Trumpism and MAGA are their religious politics. 

Legal scholars, political scientists, and other leading voices are sounding the alarm at a deafening level that the United States is quickly collapsing (or already has) into a state of authoritarian rule under Trump. In a new article in the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs, political scientists Stephen Levitsky and Lucan A. Way describe this collapse, as “U.S. democracy will likely break down during the Second Trump administration in the sense that it will cease to meet standard criteria for a liberal democracy — full adult suffrage, free and fair elections, and broad protection of civil liberties….”

Donald Trump’s authoritarian push and his MAGA movement have encountered little substantive resistance from the Democratic Party, the news media and the Fourth Estate, civil society, big business, and other counterbalancing forces in American society. In the worst examples, these elite institutions are engaging in “anticipatory obedience,” aka surrender and collaboration with Trump and the larger MAGA authoritarian populist movement.

With few exceptions, such as the “Hands off” protests several weeks ago, the American people have also been cowed by Donald Trump and his forces’ shock and awe campaign. The American people appear to be vacillating between learned helplessness and mass disinhibition.

We need your help to stay independent

Whatever may happen after Trump’s first 100 days as the long Trumpocene further digs in, one thing is almost certain: it will not end well for the American people and their democracy and society. The question is now not if the disaster can be avoided but instead what level of catastrophe and horribleness awaits and how the American people can rebuild if that is even possible.

Ultimately, the first 100 days of Trump’s return and the long years of the Trumpocene were preventable. The American people — or at least enough of them in certain parts of the country — inflicted this disaster on themselves. Donald Trump is just doing what he promised and threatened.

In an attempt to gain a better perspective and insights on Donald Trump’s first 100 days back in power, what may happen next, and what has already been lost, I reached out to a range of leading experts. I also asked them the following question: If these first 100 days of Trump’s administration are indeed the good times as compared to what will come next, what do they want to prepare the American people for?

Barbara McQuade is a professor at the University of Michigan Law School. She is the author of the book “Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America.” McQuade is also a legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC, and a co-host of the podcast #SistersInLaw.

At 100 days, my strongest emotion is sadness. I think we will get through these dark days, but not without some significant steps backward in our march toward a more perfect union. Trump's chaos and low approval ratings show that his authoritarian moves are not what voters chose in November, which gives me hope for candidates more interested in unity in the 2026 and 2028 elections, but it will take us a long time to recover from the harms of this administration. Damage to scientific research, public health, universities, diversity, and the rule of law will not recover overnight.

Trump may not care about many things, but he cares about his ratings, as we have seen from his repeated examples of backing down from unpopular moves, such as tariffs, cancellation of student visas and firing of federal employees. Public sentiment is everything, and the people still hold the power to shape our democracy.

I am most surprised by Trump's use of executive orders to target American institutions, such as universities and law firms. These orders are completely lawless, and yet, we have seen some of his targets capitulate rather than defend themselves in court. As I learned in my work as a federal prosecutor, appeasing the extortionist only invites more extortion.

If these are the good times, then I don't want to see the bad times! I actually think that for all his bluster, Trump is unable to execute most of his plans because he surrounds himself with incompetence. I think that Trump wanted to create the illusion of action right at the start of his administration, but his choice of cabinet members and other leaders has stymied his success. It appears to me that many leaders were selected for their loyalty rather than for their expertise, and we are seeing the consequences of those choices in their blunders, such as the use of Signal to discuss military attack plans. Running the government like a business never works. I think most Americans see the foolishness of cutting government services without rhyme or reason.

Trump's willingness to violate the rule of law and to traffic in disinformation makes him a very dangerous person to serve as president. He seems to be attacking any institution that can serve as a check on his power — the media, universities, judges, lawyers, and state officials. But so far, our courts have largely held him in check. The real question is whether he will obey court orders. I remain optimistic that the public will not tolerate a president who violates court orders. Trump may not care about many things, but he cares about his ratings, as we have seen from his repeated examples of backing down from unpopular moves, such as tariffs, cancellation of student visas, firing of federal employees, and the like. Public sentiment is everything, and the people still hold the power to shape our democracy. The “Hands Off” protests seemed like a turning point when the public realized that Trump's tactics did not make his success inevitable.

Anthea Butler is a professor of religious studies and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania. Her most recent book is "White Evangelical Racism: The Politics of Morality in America."

We are in authoritarianism, and things will only get worse unless everyone understands where we really are. I'm a black woman. 92% of us voted for Kamala. We did the work. Now it's time to take care of our own.

Norman Ornstein is emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of the bestseller "One Nation After Trump: A Guide for the Perplexed, the Disillusioned, the Desperate, and the Not-Yet Deported."

I am not feeling good. The pace of movement toward full-blown autocracy, greater than we saw with Orban and Erdogan among others, is distressing. More distressing is the collapse or shrinkage of the guardrails to prevent it, from the press to Congress to the business community to some judges.

I am somewhat surprised by the level of incompetence combined with the lack of concern over missteps, blunders, destruction of critical health and safety safeguards and direct threats to national security. And the level of cruelty. Not that any of these things are completely unexpected, but it is all worse.

We are seeing a backlash, and I expect it will grow as more Americans, including many who voted for Trump, feel the awful effects of policies and blunders. But Americans should not expect that all this can be ameliorated, much less erased. These are far from normal times for our country and voting and elections and politics as usual. For example, prepare for the possibility that Trump responds by invoking the Insurrection Act, provoking violence against dissent, and declaring martial law. Perhaps it will fall short of that. If it does, and we see a turnaround in the reins of power in 2026 and again in 2028, prepare for some very rough times. The destruction of much of the government and its infrastructure will take a very long time to overcome

Eric Schnurer is a widely recognized expert on public policy and government effectiveness, efficiency and reinvention. His newsletter can be read at The Greater Good.

I’m not really surprised by anything that’s taking place now. I thought Trump would win from early in 2016. I also thought that Trump would win in 2024 back in January 7, 2020 onward. I have also believed that Trump would and still will seek and likely attain a third term. Trump will likely get his third term because of America’s political and legal dysfunction.

More crucially, I always believed he would encourage a violent insurrection to stay in power, would not leave office as long as he’s alive, and that his time in office will culminate in something like the Troubles in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This has little to do with Trump — although he foments the worst in people instead of the best — and more to do with deeper factors like emerging technologies and a changing economy leaving most people out: Trump is the fever, not the underlying illness.

But you don’t have to have shared my views to be unsurprised by anything happening today: Trump promised every bit of this. The people running this administration published an entire book announcing what they planned to do and how they were going to do it. If you’re surprised by anything at this point, you haven’t been paying attention.


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


As for how I’m feeling, anticipating the end of everything I’ve valued my entire life about this great country — the Constitution, mostly-civil discourse, a public ethos of decency to other human beings no matter how short we fall of our ideals in practice, political processes built on something other than violence, real-if-grudging progress on racial and other forms of discrimination and injustice, America as both a concept and a reality – doesn’t make its actual disappearance any better. It all bothers me, every minute of every day. But the intentional inhumanity and cruelty being visited on individual human beings on a daily basis — not just the dissolution at a general level of everything that made this country great — is the truly depressing part, no matter how much it is to be expected of these people.

The only things that have surprised me in the least are how quickly and comprehensively Trump and his forces have pressed ahead, while, at the same time, how grossly incompetent they have proven to be. Some of the incompetence is intentional — you don’t intentionally destroy all trust in government without acting incompetently in it, and putting incompetent people in charge, to some degree — but you’d expect people who spent five years planning this in minute detail to be somewhat better on the execution. So, I’m actually more optimistic about it all than I expected to be. Relatively speaking.

I don’t entirely agree with the premise that these are the good times compared to what is going to happen next. Yes, things are going to get worse than they currently are. But I also believe, and have believed for a long time, that this is a fire that will burn itself out eventually, and what comes after will probably be better. However, I think the United States is now only about halfway through a roughly 30-year transition of tremendous magnitude, so we’ve reached roughly the bottom of the trough but there are still many more years before the dawn starts to break, and more than a decade before a real, and better, alternative emerges. I believe it will require a generational change in leadership at all levels to lead us out of this situation. This will be from people who did not grow up in the “before times,” who can and will think completely differently about the brave new world we have entered.

But I think alternatives will eventually emerge, as they always do, that look completely different from what this country has looked like for more or less the last 100 years, or before. Some will be good and some will be bad. I agree with Dylan Thomas that we must rage against the dying of the light, but the crucial work now is formulating what the eventual new dawn can bring, and how to build that. It is not to dash all our energy against a wave that’s not yet spent, trying vainly to roll it back to yesterday.

Is New York City ready for a socialist mayor? Zohran Mamdani bets yes

Nothing makes a person seem so small as the 407-foot-tall mass of brick and glass that hovered behind Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year-old democratic socialist running to be mayor of New York City. But the luxury apartment complex in the Upper East Side — named “Oriana," Latin for “gold” or “sunrise” — served as a helpful if unwieldy prop for Mamdani, who held a press conference on the sidewalk that cloudy Friday morning to ferret out Andrew Cuomo, its most famous resident and now his chief political rival.

“Ever since he moved back to New York City in October after decades of living in Westchester and the Hamptons or in Albany, New Yorkers have been desperate for answers about his record. What they’ve found instead is evasion time and time again,” Mamdani, a three-term state assembly member, told a cluster of reporters, one curious Oriana tenant and her baby. “We're having this press conference next to his supposed residence to make it easy for him to come downstairs and address any of those questions." 

Mamdani listed off the ways in which the former governor allegedly betrayed working class New Yorkers in favor of corporate (and often Republican) donors, before then laying out his own vision for tackling the city's affordability crisis. There was, of course, no delusion about his rival's appetite for a fight (Cuomo never did emerge); the taunting invite outside the Oriana was a rhetorical exercise. He always refers to the frontrunner as "disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo," name and disparaging title melded easily by Mamdani's coolly assertive cadence.

Mamdani — the only child of Mahmood Mamdani, a renowned Indian-born postcolonial historian, and Mira Nair, the award-winning Indian filmmaker behind "Mississippi Masala" — was born in Kampala, Uganda, living there and in South Africa until his family moved to New York City when he was seven. His and his family's experiences of being Indian, Ugandan and American, he said, taught him what it means to be a minority within those contexts.

"My father told me from a young age that to be a minority is also to understand not simply the promise of a place, but also the limitations," he told me after the press conference. "It is quite terrifying to see the political situations of the place where I was born, the place where my family came from and the place that I call my home, all at once, showcasing a trend towards the far-right politics, where civil liberties are to be trampled upon and profit is the only thing to be made."

No translation

In a city seething with discontent over a spiraling affordability crisis, Mamdani is seeking to deliver an unapologetically left-wing message that identifies, in plain terms, what (and who) is the cause of their distress and how he will provide the kind of relief that for-profit interests would never countenance. Only a bold vision in sharp relief with corporate-friendly austerity politics, he argues, can bring a political behemoth like Cuomo back down to street level.

"While there may not be an ideological majority in New York City, there is a majority of people who feel left behind by this mayor’s economic policies.”

“This campaign is about a politics that requires no translation, one that speaks directly to people's lives. They need not wonder about how a policy impacts them, because they understand it from the moment you state it," he said while striding down Second Avenue, away from the Oriana’s gaze. “While there may not be an ideological majority in New York City, there is a majority of people who feel left behind by this mayor’s economic policies.”

If there is any New York politician more reviled by progressives than Cuomo, it’s incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, now running for re-election as an independent, apparently feeling vindicated after narrowly escaping a corruption trial. Mamdani has insisted that he is hardly concerned by the gamble; if he faces Adams in the general election instead of a primary, the contrast will still be the same. Mamdani’s also running on a platform that has captured online attention and helped propel him to being the most visible alternative to Cuomo or Adams.

The campaign videos Mamdani's team produces eschew heavily seasoned graphics, corny slideshows and melodramatic voiceovers in favor of highlighting their own candidate, who seems to be everywhere. There’s Mamdani on a Coney Island beach, telling New Yorkers that he’s “freezing… their rent” before running into the frigid waters, clad in a $30 business suit from Steinway Thrift Shop. There’s Mamdani near Bryant Park, asking halal cart vendors how much they’d sell their $10 chicken-over-rice plates if they weren’t getting fleeced by permit farmers hoarding licenses from the city. All of them say they’d knock down the price to $8 and still make a profit. “New York City has a crisis, and it’s called halal-flation. If I was the mayor, I’d work with City Council from day one to make halal eight bucks again,” he declares, finger jabbing towards the camera, as the graphics for various stalled legislative proposals flash next to him in the style of electronic highway traffic messages.

While “halal-flation” neatly illustrates the link between neglectful administration and the city's soaring costs of living, its demand for people’s money seems ultimately trivial compared to that of rent, which eats up at least 30% of most New Yorkers’ income — and for 1 in 5 households, as much as 50%. More than 2 million people have found refuge in precious rent-stabilized apartments, where they depend on the mercy of the city’s Rent Guidelines Board to block landlords from raising prices. But the board, heeding landlords who argue that inflation is sucking their accounts dry, voted for rent hikes for four consecutive years, from 2022 to 2025, provoking outrage among tenants and their advocates.

This was Adams’ dirty work, Mamdani said. The board members who voted for the hikes were indeed all handpicked by the mayor and continued to receive his vocal support in the face of widespread backlash. If Mamdani is elected to replace Adams, he’ll have the power to make his own board and through them enact his proposed rent freeze. Real estate owners are doing just fine, he argues, pointing to a report released by Adams’ board, which found that landlord revenue actually increased by 12% across the city last year. Working class New Yorkers, on the other hand, “are being pushed out of the city that they built and call home, but can no longer afford.” Lest any disillusioned Adams supporters turn to Cuomo hoping for a savior, Mamdani added that the former governor, now feeling remorse over approving a popular tenant protection bill written by the state legislature in 2019, will be no better.

While mayoral candidates are divided over a rent freeze, virtually everyone in the race has embraced some form of housing expansion to ease, or at least control, the escalating price — a step that has often been thwarted by zoning restrictions and suburban residents determined to uphold them.

In December, the city council passed Adams' “City of Yes” proposal to reform city zoning and pave the way for the construction of 80,000 affordable housing units, over the objections of many outer neighborhoods that formed the bedrock of his 2021 coalition. Political observers at the time suggested that it was Adams’ most impactful legacy to date and a boon for his reputation; some of his allies framed it as an act of political bravery. Others, like City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams (no relation to the mayor), seemed to imply that the proposal passed in spite of Adams rather than because of his efforts; Mamdani, for his part, says it doesn’t go far enough because it includes too many carve-outs for favored low-density neighborhoods. He has vowed to pass a more comprehensive version of the plan that would fill in those gaps.

As we entered Slate Café in Midtown East, Mamdani checked his Casio watch, a gift from his wife  — it was already 10:34 — and quickly dropped any more talk of Adams and Cuomo outside the door. He was more eager now to discuss other policies that form the core of his platform, like making the city’s struggling bus system fast and free, delivering universal childcare to all New Yorkers, building 200,000 new union-built and rent-stabilized housing units, raising the city's minimum wage to $30 and opening a government-managed store in each of the five boroughs to help lower the price of groceries. While many of those proposals have polled highly with Democratic primary and general election voters alike, some opponents have already vented to the local right-wing tabloid, claiming that such interventions would cost too much money and destroy private competition.

"I’ve been clear from the beginning about what I stand for, and that’s making sure people can live a dignified life in this city."

“Socialist mayoral wannabe Zohran Mamdani’s scheme to bring government-owned-and-operated grocery stores to the Big Apple is a ‘Soviet’ style disaster-in-waiting,” the New York Post declared, pairing the story with a picture of a crowded Moscow supermarket. “It’s a socialist move that goes against the American Dream,” said Nallely De Jesus, vice president of a company that runs five supermarkets in the Bronx. "It’s also not just about cheaper prices; it’s about making sure customers are getting the products they want."

The socialist accusation is one that Mamdani does not dispute. In fact, the red-baiting seems to puzzle him more than anything else. “This isn't revealing a secret. I’ve been clear from the beginning about what I stand for, and that’s making sure people can live a dignified life in this city rather than letting the market pick and choose who deserves access to even the most basic human needs,” he said. 

The People's Republic

While there are plenty of candidates running to the left of Cuomo and Adams, including New York City Comptroller Brad Lander and state Sen. Zellnor Myrie, only Mamdani is part of the New York City Democratic Socialists of America (NYC-DSA). In the heady years after Sen. Bernie Sanders’ first presidential campaign, the organization threw its backing behind several members who ran for political office across the city and won, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from the Bronx and north-central Queens, state Sen. Jabari Brisport from Brooklyn, and Mamdani, hailing from Astoria in northwestern Queens. If there’s a single, 2,556 acre slice of America that encapsulates the post-2016 renaissance of left-wing politics, it’s the neighborhood officially named after the country’s first recorded multimillionaire, unofficially dubbed “The People’s Republic of Astoria," and represented by avowed socialists at the municipal, state and federal levels. One of them, city council member Tiffany Cában, hired Mamdani as a field organizer for her 2019 Queens District Attorney campaign, which she lost by just 60 votes. 

But before Cabán, Ocasio-Cortez and everyone else, there was Khader El-Yateem, a Palestinian Lutheran minister who ran to represent Bay Ridge in the City Council in 2017. Less than 10 years ago, NYC-DSA was reluctant to endorse candidates for fear of wasting political capital on decisive and potentially embarrassing losses. After Sanders, however, the group gingerly stepped into local electoral politics, giving only its second City Council endorsement in nearly a century to El-Yateem. At first glance, Bay Ridge, a sleepy corner of Brooklyn that voted for GOP mayors five times between 1993 and 2009 and is populated largely by middle class ethnic whites, seemed like a strange place for the NYC-DSA to probe for political relevance. But Sanders himself provided a blueprint for victory — by sweeping aside Hillary Clinton there in the 2016 primary.

We need your help to stay independent

El-Yateem, rallying the neighborhood's growing Arab community, progressives and an assortment of disaffected voters, came close but could not clinch victory against Justin Brannan, chief of staff to the term-limited incumbent council member. Mamdani's voice flashed as he spoke of the campaign that transformed him. "I've always been a New Yorker, but until I heard about a democratic socialist Palestinian man fighting for universal rights and the dignity of life for working class people, I did not know if my deepest-held political convictions had a place here," he said. "The 2017 campaign changed that. My campaign now can have the same effect on all New Yorkers."

For Mamdani, Bay Ridge, the site of his political epiphany, is a case study for expanding his support in places where the historical appetite for left-wing politics is limited. In a video filmed shortly after last November's election, Mamdani traveled to parts of Queens and the Bronx where voters had turned sharply right in the last three election cycles and asked anyone who would talk why they voted for Trump (or not at all). Most didn't say it was because they were sick of "woke" culture or worried about immigration or that one or both parties were too radical — the most common answer was that New York City had become unaffordable and the Democratic Party hadn't done anything about it. "I don't believe in the system anymore," one 2024 non-voter told him.

In 2018, Mamdani had another chance to practice his expansive theory of outreach. That year, he managed journalist Ross Barkan's campaign for New York Senate. Barkan was running to represent a district gerrymandered to look like some garish Art Deco necklace: pastel-blue Bay Ridge in southwestern Brooklyn strung together with Gravesend and Sheepshead Bay to the east, two areas full of nominal Democrats who voted for Trump all three times he ran but never changed their party registration. Naturally, he and Mamdani regularly found themselves face-to-face with customers who thought they wanted nothing to do with a progressive candidate.

Ostensibly hostile terrain, Barkan told Salon, was and is no deterrence to Mamdani.

"I've watched a lot of politicians up close, and after a while you figure out very quickly if someone has what it takes to hold a room."

"He'd go from door-to-door in all of these really conservative neighborhoods and engage with people, debate and try to persuade them, but without changing who he is and what he believes," Barkan said. "I think a lot of politicians on the left run away from the right. Zohran doesn't. As you can see with the mayoral campaign, he's very good at taking issues that might be perceived as very left-wing and making them seem like common sense, which a lot of them are."

Campaigns are punishing business, especially for long-shot candidates, but Mamdani seemed indefatigable. "I'd be on the subway at 6 a.m. and go around knocking on doors seven days a week," Barkan recalled. "If I was back in the office at 8:30 at night, he'd be like: 'What are you doing here? It's still light out. Go knock on some more doors.'"

The following year, members of NYC-DSA’s electoral working group approached Mamdani with a suggestion: He should run for office himself. Mamdani agreed. In his first ever campaign as a candidate, Mamdani narrowly unseated an incumbent Democratic assembly member with a platform emphasizing statewide rent control, fare-free transit, ending mass incarceration and establishing single-payer health care — essentially a state legislator's version of his mayoral platform. He's too modest (or savvy) to attribute his victory to anything but his policies, but almost everyone I talk to seems to think he's also a singularly compelling messenger.

"I've watched a lot of politicians up close, and after a while you figure out very quickly if someone has what it takes to hold a room," Barkan said. "Zohran can always hold a room."

Michael Gianaris, the deputy leader in the New York State Senate and a Greek-American resident of Astoria, has a similar take. "Even though we're in a state of the world where there's so much to make us upset or angry or stressed, Zohran can withstand the pressure and is just generally a very charming guy," Gianaris told me. "We've joked more than once about whether Indian lamb is better than Greek lamb … a lot our conversations revolve around what our neighborhood was, what our neighborhood is now and how our respective cultures approach certain parts of life."

Activism in office

Nothing seems to fluster Mamdani, but some things — a U.S.-funded genocide in Gaza, Cuomo gutting the pensions of public sector workers, the extrajudicial arrests of students and asylum-seekers — anger him deeply. When Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, met GOP lawmakers in Albany just days after ICE agents abducted Columbia University PhD student Mahmoud Khalil, he marched up to a protective line of state troopers, shouting over their shoulders at Homan: "How many more New Yorkers will you detain? How many more New Yorkers, without charge? Do you believe in the First Amendment? Do you believe in the First Amendment, Tom Homan?" 

Mamdani had already planned for a confrontation, but he didn't anticipate how emotional he would feel until he was just a few feet away from Homan.

"He walked down that hallway with this smirk, eating an apple. That was his only answer for taking a man away from his pregnant wife and flying him off to a prison more than one thousand miles away from home," he recounted. As a video of the confrontation spread, racist death threats against the Assembly's only Muslim member flooded his office's phones, but so did campaign donations from people who admired his outrage in a time when Democrats, in general, have been criticized for not being outraged enough. Within 48 hours, the campaign had raised an additional $250,000. By the end of March, Mamdani had $8 million from 18,000 donors in his account — the maximum amount of money a municipal candidate in New York City is allowed to spend on a campaign. Please stop giving us money, Mamdani told supporters in a campaign video.

"This is just the beginning of solidarity. We are going to fight together until there is nothing left in this world to win."

Mamdani shouting questions at Homan evokes visceral, passionate opposition, especially compared to the tepidity or outright collaboration of some other Democrats like Adams, who promised to help Trump deport immigrants from New York City. But this was neither the first nor most drastic action he has taken to protest injustice, which includes a 15-day hunger strike by the Taxi Workers Alliance in 2021 to protest the exploitation of taxi drivers by predatory lenders and then another five-day hunger strike in 2023 in response to Israel's invasion of Gaza.

A hunger strike is a battle the striker wages against their own body. After three or four days of self-deprivation, weakness creeps into fraying muscles; a few days after that come intensifying waves of headaches, abdominal cramps and dizziness. Despair and delirium, the two great adversaries of resolve, follow into the breach. By the third week, feelings of hunger give way almost entirely to pain, which has coiled itself around the whole body and melts into their perception of time, place and themselves. While the strikers can look frail, their willingness to suffer is meant to confound the state and emphasize their unshakeable commitment to a cause. In the case of the taxi drivers who owed as much as $750,000 for purchasing the medallions required for doing business in the city, "people's lives were being taken from them by debt collectors," Mamdani said. "I was prepared do whatever it took for people to get the justice they deserve."

Mamdani's activist tactics have not been universally popular. One anonymous colleague groused to the publication City and State that he had abandoned "the politics of trying to compromise and bringing people along by logic" during the 2021 strike. "I just don't think it's the role of an assembly member to apply that kind of pressure." The strikers persisted as negotiations took place between city officials and lenders. And on the 15th day, they celebrated the passage of a debt-relief plan with an outburst of jubilation. Grabbing a microphone, Mamdani shouted, his voice ragged with emotion: "This is just the beginning of solidarity. We are going to fight together until there is nothing left in this world to win." Afterwards, he and fellow strikers, including assembly member Yuh-Line Niou, broke their fast with dates and avocados handed out by a union member. "I never had a better avocado in my life," he told me.

The deal reached by the city and Marblegate Asset Management, the largest holder of taxi loans, eliminated most of the debt owed by taxi drivers — about $450 million. Just moments after breaking his strike and eating the best avocado of his life, Mamdani was urging state lawmakers to pass additional laws that would expand prohibitions of abusive business practices and classify drivers of rideshare apps as employees, rather than contractors.


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


In the state assembly, he has paired his activist approach with more conventional legislating. Mamdani, the one-time campaign manager who roamed Trump country in southern Brooklyn, can often find willing partners outside of the DSA caucus even after spending much of the late 2010s protesting against some of the people who are now his colleagues. "He's always been very fluent in the language of both mobilizing constituents and communicating with people who aren't really engaged in politics," said Gianaris, a left-leaning party leader with ties to progressive groups. "It's a whole other language to be effective at moving people who are in the center of politics [i.e. elected officials]. And so I think yes, Zohran has been adjusting over the last few years from fighting the powers that be to becoming one of the powers that can enact agenda items from the inside."

Gianaris and Mamdani both represent Astoria in their respective chambers, so they naturally work together often. In 2023, the pair successfully advocated for the Metropolitan Transit Authority to enact a free bus pilot program, which removed fares for one bus route in each of the city's boroughs. One year later, an MTA report found that the pilot drove a significant increase in ridership and reduced assaults on drivers — results that Mamdani has cited to advocate for free buses across the entire city. Unlike his proposed rent freeze, however, an expansion of the pilot program is largely in the hands of the governor, who effectively runs the MTA. For now, current management is apparently uninterested in any more fare-free buses, but it might be easier for them to say that now than if and when they're dealing with Mayor Mamdani. As things stand, the mayor is not entirely powerless — he appoints an allotted portion of MTA board members, controls the streets on which the buses run (or crawl, according to some frustrated riders) and stands atop the tallest bully pulpit in the state. He can also find sources of revenue to fund his free buses, which may cost upwards of $650 million per year — Mamdani has proposed, among other things, collecting $800 million in unpaid fines from landlords and rearranging the city's $112 billion budget — but Governor Kathy Hochul has balked at raising taxes on the state's wealthiest residents, an increase that Mamdani and other progressives have argued is long overdue.

Against the odds

Mapping out a realistic scenario in which Mamdani can get the buy-in he needs from Hochul might require some stretch of imagination, but that's part of why he's running for mayor in the first place: to expand the voters' political imagination beyond what they've long been accustomed to or believed was the limit of possibility, paving the way for socialist victories at the ballot box and victories for the people in the halls of power. Sanders opened the way for a left-wing surge in the late 2010s, but in the Biden era that momentum has stalled, with progressives like Jamaal Bowman swept away by a reaction from the right of the Democratic Party. Perhaps most disconcerting to progressives in New York was the mayoral election in 2021, in which Adams, playing up his working class roots and promising to get tough on crime, edged out his opponents after eight rounds of ranked-choice voting.

Four years later, the left is desperate for a chance at redemption, especially now that one of their own is surging in the polls. "It can always be fulfilling to help a candidate who represents your politics win or even outperform expectations," Sam McCann, a NYC-DSA member and activist against mass incarceration, told me. "Zohran's candidacy is more than that. People are…"

He paused to search for the right word, then decided on "electrified."

"The high profile of this race, for leadership of the largest city in the U.S., is obviously a part of the excitement," he continued. "But it's also that Zohran is connecting with people wanting to feel some hope, and for a candidate to have strong political convictions, in a time when both can seem hard to find."

"I think the key to a long-term movement is ensuring that New Yorkers join organizations and that they become members of something that is larger than a campaign."

The NYC-DSA, often cautious in picking its electoral battles, voted overwhelmingly to endorse Mamdani for mayor last year in the face of seemingly long odds. With less than two months to go until the Democratic primary election, the organization's members are scrambling across the city to deliver the gospel to front doors, street corners, community centers and any place where votes can be found. A strong performance by Mamdani could help bring left politics to the forefront and lay the groundwork for future NYC-DSA candidates. A victory would place in City Hall a mayor who's not only part of NYC-DSA, but also a committed organizer invested in their growth.

What's good for NYC-DSA, of course, is also good for Mamdani. In an age of decline for the traditional political machine and the fragmentation of municipal politics, NYC-DSA remains one of the few groups that can swiftly mobilize volunteers across all five boroughs, and, they hope, for Mayor Mamdani's agenda.

"I think the key to a long-term movement is ensuring that New Yorkers join organizations and that they become members of something that is larger than a campaign, larger than a candidate, and instead is a sustained commitment to delivering on the same principles," Mamdani said. "We have the support of an incredible number of those kinds of organizations, and the one that has really steered me in my political life has been the NYC-DSA."

Our meeting in Slate Café took place a little more than a week before Adams, aware that he had next to no chance of winning the Democratic primary and yet curiously unaware that he has next to no chance of winning the general election either, decided to run as an independent. Cuomo, boasting universal name recognition and the sense, if not the reality, of incumbency from his 11 years as governor, is now what Barkan calls the "institutional" candidate. Since announcing his run in March, he's been collecting endorsements from local Democratic clubs, powerful lawmakers who had once called for him to resign as governor, and, much to the disappointment of progressives, a slew of labor unions. Moreover, he's maintaining a healthy advantage in the polls — in a recent survey, Cuomo leads with 45% of the vote, with Mamdani behind him at 22% and seven other named candidates not even making it to double digits. In a one-on-one matchup, Cuomo wins 64% to Mamdani's 36%. 

But behind Cuomo's projection of strength lie signs of rot, and, some observers argue, a chance for Mamdani to seize the initiative. Cuomo's name recognition advantage, which Barkan said is the primary factor behind his polling lead, may become meaningless if Mamdani can continue his momentum, surpass other not-Cuomo hopefuls and consolidate his role as the leading challenger. That's assuming Mamdani can also persuade people that Cuomo is not necessarily the "dependable" choice by virtue of his governing experience, or overcome any other advantages the former governor might have.

To help close the gap, Mamdani can look to Muslim and South Asian voters who've never had a mayoral candidate like them before. Mamdani not only shares with those voters a kindred faith and culture, but is also making his way through their neighborhoods and events with the same policy promises he's been delivering everywhere else. Though a majority of Muslim voters voted for Adams in 2021, they especially might balk at supporting Cuomo or Adams in light of, among other things, their refusal to acknowledge Palestinian suffering at the hands of the Israeli state.

While union support for Cuomo is more difficult to peel off, Mamdani can take comfort in knowing that an endorsement is not a binding directive for individual union members or groups, who can still vote however they want in the end. Furthermore, their embrace of the former governor might not be as much about policy as it is about pragmatism.

"Policy issues, while important, are less important than being on the winning side when all the votes are counted," Barkan said. "Unions don't typically support insurgent or long-shot candidates. They're risk-averse, and there is considerable risk in not supporting a powerful, vindictive politician who might try to harm your members if he wins."

If Mamdani wins, the logic follows, he can expect at least some unions and city institutions to not only back a re-election bid, but also begin supporting other left-wing candidates who would at that point seem much more viable. That hope amounts to a large part of the pressure weighing on his campaign, as he works to build a coalition that encompasses anyone who yearns for change, but doesn't necessarily know in what shape that change will take. That's why Mamdani has to leave Slate Café at exactly 11am — so he can persuade yet another group of people that change they can believe in comes in the form of free healthcare, free buses and a freeze on rent.

MAHA wants to make our food healthy again, but federal cuts are hobbling some existing efforts

Skittles, Mountain Dew and Fruit Loops shine a little brighter on supermarket shelves in the U.S. than they do in some other countries.

That’s because artificial food dyes like Red 40 and Yellow 5 used in many snacks and sugary foods are banned in certain countries like Denmark, France and Switzerland — something secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has pledged to do by the end of 2026. Last week, Kennedy said he had reached an “understanding” with companies in the food industry to phase out these petroleum-based dyes and others like Blue No. 1, Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B used in everything from ice cream and candy to packaged soup.

While the decision to remove artificial food dyes is typically something people across the political spectrum can get on board with, some say it’s missing the forest for the trees to single out substances that do not have a clear link to chronic illness while existing programs providing people with healthy foods are slashed in federal budget cuts.

“I don’t think you’ll find any nutritionist who is in favor of food dyes, but I just don’t think that it’s the panacea that it’s being purported to be,” said Lindsey Smith Taillie, an associate professor of nutrition at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. 

A 2021 report from the state of California linked artificial food dyes to hyperactivity and other neurobehavioral effects in children. However, this has been overblown on social media to suggest that artificial dyes cause ADHD in children, which has not been proven. Currently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) deems them safe to consume at the levels found in available foods, although some of these dyes do carry a warning label in certain European countries that state they “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.”

Regulatory decisions from the FDA are often based on legal requirements like the Delaney Clause, which requires the agency to ban additives that cause cancer in animals or humans, said Jessica Steier, a public health expert at Unbiased Science. The agency banned Red No. 3 in Jan. 2025, under President Biden, because it was linked to thyroid cancer in high doses in rats, but that dose was 210 times higher than the typical human exposure, she explained. Additionally, the FDA concluded that the way that Red No. 3 causes cancer in male rats “does not occur in humans.”

"While removing specific ingredients may create the illusion of meaningful action, it potentially diverts resources from more impactful health initiatives."

“The key issue here is distinguishing between hazard and harm,” Steier told Salon in an email. “While certain food dyes might demonstrate hazardous potential in laboratory settings with extremely high doses, this doesn't necessarily translate to harmful effects in humans at the levels typically consumed.”

Nevertheless, the MAHA movement has singled out items like food dyes and seed oils in the push to "Make America Healthy Again." Most people support increasing access to a healthy food supply and banning food dyes is considered a step in that direction for many. Still, some say more could be done to support initiatives that deliver healthy food to Americans.

“While removing specific ingredients may create the illusion of meaningful action, it potentially diverts resources from more impactful health initiatives and promotes a simplistic ‘natural equals healthy’ narrative that doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny,” Steier said.

In fact, several decisions made in the first 100 days of the Trump administration have hobbled existing efforts to increase access to healthy foods. Last month, Dr. Mati Hlatshwayo-Davis received a notice that a program delivering food and nutrition education to seniors and children in partnership with the YMCA in St. Loui, Missouri would be cut, she said. This program provided meals for low-income families in the region, where Hlatshwayo-Davis serves as the city’s Director of Health.


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


These types of programs "reach the very heart of what public health is supposed to be, which is about community and preventative care,” Hlatshwayo-Davis told Salon in a phone interview. “To me, some of these programs speak directly to what I understand the Make America Healthy Again [movement] and the priorities of the administration to be.”

A program run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that delivered fresh food from local farmers to schools and food banks also shuttered last month. The agency said the decision to cut the $1 billion program was made in order to "return to long-term, fiscally responsible initiatives."

Recently, a team of workers from the USDA and FDA wrote the national 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans that comes out every five years, using the latest scientific evidence to shape food policy. Yet it is unclear how closely Kennedy will follow the guidelines because they were the first to apply a “health equity lens” to the review process and health equity initiatives have been gutted by the Trump administration.

During a talk on nutrition at an elementary school in Virginia last month, Kennedy said: “There’s a 453-page document that looks like it was written by the food processing industry. And we’re going to come up with a document that is simple, that lets people know, with great clarity, what kind of foods their children need to eat, what kind of foods they can eat.”

Much of the research in nutrition is funded by industry, which has been criticized for biasing the results. Take trans fats, which were banned in the U.S. in 2018. Advocacy efforts to increase awareness of the health risks of trans fats date back to the ‘70s, and it took the FDA decades to take action and phase them out of the food supply, in part because of pushback from industry.

Yet science — fueled by consumer advocacy efforts — was ultimately what led to the FDA’s decision to ban trans fats, similar to Red No. 3. 

“It’s a scenario where both things can be true,” Taillie told Salon in a phone interview. “It doesn’t mean that we should throw out scientific evidence altogether, and my concern is that they might use that as a rationale to just completely abandon the scientific process instead of reforming it.”

Included in the 10,000 jobs cut from the HHS were also officials who monitored the food supply for contaminants at the FDA, which in the massive overhaul of federal agencies is estimated to be losing 20% of its workforce. 

These cuts have largely been made in the name of government efficiency, but the process of switching to natural dyes could be complex and time-consuming. For one, transitioning to natural dyes like turmeric or beet-based ones to replace Yellow 5 and Red 40 often requires companies to make significant changes to their production processes. And government agencies have historically been slow-moving, too. It took the FDA years, for example, to evaluate the evidence and ultimately decide to remove Red No. 3 from foods. 

It’s also unclear how willing industries will be to comply, although several companies, including the International Dairy Foods Association, The Consumer Brands Association (which includes brands like Pepsi and Kraft) and W.K. Kellogg have said they will take steps to remove artificial dyes from their products.

Still, research from the U.S. and other countries shows that voluntary initiatives rarely have a meaningful impact on the food supply, Taillie said. One review of 20 voluntary actions from the food industry in low and middle-income countries concluded that “voluntary actions often aim to protect industry interests rather than improve public health.”

We need your help to stay independent

“This needs to be mandatory in order for there to be notable differences,” Taillie said. “I’m skeptical of this having an impact, especially because no members of the food industry were even at that press conference [where Kennedy announced it].”

If companies go through that effort, they’ll want to also be sure that consumers are actually willing to pay for the product with the natural-based dyes instead. In 2016, Trix decided to start using radishes, purple carrots and turmeric to flavor its breakfast cereal, but consumers complained about its lack of color and the company decided to switch back to artificial dyes the following year.

Consumer attitudes have changed since then, and buyers do seem more interested in natural colorants, said Renee Leber, the food science and technical services manager at the Institute of Food Technologists. Still, the main concern from buyers is how much food costs, she explained. Although FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said switching to natural dyes would not increase price, other evidence suggests natural dyes can be more costly to produce.

“Consumers right now are looking at price as their primary factor when they purchase foods,” Leber said. “If some of the foods that they're purchasing are going to go up in price, that's going to be a big consideration for consumers.”

Many states have already taken action to restrict or regulate the use of artificial food dyes. The California legislature was the first state to ban these dyes in 2024. West Virginia followed suit earlier this year, and similar bills have been introduced in Utah, Virginia and Arizona.

Still, many of the foods that these dyes are in are ultra-processed foods, which have been linked to chronic illness like diabetes, obesity and heart disease. Yet replacing the dyes will not necessarily make people eat less of these products.

“I don’t think it would necessarily decrease our overall consumption of ultra-processed foods, which is really the much bigger thing that most nutritionists and public health professionals worry about,” Taillie said.

Meanwhile, evidence consistently shows that ensuring access to healthy lunches for children and making food affordable can reduce the risk for chronic disease, Taillie said. So can increasing access to green spaces and physical activity.

Yet in part due to the proposed tariffs from the Trump Administration, food prices are expected to rise 2.8%, including 4% for fresh produce. Meanwhile, the administration has also cut programs designed to plant trees and improve community resilience against climate change.

“Most people want to eat healthy,” Taillie said. “It’s not really a matter of desire, it’s more about reducing the barriers to doing that. You need a comprehensive package of actions in order to move the needle on dietary quality.”

“Bats**t crazy”: House Dems float unsuccessful amendment to bar ICE deportations of US citizens

In a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats repeatedly failed to use the power of the purse to bar Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from carrying out deportations without due process. 

Representatives of the minority party proposed multiple amendments to a budget bill currently undergoing the thorny process of reconciliation. The first would have disallowed ICE from carrying out deportations without due process. The second, made in the wake of deportations of US-born children, would have kept ICE from using funds to deport US citizens for any reason. 

The move comes after President Donald Trump floated the idea of sending U.S. citizens to a maximum security prison in El Salvador while speaking to that country's president, Nayib Bukele. The Trump administration has already carried out several deportations of Venezuelan immigrants to the notorious prison, without offering them a day in court. 

"The fact that Democrats and my colleague Representative Pramila Jayapal feel the need to even introduce an amendment that says ICE cannot deport U.S. citizens is bats**t crazy,” Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif. said. "It is not even a question. U.S. citizens cannot be deported by ICE. It’s the law, it’s the Constitution."

Other Democrats laid into their Republican colleagues' tacit support of circumventing the Fifth Amendment. Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., wondered if his GOP counterparts would be able to sleep at night if they voted down Jayapal's amendment. 

"I don't understand how you'll be able to look yourself in the face," Moskowitz said.

Both amendments were ultimately unsuccessful.

“False narrative”: CBS, Belichick go head-to-head over unflattering interview

Bill Belichick's weekend interview with CBS was meant to catapult him back into public consciousness as the legendary football coach drops his memoir. The long-time signal-caller for the New England Patriots certainly earned headlines for his stop, but not in the way that he had hoped. 

The segment went viral thanks to Jordon Hudson, Belichick's much-younger girlfriend. The 24-year-old interjected from off-screen during a part of the interview and shut down questions about how they met.

On Wednesday, Belichick shared a lengthy statement claiming the segment was deceptively edited to create a "false narrative" and that Hudson was merely repeating terms that were set before for the interview. 

"Prior to this interview, I clearly communicated with my publicist at Simon & Schuster that any promotional interviews I participated in would agree to focus solely on the contents of the book," Belichick said. "Unfortunately, that expectation was not honored during the interview."

The eight-time Super Bowl winner said he was "surprised when unrelated topics were introduced" and that interviewer Tony Dokoupil brought his relationship with Hudson up "several times" before she intervened. 

"She was not deflecting any specific question or topic but simply doing her job to ensure the interview stayed on track," he said. "Some of the clips make it appear as though we were avoiding the question of how we met, but we have been open about the fact that Jordon and I met on a flight to Palm Beach in 2021."

The network responded, saying that it never agreed to a list of taboo subjects prior to the interview. 

"When we agreed to speak with Mr. Belichick, it was for a wide-ranging interview. There were no preconditions or limitations to this conversation," the network shared. "There were no preconditions or limitations to this conversation."

Belichick's accusation of deceptive editing comes months after Donald Trump sued the network for its handling of an interview on "60 Minutes" with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump accused the network of engaging in "election interference" by editing the segment. CBS stood by its reporting and released all the footage it shot on the day of the Harris interview. However, the network's parent company, Paramount, has been looking to settle with the president, as it hopes to stay in his good graces. 

“Nothing to do with tariffs”: Trump blames market downturn on Biden, asks Americans to “be patient”

President Donald Trump has plenty of advisers willing to face the Sunday press show firing squads over his disastrous economic performance. However, he's not satisfied with merely distancing himself from media pushback. Trump suggested on Wednesday that any and all blame for the volatile markets should go to the man who left the Oval Office over three months ago.

"This is [Joe] Biden’s Stock Market, not Trump’s. I didn’t take over until January 20th," Trump shared on Truth Social. "Our Country will boom, but we have to get rid of the Biden 'Overhang.'"

Despite the obvious correlation between Trump's announcement of widespread tariffs and weeks of chaos in the stock market and elsewhere, the president thinks we have yet to see the true result of his taxes on American imports. The president promised that new duties on imports would bring companies' manufacturing processes "into the USA in record numbers," as if mothballed factories and new facilities can be built quickly and cheaply.

"Tariffs will soon start kicking in, and companies are starting to move into the USA in record numbers," he said, before promising an era of prosperity. "This will take a while, has NOTHING TO DO WITH TARIFFS, only that he left us with bad numbers, but when the boom begins, it will be like no other. BE PATIENT!!!"

Recent polls have shown the majority of Americans believe the economy is getting worse under Trump. In spite of this, Trump has shown no desire to distance himself from widely unpopular tariffs. He recently told ABC that the economic turmoil is exactly what his voters should have expected.

"They did sign up for it, actually," Trump said of his tariff scheme. "And this is what I campaigned on." 

“I ain’t got nothing to say to Donald Trump”: May Day organizers say their message is for Americans

After some seven years as a member of the Union of Southern Service Workers, Jamila Allen is a seasoned labor organizer, having led three successful strikes during her time working at a Freddy's Frozen Custard & Steakburgers in Durham, North Carolina. Through one single-day strike and a subsequent weeklong strike, she and her co-workers won a COVID-19 safety policy for their store and 33 other locations during the height of the pandemic. 

That experience taught her a lesson that she now shares with everyone, hoping that they'll recognize their own strength and the fact that they're not alone.

"Don't be afraid to strike," Allen said in a phone interview with Salon. "Don't be afraid to organize. You have power and you have numbers. You have somebody to back you up."

On May 1, Allen's chapter of the Union of Southern Service Workers will be participating in a national day of action, hosting a rally at 4 p.m. followed by a march to Bicentennial Plaza in Raleigh for higher pay and increased respect in the workplace — and against the billions of dollars in proposed Medicaid cuts Congress is considering. Their efforts will be part of more than 1,000 May Day Strong events in more than 850 cities in the United States and abroad.

The goal of the national day of action is "to raise awareness and get people on board for the fight," Allen said. "The first May Day, there were thousands of people out there. You still got to fight to this day with just as many thousands — maybe more — almost for the same purpose that May Day started with."

With its U.S. roots in workers' fight for an eight-hour workday in 1886, May Day has long been a national day of action for union organizers and workers' rights activists to protest for better conditions, protections and pay. But this year activists say the fight is more important than ever in the face of an executive branch challenging the rights of workers, immigrants and queer people, as well as a legislative branch that appears unwilling to challenge the president. They're calling for greater solidarity, and their target audience is their fellow Americans — not President Donald Trump

"I ain't got nothing to say to Donald Trump. It's clear," Stacy Davis Gates, president of the Chicago Teachers Union, told Salon in a phone interview. "I got everything to say to my fellow Americans who want to create a society [where] they can make a fair wage, where they can have universal healthcare, where they are sheltered in homes that they can afford, where they can walk their children to a fully-resourced school down the block," she added. "That's the America that we're building."

In his first 100 days in office, Trump has initiated a vastly unpopular tariff policy that will likely raise the prices of goods amid the nation's affordability crisis, fired or laid off tens of thousands of federal workers; he has also authorized executive actions targeting LGBTQ+ Americans and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. One of his largest actions has been his campaign-promised immigration crackdown that's seized and detained American citizens, documented immigrants and tourists, while overwhelming courts across the country with active litigation over mass deportation efforts. 

Amid the onslaught, Trump's approval rating has fallen 8% since his inauguration to just 44%, one of the lowest ratings of any president in decades, according to a New York Times average of nearly 200 polls, including Ipsos, Emerson College and Marist College surveys. 

Davis Gates said that May Day activists seek to harness that growing dissatisfaction and galvanize other Americans around protecting themselves from an administration that's dismantling "everything we've understood, resisted and struggled for." Through protests, rallies, meetings with officials and trainings, the coalition wants to build collective power and show others that solidarity will be the tool that allows them to resist and advance a society that "clarifies the values of justice," "equity" and "the common good." 

"We want an America that doesn't yet exist," Davis Gates said. "We have to show ourselves as a space, and that's what May 1 is. It's a coming-out party to show ourselves as a group of neighbors willing to create a community coalition in the face of a growing threat to all of us."

In Seattle, May Day organizers have united a broad swath of advocacy groups, including major local unions like the United Auto Workers and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, immigrant rights groups and political organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America, to drive home their broad list of demands. Among those demands is a call for the abolition of the Northwest Detention Center and of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement writ large, which the community is rallying around following the ICE arrests and detentions of two local labor organizers.

We need your help to stay independent

"For us, it really has become a fundamental 'fight back' event, and we think that it's going to be the biggest it's been in years," Rigo Valdez, organizing director of MLK Labor, a Washington affiliate of the national AFL-CIO, told Salon. "The Trump administration has really attacked both workers, immigrants and our social infrastructure, so it's bringing a much broader base and coalition together to fight back."

Valdez said the coalition is anticipating thousands of attendees to join in their planned action: a march through the city on May 1 starting at Cal Anderson Park. The protest will cap weeks of lead-up events from Know Your Rights trainings for immigrant workers, defense trainings and panels on LGBTQ+ rights. 

The focus of their efforts, Valdez said, is to resist the Trump administration's "attempt to take over" public infrastructure and privatize federal jobs as well as its attacks on federal workers, immigrants, trans people and other members of their community. But he also said he hopes that other Americans, particularly those with "buyer's remorse," will see the actions occurring in Seattle and around the country as motivation to stand up and defend the nation's core principle of democracy. 

"In order to beat back these attacks, we have to come together — all segments and all facets of our community — to defend things that we took for granted, like due process and the separation between the judicial and executive branch," Valdez said in a phone interview, referencing the recent arrest of a Wisconsin judge on charges of obstructing ICE. 

"If we don't unite, first they'll come for immigrants, and then they'll come for workers, and then they'll come for you," he warned. 

For Neidi Dominguez, executive director of workers' rights group Organized Power in Numbers, this year's May Day action hits especially close to home. After more than 20 years living undocumented in the U.S., the Mexico-born activist became a naturalized citizen last May. But the Trump administration's targeting of immigrants has left her afraid, both for herself and her twin, two-year-olds. 

Dominguez told Salon that the energy around the state of the U.S. reminds her of the darkness and outrage around the proposed anti-immigrant legislation progressing in Congress in 2006, which spawned massive nationwide protests that she had participated in. Now, however, the moment has an added heaviness because the top-down attacks are targeting working people of all walks of life. 

"I have made my life here, and I want this country to become the country that it was meant to be and the experiment of democracy that we've been for the last 237 years," Dominguez said in a phone interview. "I believe in that experiment, and I want to be part of making it a reality, and I know deep in my soul that this isn't it."

"It really feels like we are losing the country as we know it, and it's beyond attacks on immigrants," she added.

On May Day, Dominguez's organization is helping to anchor four actions across the Sun Belt: the Raleigh, North Carolina rally and march; a 9 a.m. march at the State Capitol in Phoenix, Arizona; a 5 p.m. rally with speakers and march in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where she's based; and immigrant and worker's rights trainings and a rally in Houston, Texas. Activists are hoping to see thousands of people turn out to each of the marches and at least 100 workers attend the trainings, she said.

At a time when it feels as though "those in power are betting on us being too afraid and too overwhelmed by the shock and awe," Dominguez said it's important for Americans to show up and make it known they won't go down without a fight — despite how scared they may be or how deeply they may be feeling the impact of the government's actions. 

She said she hopes others take away that they're welcome, that they own this fight, and that, as working people, they all feel the same pain at the hands of the government no matter who they voted for in 2024. 

"This May Day is us marching for ourselves and hoping to inspire more working people to turn that anger and fear into action and to stand up together," she said, adding: "We just want to remind working class people that we have the power by coming together."

The pierogi is having an identity crisis. And it’s delicious

Somewhere between the giant wooden duck box and the framed colored-pencil portrait of strangers' wedding vows, there’s a plate of pierogi that tastes like a cheeseburger. Not metaphorically, but literally: sesame-seeded dough stuffed with ground brisket, shredded lettuce, American cheese, onions and “max” sauce. The only thing missing is a drive-thru window.

This is Consignment Lounge, the Chicago tavern-meets-curio-shop that calls itself “an aesthetically pleasing collection of useless items for sale inside a neighborhood bar.” There, Max Glassman — known around town as Pierogi Papi — sets up shop on weekends, spinning out dumplings that feel like a dare and a love letter at the same time. Italian beef pierogi. Smoked salmon with everything-bagel dough and whipped caper mascarpone. “Grandma’s recipe with a twist,” he says

In America, we’ve typecast the pierogi: floppy, doughy, butter-slicked, potato-stuffed. It’s a side dish. A lovable carb bomb. Nostalgic, sure, but not exactly adventurous. Maybe they show up at a church fundraiser or the freezer aisle. Maybe they get browned in butter, topped with sour cream and dutifully served next to a kielbasa. You know the story.

But pierogi weren’t born dull. In their native Poland, they’re peasant food, yes — but also celebratory, regional and wildly varied. In “Pierogi: Over 50 Recipes to Create Perfect Polish Dumplings,” author Zuza Zak writes that pierogi are “the dumplings everyone identifies with Poland,” but insists they’re also a gateway into a deeper, more diverse culinary landscape. There is a whole universe of regional cuisines,” she writes, “much of which remains undiscovered to the world at large.”

And in the hands of chefs and adventurous home cooks, that universe is getting a maximalist remix.

A clear-cut case for pierogi’s versatility? The Pierogi Experiment — a now-archived blog by  Emily Rasinksi, who spent several years trying to push the dumplings into wild new territory: pumpkin pie-rogi, elote-inspired dumplings stuffed with spiced corn and cheese, even a jalapeño popper riff. The site, which ran until 2022, felt part-laboratory, part-family scrapbook.

Rasinski grew up making pierogi with her Polish-American family, hundreds at a time each Christmas Eve. “We stuck to the classics: potato + cheese and sauerkraut,” she wrote. But as an adult, she got curious. Why stop there? “Fusions are all the rage in modern cooking and dining,” she wrote. “What if we took the old world classic and brought it into the 21st century?”

We need your help to stay independent

She also added a note to the wary: “Disclaimer: if you are a pierogi purist, this blog may not be for you. While we will be exploring some traditional pierogi (both family recipes as well as some classics), many of the recipes on this blog are going to take you out of your comfort zone. Will all the recipes be good? I doubt it. Some might be down right weird. But that’s the point.”

What Rasinski captured isn’t just culinary experimentation. It’s the spirit of play. Of reverence and rebellion, held in the same palm-sized pocket of dough.

Not every remix needs to be loud.

In “Fresh from Poland: New Vegetarian Cooking from the Old Country,” Warsaw-based author Michal Korkosz offers a quieter evolution of pierogi — one that leans into elegance rather than audacity. Think: lentils and sun-dried tomatoes folded into dough, or blueberry-stuffed pierogi served with honeyed sour cream. They’re deeply rooted in tradition, but tilted gently toward the present.

“It may seem strange to you that this Polish cuisine cookbook does not contain meat,” Korkosz writes in his introduction. “For many, Poland is associated with pork schnitzel and kielbasa sausage, often served with cold vodka. It's true that in the canon of Polish cuisine there are truly stunning meat-based dishes, but here I would like to show my homeland from a different angle. Our valleys are rich in wonderful fruits and vegetables, the culture of dairy products and fermented foods is incredibly advanced, and the number of grain-based dishes is countless.”

His pierogi are humble and radiant at once — an invitation to see the form not as a leftover, but a canvas. A chance to reconsider not just the dumpling, but the story we tell about what Polish food is, though the pierogi rethink doesn’t stop at fillings. It’s also about how we eat them.

In a weeknight-friendly sheet-pan recipe for the New York Times, cookbook author Hetty Lui McKinnon tosses frozen pierogies with Brussels sprouts and kimchi, roasting them until the dumplings are crisp and golden, the sprouts blistered, and the kimchi sticky and caramelized. She finishes the dish with a dill sour cream for balance, though she encourages swapping in whatever tangy dairy you’ve got in the fridge — Greek yogurt, crème fraîche, even buttermilk.

It’s fast, funky, and deeply satisfying. And it’s also quietly radical: pierogi as dinner solution, not just cultural nostalgia. A format, not just a food.

Even Reddit is packed with inventive pierogi hacks. People use them as the base for nachos (bonus points for crispy kielbasa crumbles), or smother them in gravy and cheese curds for a makeshift poutine. One thread suggested layering them in a baking dish with tomato sauce and mozzarella — “lazy lasagna,” they called it — turning pierogi into something reminiscent of culurgiones, the Sardinian stuffed pasta, just with a heavier Midwestern accent.

At some point, you have to ask: If you swap the fillings, change the dough, crisp them in the oven, layer them like pasta, drown them in gravy — are they still pierogi, or have we slipped into Ship of Theseus territory?

But maybe that’s the wrong question. Because what pierogi are, what they’ve always been, is a vehicle. For comfort, for nostalgia, for a little culinary mischief. Whether they’re stuffed with brisket and “max” sauce, glazed in kimchi caramel, or tucked into a lasagna pan, the point isn’t purity. The point is joy. And if they’re delicious? That’s reason enough to keep going.

“Turning Point: The Vietnam War” lays bare the arrogance that fueled a lost cause

“Turning Point: The Vietnam War” opens with Brooklyn-born Scott Camil telling his piece of the American story. Camil says his stepfather was involved in the John Birch Society and hammered into him that his job would be to stop communism in any way he could. For Camil, that meant enlisting in the military to be deployed in Vietnam.

Dehumanization was central to basic training, Camil remembers, and he illustrates that by singing a few bars of a song they sang as they jogged. “I’m gonna go to Vietnam/I’m gonna kill some Viet Cong,” he half sings. Camil’s lips start quivering after this line, and he fights back tears as he haltingly finishes. “With a knife or with a gun/ Either way, it will be fun.”

Fifty years after the Fall of Saigon, we’re still figuring out how to look at the Vietnam War and talk about it. 

Camil, a recurring voice throughout the five-episode documentary, embodies the war's impact on the nation's psyche. Raised as a true believer in the American way, the gruesome fighting in an entirely foreign land transformed the way he viewed his government and, eventually, the war itself.

Upon being discharged, Camil returned to the U.S., went to college and learned more about his country’s involvement in Vietnam. Soon after, Camil became one of the faces of the anti-war veterans’ movement, growing famous enough to inspire Graham Nash to write a song about him called "Oh! Camil (The Winter Soldier)." All these years later, Camil doesn’t seem pleased by that notoriety. Neither does Nash apologize for his choice.

That this detail sits so prominently in my thoughts about Brian Knappenberger’s limited series speaks to Camil’s symbolic power within a concisely mapped arc that cautions against forgetting why such symbols exist.

Camil’s perspective is among a comparatively vast and diverse chorus of American and Vietnamese voices comprising “Turning Point: The Vietnam War” — some famous, many ordinary, most complementary and others contradictory. They all land on some version of the same conclusion crystallized by author and journalist Peter Osnos.

“The story of the United States in Vietnam was a story of ignorance, hubris and arrogance,” Osnos says. “So much of what we see now about the war in Vietnam is a function of the individual personalities and characters of people and their inability to just get tough with themselves.”

That’s a very nice way of placing the failures of the Vietnam War, as we know it – the Vietnamese call it the American War – at the feet of a handful of leaders who overestimated America’s might and capability in a land they knew next to nothing about.

Scott Camil, Vietnam Veteran, U.S. Marine Corps (R) (Courtesy of Netflix)Knappenberger’s third installment in his “Turning Point” series follows a look at the ways the nuclear bomb reorganized the global order, “The Bomb and the Cold War,” and “9/11 and the War on Terror.” The Vietnam War sits between the events marking both those society-shifting moments. It is not a game-changing flash but a nightmarish slog extending through three presidential administrations whose leaders lied to the American people.  

Fifty years after the Fall of Saigon, we’re still figuring out how to look at the Vietnam War and talk about it. Viet Thanh Nguyen, who offers his perspective in “Turning Point,” sought to remedy this in his Pulitzer Prize-winning novel “The Sympathizer” by presenting a varied if fictionalized view of what it meant to stand astride the cultural dividing line between the Vietnamese and American cultures.

Knappenberger’s approach applies much-needed but heretofore scarcely presented doses of cynicism to America’s motivations for prosecuting and escalating this war.

Of course, his book and HBO’s limited series adaptation came well after Ken Burns dropped his and Lynn Novick's decade-in-the-making opus, “The Vietnam War.” They got the broader strokes right, showing us the ways that the Vietnam War taught Americans to distrust their government.

Knappenberger’s view takes this several steps further, presenting the years-long conflict not as a memory but as a very present concern that leads into Watergate and replays with the Iraq War and our failed 20-year conflict in Afghanistan. As many experts have pointed out since “The Vietnam War” debuted, this is something America’s storyteller should have done but omitted.

We need your help to stay independent

Projects like “Turning Point: The Vietnam War” aren’t rebukes of Burns’ effort, however. They’re reminders that those of us who were raised on his documentary series — people like me —  are best off treating them as gateways to history and not necessarily comprehensive accounts of any subject. It took my awestruck reaction to 18-plus hours of “The Vietnam War” in 2017 and its subsequent thrashing by historians and people who lived through that era to reach that conclusion.

That said, as several experts in “Turning Point: The Vietnam War” mention, I am far from alone in my embarrassingly limited grasp of this history’s nuances. People belonging to Generation X and younger may have encountered their elders' reluctance to talk about it, perhaps because it was close enough for some of our parents to have fought in it, and because our defeat contradicted the post-World War II orthodoxy of American strength and goodness.

Ngu Thuy Female Artillery (Courtesy of Netflix)What passed for instruction instead were Hollywood action sagas and gloomy Oscar contenders valorizing American soldiers as tragic heroes or monsters without presenting a fair or human rendering of the Vietnamese perspective beyond caricature. Burns tried to rectify this but succumbed to sentimentality, as foreign affairs columnist Patrick Lawrence explained in his 2017 rejoinder to the series and, well, my impression of it:

The Vietnam War" purports to be our document of record, a film meant to bring us all together in some kind of agree-to-disagree unity. Forget it. There are two sides to every story, but in this case one is right and the other very wrong. It cannot be made otherwise, and Burns’s failure lies in his failure to acknowledge this.  

This is not to be taken as some “watch this, not that” suggestion – although it must be said that in under six hours, “Turning Point: The Vietnam War” manages to holistically cover the 19th-century French colonialist origins of Vietnam’s liberation struggle through America’s miserable exit in 1975.

It also dares to do what previous large-scale treatments shy away from, which is to specifically present America’s actions over three presidential administrations and two decades as what it was – an aggression. The late Richard Nixon shouldn't expect to come off well in these histories, but neither do John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, the latter of whom was especially susceptible to Gen. William Westmoreland’s persuasiveness.

But Westmoreland comes off merely as bungling next to the late Henry Kissinger, whose hawkish influence in the closing acts of the war, along with expanding the conflict to Laos and Cambodia, rightly earned his war criminal designation. “Turning Point” doesn’t say this, to be clear, choosing to show the evidence by having several subjects wonder aloud why the Americans were dropping massive bombs on villages while peace talks were underway in Paris.

All told, Knappenberger’s approach applies much-needed but heretofore scarcely presented doses of cynicism to America’s motivations for prosecuting and escalating this war. Brutally candid conversations with veterans and historians take center stage, but so do interviews with people who fought with the National Liberation Front, like Võ Thị Trong and political aides such as Tôn Nữ Thị Ninh, who translated for Vietnam delegates negotiating at the Paris Peace Accords. We hear from South Vietnamese people who left the country and learn about the experiences lived by those who chose to stay after the People’s Army of Vietnam took Saigon.


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


Anti-war protesters, orphaned children of American soldiers brought to the States as part of America’s withdrawal, and Black, brown and Asian veterans are all represented. Retired CBS anchor Dan Rather has a sizable presence – unsurprising, given the series' extensive usage of CBS News’ archival footage, along with previously unheard White House recordings from the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.

We also walk alongside the survivors of the My Lai massacre, whose wrenching accounts bring new layers of humanity and sorrow to Ronald L. Haeberle’s photographs—images he captured that day with his personal camera, he explains in the series, because he knew the military would sanitize any visual evidence shared with the public.

Vietnam Veteran Jack Ellis (Courtesy of Netflix)“We were pawns, we knew that,” says veteran C. Jack Ellis, “But to use us as the bargaining chip, if you will – terrible,” he says, shaking his head.  

With each new Vietnam War documentary, we’re exposed to information we didn’t previously have and tragedies we didn't know about. “Turning Point: The Vietnam War” proves that the more we piece together, the clearer the deception's atrocious expanse becomes. They also clarify the damage wrought by our collective amnesia and our refusal to learn from history – an outgrowth of our propensity to view our place in history from an exceptionalist perspective.

“Turning Point” takes Ellis’ conclusive view. “It’s the human toll that I think of when I think of that war,” he says, “both American soldiers as well as the Vietnamese.”

"Turning Point: The Vietnam War" is now streaming on Netflix.

Bird flu isn’t as silent as we think — experts caution the pandemic threat is still growing

Scientists have been keeping an eye on bird flu ever since it was first discovered nearly 30 years ago. Experts have long recognized that the H5N1 virus that causes the disease has pandemic potential, just like COVID-19 or swine flu. In the past three years, outbreaks of bird flu, formally called highly pathogenic avian influenza, in wild animals spilled over to dairy cows and poultry, infecting several dozen humans and even killing one American.

Each human and mammalian infection gives the virus an opportunity to mutate and evolve better ways of transmitting from person to person — a key benchmark for what makes a pathogen a pandemic-level threat. And numerous headlines and scientific publications have warned that we're inching closer and closer to just such a scenario.

But the last couple weeks have been relatively quiet. Other than the report of a child death from H5N1 bird flu in Durango, Mexico on April 8, and of another child, in India's Andhra Pradesh state, who died March 15, there has been seemingly little in the news about H5N1 bird flu. H5N1 has become prevalent in wild birds but also spread to infect mammals on every continent, even Antarctica, as well as the odd human, although mammal-to-mammal transmission remains limited and human-to-human transmission has not been seen — yet.

"We've actually had a very active H5N1 year, and a lot of outbreaks in the U.S. in wildlife."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been tracking the outbreaks, but their online dashboard has updated little in the last several weeks. Statistics for human cases have remained unchanged since the start of the year, when an elderly resident of Louisiana became the first human to die of H5N1 bird flu in the United States. In fact, the CDC says that there have been 70 US human cases, and that number seems to not have changed either, despite recent testing of a child in San Francisco who was found to have H5N1 bird flu, and a recent case in Ohio. But experts say the mysteriously static numbers should not be cause for relief, but rather for creeping unease.

If you ask computational biologist Martha Nelson, a staff scientist at the National Institutes of Health, it hasn't been a quiet year for bird flu. Not at all. 

"So I can tell you on the wildlife side, we've actually had a very active H5N1 year, and a lot of outbreaks in the U.S. in wildlife," she told Salon in a video interview. "The virus is certainly not going away … you know, it's certainly still evolving rapidly, picking up new genome segments from the low pathogenicity viruses that are endemic in the Americas that are not found in Eurasia, so opening all these new avenues for evolution."

New avenues for evolution

The U.S. Department of Agriculture continues to log confirmed reports of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry flocks, and a quick look at its tracker confirms that there is a hell of a lot of bird flu out there. It can be difficult keeping track of all the different short forms used to distinguish one genotype from another so scientists can keep track as the virus evolves. Even the researchers Salon spoke with had to double-check different names during our conversation, so there's no shame in getting them confused. But these seemingly minor genetic differences can actually have a big impact on how the virus infects people and how severe the illness becomes.

The first case of H5N1 in cattle back in Texas in March of last year involved the genotype B3.13. But D1.1 and D1.3 are the genotypes that have been more recently sweeping across the United States. The child who died in Mexico contracted D1.1 (it's not clear how it was acquired and none of the child's contacts seem to have been infected.) The teenager in Canada last November who survived a very serious case of H5N1 bird flu thanks to intensive treatment — which would be likely impossible to roll out at scale in the case of a full-blown pandemic — also had the D1.1 genotype.

"Those genotypes seem to be very prevalent in wildlife and wild birds, and then spilling over onto poultry farms," Nelson said. "The H5N1 challenge: it's always present, it's just coming in slightly different forms."


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


In addition to the D1.1 and D1.3 genotypes making their way into commercial poultry operations, D1.1 has spilled over into cattle multiple times, offering new opportunities for humans to become infected. The Nevada outbreak in dairy cows in January (and the dairy worker who in February became the state's first human case) and the Arizona outbreak identified through national milk testing in February, for example, were D1.1, a hybrid virus created from the already-prevalent low pathogenic influenza virus trading genetic material with highly pathogenic avian flu virus.

"That [the emergence of D.1.1 in cattle made us think] it doesn't seem quiet on our end, because we all thought [the B3.13] spillover into cattle was kind of a fluke. Like, that's a one-off thing, like that's never going to happen again," Nelson said. "And what we're seeing through bulk milk surveillance is that actually, spillover is happening. Whenever you have these pulses in H5N1 activity in wildlife, it's spilling over into cattle."

The bulk milk surveillance program is the only way we know what is going on with cattle, and it's vital (even though there is an inherent testing bias, in that not all milk is tested and we may assume that if sporadic and random testing doesn't turn up H5N1, that means it's not there, an assumption that may well be incorrect.) Bulk milk surveillance is the main component of the National Milk Testing Strategy, which late in 2024 set out a roadmap for states to follow to eliminate H5N1 bird flu from cattle. But the program is voluntary, being rolled out state by state in an unclear way (according to the USDA's weekly report of April 25, 45 states are currently enrolled in the program.) 

While the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the USDA writes on its website that "the National Milk Testing Strategy (NMTS) establishes a structured, uniform and mandatory testing system that supports the December 2024 Federal Order", the uniformity and structure are debatable, given that much of surveillance is "state-specific" and a problem before the federal order was that farmers refused to provide milk for testing: while the federal order requires they now provide milk for testing when asked, it's not clear how this is enforced or how different states choose where and how aggressively to test. And the Food and Drug Administration recently halted work to improve bird flu testing of milk due to staffing cuts, and, even more alarming, last week announced the agency was suspending quality testing of the highest quality of fluid raw milk for the same reason, though it has claimed that this is a temporary pause.

As for human cases, "in the U.S., there has been almost no reporting of new cases," virologist Angela Rasmussen told Salon. "I'm positive that this is because they are not monitoring people who are getting infected, and there are far fewer tests being performed."

Rasmussen is an American based in Canada, where she teaches at the University of Saskatchewan and is a research scientist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Research Organization-International Vaccine Centre. She blames funding cuts and mass layoffs since the start of the current administration for the reduction in monitoring. USDA staff involved in national laboratory testing to confirm cases of H5N1 and other animal diseases were laid off early on in the mass federal layoffs recommended by the Department of Government Efficiency, but by late February The Associated Press reported that the agency was scrambling to rehire them. But later cuts and layoffs at the CDC, FDA and the NIH, as well as at the USDA, including at APHIS, have all affected data sharing between states and the federal government as well as uniformity of testing and reporting.

"Atmosphere of complete chaos"

Rasmussen also blames certain policies of the Trump administration less obviously related to monitoring for H5N1.

"One, there are fewer resources in general being put towards surveillance, monitoring and testing, and two, given that a significant proportion of the dairy agriculture workers who are likely to be most at risk of exposure are undocumented, and they are very strongly disincentivized to seek out testing when the result of that could be being expatriated and sent potentially to a prison in El Salvador," Rasmussen said.

Back in February, Salon reported that immigrant and especially undocumented workers are in closest contact with cows, most likely to notice concerning symptoms in herds and to become infected themselves, and less likely to get regular flu vaccines, which puts them at greater risk of incubating new variants. This is because regular influenza can trade genetic material with H5N1 bird flu in the event of co-infection. But as Rasmussen said, the reasons to not draw any attention from the feds have only increased, even for workers whose papers are in order.

"The USDA has not really done anything, from what I can tell, to even address the cattle outbreak when they put out their new avian [bird] flu strategy," Rasmussen noted. "It basically only dealt with the poultry outbreaks, and that strategy relies pretty heavily on improving biosecurity, so making sure that people are not bringing the virus to and from different farms with them, making sure that wild birds can't access poultry houses." 

She notes that both the USDA and the CDC are less forthcoming with information than they were previously, including about the biosecurity audits run by USDA that, according to the new plan, must be carried out by USDA staff in order for farmers to be compensated for outbreaks on their farms that require culling of birds. Hundreds of USDA staff members were forced out over recent months and it's unclear whether the staff needed to perform these audits actually exist at the agency anymore.

"My bigger problem with that entire plan is really three things," Rasmussen continued. "They barely even mentioned the cattle outbreak, and we know that the cows have actually given the virus back to birds, so that's one mechanism, potentially, for that cow virus to continue being transmitted to other species." 

Like Nelson, Rasmussen feels that the discovery of D1.1 genotype bird flu in cows was a watershed moment. "It was really distressing when those D1.1 genotype cases were found in cows, because it seemed like for the past year that this was a really rare event," she said.

Rasmussen said that the Canadian equivalent to the USDA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, continues to test both retail and tank milk and has not found any positives in the country. Still, while before the D1.1 discovery there was speculation that local differences in policy — feeding poultry litter to cows as they do in Texas, or the much bigger size of dairy operations in the U.S. — might have contributed to greater susceptibility to the disease spilling over from birds to cows. Now it seems that, as Rasmussen said, "it could happen anywhere, if there's the opportunity for birds to interface with the cows, which is why they should have controlled the cow outbreak a long time ago. And if they had taken more aggressive action in March or April of 2024 I think we might be in a very different position right now," she added.

The most critical issue is that we know there's H5N1 bird flu in cows, but we don't know how many cows are currently infected in the U.S., and it's unlikely that we have an accurate count of human cases. The same goes for pigs — a single case was found among five backyard pigs in October in a non-commercial operation where swine mixed with poultry and other livestock. While it didn't spread, pigs are considered especially worrisome among mammalian vectors of bird flu because they harbor many influenza viruses that can co-exist with it, swapping genetic material, and because they are generally kept in close quarters and with proximity to humans, and because pigs have receptors in their respiratory tract that would allow them to be simultaneously infected with a bird and a human influenza virus, allowing for exchange of the genetic material that might allow H5N1 bird flu to acquire the very few mutations still needed to allow for it to spread readily between humans. And yet there appears to be no specific monitoring or testing of pork processing or swine-raising facilities at all. As the industry publication Pig Progress noted in December, such facilities depend heavily on the very undocumented labor being targeted for mass deportations.

Would we know if a suspicious cluster of human cases, that could represent the first sustained human-to-human transmission of the disease, were happening? Perhaps not. What's not clear though is whether the problem is lack of data or lack of transparency about the data. Rasmussen's suggestion was that the necessary monitoring was not happening in the United States. But she also noted that the CDC withheld publication of certain H5N1 studies in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for a couple of weeks, reportedly, she said, for political reasons.

"So I do think it's possible that there is H5N1 data that's being collected and being suppressed, but I don't know." But, she speculated, "it may not be that that information is being intentionally concealed, but it may be that there's just not enough people to actually get this information into a form that would be releasable to the public."

The influenza division at the CDC lost staff to probationary firings as well as on Valentine's Day when further staff were fired en masse. "And so my understanding, at least from people within the CDC who work closely with the influenza division, is that it lost a lot of people, but also the people who are still there, there's just this atmosphere of complete chaos … They're trying to do the same amount of work with fewer resources." 

We need your help to stay independent

A second problem with the new avian flu plan is, in Rasmussen's view, that it doesn't even really acknowledge that a vaccine was conditionally approved in February and early March, nor mention using it to prevent infection in poultry, which would help to limit spread and reduce the chances of a more human-adapted variant emerging. Vaccines have been effective in China and Vietnam and Egypt for quelling outbreaks. In Mexico, an outbreak of H5N2, a different form of bird flu, was successfully controlled in the 1990s, and quite quickly, by vaccination along with culling and controls on poultry movement. 

"Our bovine [cow] outbreak, we haven't taken that route," Nelson noted. "And that's largely because there's trade implications if you vaccinate." 

For example, when the French began to vaccinate ducks for H5N1, the U.S. and other countries banned imports of their H5N1-free poultry. Then again, Nelson noted that using a vaccine effectively entails other activities: there is the possibility of silent transmission and accelerating evolution through vaccines that are not perfect matches to the circulating strains of the virus. Intensive biological monitoring is required, and for exports to be protected, you need a global system for transparent sharing of data. 

"This is a big policy question that would be very helpful to establish going forward," Nelson said. On whether it might be a challenging time for creating such a global system for transparently sharing information, Nelson said only, "no comment."

Cruel and ineffective

"The third thing," according to Rasmussen, "is that that plan mentions that they would like to reduce the amount of culling that happens in avian outbreaks."

At this last point, Rasmussen grimaced, pointing out that health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has proposed not culling birds stricken with the disease, suggesting that we might identify naturally immune chickens by letting it spread unchecked. Essentially the idea, for which the secretary of agriculture Brooke Rollins has also voiced support, seems to be that survivors might become super chickens with innate resistance to bird flu.

But highly pathogenic avian influenza is aptly named because of what it does to birds, including chickens. There is no innate resistance. Rasmussen said that it has an essentially 100% mortality rate: "You will not have surviving chickens that are likely to be super resistant chickens. You're not likely to have any surviving at all. And pathogenesis of flu in birds, in chickens is really, really gruesome, and it presents a huge risk for anybody who would have to clean up after just sort of letting it go. Flu in birds is gastrointestinal and well as respiratory. So, I mean, you're talking about birds convulsing, bloody diarrhea, bloody vomit. A lot of really gross stuff. A lot of really terrible suffering for those animals. And a really dangerous situation where you have potentially hundreds of thousands of bird carcasses that are loaded with high titre H5N1 virus."

There have been probable cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses, including H5N1 — but, crucially, not the same H5N1 that is circulating now — being passed from one human to another in a very limited way. No such cases have been reported in the United States. And so far, there is no evidence that the current H5N1 bird flu can be transmitted from one human to another. Nevertheless, scientists believe it's only a matter of time, or time plus opportunity for the virus to evolve the necessary mutations — before a version that is well-adapted to humans begins to show human-to-human infection in a sustained way.

Mammalian adaption

"I'm a cat person, so I'm intrigued by this," said Nelson, when asked about the risk to or from cats from H5N1 bird flu. "Cats kind of fall [off] the radar because they're not livestock, they're not USDA, so there's no kind of dedicated funding for studying cats." They don't fall under the purview of the USDA, nor within the purview of the NIH, which focuses on human health. "So far, we've seen all these different routes by which cats can get infected." Barn cats have been infected by drinking H5N1-infected milk that splatters around during the milking process. House cats have also been infected through frozen raw pet food — the virus survives very well in freezers, Nelson noted. And there are cases that are suspected to have resulted from outdoor cats that play with or scavenge infected or dead birds. Finally, there was a cat that appears to have been infected by its owner, a dairy farm worker, possibly just through virus on his clothing. "It just shows how complicated this disease system is, that something as simple as a house cat can get infected four different ways," Nelson said. Cats are highly susceptible to the virus, and infection with it is very serious and frequently fatal in cats. By contrast the threat to humans from cats who pick up the virus is currently considered low.

A December analysis published in Science showed that a single mutation in the genes coding for the protein hemagglutinin in H5N1 bird flu virus in cows could be enough to change the virus' receptor specificity, which still favors birds, to target humans. Hemagglutinin, which is the H part of the virus' name and is related to severity of infection, is attached to the surface of the virus, helping it get into cells. A switch from glutamine to leucinein resulting from just one mutation could switch the virus from being able to easily bind to avian, or bird, receptors to favouring human receptors in the respiratory tract. 

"I would suspect," Nelson said, "That for every [human] infection we detect there's a great deal more that are just undiagnosed." 

These would mostly be among people with occupational exposure, like workers in the pork, beef and poultry industries.

"Just because people aren't hearing about H5N1 in the news, just because there isn't some massive outbreak with lots of human cases [doesn't mean it's gone away]. For scientists, this is just kind of an ongoing problem, that just continues to escalate in its complexity," said Nelson, noting the emergence of D1.1, of new human cases, of continued outbreaks in wildlife and of transmission through pet food. "You know, this problem is staying with us for the near future, probably long term. And I think that's what really alarms people … Just that we don't seem to have a strategy to contain this over the long term."

When or if that happens, we'll be at the start of a pandemic that could make COVID-19 look mild in comparison, though of course anyone with long COVID will say it's very far from just a cold. Speaking of COVID, that pandemic may have waned lately, but tens of thousands of infections still occur weekly, as well as several hundred deaths. And we're always just one nasty mutation — something the SARS-CoV-2 virus has done countless times — away from another major resurgence of COVID. Coupled with the return of measles, tuberculosis and more, H5N1 is likely just another of symptom of the erosion of public health and trust in science. We need to monitor and study it — to understand it — if we want to keep it at bay.

Trump’s revenge machine is his only accomplishment — and MAGA is left out of it

Amid all the news these last few days about the first 100 days of Trump 2.0, there has been little written about one of his most important agenda items, and few questions about it by the various pollsters. We do know that he's underwater everywhere, starting with his flagship issues of the economy and immigration. He ran on those issues, so it's important to know what America thinks about his performance so far. But Trump had another flagship issue that was a big part of his appeal to his most fervent followers:

The Washington Post/ABC/IPSOS poll asked what people think of Trump "taking measures against his political opponents," which doesn't exactly address the question of "retribution" (some might think it's about policy). But even then, 53% disapprove to 33% approve. The New York Times-Sienna poll asked whether Trump was exceeding his power (88% said yes), but that doesn't address this specific question either. 57% agreed that Trump shouldn't be allowed to withhold funding for universities in the Reuters Poll, which can be considered an act of political retribution, but is one that derives more from the right-wing extremists around Trump, such as the culture warriors who have been battling the allegedly liberal academy for decades.

The polls have looked at Trump's gross abuse of power in some ways, such as the administration potentially ignoring court orders and congressional prerogatives, and majorities really don't like it. But as far as I can tell, there were no questions asking people if they approve of Donald Trump's vengeful actions against his political enemies. And that's strange since there have been a boatload of them.

One of the first actions Trump took when he assumed office was to pardon all the Jan. 6 rioters. He considered that a priority because he saw their prosecution as a direct attack on the Big Lie that he had actually won the 2020 election. He reportedly was offered some names of violent criminals who should be kept behind bars and he said "f**k it — release 'em all," which gives us some idea of his mindset when it comes to his personal vendettas.

He soon had the Justice Department fire 12 prosecutors assigned to the cases. His Acting U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C., Ed Martin (who happened to have been involved in the defense of some of the defendants), ordered an investigation into how the prosecutions were carried out. Prosecutors were told that they had committed a "grave national injustice." Martin has also notified one of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's deputies that he is investigating the "integrity and legality" of the Russia investigation, suggesting that the Mueller team is in the crosshairs as well, which is almost certainly the case since Trump has said for years that they should all be jailed.

Meanwhile, the administration has targeted one of his major antagonists, New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the civil prosecution against Trump for which he was found liable for nearly half a billion dollars over his fraudulent valuations of Trump Organization properties. The Federal Housing Finance Agency sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, accusing James of mortgage fraud.

The administration has pulled the security clearances of numerous lawyers and former government officials, Trump has personally called out for investigation, including some who are now unable to work in their field. For instance, a lawyer Trump wanted investigated in the first term, Mark Zaid, represented the whistleblower who raised concerns about Trump's "perfect phone call" with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. That led to Trump's first impeachment, and now Zaid is no longer able to represent anyone who might want to access the whistleblower protections. The message this sends to anyone who might represent such a client is pretty obvious.

And then there are the law firms, some of which were singled out for representing people Trump doesn't like and others who may have employed attorneys he has faced in court, such as Covington & Burling, which assisted Special Counsel Jack Smith, and Perkins Coie, which represented the Dominion Voting Machine Company in its defamation suits against the right wing networks that spread Trump's Big Lie. Others have been targeted supposedly for their "DEI policies" (which the administration fatuously asserts are violations of the Civil Rights Act) and have shamefully bent the knee by agreeing to do pro bono work for the administration, which Trump seems to believe makes them his personal legal servants. What it does do is take them off the table as defenders of anything that might benefit his enemies or threaten him. Luckily, some of these law firms are suing the administration rather than capitulate to his threats, and the courts so far do not seem amused.

We need your help to stay independent

There are also the aforementioned universities, most of which seemed poised to give Trump whatever he wanted, but after a (supposed) mistaken moment of overreach, the biggest of them all, Harvard, decided to fight back. That, too, is going to be decided in the courts. Then there is the media, which he is personally suing in a couple of cases. He has the FCC going after others and is banning other reporters from working inside federal buildings.

He's pulled the security details from anyone associated with the Biden family except the former president himself because he's bound by law (and probably worries that it could blow back on him when he finally leaves office). And he's singled out several people who worked in his former administration whom he sees as disloyal, starting with the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley. He had his security clearance removed, despite still being under threat, and is now under investigation by the Pentagon for "undermining the chain of command" under some kind of administrative action. Milley, for his part, was preemptively pardoned by former President Joe Biden.

Perhaps most ominouslyTrump recently issued orders to the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to investigate Trump's former cybersecurity expert Chris Krebs and pulled the security clearances of everyone in the company he now works at as well. Krebs' crime was to say that the 2020 election was secure, the truth. And Miles Taylor, Trump's former Chief of Staff to the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, who later revealed himself as the author of an infamous anonymous New York Times op-ed that claimed people inside the administration were keeping Trump in check, is also the subject of a DHS investigation at the direction of the president. He's targeting specific people now for serious criminal investigation.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

The entire Department of Justice, under the leadership of Attorney General Pam Bondi, is being turned into a Trump revenge machine. They're even targeting judges whom she has declared to be "lowlevel leftists who are trying to dictate President Trump's executive powers." If an attorney general using those words doesn't make your blood run cold, you're not paying attention.

Trump promised to do this even in the face of pressure from his campaign and allies not to. He will not stop until and unless the courts tell him he has to. If they do say he's gone too far, the question then is whether he will once again abuse his power and defy them. Even a large majority of Republicans don't want him to do that. But considering all he's done already, we have to be prepared for the possibility that he may just say, "f" it as he did with the J6 pardons. His thirst for revenge is unslakable. 

From Vietnam to Gaza: War shatters illusions about US leadership

Eight years before the U.S.-backed regime in South Vietnam collapsed, I stood with high school friends at Manhattan’s Penn Station on the night of April 15, 1967, waiting for a train back to Washington after attending the era’s largest antiwar protest so far. An early edition of the next day’s New York Times arrived on newsstands with a big headline at the top of the front page that said “100,000 Rally at U.N. Against Vietnam War.” I heard someone say, “Johnson will have to listen to us now.”

But President Lyndon Johnson dashed the hopes of those who marched from Central Park to the United Nations that day (with an actual turnout later estimated at 400,000). He kept escalating the war in Vietnam, while secretly also bombing Laos and Cambodia

During the years that followed, antiwar demonstrations grew in thousands of communities across the United States. The decentralized Moratorium Day events on October 15, 1969 drew upward of 2 million people. But all forms of protest fell on deaf official ears. A song by the folksinger Donovan, recorded midway through the decade, became more accurate and powerful with each passing year: “The War Drags On.”

As the war continued, so did the fading of trust in the wisdom and morality of Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon. Gallup polls gauged the steep credibility drop. In 1965, just 24 percent of Americans said involvement in the Vietnam War had been a mistake. By the spring of 1971, the figure was 61 percent.

The number of U.S. troops in Vietnam gradually diminished from the peak of 536,100 in 1968, but ground operations and massive U.S. bombing persisted until the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in late January 1973. American forces withdrew from Vietnam, but the war went on with U.S. support for 27 more months, until – on April 30, 1975 – the final helicopter liftoff from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon signaled that the Vietnam War was indeed over.

By then, most Americans were majorly disillusioned. Optimism that public opinion would sway their government’s leaders on matters of war and peace had been steadily crushed while carnage in Southeast Asia continued. To many citizens, democracy had failed – and the failure seemed especially acute to students, whose views on the war had evolved way ahead of overall opinion.

We need your help to stay independent

At the end of the 1960s, Gallup found “significantly more opposition to President Richard Nixon’s Vietnam policies” among students at public and private colleges than in “a parallel survey of the U.S. general public: 44 percent vs. 25 percent, respectively.” The same poll “showed 69 percent of students in favor of slowing down or halting the fighting in Vietnam, while only 20 percent favored escalation. This was a sharp change from 1967, when more students favored escalation (49 percent) than de-escalation (35 percent).” 

Six decades later, it took much less time for young Americans to turn decisively against their government’s key role of arming Israel’s war on Gaza. By a wide margin, continuous huge shipments of weapons to the Israeli military swiftly convinced most young adults that the U.S. government was complicit in a relentless siege taking the lives of Palestinian civilians on a large scale.

A CBS News/YouGov poll in June 2024 found that Americans opposed sending “weapons and supplies to Israel” by 61-39 percent. Opposition to the arms shipments was even higher among young people. For adults under age 30, the ratio was 77-23.

Emerging generations learned that moral concerns about their country’s engagement in faraway wars meant little to policymakers in Washington. No civics textbook could prepare students for the realities of power that kept the nation’s war machine on a rampage, taking several million lives in Southeast Asia or supplying weapons making possible genocide in Gaza.

For vast numbers of Americans, disproportionately young, the monstrous warfare overseen by Presidents Johnson and Nixon caused the scales to fall from their eyes about the character of U.S. leadership. And like President Trump now, President Biden showed that nice-sounding rhetoric could serve as a tidy cover story for choosing to enable nonstop horrors without letup.

No campaign-trail platitudes about caring and joy could make up for a lack of decency. By remaining faithful to the war policies of the president they served, while discounting the opinions of young voters, two Democratic vice presidents – Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris – damaged their efforts to win the White House.

A pair of exchanges on network television, 56 years apart, are eerily similar.


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


In August 1968, appearing on the NBC program "Meet the Press," Humphrey was asked: “On what points, if any, do you disagree with the Vietnam policies of President Johnson?”

 “I think that the policies that the president has pursued are basically sound,” Humphrey replied.

In October 2024, appearing on the ABC program "The View," Harris was asked: “Would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?”

“There is not a thing that comes to mind,” Harris replied.

Young people’s votes for Harris last fall were just 54 percent, compared to 60 percent that they provided to Biden four years earlier.

Many young eyes saw the war policy positions of Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris as immoral. Their decisions to stay on a war train clashed with youthful idealism. And while hardboiled political strategists opted to discount such idealism as beside the electoral point, the consequences have been truly tragic – and largely foreseeable.

MAGA returns to a fave fantasy to tune out Trump’s troubles

There has been much attention rightly paid to Project 2025 during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration. However, not enough attention has been paid to modern America’s original manual of hatred, "The Turner Diaries."

First published in 1978 and recently banned by Jeff Bezos’ Amazon following the assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, thanks to the combined minds of Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, this racist dystopian novel about a white supremacist insurrection undergirds the Trumpian worldview. In a nutshell, the book is an apocalyptic tale of genocide against racial minorities set in a near-future America.

This narrative successfully captured 49.8% of the voting electorate in November 2024. First introduced in 2015 after Donald and Melania Trump came down the Trump Tower escalator to announce his bid for the Republican nomination, the premise was always focal to his three political campaigns and his first term of abuse, lawlessness and corruption. Soon after the failed coup d’état on Jan. 6, this narrative became the core message of Trumpism.

At the same time, the persecution or victimization of the wannabe strongman became the core message of Trumpism. It is why Trump was returned to the White House instead of going to prison for his crimes against the Constitution and the American people.

This same narrative also captured and underlined the anti-constitutional 6-3 decision by the MAGA majority of the U.S. Supreme Court granting Trump — and all subsequent presidents — criminal immunity from prosecution.  

I am not alone in making the obvious connections between Donald Trump, MAGA supporters, and the words and deeds and beliefs of Timothy McVeigh and company who blew up the Oklahoma City federal building back in April 1995. McVeigh’s bombing killed 168 people, 19 of whom were children, and the rest were federal office workers providing government services. Like other military veterans of the first Iraq War, McVeigh did not believe that the U.S. should become entangled in foreign wars at a time when his white-working class buddies back in Buffalo were suffering from the earliest waves of deindustrialization in America.

McVeigh was part of an emerging right-wing militia movement that was going after or attacking a corrupt group of people that they believed were secretly running the government from within. They also believed that it was on the ordinary citizens of America to take up arms against a tyrannical ruling order, no matter what the cost to innocent lives might be.

With the rise of Trumpian propaganda and disinformation, this radical conspiracy theory about a deep state and its enemies from within was going viral and eventually became the hegemonic mainstreaming narrative. 

Whether or not Trumpists have read the “Diaries” authored by the 1974 founder of the neo-Nazi National Alliance, not unlike McVeigh or The Order before him and other militia types such as the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers, those who voted for Trump in 2024 along with the MAGA crowd, all share the white-power fantasy described in the pages of the “Diaries.”

It inspired a slew of violent crimes by The Order in the 1980s, McVeigh’s bombing of the federal building back in 1995 and Trump’s assault on the Capitol after he lost the 2020 election. It has also accounted for why the Always Trumpers still support the liar in chief to this day and why they believe in the falsehoods that the election was “rigged” and “stolen” by the Democrats.  

We need your help to stay independent

It is also consistent with the justification for Trump keeping a campaign promise to exercise executive clemency and provide full, pardons to the Jan. 6 insurrectionists. Which he did on day one of his new administration to the tune of some 1,500 convicted felons, including leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys who had been convicted of seditious conspiracy by juries of their peers and were serving 18- and 22-year sentences, respectively. Trump also signed the ominous executive order "Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens," signed on his 99th day in office as part of his assault on sanctuary cities. If all of the parts of this order are successful, they would also usher in pathways to a police state.  

For example, Trump’s twin “other” wars on immigrants and on DEI recipients are visible expressions of the same old conspiracy theories operating to defeat the cabal of Jews, African Americans and internationalists that have allegedly been stealing America's true identity and manifest destiny. These are the folks, along with anyone else who disagrees with Trump’s dystopian vision, that are presently being silenced, removed or eliminated at whatever cost this might have for our on-the-ropes democratic republic.

All these declarations or projections and talking points by the MAGA forces are part and parcel of the same old lies about “paid” protesters at rallies agianst Trump and Elon Musk. Something that both Donald and Elon are well-steamed in, not to mention their extensive knowledge about buying both candidates and votes.

Perhaps nothing captures Trump’s authoritarian agenda better than ICE’s illegal kidnapping and disappearing of hundreds of people or DOGE’s firings or dismissals of some 250,000 federal workers — all without any due process of law. All of which makes perfect sense in the Trumpian schemes to dismantle and emasculate USAID worldwide and to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s proposed “redesign” of his department to do away with human rights programs and others targeting war crimes or the strengthening of freedom and democracy. Namely, that of reversing the “decades of bloat” and seeking to eradicate the ingrained thinking of globalism or of a “radical political ideology” that Rubio now believes represents the antithesis of Trump’s attempt to realign world power under the imperialistic banner of “America First.”  

For nearly five decades, the “Diaries” have been the right wing’s favorite go-to conspiracy theory. Many of the driving forces behind Trumpian authoritarianism have their roots in the hateful thesis of the “Diaries.”