Spring Offer: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Texas GOPer says fellow Republicans he serves with are “scumbags” and klansmen

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.


WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio, ripped into his party’s right flank for voting against billions in foreign aid for U.S. allies last week, castigating his ultraconservative peers as “scumbags” and klansmen.

“These people used to walk around with white hoods at night. Now they're walking around with white hoods in the daytime,” Gonzales told CNN’s Dana Bash in an interview Sunday. “It didn't surprise me that some of these folks voted against aid to Israel.”

Gonazales, a rare flame-throwing centrist who is battling it out against YouTube gun enthusiast Brandon Herrera in the first serious primary challenge, singled out two sitting Republicans by name who have endorsed against him.

“It's my absolute honor to be in Congress, but I serve with some real scumbags like [Florida Congressman] Matt Gaetz. He paid minors to have sex with them at drunk parties,” Gonzales said, before calling out Rep. Bob Good for earlier this month endorsing Herrera, whom he called a “known neo-Nazi.”

Federal prosecutors declined to charge Gaetz after investigating allegations of sex trafficking, though the House Ethics Committee is continuing to investigate the matter.

Gonzales made the remarks in reaction to several Republican members voting against their party’s leadership on Saturday on military and civilian aid packages for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. The hardline House Freedom Caucus asserted Congress should not pass the bills, which would include over $90 billion in assistance to the U.S. allies, before more securing aggressive measures on the U.S.-Mexico border. The foreign aid packages passed the House with large bipartisan support.

Gonzales has a history of clashing with the right wing of the House Republican conference. He criticized hardline border proposals by U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Austin, as anti-American and un-Christian and was the only Republican to vote against a set of rules for the House negotiated between former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and hardline Republicans. Roy’s border bill eventually became a foundation for sweeping border security legislation the House passed with full Republican support last year.

Gonzales’ attack on Good, who is the chair of the House Freedom Caucus, attracted swift rebuttal from the group’s members. U.S. Rep. Eli Crane, R-Arizona, said on social media it was “pathetic” to “insinuate that other members are klansmen.” Crane endorsed Herrera’s run in the same post.

"It is not surprising that one of the most liberal RINOs in Congress, who has egregiously fought against real border security, and votes like a Democrat, would also resort to the Democrat playbook in screaming ‘racism’ against those exposing him,” Good said in a statement. “Thankfully, the good people of the Texas 23rd District have the opportunity to vote for change and an America First patriot, in Brandon Herrera."

Herrera said Gonzales’ comments were an act of desperation as he gains momentum.

“This is the death spiral ladies and gentlemen,” Herrera said on social media.

Gaetz denied Gonzales’ claims about him as “lies,” saying on social media that “one of the final phases a politician goes through prior to defeat.”

Gaetz supported Herrera before the primary election, appearing at a campaign rally with him in San Antonio in March.

The Texas Republican Party censured Gonzales last year, citing his opposition to Roy’s border bill and the rules package, as well as his support for gun safety legislation after the Robb Elementary shooting in his district. The party also cited his support for legislation protecting same-sex marriage.

The censure invited a lively, five-way primary field, including Herrera and Julie Clark, the former Medina County GOP chair who started the censure motion. Backed by an army of online fans donating small-dollar donations, Herrera was able to secure a place against Gonzales in the runoff, which will be on May 28.

Attacking a fellow Republican member, including endorsing a primary challenger, was historically rare in the party. Gaetz’s support for Herrera was a provocative move, but the censure motion from the Texas GOP gave some cover for other Republicans to endorse Gonzales’ challengers.

Herrera has disquieted many of his fellow Republicans for his edgy humor on his YouTube channel and podcast appearances. He has made quips about veteran suicide, the Holocaust and child abuse that many moderate Republicans viewed as flippant.

He has defended his comments as being in jest to lighten heavy topics. He says in one video he’s “not really a big fan of fascism.”

Despite the pile ons from the right, Gonzales remains a competitive candidate with a formidable fundraising operation. He raised more than twice as much as Herrera in the first quarter of the year and maintains strong relationships with Republican leadership, corporate interests, moderate Republican donors and bipartisan interest groups. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which supports members of both parties to advance Israel-related issues, has steadily supported Gonzales.

Gonzales has also shown a willingness to entertain more partisan priorities, including the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Gonzales helped U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, garner support for her move to impeach the secretary. The Democrat-controlled Senate voted to dismiss the impeachment.


Tickets are on sale now for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin Sept. 5-7. Get your TribFest tickets before May 1 and save big!

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/22/tony-gonzales-republicans-matt-gaetz-scumbags/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

“Now’s the time to cut your losses”: Former Trump prosecutor outlines potential “win-win situation”

This is the second week of former president Donald Trump’s historic criminal trial in Manhattan for allegedly engaging in a hush-money scheme to conceal his sexual encounter with adult film actress Stormy Daniels. (Legal scholar Norman Eisen has more accurately described this trial as about the crime of election interference).

Far faster than most experts expected, 12 jurors and six alternates were selected last week. Trump’s criminal trials are almost guaranteed to be a spectacle given his bombastic temperament, egomania and megalomania, mastery of stagecraft and propaganda, and a disagreeable personality that borders on the sociopathic, if not psychopathic. 

During opening statements on Monday, the prosecution succinctly summarized the case against Donald Trump. “The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said. “Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again."

“It was election fraud, pure and simple,” Colangelo told the jury.

The first witness for the prosecution, David Pecker, the former chairman of the National Enquirer’s parent company, is expected to continue to testify Tuesday about his key role in Trump’s alleged hush-money operation to pay off Daniels (as well as former Playboy playmate Karen McDougal) in exchange for her silence about an affair with the ex-president prior to the 2016 election. Pecker’s testimony has been described as potentially “devastating” to Donald Trump's defense.

Trump’s lead attorney, Todd Blanche, is presenting a defense that emphasizes his alleged humanity: “He’s a man. He’s a husband. He’s a father. He’s a person just like you and just like me.” Blanche is also arguing that the corrupt ex-president broke no laws because “the 34 counts, ladies and gentlemen, are really just pieces of paper…. None of this was a crime." Trump’s attorney also tried to convince the jury that, “There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It's called democracy.”

In an attempt to better understand what is likely to happen next in Donald Trump’s first criminal trial, the strategies the prosecution and defense will likely use, what might happen if a pro-Trump "sleeper agent” successfully infiltrated the jury, and why the corrupt ex-president should take a plea deal in exchange for agreeing to drop out of the 2024 presidential campaign, I recently spoke with Kenneth McCallion. He is a former Justice Department prosecutor who also worked for the New York attorney general's office as a prosecutor on Trump-related racketeering cases. McCallion's books include the companion pieces "Profiles in Courage in the Trump Era" and "Profiles in Cowardice in the Trump Era," as well as "Treason & Betrayal: The Rise and Fall of Individual-1."

This is the second part of a two-part conversation.

This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Where are we in terms of how Trump’s first trial is advancing? Are things going according to plan per the law and the court procedures? 

The first stage went extremely well. The jury selection process was completed in only three days. That was lightning quick. I had expected it to take much longer. Judge Juan Merchan is to be credited with moving the process along in a very efficient manner. And if it continues with the same disciplined approach and doesn’t let it turn into a circus — which the judge won't permit — the trial is going to move fairly swiftly. I would think that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and his assistant district attorneys are going to move their witnesses through quite quickly. 

"It is only going to get worse for Donald Trump. It is not going to get better."

The direct examination is going to be relatively short and to the point. And it's going to move from one witness to the other to a jury charge and then jury deliberation. Donald Trump really can't testify because his cross-examination would be devastating. Ultimately, this is going to be a relatively tight trial, which is important. In this electronic age, attention spans are becoming shorter and shorter. You could be in danger of burning out a jury if it all goes on too long, which I think would be a matter of a couple of weeks. I would expect to see significant progress made next week with the prosecution's case. They'll be able to get on at least some key witnesses, such as David Pecker, who will be difficult for Trump’s lawyers to cross-examine since – unlike Michael Cohen – he is not a convicted liar. Then Michael Cohen will have to take the stand, but he won’t be the first or the last witness, since there will be, metaphorically, blood on the courtroom floor after he is pilloried on cross-examination. If things are going well, the prosecution might just cancel some of the witnesses and rest their case quickly, while they are way ahead on points. Then it would be up to Trump's defense team, but they don’t really have any witnesses that can swing the pendulum back their way. 

We need your help to stay independent

Then it's on to closing arguments, the judge’s charge to the jury on the law they must follow, and then jury deliberations. This is all an excellent example of how our legal system is supposed to work. The adversarial system will play itself out as it has for hundreds of years, controlled by the judge with procedures in place that have been tested over time. When Trump's verdict is issued in this first trial, it is going to be a great day for not only American justice, but also the British common law tradition that we draw from. 

Jury selection has been concluded. What types of jurors did the prosecution want to see impaneled? Who did Trump’s defense team want on the jury? 

Each side, obviously, wants jurors who have bias in their favor. But what I tell my clients during jury selection is “Don't fall in love with any one particular juror who might be impaneled, because you're probably not going to get them on the jury.” If one side likes a potential juror, then 9 times out of 10 the other side will exercise a peremptory challenge to make sure that this person does not make it onto the jury. That's how we get an impartial juror. None of the jurors on the jury appear to have any strong biases one way or the other – unless, of course, they were able to hide it from the close scrutiny to which they were subjected. I am a bit surprised that there are two lawyers on the jury because they are likely to take a leadership role in the jury deliberation process, which may not be a good thing for the Trump team. But they've also sworn to keep an open mind. Generally, jurors take their responsibilities very seriously. As it played out over the last few days, the prosecutor was really trying to eliminate any jurors who won't have an open mind. They were trying to screen out any prospective juror with a pro-Trump bias. As I see it, they've largely been able to do that. In this world of social media, they had to be very thorough to weed out biased jurors.

What steps were taken to prevent a person who is there to nullify the result in favor of Trump from being on the jury? 

The prosecution was extremely meticulous in its research on the jury panel, and in their questioning of potential jurors. And even those who professed to keep an open mind but had social media tweets that exposed a bias in one direction or another were removed from the process. At this point, from what we know, it does not appear that there are any sleeper agents for Donald Trump on the jury. But you can never really know until things play out.  

If a Trump sleeper agent was discovered, what could be done to remove them from the jury? 

If there's actual evidence that they lied during the voir dire process of jury selection, that could be grounds for a motion to strike the juror. That juror would be replaced with an alternate juror. That does happen on occasion. There is going to be so much close scrutiny it's inevitable that information about their identities is going to start leaking out. We will see what happens then. 


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


What is being done to protect the jurors? 

There are many precedents from organized crime cases. Sometimes a person has to be put in the Jury Protection Program temporarily. The jurors must know that, given the intensive scrutiny of this case, their own personal freedom is going to be severely restricted. That is for the safety of them and their families. There already are many police officers surrounding the courthouse. The NYPD and the court's security officers have been assigned to protect the jury as well. There are also steps being taken to make sure that the jurors are not being subjected to unlawful surveillance or harassment from pro-Trump zealots. 

One of the prospective jurors told reporters that seeing Donald Trump in court diminished him in her eyes. He didn’t have all the cameras and fanfare around him. He was just a regular person to her. Seeing him in that light surprised her. Is that a common response in your experience with organized crime figures for example? 

I've had experiences where the head of organized crime families first walk into the courtroom with their chest outs and chin up like a mafia boss is supposed to act in real life or on TV. But when the evidence starts coming in, and the jurors know that the courtroom is quite secure, and there are marshals in the vicinity who are ready to pounce on anyone who might threaten the judge or jurors, then they start feeling more comfortable. The jurors focus on the evidence, not the man, and not the histrionics and theatrics of the courtroom. They have confidence in the system to keep them secure. The jurors also keep getting reminded of their obligations and the very unique position they are in to decide the facts of the case and render a guilty or not guilty verdict. As Trump's trial advances, the jurors are going to get much more comfortable and focused on their duties. 

If you were prosecuting Trump’s hush-money case, how would you present it? Would you be expansive and show all the mountains of evidence against Donald Trump or would you be more streamlined and focused? How would you calibrate your argument? 

They're going to move the documents into evidence pretty quickly, which is all the paper involving the phony legal fees charged by Michael Cohen, and the checks and other evidence of the payments and the payoffs. They are not going to go through these documents one by one, which would put the jury to sleep. I believe that the prosecution will instead focus on one specific example, where you have a payment to Stormy Daniels or one of the others and then just map out where that money came from, and how reimbursement was made for it and the various means that were used to disguise it. Then prosecution must prove how the payoffs and “catch and kill” agreements influenced the 2016 election cycle. The testimony of David Pecker and others on how they devised and carried out a scheme to conceal the negative stories about Trump’s extra-marital affairs from the public will be key here. The narrative will be something the jury can clearly understand.

How is the defense likely going to proceed? 

Their best approach would be to impugn the credibility of the witnesses on the cross-examination, with the most vulnerable witness being Michael Cohen. But they can't really explain away the documents. Trump's defense will have to try some version of the OJ defense where they will try to oversimplify the case by saying something akin to, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." For example, Michael Cohen went to jail for lying to a Congressional committee and lying elsewhere. He's very vulnerable on cross-examination. The defense will argue that if he lied under oath once, then it is likely that he is willing to lie again under oath in this trial.  But then again, the prosecution will respond that he was Donald Trump's own chosen lawyer, and that Trump chose him in part because he was willing to do the sleazy kind of things that gives some lawyers a bad reputation.  Trump chose him for his bad character, not in spite of it.

It's all very tough for Trump because he's in the middle of a presidential campaign. If this was just an organized crime case, there would come a point where he would clutch his chest like he was having a heart attack and needed to be rushed to the hospital. But that would hurt Trump's presidential campaign. The only way he can really save himself is to get a mistrial declared, or make a deal that Nixon’s vice president, Spiro Agnew, made to avoid doing prison time. He would have to agree to withdraw from politics and salvage what he can of his foundering businesses. But Trump is between a rock and a hard place, His ego will not let him to withdraw from the presidential campaign as part of a plea deal, and he can’t fake a health emergency would make him look old and feeble compared to President Biden. Trump really is in a tough spot. 

Can Trump still take a plea deal at this point in the trial? 

A plea can be entered at any time. I've had cases settle when a jury is out deliberating, when they are taking too long, and neither side knows what's going on in the jury room. Sometimes you cut a deal at that particular point to avoid the risks of uncertainty. However, Trump is not an organized crime figure. Trump is a politician. Trump has to think about his legacy and the general campaign. Trump is basically limited in his options because of that. A Spiro Agnew-type deal with a promise of no jail time is probably still an option, but Trump would have to agree not run for political office again.  Obviously, he's not taking that option, and the window of opportunity for any plea deal where he would have to admit his guilt is rapidly closing. 

If Donald Trump is found guilty in the hush-money case, how will that impact the subsequent criminal trials? 

Everything relating to these criminal cases is intertwined, because there's going to be testimony and sworn evidence, which is coming in this case, that is potentially usable in the other cases as well. Successive prosecutions are very difficult for an ordinary individual, and certainly for somebody who's running for the presidency of the United States. It is only going to get worse for Donald Trump. It is not going to get better. All these criminal trials are going to merge into one long continuous criminal trial, just on different charges but basically telling the same story of corruption and venality. 

What would you tell Donald Trump if he called you for advice? 

I would tell him that you're running a great campaign and fielding all these cases at the same time. But now's the time to cut your losses. You can still withdraw from the campaign before the Republican Convention, and you can cut a deal with both the New York state prosecutors and the federal prosecutors. All you have to do is agree to be a regular citizen from now on and concentrate on your businesses. That's going to be a win-win situation for you.

Would you help facilitate such a deal? 

Most definitely. The country is on the verge of what could be a second civil war. If Donald Trump would just fade to black, step out of the political picture, the United States would hopefully have a chance to mend its wounds and come back to some semblance of reality and normal again.

Trump’s humiliation deepens: In court, he can’t hide from his tabloid roots

While this falls far short of the punishment he deserves, there was considerable satisfaction to be gained from reports that Donald Trump spent much of the first week of his first criminal trial sitting in silence listening to mean tweets about him read aloud in court. For hours at a time, potential jurors in his New York "hush-money" trial were interviewed to determine whether they could judge the ex-president with an open mind. In the process, both past social media posts and in-the-moment honest opinions were made public. Trump is such a famous narcissist that he literally has a woman who follows him around with a wireless printer to feed him a steady supply of online praise. Hearing what people outside the paid shills have to say was, all reports suggest, very upsetting for the former president. He glowered and eventually tried to leave the courtroom so quickly that he had to be told to sit down by the judge. 

The whole thing is a harsh reminder, to his face, that Trump is more suited to wallowing in the gutter than sitting on a throne. 

The jury is now impaneled, and no longer will be asked to talk about past social media posts calling Trump "dumb as [expletive]." But, as Monday's trial opening suggested, this trial is set to put Trump's fragile ego through a lengthy battering. It's hard to believe this — considering his ridiculous hair, hideous makeup and comically oversized suits — but by all accounts, Trump seems to actually believe he cuts an impressive figure. He famously spent decades longing to be included in the ranks of Manhattan's social elite, imagining he had a "classiness" they simply failed to perceive. As Elizabeth Spiers of the New York Times wrote last week, "The rich and powerful sometimes invited him to their parties, but behind his back they laughed at his coarse methods and his tacky aesthetic."

Alas, getting elected president allowed Trump to finally swaddle himself in the pomp that allows him to delude himself into believing he has an air of dignified stature. During his time in the White House, of course, he enjoyed the state dinners and other grand ceremonies meant to imbue the office with solemn authority. Granted, Trump's clownishness made all of that seem ridiculous to those looking on, but his attempted stern-faced expressions and chin-up pride suggested that he really believed he was finally being taken for the great man he wished himself to be.


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


Even after leaving the White House, Trump went to great lengths to keep himself in this elevated atmosphere. Unfortunately, he gets a lot of help keeping up the illusion of majesty. The presence of Secret Service protection allows him to travel with pricey black-car entourages at the taxpayers' expense. He also sees a steady stream of Republican politicians visit Mar-a-Lago, allowing Trump to play the part of a king greeting supplicants who kiss the ring. 

While the outcome of the trial remains weeks away, the process of being a criminal defendant has already stripped Trump of most of the trappings he uses to prop up his delusions of nobility. He has to sit still and do what he's told, which he whines about ad nauseam when outside of court. He keeps reportedly falling asleep and believable rumors suggest that his personal odor is difficult to bear. 

On Monday, the humiliations continued to pile on Trump with opening arguments and the first witness, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker. Even in this truncated day of court, the picture painted of Trump was not the regal leader of his fantasies, but who he actually is: A sleazy poseur who belongs to the world of trashy tabloids and scheming hucksters. The whole thing is a harsh reminder, to his face, that Trump is more suited to wallowing in the gutter than sitting on a throne. 

The prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, did not hold back from the salacious details in describing the alleged crimes that led to Trump sitting at the defendant's table: the extramarital sex, the hush money payments, the alleged out-of-wedlock child, the conspiracy with the National Enquirer to pay women off in a practice with the tawdry name "catch-and-kill." He spoke of Trump as such a miscreant that he required a full-time "fixer" to "take care of problems." He read aloud the various National Enquirer headlines crafted to help Trump, a reminder that Trump's natural home is in the most prurient gossip rags. And, of course, Colangelo spoke of Trump's crude bragging on the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape about how he likes to sexually assault women. 

Regardless of the air quality around his desk, defense attorney Todd Blanche had a stinky job on Monday: Trying to portray Trump as somehow above the shady people he surrounds himself with. Blanche sanctimoniously called Trump "President Trump," as if saying it makes it true. He tried to humanize his glowering orange lump of a client with, "he’s a husband, he’s a father" and "a person, just like you and just like me." In contrast, Blanche attempted to discredit Michael Cohen, the aforementioned "fixer" who has already served time for his role in this conspiracy, by calling Cohen a "criminal." 


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


It may work, of course. Jurors are people and people can be bamboozled, as Trump's entire career demonstrates. But Blanche's argument just doesn't make sense.  If Trump is such an upstanding citizen, then why would he need someone like Cohen to commit crimes on his behalf? Nor is Trump "just like you," unless you, ordinary person, do so many terrible things on a regular basis that you literally need a full-time fixer to clean up your messes. Most of us go our entire lives without once needing a tabloid magazine to cover up a sad-sounding adultery. As Colangelo's opening statement showed, Trump practically kept the National Enquirer on retainer. 

Pecker only spent about 20 minutes on the stand before the judge called recess for the day, but in that brief time, the jury got another glimpse into the vulgar environments that are Trump's natural home. Pecker described his business as "checkbook journalism" and agreed with Colangelo that he traffics in "juicy stories." This is why the location of the trial in New York City matters so much. Tabloids are ubiquitous in the city, which means the typical New Yorker is quite aware of how they function and why they're not considered as respectable as traditional newspapers. 

Despite Trump trying to tell reporters this trial is going "very well," reports from inside the courtroom are that he was seething. No surprise there. Prior to this, Trump spent all day, every day inside a bubble, surrounded by flatterers and sycophants, always ready to tell him that he's a mighty man who definitely doesn't weigh an ounce over 215 and wins every golf game with ease. Now he's spending his days in a dingy courtroom, staying silent while other people talk about his real self: A pathetic figure who pressures reluctant women into sex, and then runs to his seedy friends and barrel-scraping employees to bail him out of trouble. If there was a hell, Trump's punishment would be to look into a mirror for all of eternity. Having to hear people tell the truth about him for hours a day is as close as we're going to get on the mortal plane. 

Lake of lava “smooth as glass” discovered on Jupiter’s moon Io

Loki Patera might sound like the name of a Norse god's heavy metal band, but it is actually a lake made of lava located on one of Jupiter's moons, Io. On Sunday NASA scientists released a new animation of Loki Patera's activities, revealing that the 127-mile-long (200 kilometers) natural feature seems to have a shimmering, reflective surface. In other words, the lava lake has cooled so much that it appears to be as smooth as glass.

The scientists ascertained this from data compiled by the Juno spacecraft, which made extremely close flybys of Io in December 2023 and February 2024. By approaching 930 miles (1,500 kilometers) the Jovian moon's surface, the researchers obtained close-up images of the celestial body's northern latitudes.

“Io is simply littered with volcanoes, and we caught a few of them in action,” Juno’s principal investigator Scott Bolton said during a news conference at the European Geophysical Union General Assembly in Vienna. “We also got some great close-ups and other data on a 200-kilometer-long (127-mile-long) lava lake called Loki Patera. There is amazing detail showing these crazy islands embedded in the middle of a potentially magma lake rimmed with hot lava. The specular reflection our instruments recorded of the lake suggests parts of Io’s surface are as smooth as glass, reminiscent of volcanically created obsidian glass on Earth.”

While illustrating Loki Patera was certainly important work, it is not the primary mission of the Juno spacecraft. One of its chief objectives is to determine whether Io contains enough water to support extraterrestrial life, which the researchers are doing by measuring for hydrogen and oxygen atoms (which comprise water) during its close encounters with Io's atmosphere.

“Slippery slope”: Supreme Court ruling on emergency abortion protocols threatens stark ripple effect

In Idaho, OBGYNs and family medicine doctors live in constant fear that they will have to deny a pregnant patient stabilizing, emergency care. 

“Doctors are fearful that they will go to prison if they provide the care that we provided for decades that we know is appropriate,” Dr. Kara Cadwallader, who is a family medicine physician in Idaho, told Salon in a call. “So it's become an untenable ethical dilemma to do pregnancy care anymore and I feel like it's made our state an unsafe place to be pregnant.”

That’s because if stabilizing care requires an abortion, the provider will face two to five years in prison and lose their medical license. The only exception is if the patient is so close to death it’s necessary. Until January 5, 2024, a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) required hospitals in Idaho that receive federal funding to provide stabilizing care to any patient experiencing an emergency — which could mean ending the pregnancy.

Shortly after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated EMTALA took priority over state laws. Under EMTALA, hospitals and emergency rooms were required to provide emergency abortions even where there were strict abortions laws — like Idaho and Texas. The Biden Administration even sued Idaho, claiming that the state's near-total ban was in direct conflict with the federal EMTALA law. But the state claimed that there wasn’t a conflict because technically it has a life-saving exception. Then in January, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas ruled that emergency rooms aren't required to perform life-saving abortions under EMTALA. Now the case has risen to the Supreme Court.

Cadwallader said the crisis is worsening and nearing a tipping point. 

“Not only can I not personally provide that health-saving care, but if we need a referral for complicated care, there's fewer and fewer OBGYNs to refer to,” Cadwallader said, adding that more physicians have left the state since January. “I don't know how else to explain it — if we continue to have folks leave, we will no longer have a functional medical system.”

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday, April 24, as the second major abortion case to be heard by the court this year. The Court can either rule that EMTALA takes overrides Idaho’s abortion law or it doesn’t.

Azaleea Carlea, legal director at Legal Momentum, a legal defense and education fund for women, told Salon that by undermining EMTALA, Idaho physicians are not clear on what kind of stabilizing treatment they can give to patients. 

"if we continue to have folks leave, we will no longer have a functional medical system."

“They're putting doctors and medical providers in this ridiculous, absurd position of determining whether they're going to comply with state law or whether or whether they're going to comply with federal law,” Carlea said. “We’re looking at this as state-sanctioned discrimination against pregnant patients and we're looking at it as state-sanctioned emotional and physical distress that pregnant patients will have to be subjected to because of how Idaho is interpreting EMTALA.”

If the Supreme Court rules that EMTALA doesn’t preempt Idaho’s abortion ban, legal experts say it could open the door for other states to have abortion laws that override EMTALA, too.


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


“This case could radically change how emergency medical care is practiced in this country and could make pregnant people second-class citizens in America's emergency rooms,” Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, told Salon. “What I think we are looking at here is the fact that overturning Roe v. Wade was just the beginning, and these extremist politicians are using every tool at their disposal in their campaign to ban abortion nationwide.” 

Notably, EMTALA first came to light as a response to hospitals turning away uninsured pregnant people in active labor. Congress passed the law in 1986 and specifically included provisions mandating federally funded hospitals to accept a patient in active labor even if she doesn’t have insurance. President Ronald Reagan signed it into law. The purpose of EMTALA, Kolbi-Molinas said, was to establish a “national baseline of emergency care” that everyone is entitled to, regardless of where they live or their medical condition. Congress even included a preemption clause that said if any state law conflicts with EMTALA’s requirements, EMTALA overrides the state law.

"This case could … make pregnant people second-class citizens in America's emergency rooms."

“Congress inserted that so that they could eliminate this patchwork system of emergency care that we had across the country where people were being turned away and people were being discriminated against for a variety of different reasons,” she said. “It’s difficult to imagine a more direct or greater conflict between EMTALA and a state law than a state law that would prohibit the very emergency care that EMTALA requires.”

In a press conference last week, St. Luke’s chief medical officer shared that after the Supreme Court lifted EMTALA protections in January, six patients had to be airlifted to another state for emergency care compared to only one the entire year before. If the Supreme Court doesn’t uphold EMTALA, it could open the door to create any number of carve-outs to emergency care that could extend beyond pregnant patients.

“It’s a very slippery slope. If this happens it could cause chaos for a lot of marginalized communities,” Carlea said. “It could mean that states get to pick and choose who's going to access emergency care and what that emergency care is going to look like.”

To say that pregnant patients can’t have access to the same emergency care as other patients would be a “very dangerous precedent to set,” Carlea said. “Practitioners are going to be afraid to practice, they're going to be afraid to treat people, they're going to be working under terrible conditions of wondering if they're going to get fined, if they're going to go to jail, if they're going to have to wait for someone to be dying before they can help them.”

We need your help to stay independent

Kolbi-Molinas added that any mentions during the oral arguments of doctors objecting to provide emergency abortions due to religious or moral objections is a “red herring.” 

“Idaho is threatening to throw doctors who want to provide necessary emergency care to their patients in jail, and that is why the Department of Justice sued Idaho. And that is what this case is about,” she said. “And any suggestion from Idaho or their lawyers that this case somehow has to do with individuals who want to withhold emergency care from their patients is just something that has been manufactured at the 11th hour to try to distract from the real issues in this case.”

Cadwallader said before the case, she wants people to know that this affects everyone — not just pregnant patients in Idaho. 

“People have to understand that again, EMTALA protects all Americans in the country and the extremists have made it about abortion and have plucked out pregnant women and said they no longer have rights and that’s bad for America,” Cadwallader said. “It’s bad for all of us, even if you don't have a uterus and can't become pregnant.

The American Climate Corps is now hiring

You can now apply to be one of the first members of the American Climate Corps. President Joe Biden declared that the program was open for applications on Monday with 273 jobs currently listed on the White House’s website, including coastal conservation in Florida, stream restoration in Montana, and forest management in the Sierra Nevada. The administration said the number of openings will soon reach 2,000, with positions spanning 36 states plus Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.

“You’ll get paid to fight climate change, learning how to install those solar panels, fight wildfires, rebuild wetlands, weatherize homes and so much more,” Biden said at a press conference on Monday at Virginia’s Prince William Forest Park, originally built in 1936 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps, a model for the Biden administration’s new program. “It’s going to protect the environment to build a clean energy economy.”

It’s part of an Earth Day-related policy push from Biden, who also announced $7 billion in grants to install solar power and reduce energy costs for 900,000 low-income and disadvantaged households. The moves might appeal to the young people who were crucial to Biden’s 2020 victory over President Donald Trump and who, according to polls, have been souring on his performance in the White House. But this same demographic supports climate action, according to a poll taken last week by CBS News and YouGov, with more than three-quarters of those surveyed from both parties saying they wanted the U.S. to take steps to address climate change. 

Monday’s announcements also offered a glimpse into what climate corps positions might be available in the future, as the White House looks to employ 20,000 people in the program’s first year, with a target of 200,000 in five years. A new partnership with TradesFutures, a nonprofit construction company, suggests that members could help fill the country’s shortage of skilled workers who can install low-carbon technologies like electric vehicle chargers and heat pumps, while at the same time gaining skills toward getting good-paying jobs. The White House is also planning to place American Climate Corps members in so-called “energy communities” — such as former coal-mining towns — to help with projects like environmental remediation.

"You’ll get paid to fight climate change, learning how to install those solar panels, fight wildfires, rebuild wetlands, weatherize homes and so much more."

The pay for the listed jobs ranges dramatically depending on location and the experience required. On the lower end, coastal restoration jobs in Puerto Rico offer the equivalent of $12.50 an hour. On the upper end, a position for a biological technician in Idaho that requires experience in identifying plants and managing invasive species pays $23 an hour. The lengths of the terms are all over the place, with some as short as two or three months, though most last at least several months, and the website says that some jobs can be extended or renewed.

Biden first announced that he planned to revive a version of FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps during his first days in office in 2021. But the program took a while to get off the ground after its funding got cut during negotiations with Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, the landmark climate bill Biden signed in 2022. In time, the Biden administration cobbled together funding from a bunch of different agencies to start the program, but it’s much smaller than climate advocates had hoped. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York and Senator Ed Markey from Massachusetts had called for 1.5 million jobs over a span of five years in legislation introduced in 2021.

Still, Ocasio-Cortez celebrated the corps’ official arrival at the press conference on Monday. “People said then it was impossible,” she said. “We knew an American Climate Corps wasn’t impossible because our country has done this before … What we needed, though, was the political will.”

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/politics/biden-american-climate-corps-is-now-hiring/.

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

As a former Division I runner, I understand the complicated discourse around Nike’s Olympic uniform

“Why is the crotch area SO small?”

My friend and I stood side by side in the track and field office at Columbia University, a cavernous, semi-corporate lair that was part of a network of subterranean passages in the depths of a very old, very grey fitness center. 

We gazed at the new uniforms New Balance — our team’s designated sponsor — had issued. The singlet was not particularly radical: layered shades of white and Columbia’s signature shade, Pantone 292. 

It was the second portion of our new race gear that had given us pause.

As an athlete, you’re accustomed to thinking quite a bit about your body.

Scattered with imprints of a roaring lion (so faint that they just looked like muted polka-dots), the bottoms had a laughably paltry piece of fabric — something like the width of a large safety pin — to cover our nether regions. I recall using the phrase, “reverse thong.”

“Buns,” as they are colloquially referred to by runners, are effectively bikini briefs to begin with. There’s not much fabric to play with, let alone shear off. 

And yet, Nike somehow managed to whittle down one of those offerings for female track and field athletes competing at the upcoming summer 2024 Olympic Games in Paris.

The buns backlash

Recently, Citius Magazine shared a preview on Instagram of the men’s and women’s uniforms styled on mannequins, sparking prompt backlash for the skimpy, super-high cut of the women’s leotard. The men’s option showed a tank top and spandex bike shorts. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/C5n8cw0rSNH/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=65a71ef3-0290-4ad6-97a5-15e1e918ab2f&img_index=1

“My labia fighting for which one gets to be in the suit,” one user wrote in the comment section on the now-viral post. 

“Men’s sports always get more coverage,” another joked wryly.

Seattle-based women’s running apparel company, Oiselle, jested, “When you run out of fabric after designing the men’s kit . . .”

A number of professional athletes also spoke out in response to the post to vocalize discontent with the uniform.

U.S. long jumper Tara Davis-Woodhall, who finished sixth at the Tokyo games in 2021, wrote, “Wait my hoo haa is gonna be out.”

“This mannequin is standing still and everything’s showing . . . imagine MID FLIGHT,” wrote paralympic long-jumper for Team USA, Jaleen Roberts.

American hurdler and former Olympian Queen Harrison Claye tagged European Wax Center in her comment on Citius’ post, saying, "Would you like to sponsor Team USA for the upcoming Olympic Games!?"

Former five-time NCAA champion Lauren Fleshman slammed the leotard on Instagram as "a costume born of patriarchal forces that are no longer welcome or needed to get eyes on women’s sports."

"I’m sorry, but show me one WNBA or NWSL team who would enthusiastically support this kit," she wrote. "Women’s kits should be in service to performance, mentally and physically. If this outfit was truly beneficial to physical performance, men would wear it. This is not an elite athletic kit for track and field.”

Fleshman’s opinions align with what many others have said since Nike unveiled the uniform. And for good reason — the norms that govern professional women’s sports attire, though gradually evolving, are still largely dictated by sexist ideals that we have become societally attuned to. 

Following the ill-received uniform drop, Nike Chief Innovation Officer John Hoke said in a statement, “Nike designed the Paris 2024 track and field kits to offer athletes a range of silhouettes tailored for various sport disciplines, body types and sizes, prioritizing performance and maximum breathability.”

The mixed blessing of wearing buns

As any runner — professional or not — knows, you run best when you’re comfortable and feel empowered. It’s worth noting, then, that many elite women runners are consistently choosing to compete in buns for multiple reasons. The problem with Nike’s leotard selection, insofar as the mannequin shows it, is that it has an unnecessarily soaring cut.

But the problematic aspect of the Olympic leotard is not merely isolated to sexism. Revealing and tight uniforms in women’s running, comfortable and popular as they may be, can compound body image and eating disorder issues that are already endemic to the sport. 

If the Olympic uniform, representative of the gold standard for what competitive athletes strive for, is this ultra-skimpy version, then what does that say about how seriously we’re thinking about the ramifications this could have for impressionable female runners?

As an athlete, you’re accustomed to thinking quite a bit about your body. What you put into it, how it feels during a workout or race, and almost inevitably, what it looks like. For competitive runners, this often boils down to sinewy legs and defined abdominals. Ostensibly, this is an innocuous implication — if you expect to perform at a high level, there’s a certain amount of physical conditioning that must be done. 

However, spurred by a pervasive “thinner is faster” culture wherein struggles with body image are not only widely felt but also heavily normalized, a number of elite college and professional runners succumb to various disordered eating practices. My team was no exception. Throughout my time at Columbia, I watched many teammates and close friends devolve into full-fledged eating disorders, many of which stemmed from a desire to be as fast and fit as possible. 

While the Nike leotard is egregiously sparse, it’s important to note that there are more than 25 style combinations for female athletes, a fact that many people outside the running community are not aware of. It’s a far cry from the European Beach Volleyball Championship in 2021, when the Norwegian women’s team was fined for refusing to wear scanty bikini bottoms at the bronze medal game, opting instead to don shorts. 

In leveling her own criticism at the leotard, American pole vaulter Katie Moon also underscored the multifarious outfit options, writing on Instagram, “When you attack the buns and crop top saying something along the lines of it’s 'sexist' (which if that was our only choice, it would be), even if it’s with the best of intentions, you’re ultimately attacking our decision as women to wear it."

“And if you honestly think that on the most important days of our careers we’re choosing what we wear to appease the men watching over what we’re most comfortable and confident in, to execute to the best of our abilities, that’s pretty offensive,” she added.

When it comes to buns, the sentiment is somewhat mixed, too. 

I’ll start off by saying, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with wearing them. There are plenty of benefits to buns’ small size and snappy waistband: many female runners find them to be more comfortable and feel that they stay in place better than traditional shorts.

In college, I liked wearing buns during competitions. Gone were the middle-school days of flowy, parachute shorts that puffed at my thighs like a pastry. Buns, though hardly a deviation from the bathing suits I wore during summer days at the Jersey Shore, legitimized my place in an elite group of Division I runners. Somewhat sanctimonious and totally brazen, they solidified my status and signified that I had “made it” as an athlete. 

It allowed us to showcase our bodies to the world just a bit more, as if to say, “This is the standard, albeit often an unhealthy one, that you should aspire toward.”

This attitude is echoed extensively by women across the running community. In a 2023 New York Times feature on uniform expectations in women’s running, Fleshman described buns as a “badge of honor,” a feeling the outlet noted was shared by more than a dozen interviewees at the collegiate and professional level. 

“The association between smaller, tighter uniforms and success can still be a double-edged sword for many, invoking both power and discomfort,” wrote the Times’ Nell Gallogly. 

But wearing form-fitting, barely there uniforms undeniably begets a host of negative consequences. 

The culture around buns at Columbia was unwaveringly steadfast, which is to say that if you were a middle-distance or long-distance runner (a group I oscillated between, events-wise) you wore them. Like the Olympic team, we had the option to wear shorts instead; however, doing so was deemed odd. Wearing shorts was a choice saturated in quizzical, tight-lipped judgment. Maybe because of the optics of it all, a lack of uniformity, perhaps. But my hunch is that the style standard in elite running had become so entrenched that anything other than a few inches of fabric away from full-frontal was considered taboo. Not to mention, it allowed us to showcase our bodies to the world just a bit more, as if to say, “This is the standard, albeit often an unhealthy one, that you should aspire toward.”

I recall one occasion when a teammate burst into tears over buns. She was panicked that other teammates, spectators, coaches, officials, et. al might be able to see cellulite on her legs. 

And it wasn’t just buns, either. I experienced something similar after returning to campus my sophomore year, feeling slightly swollen from a second wave of puberty and the consequences of weightlifting. The skin-tight tank top we wore in races immediately made me feel insecure, but I told myself I had no recourse other than to shed a few pounds. Like the buns, nobody ever wore the loose-fitting tank top option.

These are hardly irrational concerns. College sports, especially at the DI level, are highly publicized events. There was always a professional photographer at our races, poised to capture every angle. 

Along those lines, buns and snug fabric, ubiquitous as they are to elite running, play heavily into the sport’s psychological component. Running is innately individual sport that weighs heavily on the mind during and outside of competition. It’s not untrue that less fabric could very viably equate to faster times, especially in a sport where milliseconds really do matter. It teeters on the logic underlying why some Olympic swimmers shave, wax and pluck themselves hairless before a race. 

But is less really more? If this adage — the very same that catalyzed many eating disorders, not only on my collegiate team but throughout the world of running — is the sticky framework we are using to outfit runners who stand as the exemplar of the sport, then the problem extends beyond blatant misogyny. Some may argue the link between the two is tenuous. But having seen the insidious pressures of competitive sports firsthand, I feel resolved in saying that the potential for damage knows no bounds, seams, or stitches, for that matter. 

 

The problem with Taylor Swift’s “I Hate It Here” is that it’s regressive, not reflective

Lyrics are Taylor Swift's thing. Songwriting is literally the whole point of her sprawling 11th studio album “The Tortured Poets Department.”

While Swifties, critics and the general public have begun analyzing her massive 31-song dual album since its release on April 19, a few lines have stuck out and have been widely circulated, criticized and memed online. At the scene of the crime is "I Hate It Here," one of the extra 15 tracks on the second album, "The Anthology."

Oh yeah, that's a real lyric from a self-proclaimed tortured poet.

In the song's lyrics, Swift tells listeners she escapes into "secret gardens in my mind" because she hates it here. And because she hates it here, she mentions that she used to play a game with her friends to escape. The game entailed picking a decade they wished they could live in instead of their current reality. The musician sings, "I'd say the 1830s but without all the racists and getting married off for the highest bid."

Oh yeah, that's a real lyric from a self-proclaimed tortured poet. Almost immediately, the lyric was met with backlash, mostly from people who questioned Swift's ideas about America's reprehensible history with racism and slavery — generally the plight of Black people in 1830s America. The song overall is supposed to act as a vessel to highlight that nostalgia is a "mind's trick" and even going back to the 1830s "was never even fun" and she'd hate it there.

Writer Ola Ojewumi shared her sentiments on the song: "When white women are congratulated for the 'work' of no longer feeling nostalgic about wanting to live in the 1830s. That’s not work, lol. Only white people fantasize about going back in time."

With all this in mind, was it necessary for a white female musician to write lyrics that recall such a specific and painful time for most Black and nonwhite Americans, especially when said singer's track record with allyship is murky at best? The answer is pretty clear to me.

If we are talking about the singer's most recent offense, Swift's ex, the 1975 frontman Matty Healy, almost put her meteoric rise at risk last year. Their short-lived fling is part of the breakup fodder on her album as she compares Healy to a "tattooed golden retriever." However, Healy isn't that harmless or affable. He's widely known as an internet edgelord, who deleted his X account after tweeting a slur about the Phoebe Bridgers-led band Boygenius, “I told Lucy Dacus that ‘Boygenius’ had inspired me and George [Daniel] to start a new band called ‘Girlr*tard.'"

His crude and frankly bigoted language is a part of Healy's divisive appeal. As Salon contributor Kelly Pau wrote, "He's not interested in political correctness. He used to follow Kyle Rittenhouse on Instagram. He jerks off to and jokes about Ghetto Gaggers, a porn website that focuses on the brutalization of Black women."

I was in the audience as she brought up her Black friend to perform "Karma" during the New Jersey tour dates during the Eras Tour. 

But what stumped the public was a podcast episode the singer did with Adam Friedland and Nick Mullen. During the episode, Healy laughed alongside the hosts as they ridiculed the Nigerian and Dominican rapper Ice Spice, calling her "Inuit Spice Girl" and "Chubby Chinese Lady." Afterward, Healy had become a pariah, and Swift had to jump out of the predatory waters before his jagged teeth left her bleeding out. The singer, who came out as a feminist in 2014, broke up with Healy after a whirlwind two months and featured Ice Spice in one of her songs. I was in the audience as she brought up her Black friend to perform "Karma" during the New Jersey tour dates during the Eras Tour. 

We need your help to stay independent

Nonetheless, the singer's smart or damning PR move, depending on who you ask, worked. Her angry, loyal fans were placated, although her critics had labeled her a white feminist — a term that has followed her for years. A year later, the same conversations still surround the singer's larger white identity and lack of understanding of the nonwhite, Black American experience. A line like, "I'd say the 1830s but without all the racists" is a loaded statement from someone who kept her liberal politics a secret until 2018 when it felt like her rights as a white woman were being stripped away. 

Even if we put aside her liberal politics — her advocacy for the LGBTQ+ community, and women's rights or galvanizing young people to vote — her whiteness is ever-present as she writes that she finds a connection to an era so rife with suffering for nonwhite people. She knew we all knew the implications of saying she would like to return to this period. So of course, she had to add a clarifier to cover all her bases but what she failed to recognize is that for nonwhite people, especially Black Americans, the legacy of genocide, slavery and systemic racism is not a thing of the past but haunts us in the present in 2024. There's no escaping it, even in Swift's imaginary, sanitized world. 

“An army of Jesus”: Inside Mike Johnson’s come-to-Jesus moment ahead of Ukraine reversal

In the hours before Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said he was willing to lose his speakership to help Ukraine, he met with the evangelical leader of Ukraine’s National Prayer Breakfast, who says he told Johnson they could create “an army of Jesus.”

It was Pavlo Unguryan’s third reported meeting with Johnson this year. As one Christian Republican insider asserted after Saturday’s House approval of $61 billion for Ukraine aid, evangelical messaging “definitely tipped” Johnson and House Republicans.

U.S. reporting has focused on national-security briefings cracking Johnson’s months of paralysis. But the intel messaging has been consistently dire since Russia invaded. Only in the past several months has “religious freedom” gained momentum as a casus belli, appearing in Ukrainian and U.S. religious media and now embraced by evangelical Republicans.

And the religious and intel motivations complement each other. National-security warnings that Ukraine will fall without U.S. aid would take on heightened urgency if Johnson started to see Ukraine as an evangelical redoubt and potential wellspring of missionary action in a godless Europe.

One week before Johnson’s dramatic turnaround, I wrote, “If you see evangelical House Republicans softening their opposition to military aid for Ukraine, don’t assume it’s divine intervention.” Here’s what’s happened since then.

“Pavlo Is The Hero”

Steven Moore used to be a top aide to the House Republican chief deputy whip, then-Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL), himself a former aide to Rapture-believing Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), who sired the Hyde Amendment ending federal funding for abortions.

These days, Moore has been on the ground in Ukraine, distributing humanitarian aid and, still politically connected, working the phones to keep aid coming.

In a LinkedIn comment yesterday, Moore discussed Johnson’s change of heart.

“[T]he evangelical Christian message definitely tipped the Speaker and Republicans,” Moore wrote. “Pavlo is the hero. He met with the Speaker after the SOTU [State of the Union]. … The Speaker was deeply moved.”

It’s not clear what meeting Moore is referring to, but according to the Christian Post, Unguryan was on Capitol Hill the week of Pres. Joe Biden’s March 7 speech. The Christian Post report includes a photo of Unguryan meeting Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). Also in the picture is Karl Ahlgren, a top official in Moore’s group.

Unguryan’s meeting with Johnson last Wednesday came in the hours leading up to Johnson’s news conference, according to the Christian Broadcasting Network.

Right-wing religious conservative Marc Thiessen on Friday asserted that Wednesday’s meeting didn’t change Johnson’s mind, he was always going to push Ukraine aid through. But, reportedly, Johnson was still praying about what to do on Tuesday. So what happened?

CBN spoke to Unguryan about his Wednesday meeting with Johnson. This time, Unguryan had brought along evangelical Baptist Serhii Haidarzhy, whose wife Anna (a pastor’s daughter) and four-month-old son Tymofii were killed by a Russian drone strike last month.

A Ukrainian government photo showing two of their arms extending out from under a single blanket after the blast reportedly has become a widely circulated symbol of Ukraine’s civilian toll. Their deaths have also served as an evangelical rallying cry.

The personal touch of meeting Haidarzhy may have made the difference for Johnson. Ukrainian American House Chair Roman Sheremeta, a Case Western Reserve University professor who’s co-authored a paper with Unguryan, posted that “a large group” of Ukrainians were in Washington last week, and he singled out Johnson’s discussion with Unguryan and Haidarzhy.

“Personal meetings like these can have a profound impact on a person,” Sheremeta wrote, “and I believe that it made an impact on Mike Johnson.”

Unguryan has discussed the meeting publicly, using language with religious outlets that differs from his rhetoric for America’s general audiences. While Unguryan in a January press release from Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) discussed working with “US brothers and sisters within the democratic world,” to CBN he called Johnson “a brother in Christ.”

Similarly, Unguryan described his first known meeting with Johnson, Jan. 31, as an “informal [meeting] among brothers in faith.” On Jan. 10, Ukrainian evangelicals had signed off on a letter that Unguryan and others would hand-deliver to Johnson. Johnson took the meeting despite the fact that evangelicals make up only 2% of Ukraine’s population and Johnson refused to meet with an ecumenical delegation in late 2023.

During last Wednesday’s meeting, Unguryan told CBN, he framed the war to Johnson as a spiritual battle. "For us, it's a call to action to unite together — to unite together an army of Jesus."

Johnson hugged Haidarzhy and prayed for him. Then, later that day, Johnson gave his news conference saying helping Ukraine was the right thing to do, and worth sacrificing the speakership.

Prior to Saturday’s House vote, Ukrainian Member of Parliament Iryna Gerashchenko called Unguryan’s meeting with Johnson “a very good move.” 

She added, “Pavlo Unguryan, thank you for arranging this gathering.”

But the Wednesday meeting was also arranged by Gary Marx, president of Defenders of Faith and Religious Freedom in Ukraine, CBN reported. It was also Marx who organized a letter to Johnson from religious leaders last week seeking help for Ukraine.

Marx told CBN that Johnson “is a thoughtful Christian leader who I think understands that religious freedom is in jeopardy.”

Marx’s notion of “religious freedom” is suggested by his affiliations with far-right and theocratic organizations. He’s a senior advisor to the Judicial Crisis Network, which he founded, and advised both the Scott Walker and Marco Rubio presidential campaigns.

According to CBN, Marx “asked Johnson to view support for Ukraine, long considered the Bible Belt of Europe, through the lens of fighting for religious liberty.”

How Johnson understands religious freedom was hinted at by Marx, who noted that Johnson has “worked on those issues as an attorney for decades.” In fact, Johnson’s legal career included work for the Alliance Defending Freedom, advocating for anti-LGBTQ+ laws including a sodomy ban and criminalizing gay sex.

Unguryan had floated the idea of Ukraine as a European Bible Belt earlier in the week. On Thursday I wrote about Unguryan telling Family Research Council President Tony Perkins that Ukraine is “to be the Bible Belt” for Europe, “such a liberal continent.”

Perkins underscored the point: “So you see the vision of Ukraine as being kind of a Bible Belt?” Unguryan said, “Absolutely yes … we are like the Bible Belt for the liberal, European continent,” touting “pro-family [and] pro-life issues.”

Unguryan told Perkins he envisioned a “strategic partnership between Christians, evangelicals, conservatives in U.S. and Christians and conservatives in Ukraine to do our missionary ministry, global missionary ministry, and to protect our values.”

Perkins asked how his viewers could help. Unguryan said, “Ask your congressmen to help us.”

But Unguryan got to solicit at least one member of Congress, other than Johnson, in person last week.

The same day as Johnson’s news conference, Unguryan met with Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), who doesn’t just co-chair the Congressional Ukraine Caucus with Kaptur, he’s a veteran of Unguryan’s prayer breakfasts.

Breakfasts and Jesus Are Served

In 2021, I revealed that Unguryan was the main Ukraine liaison for the organization behind the original U.S. prayer breakfast, the Fellowship Foundation, the secretive Christian group also known as The Family.

Unguryan and others in The Family — including Doug Burleigh, the Donald Trump supporter who brought Russian operatives Alexander Torshin and Maria Butina to the breakfast — invited a number of Ukrainian crusaders against LGBTQ+ and reproductive rights, according to Family documents I obtained.

For years, Unguryan has been the principal organizer of the Ukrainian National Prayer Breakfast, which spun off from The Family’s U.S. model.

Today, Unguryan says, he’s backed by an array of conservative Christian organizations. He told CBN that “many organizations from America help us, like Samaritan’s Purse, World Vision, Baptist World Alliance, Southern Baptist Convention.”

Samaritan’s Purse is a relief organization, but also proselytizes its vision of evangelical Christianity. More specifically, the vision of its president, Franklin Graham. It was Graham — a global leader against LGBTQ+ and reproductive rights — who for years was the sole financial backer of the U.S. prayer breakfast.

And Unguryan’s parliamentary group, a Family spinoff, paid to fly powerful Americans to Kyiv to boost Unguryan and his efforts. As I reported, both Fitzpatrick and Rep. Juan Vargas (D-CA), attended Unguryan’s 2021 prayer breakfast on Unguryan’s dime. As a member of the far-right Polish group Ordo Iuris posted, after the main event, “we had the opportunity to share our experiences in defending of conservative values."

At the time, Unguryan’s group had a page on the Ukrainian parliamentary website saying that its central missions included “organizing the National Prayer Breakfast in Ukraine; [and] protection of the institution of family and marriage as the basis of society.”

Their events reflected that mission. In 2019, the Ukrainian prayer breakfast organizers paid to fly in Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) due to his positions on “sanctity of life, marriage, freedom and prayer.” (Last year, The Family flew Walberg to urge Uganda’s prayer breakfast to “stand firm” behind a new LGBTQ+ death penalty. The Family declined a request by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) to weigh in on Walberg’s remarks or the new law.)

A 2021 report on LGBTQ+ and reproductive rights by European parliamentarians singled out Unguryan and Ukraine’s prayer breakfasts specifically. The report cited European prayer breakfasts as part of an effort “to form cross-party alliances on Christian values.”

The report also said that an international Christian group to which Unguryan belongs “socialises politicians onto regressive agendas through parliamentary prayer breakfasts.”

Earlier this month, Unguryan and other evangelicals were among a group of religious leaders who met with Ukrainian Pres. Volodymyr Zelenskyy. As I reported on April 10, Zelenskyy was acutely conscious of the message they could send overseas.

The religious leaders had one ask of Zelenskyy: Resume Ukraine’s National Prayer Breakfast. He agreed.

Full-Court Press

In the days leading up to Johnson’s announcement, the campaign intensified.

Another longtime Family insider, former Rep. Bob McEwen (R-OH), was involved. McEwen, too, attended Unguryan’s 2021 prayer breakfast, and before yesterday’s vote, joined dozens of conservative individuals and institutions to defend Johnson. With House conservatives threatening to oust Johnson for aiding Ukraine, the conservative leaders urged them to keep Johnson as speaker.

Signatories of their letter included far-right religious leaders and groups, not just McEwen and Perkins but also the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Concerned Women for America, and more. (One Concerned Women for America board member is Caroline Aderholt, who now helps run The Family’s smaller-scale prayer breakfast on Capitol Hill.)

On Thursday, former Trump Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, also a Rapture believer, co-signed a letter calling on House Republicans to support Ukraine.

His audience was mainstream, and his message non-religious. But Pompeo reportedly had begun pressing Johnson privately on Ukraine “almost immediately” after Johnson got his gavel on Oct. 25.

And Moore’s group, the Ukraine Freedom Project, last year launched a campaign called Russia Tortures Christians, with paid posts and videos on Facebook and Instagram.

The ad campaign appears to have begun in late December. Ads started running as early as Dec. 22. In early March, the ads started naming Johnson. Respectfully.

One paid post that started running March 1 quotes The Bible to appeal to Johnson.

The campaign bought ads specifically targeting Facebook and Instagram users in Louisiana, Johnson’s state. “We ran digital ads for Russia Tortures Christians in Louisiana, building grassroots support,” Moore said.

The ads followed message testing at the end of summer in 2023, Moore wrote. “Telling Republican evangelicals that Russia tortures and murders Ukrainian evangelicals for their faith makes 70% of them … more likely to support Ukraine aid.”

In the fall, he said, “we talked to ~100 Congressional offices about this message.”

One ad, earlier this month, thanked Graham for his support.

Eventually, it wasn’t just advocacy groups and Christian leaders. Right-wing media increasingly picked up on the narrative, and gave Unguryan a platform.

On April 10, the same day I reported on Unguryan’s meetings with Johnson and Zelenskyy, Newsmax cited Russia’s persecution of Christians as a reason to support aid. Their source was Unguryan.

Then, the day before their meeting with Johnson, Unguryan and Haidarzhy both appeared on Newsmax. Unguryan offered Newsmax a modest prophecy: “These next days we will tell people truth on the Capitol Hill.”

“Very close ally of Trump”: Experts say first witness is essentially an “unindicted co-conspirator”

The Manhattan district attorney's office briefly called former National Enquirer chairman David Pecker as its first witness in Donald Trump's New York hush-money trial on Monday. But legal experts disagree on exactly how valuable his testimony may be.

Pecker played a central part in the alleged plot to pay off adult film star Stormy Daniels in order to keep her from exposing her alleged affair with Trump in the weeks before the 2016 election. 

The district attorney's office called Pecker to the stand after both parties completed opening statements, which began Monday after an expedient jury selection last week. 

Pecker is one of the "most critical witnesses in this trial," and his testimony, which will continue Tuesday, will have a "huge" impact, predicted Bennett Gershman, a Pace University law professor and former New York prosecutor. 

"It will be the prologue that dramatically sets the stage for the way the prosecutors will develop the story. Pecker introduces the characters, the plot, and how the drama unfolds," Gershman explained, calling the prosecution's decision to have Pecker testify first a "great move."

The Trump ally, Gershman predicted, will "start the ball rolling" by laying out the alleged conspiracy, its key players and how "they committed their crimes."

As then-chairman and CEO of American Media Inc. (AMI), Pecker took part in a number of "catch-and-kill" schemes, buying rights to potentially damaging stories and never publishing them, on behalf of then-candidate Trump, according to CNN

An agent for Daniels contacted AMI in October 2016, informing the company that she was willing to go public with her claims that she and Trump had a sexual encounter in 2006. The former president, for his part, has denied having the affair.

Following the call from Daniels' agent, Pecker then allegedly reached out to then-personal Trump attorney and "fixer" Michael Cohen, who negotiated the deal buying Daniels' silence for $130,000, court filings said, per CNN. 

That $130,000 payment — reimbursed by the Trump Organization — is the focus of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case against Trump. Bragg indicted Trump last spring on 34 felony charges related to "falsifying New York business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election." Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, has pleaded not guilty and has dismissed Bragg's case as politically motivated.

"In an ideal world for the prosecution, by the time the defense even starts their case, the jury is convinced of the defendant's guilt. You basically overwhelm them," former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani said, noting that such an outcome may not occur in Bragg's case. 

"This is a smoking gun type case, especially on felony charges," he said. "But that's why you really want to come out strong if you're the prosecution to give the defense no chance and just have the jurors minds already made up before the defense begins its case in chief." 

We need your help to stay independent

Since Pecker "started it all," the district attorney's office likely chose him as its first witness because he "may be the best" person they can use to make their case chronologically, Rahmani told Salon, explaining that the first witness in a trial is "always an important one" and noting that in order to start out strong, prosecutors in any trial have to consider "primacy and recency."

But Pecker may not be the strongest first witness in general for the state, he suggested. Witnesses who participated in or helped with a crime typically "aren't the best" because of their involvement, and prosecutors "usually" aim to "sandwich" bad or "questionable" witnesses between "good ones" and avoid starting with them, Rahmani explained. Pecker is essentially an "unindicted co-conspirator" in Bragg's case against Trump given his role in the underlying scheme "the prosecution is trying to argue."

Pecker is also "testifying under a grant of immunity" from Bragg's office and his company was fined $187,500 by the Federal Election Commission for making an unlawful campaign contribution in connection to a separate catch-and-kill arrangement — further undermining his strength as a witness, Rahmani added.

Months ahead of the 2016 presidential contest, AMI agreed to pay model and actress Karen McDougal $150,000 to keep quiet about an alleged affair with Trump. The company, then headed by Pecker, did not face criminal charges but did admit to paying off McDougal and later paid the fine.

Though not a part of the former president's case, Bragg's team is expected to use the deal to "establish a pattern of such payments," CNN notes.


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


How Pecker's role in the hush-money payment to Daniels "relates to the charges against Trump" is "not clear," Syracuse University College of Law professor Gregory Germain told Salon, emphasizing that the former president's charges pertain to falsifying business records in connection with Daniels' payoff. "I don't see how the 'catch and kill' scheme is relevant to the business records charges, except maybe to show that Trump was trying to hide negative information from the public."

To prove the charges against the former president, the prosecution "must show" that Trump falsified them "to commit fraud on someone" and "hide a separate independent crime," Germain explained, reiterating he doesn't see Pecker's testimony relating to the "elements that the prosecution has to prove."

Germain said he expects Pecker to testify that Trump "sought and was aware of" the plan to buy Daniels' silence and will possibly offer the court "embarrassing information about Trump" or "negative evidence about his character."

Pecker may also deliver testimony confirming that Daniels' agent contacted the National Enquirer about the affair, that he contacted Cohen and that Cohen negotiated the payment; detailing how the "catch and kill" schemes work and describing the arrangement with McDougal, Rahmani added. 

Gershman said he believes Pecker will testify that he "conspired with Trump" and Cohen to "manipulate the 2016 election" through the scheme, telling the court that the former president, along with Cohen, "paid the money to silence these witnesses and thereby cover up stories that would have seriously threatened Trump’s candidacy."

During his approximately 20 minutes on the stand Monday before jurors were adjourned, Pecker explained the National Enquirer's "checkbook journalism" process and described his relationship with the publication's ex-editor-in-chief, Dylan Howard, according to NBC News.

The former AMI chairman will resume his testimony on Tuesday.

"I don’t expect that Trump’s lawyers will be able to effectively damage Pecker’s testimony. He was a very close ally of Trump and was doing his bidding," Gershman predicted. "And there will be lots of evidence to corroborate everything Pecker says."

Biden moves to prevent women’s abortion medical records from being “used against them” by GOP states

The Biden administration has finalized a regulation that aims to prevent Republican-led jurisdictions with strict limits on reproductive freedom from obtaining the medical records of people who seek abortions out of state, the Associated Press reported Monday.

“No one should have their medical records used against them, their doctor or their loved one just because they sought or received lawful reproductive health care,” Jennifer Klein, director of the White House Gender Policy Council, said at a press conference.

The regulation was first proposed in April 2023. It updates the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, to clarify that medical providers cannot provide law enforcement the medical records of someone who chooses to terminate a pregnancy in another state.

Last year, for example, Alabama's Republican attorney general claimed his office has the power to prosecute anyone who defies the state's abortion ban by seeking medical care elsewhere, although no one has yet to be charged under the claimed authority, reported 19th News, a nonprofit media organization that focuses on women's issues.

According to a White House fact-sheet, "the rule would prevent an individual’s information from being disclosed to investigate, sue, or prosecute an individual, a health care provider, or a loved one simply because that person sought, obtained, provided, or facilitated legal reproductive health care, including abortion."

The Spice Girls reunite for Victoria Beckham’s 50th birthday party

The Spice Girls shared a mini-reunion over the weekend at a party celebrating Victoria Beckham's 50th birthday, giving attendees an impromptu dance routine performance of their hit '90s single, "Stop." 

Geri Halliwell, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Melanie Brown, and Victoria could be seen in a video captured by Victoria's husband, David Beckham, dancing in the same lineup positions as the iconic 1997 pop single music video. Victoria subsequently shared the footage on her Instagram, writing, “Best night ever! Happy Birthday to me! I love you all so much! #SpiceUpYourLife."

David also shared the moment on his own Instagram account, captioning it, "I mean come on."

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6AcGP9ocb0/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=82f36775-cf07-4ff8-a34b-0a4d38baddd3

The party, which was held at Oswald's private members' club in London, saw appearances from celebrities like Tom Cruise, Salma Hayek, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Gordon Ramsay, Charlotte Tilbury, and Eva Longoria. 

The Spice Girls’ mini reunion follows the group's 30th anniversary since first auditioning for the band last month, per PEOPLE. Ahead of the event, Victoria took to social media to share photos of her posing alongside her husband and family, writing, “Can’t wait to celebrate with my friends and family! I love you all so much."

Cher said she wouldn’t want to be in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Now she’s being inducted

Cher is apparently backtracking on comments she made previously, now that it's been announced that she would be among the 2024 inductees to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. 

During an appearance on "The Kelly Clarkson Show" in December to promote her then-new Christmas single, "DJ Play a Christmas Song,” the singer noted how she had been snubbed even though her seven-decade-long career was packed with consistent, chart-topping hits. While Cher acknowledged that the Rolling Stones shared similar accolades, she was also quick to jest at how “It took four of them to be one of me."

"You know what, I wouldn’t be in it now if they gave me a million dollars," Cher told Clarkson at the time of the Cleveland, Ohio, institution. "I’m never going to change my mind. They can just go you-know-what themselves.”

As of Sunday, however, Cher's name has been added to a long list of musical greats in being entered into the hall on Oct. 19. Among the other inductees for the performer category are Mary J. Blige, the Dave Matthews Band, Foreigner, Peter Frampton, Kool & The Gang, Ozzy Osbourne and A Tribe Called Quest. 

“Rock & Roll is an ever-evolving amalgam of sounds that impacts culture and moves generations,” said John Sykes, chairman of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Foundation, in a press release. “This diverse group of inductees each broke down musical barriers and influenced countless artists that followed in their footsteps.”

Eligibility is predicated on an artist or band having released its first commercial recording at least 25 years before the nomination, the release stipulated. Of the inductees in the performer category, Cher, Foreigner, Kool & the Gang and Peter Frampton were on the ballot for the first time. 

Grindr again sued for allegedly sharing users’ HIV status

More than 650 claimants in the United Kingdom are suing Grindr, alleging the world's most popular LGBTQ dating app broke national privacy laws by sharing users' most sensitive health information — including their HIV status — with third-party data brokers for advertising purposes. The app used "covert tracking technology" to do so, according to the claim lodged in London's High Court on Monday. Grindr previously admitted to sharing users' HIV status in 2018, and even defended the practice despite widespread outcry.

As reported by the BBC, the company is accused of illegally sharing users' HIV status, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity with data analytics companies Apptimize and Localytics — who, claimants say, may have also kept some of the data for other purposes. Despite marketing itself as a privacy-sensitive dating app for marginalized communities, claimants allege Grindr paid the two data brokers to surveil people's usage of the app. The company is accused of sharing user data on several occasions, mainly before April 2018, but also between May 2018 and April 2020.  

“Grindr owes it to the LGBTQ+ community it serves to compensate those whose data has been compromised," said Chaya Hanoomanjee, the case's lead lawyer, adding that the claimants "experienced significant distress over their highly sensitive and private information being shared without their consent."

The Austen Hays law firm aims to secure more than £100,000 ($123,599) for the claimants. Grindr's previously paid out £5.5 million ($6,797,945) in fines in 2021 after Norwegian authorities found the company breaking EU general data protection regulation rules in a similar data-sharing deal. In 2022, however, Grindr was again caught out by UK data privacy watchdogs who ruled the company failed to "provide effective and transparent privacy information to its UK data subjects in relation to the processing of their personal data." A spokesperson for Grindr told the BBC the company will "respond vigorously" to the claim, which it says "appears to be based on a mischaracterization of practices from more than four years ago," — and that the company takes user privacy "extremely seriously."

 

“House of cards”: Judge imposes new terms to ensure Trump’s $175 million bond will actually be paid

A New York judge has agreed to accept Donald Trump's $175 million bond in his civil fraud case after ensuring that the issuer of the bond will have enough cash on hand to pay up should the former president lose his appeal.

At a hearing Monday, Judge Arthur Engoron initially questioned the legitimacy of Trump's bond, which he secured with the help of a supporter after earlier failing to secure a larger $454 million bond. Trump needs the bond in order to appeal the civil fraud conviction secured by New York Attorney General Letitia James in February.

James had herself questioned the $175 million bond, noting that the issuer, Knight Specialty Insurance Co., is not certified in the state of New York. Others had noted that the bond agreement contained "incomprehensible" language that raised questions about who would ultimately be responsible for paying it, should it come to that.

"It all seems like a house of cards," Judge Engoron himself said Monday, according to Reuters. But he decided to accept the bond after imposing a new requirement that Trump's $175 million collateral, currently held in a Charles Schwab account, not be invested in securities while the appeal process is under way.

Monday's decision came just down the street from the Manhattan courtroom where Trump is standing trial on criminal charges related to an alleged scheme to cover up hush payments ahead of the 2016 election.

“Sometimes I would push away our audience”: “The Sympathizer” director Park Chan-wook feels for us

South Korean filmmaker Park Chan-wook wants us to picture fireworks while watching “The Sympathizer.”  That image inspires his visual interpretation of Viet Thanh Nguyen’s Pulitzer Prize-winning 2015 novel and as he explains to me through an interpreter, it recurs time and again onscreen.

The premiere holds the first volley during the fall of Saigon as flares streak the sky and bombs pummel the airstrip where the Captain (Hoa Xuande) is desperately fleeing with his best friend Bon (Fred Nguyen Khan). Now they’ve settled into American life and Los Angeles, there will be an Independence Day celebration. Eventually the Captain takes a job as a cultural consultant on a movie using pyrotechnics.

As Park explains, these aren’t simply literal interpretations but metaphorical. Nguyen’s prose is the wick that ignited the charges he set on our screens.

“I tried very hard to make his colorful writing into a visual form,” Park explained in a recent Zoom interview. Thus, fireworks.

Both as a screenwriter and director, Park’s vision is precise, strategic and guided by a solid philosophy. In his seven-part limited series, which he developed with co-showrunner Don McKellar, he isn’t content to simply parrot what’s on the page or traipse through the Captain’s journey from Saigon to Los Angeles with his South Vietnamese general boss (Toan Le) and his C.I.A. handler (Robert Downey Jr., one of several roles he plays).

He speaks of casting the audience in the role of the Captain’s interrogator, the Commandant, at the re-education camp from where Captain is imprisoned and narrating the story. “The Sympathizer” enters the Captain’s story nearly a year into his imprisonment, and many drafts into writing what's deemed as his confession, which reads like a manuscript and retraces his faulty memory.

The SympathizerHoa Xuande in "The Sympathizer" (HBO)“The Commandant, at the beginning, is someone who is very critical and who questions the Captain, but mesmerized by the Captain’s very articulate and very dramatic life that he’s gone through,” Park remarked. “And there's an element that is very similar to ‘Arabian Nights’ in that sense. Our seventh episode is when our Captain's confession has ended, and by that point, the viewer has a sense that there's sort of a bond between the Commandant and the Captain.”

“And I should not say more because it might become a spoiler,” he added. “But there's a fracture, there's a sudden shift in our Commandant’s attitude towards the captain.

Park’s best-known films are literary adaptations, including 2016’s “The Handmaiden” and 2003’s “Oldboy,” his introduction to the broader U.S. film audience, which began as a manga tale. In a curious stroke of creative influences circling back on each other, Nguyen mentioned to The New Yorker that “Oldboy” was a primary influence on “The Sympathizer.” Park told me he had no prior knowledge of that before he met Nguyen; neither did he engage the author about it.

"There's an element that is very similar to ‘Arabian Nights,’" said Park.

“But the thing is, in terms of ‘Oldboy,’ I intentionally went about expressing [and] infusing this very flamboyant style in that work,” Park said. “I made a guess that perhaps he borrowed that idea into translating his very colorful prose into 'The Sympathizer.' But that was only my conjecture.”

Park is careful to clarify that his and McKellar’s interpretation of Nguyen’s work isn’t a direct or shot-for-shot recreation. Tapping into his license as both a visual artist and writer, he takes certain liberties with the story that invite new interpretations and meanings.

Using Downey Jr. to play at least four separate, unrelated people, and placing all of them in the same scene in at least one upcoming episode, originated with Park. That jibes with what he’s implying in “The Sympathizer” about the danger of ideologically driven authority figures of regardless one’s politics.

Downey Jr. represents the generic nature of Western privilege, with each of his characters assuming the Captain, a half-white, half-Vietnamese double agent, owes him a debt of gratitude and loyalty. But the Captain’s North Vietnamese contact and other childhood best friend Man (Duy Nguyễn), is no more invested in his well-being than the Downey Jr. face who pops up most frequently in the Captain’s life, his CIA handler Claude.

The SympathizerHoa Xuande, Fred Nguyen and Duy Nguyen in "The Sympathizer" (HBO)The layers of thought and practicality that Park assigns to “The Sympathizer” led me to wonder whether parts of Nguyen’s story provided a means of commenting on the audience’s tendency to revere certain filmmakers and excuse their excesses.

We need your help to stay independent

This emerges in the fourth episode with the introduction of Downey Jr’s Auteur, an aggressively self-involved filmmaker. But I also pointed out that aspects of the interactions between the Captain and his interrogator or Man are similar to that of a critic and the work he’s considering.

At times each of them reviews the Captain's actions for plausibility and rates the legitimacy of his loyalty to his country and his Vietnamese identity. I wondered, is this approach an outgrowth of Park's time as a film reviewer?

“Maybe you can say that. I didn't go about it consciously . . . But truth be told, yes, there's some part of me that is very interested in that idea, and perhaps it has to do with my background as a critic too,” he said. “But what is important for me whenever I go about making any kind of work is preserving the right amount of distance with the subject matter.”

Park’s objective, he said, is to have the viewer be engaged in the story and alight with the protagonist and his emotional state. “And sometimes I would push away our audience as if it's too cruel at some points,” he admitted. “So, it is important, perhaps, that the viewer is very conscious that this story is fabricated, and this situation that the characters are going through needs to be observed very objectively and intellectually.”

“Perhaps those are the moments where having this background as a critic comes helpful,” he offered.


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


Nevertheless, launching lofty philosophical premises into the clouds is not Park’s aim with this series. “The Sympathizer” may whirl through time and continents, but as with the director's other work, it is a solidly organized work of art. 

“What I want our audience to take away is all various political ideologies, or systems or revolutions, or ideals, originated with the purpose of bringing individual happiness,” he said. “But what ended up happening was it went the other way, and those attempts have actually suppressed the individuals. That has happened throughout history.”

If his script and direction leave the audience pondering anything about the series, he urged, “Think about that.”

New episodes of "The Sympathizer" air 9 p.m. Sundays on HBO and stream on Max.

Bodegas, crime and Chick-fil-A: The bad taste of Trump’s culinary campaign trail stops

When former president Donald Trump stopped in to visit Sanaa Convenient Store, a tiny Harlem bodega, last week, he told the crowd that gathered to “have a good time.” As some cheered and broke into chants of “U.S.A, U.S.A, U.S.A,” he described how he was “way ahead in the polls against Biden” and promised that, as election day nears, he will be doing similar rallies “all over the place.” 

With that bodega stop, Trump followed in a long line of politicians who have attempted to use food as a way to bond with constituents by trying local delicacies or visiting neighborhood institutions while on the campaign trail. It’s a relatability ploy that is both genius in its simplicity — food really is a natural connector of people — and dangerous in the way it tends to expose frauds, like when Gerald Ford choked on a tamale husk while campaigning in San Antonio for reelection against Jimmy Carter, a Texas-sized faux pas several political experts believe may have ultimately cost him the 1976 presidency

However, this wasn’t part of some multi-borough bodega tour upon which Trump was embarking in order to reassert his New Yorkerness in a city that often hates its association with him (a move that would be reminiscent of Andrew Yang’s “authenticity blitz,” which saw him visiting a bodega and posting about it on Twitter as part of his failed New York City mayoral run). Rather, he specifically chose Sanaa Convenient Store because, as reported by the Associated Press, it had been the site of a violent attack on an employee, a case that resulted in public criticism for the district attorney now prosecuting him.

On top of that, the presumptive GOP nominee had come straight from court in Manhattan where he is facing four criminal indictments and a civil lawsuit to hold this event. 

This isn’t Trump’s first food stop along the campaign trail, nor is he the only candidate making these familiar plays (just last week, the Biden campaign sent a very serious email about sandwiches), but it really crystallizes the absurd dichotomy between the omnipresent reminders that Trump is the first ex-president to stand on criminal trial and the “business as usual” approach that’s been adopted by him and other politicians on both sides of the aisle. And while the age-old strategy of breaking bread with potential voters during an election year has always been just that — a strategy — perhaps that’s why it now feels more hollow than ever. 

According to the Associated Press, Trump used his stop at Sanaa Convenient Store as an opportunity to compare his prosecution to crime in the city. “They want law and order?” Trump said of businesses in New York. “Every week they’re being robbed.” 

We need your help to stay independent

He continued: “You know where the crime is? It’s in the bodegas.” 

In July 2022, Jose Alba, a clerk at the bodega Trump visited, was attacked by 35-year-old Austin Simon. Alba, in turn, fatally stabbed Simon and was arrested and charged with murder. The altercation was captured on surveillance footage and the Manhattan district attorney’s office dropped the charges within weeks, saying they could not prove Alba had not acted in self-defense — but not before Alba was jailed for several weeks at Rikers Island. 

It was a controversial case, especially because Alba is an immigrant from the Dominican Republic, and was overseen by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who oversees the office now prosecuting Trump. In a statement released Tuesday, Bragg’s office wrote that Simon’s death and Alba’s case were “resolved nearly two years ago, and the charges were dismissed after a thorough investigation.”

“D.A. Bragg’s top priority remains combating violent crime and the office has worked hand in hand with the NYPD to drive down overall crime in Manhattan,” the statement continued. 

"You know where the crime is? It’s in the bodegas."

Regardless, journalists who attended the event at the bodega were given materials criticizing Bragg. That’s the thing about these campaign visits of Trump’s — there’s always a more insidious throughline pulsing beneath the surface. For instance, earlier this month, the former president planned a photo-opp at an Atlanta Chick-fil-A where he bought the largely Black audience chicken sandwiches and milkshakes. 

One particular video from the event, which featured a Black woman embracing Trump, was widely shared by his supporters who speculated mainstream media had downplayed the amount of support Trump has from the Black community. By all accounts, it appeared that woman, Michaelah Montgomery, was a random customer until it was later revealed that she was a conservative activist who had previously worked for Blexit, a movement founded by Candace Owens to recruit Black voters into voting for Trump and joining the Republican Party.

Again, Trump isn’t the only candidate attempting to appear accessible to their constituents through food. On April 19, the Biden campaign sent out an email with the subject line: “From Sheetz to Wawa: President Biden Rallies with Voters Across Pennsylvania in Three-Day Blitz.” 

“This week, President Biden took his economic vision to the voters in a three-day swing across Pennsylvania,” the email read. “From his hometown of Scranton which forged his worldview to the city of brotherly love, the President was welcomed with open arms by Sheetz and Wawa loyalists alike.” 

When Biden stopped at a Pittsburgh-area Sheetz on Wednesday, he bought sandwiches for construction workers. The next day, when stopped at Wawa, his order included “an Italian hoagie (with American cheese and pickles) and a black-and-white milkshake,” the email dutifully noted. 

As the email pointed out, Trump’s campaign opportunities are going to be limited over the next several weeks as he’s “dealing with a personal matter and catching some z’s,” so it’s unclear where his next food-focused stop will be. Perhaps somewhere with an early-bird special on a Wednesday evening, the one weekday when court is not supposed to be in session.



 

Trump is too “frugal” to have paid so much money for a hush payment, his lawyer says

In his opening statements, Donald Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche took a stab at painting the criminal defendant as an innocent and “frugal” family man, telling jurors Monday that his client is “larger than life" and indeed should be referred to as “President Trump out of respect.”

Blanche started his argument by stating that the DA’s office should never have brought the case in the first place and telling the jury that they would ultimately find Trump not guilty, NBC News reported.

Blanche, speaking after prosecutors presented their opening argument, claimed that Trump is “a man just like me,” one “doing what any of us would do: Defending himself.” 

That argument comes as Trump argues that he is anything but a normal person, with his legal team asserting before the U.S. Supreme Court that he entitled to absolute immunity, for life, as a former president of the United States.

In his opening statement, Blanche argued that Trump was also too cheap to have done what prosecutors allege that he did: Pay off an adult film star, Stormy Daniels, but also reimburse his former attorney, Michael Cohen, for his time and effort making the payment on his behalf .

“Would a frugal businessman… would a man who pinches pennies” spend $420,000 total to cover a hush payment of $130,000, Blanche asked (prosecutors note that Cohen also sought reimbursement for the taxes he would have to pay as a result of misclassifying the hush payment as legal expenses).

Blanche insisted that Trump had "nothing to do" with the effort to silence his accusers head of the 2016 election. He also asserted that there is "nothing wrong with trying to influence an election," describing such an effort as "democracy." Prosecutors maintain that the hush payments violated campaign finance law, charging Trump with 34 felony counts related to the alleged scheme.

“Criminal conspiracy”: Jury to hear phone call between Trump and Cohen discussing hush payment

Manhattan prosecutors say that they will present a recorded phone call between Michael Cohen and Donald Trump to support their claim that the the former president engaged in a “criminal conspiracy” to silence his accusers ahead of the 2016 election.

During his opening statement Monday, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo told the jury that Playboy model Karen McDougal was paid $150,000 for the right to her own story of an alleged affair with Trump, CNN reported. Colangelo argued that Trump not only knew about the McDougal payoff, but he also “desperately” wanted to keep it from public knowledge because “he was concerned about the election.”

The phone call between Cohen and Trump took place in 2016. At the time, David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer and longtime friend of Trump, was getting "antsy and frustrated," Colangelo said, concerned that Trump wouldn't pay him back for a payment he had made to McDougal. Prosecutors allege that Pecker had entered into a conspiracy with Trump and Cohen to buy the rights to potentially damaging stories, part of a scheme to illicitly influence the election, Reuters reported.

To show Pecker that he and Trump and were acting in good faith, prosecutors say Cohen recorded him discussing the McDougal payment with the Republican candidate.

This phone call shows that Cohen and Pecker were both used as middlemen "to hide the true nature of the transaction,” Colangelo said. The same arrangement was used to pay off adult film star Stormy Daniels.

“This case is about criminal conspiracy," Colangelo said.

 

Earth Day 2024: 4 effective strategies to reduce household food waste

The global food system produces enough food for everyone, yet, in 2023, 333 million people worldwide were food insecure and 783 million were chronically hungry.  An estimated 1.3 billion tons of food14 per cent of all produced — is lost or wasted globally every year.

1.3 billion tons of food is enough to feed over three billion people.

Food waste contributes to nearly eight to 10 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions. That level of emissions is on the scale of what a large country would produce — just under total emission estimates of the United States and China — posing serious contributions to climate change.

The greatest contributors to food waste are high-income countries, where the average consumer wastes between 95-115 kilograms of food per year. In Canada, approximately 60 per cent of food produced is lost or wasted per year, costing an estimated $49.5 billion. This figure constitutes about half the annual food purchase costs in Canada and three per cent of Canada's 2016 GDP.

We are researchers who have worked or are currently working on solutions to this issue of food waste.

 

Why food loss and waste occurs

Food waste and loss occurs at every stage of the food chain.

Pre-distribution food loss can occur, for example, due to poor harvests. Meanwhile, the post-harvest handling and storage can also cause waste as food is discarded for imperfections or damaged in transit.

While some food loss and waste — such as with eggshells, tea bags or bones — is unavoidable, a lot of it can be avoided, especially in retail and household settings.

The retail context is where approximately 14 per cent of avoidable food waste occurs as foods are often overstocked by grocery stores prioritizing constant availability at the expense of wasted product.

In households, food is primarily wasted due to spoilage, with the greatest volume lost being perishables, especially fruits and vegetables. This last area accounts for nearly half of all food waste in Canada.

 

Consequences of food loss and waste

In Canada, each household is estimated to throw away nearly three kilograms of food that could have been eaten each week. To put that number in context, that is about 15 apples or large carrots sent to the landfill unnecessarily each week.

Food costs account on average for over 11 per cent of household income, with lower-income families having to shell out an even greater percentage of their income on food.

The average household is throwing away almost $900 each year and with nearly seven million Canadian households struggling to get enough food on the table — and two in five reporting cost as a barrier to healthy eating — that waste adds up.

Beyond money alone, food waste may also impact the health of our diets. Often, it's the nutrient-rich fruits, vegetables and perishables ending up in the trash, rather than shelf-stable ultra-processed foods which have known health consequences.

With food loss and waste occurring at every stage of the food chain, the solutions are needed at every stage as well. While food loss earlier in the chain may be harder to avoid, retailers and households hold the power to address food waste every day.

Current solutions targeting food waste include upcycling food waste, creating city compost programs to reroute waste away from landfills, and promoting consumer awareness via education to prevent food from becoming waste in the first place.

 

Interventions for food waste in practice

Eager to address this global issue, our research group developed and piloted a four-week intervention in 2020 to reduce household food waste among Canadian families.

Mothers, fathers, and children were invited to participate in four week intervention with the following components:

1) A cooking class

2) Four text messages per week including information about food waste and reminders to reduce waste

3) A toolkit, which included things like a veggie brush (to reduce vegetable peel waste), a cookbook focused on reducing food waste, meal and shopping planner, reusable containers to store leftovers and a fridge magnet poster showing where foods are best stored.

The families reported high satisfaction with the overall intervention and special appreciation for the cookbook and veggie brush as tools in food waste prevention.

Parents also reported increases in confidence to reduce household food waste. The children involved in the study also reported improved ability to interpret best before dates — or food that is not as fresh as it was, but still perfectly edible.

At the household level, we found a 37 per cent decrease in avoidable fruit and vegetable waste measured using four-week food waste audits where waste was collected and weighed out separately.

These results are promising in that they demonstrate that even in the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (summer 2020), families could still reduce food waste using simple tools and prompts without decreasing fruit and vegetable intake. Another promising result is that we were able to engage both parents and children, resulting in individual and household-level changes.

 

Tips for healthier eating and reduced food waste

Incorporating healthy food into our diets should not be too much of a chore, but busy schedules and rising grocery prices can get in the way.

Finding simple ways to reduce household food waste is crucial.

That said, responsibility for food loss and waste should not only fall on individual consumers. While individuals can make a difference, larger policy changes — in how food is grown, processed and distributed — are also needed.

If you are interested in eating healthier and helping improve our planet's health, here are some steps you can take:

1) Plan your meals before shopping

2) Learn to love leftovers

3) Properly store food for minimum spoilage

4) Advocate for change!

 

Amar Laila, Post-doctoral Fellow, EAT-Lancet 2.0 Commission, Stockholm Resilience Centre, University of Guelph; Cristina Gago, Assistant Professor of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston University, and Jess Haines, Associate Professor of Applied Nutrition, Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph

 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

There’s a solution to Democrats’ RFK Jr. problem: Ranked-choice voting

Summer in Hyannisport just got awkward. In a prominent and very public disavowal of one of their own, more than a dozen members of the Kennedy family endorsed Joe Biden this week, casting the independent candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a threat that could return Donald Trump to the White House.

It’s a threat that national Democrats are taking seriously. Democrats have accused Kennedy and a Super PAC supporting his campaign of violating election law in their efforts to get him on state ballots. A new report in Puck suggests that Democratic opposition researchers have targeted his wealthy running mate, Nicole Shanahan, eager to make her as uncomfortable in liberal California tech circles as RFK Jr. is likely to be at the family Cape Cod compound.

There’s an easier way. The spoiler problem could be fixed once and for all with ranked-choice voting. Those who would spend millions on litigation and opposition research — all in the name of the losing case that voter choice represents a unique threat to our elections — should get behind RCV instead. 

This is not just a 2024 problem. We’ve been debating the role of third-party candidates as spoilers since the days of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. 

And this year, it’s not even just an RFK Jr. problem. Democrats’ efforts against his campaign echo the battle against No Labels — which prominent progressives described as “perilous to our democracy” and a “reckless thought experiment (placed) ahead of the rights and freedoms of millions of Americans” — while the D.C. group searched for a moderate Republican to lead an independent ticket this fall.

That campaign succeeded. Chris Christie and others turned No Labels down, unwilling to risk being the spoiler who returned Trump to the White House. Kennedy, however, seems immune to that argument and more difficult for Democrats to dislodge. Cornel West, Green Party candidate Jill Stein and a Libertarian nominee will also be likely options on many state ballots this fall.

Which brings us to the solution: With RCV, there’s no longer any need to demonize third-party candidates — or the supremely American value of greater choice in our politics — as an existential threat to democracy itself. 

RCV works just like an instant runoff. By awarding voters the power to rank the field in order, it fixes the spoiler effect that emerges in any race with more than two candidates. Two states, Maine and Alaska, have already adopted this common-sense, nonpartisan fix for fairer, majority results. 

If someone wins a majority of first-place support during the first round, they win, as in any other election. If not, the last-place finishers are eliminated, one by one, and their supporters' second choices come into play to identify a majority winner. In other words, voters this fall could choose to rank RFK Jr. first (or another third-party candidate), and if that candidate fares poorly, the voter’s ballot would be counted for a backup choice instead.  

With ranked-choice voting, there’s no longer any need to demonize third-party candidates — or greater choice in elections — as an existential threat to democracy itself. 

Democrats are right about one thing: Third-party candidates could well determine who wins the presidency this fall. In the seven swing states where the presidency was decided in 2016 and 2020, the most recent Bloomberg survey finds Trump ahead of Biden, 43 to 38 percent, with Kennedy at 9 percent, nearly twice the gap between them.

But voters have been expressing their frustration with a 2020 rematch for some time. There are record levels of dissatisfaction with both Trump and Biden as well as with democracy itself; Democrats can hardly feign surprise that Kennedy and others have gained traction. The trouble is, voters are disempowered by our choose-one elections. In any race this close, voters need to make a “spoiler calculus”  based on unreliable polls. Do they want to truly exercise their voice and risk having the candidate they like least win, or pick the "lesser of two evils?”


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


This is far from the only challenge facing our democracy. But it’s been an issue for so long, and the solution is so clear, that it’s one we can and should fix now. Instead, we seem poised to once again watch a major party pursue anti-voter efforts to sue, shame or legislate third-party candidates off the ballot (or, on the other hand, cynically boost such candidates to peel away votes from an opponent). 

RCV would be a win for all sides: Voters could vote both their hearts and minds. Major parties could stop worrying about spoilers. Third parties might well see their totals rise significantly. We’d all feel more secure knowing it’s harder to hack the Electoral College and win with a plurality rather than a majority.

We can have this same debate — and live with the real electoral dangers — every four years. Democrats can roll out the endorsements of Kennedy cousins and hope they will resonate beyond Cape Cod. Or we can fix it with a real solution that ensures our system can handle the greater range of choices that voters continue to demand. 

“A harbinger of what’s to come”: New poll shows RFK Jr.’s campaign could sink Trump

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s independent campaign for president appears to hurt Donald Trump more than it does President Joe Biden, according to the latest NBC News polling. 

In a head-to-head contest, Trump leads Biden by 2 percent. But when third-party candidates are included, Biden has the advantage, leading the pack with 39 percent of the vote compared to 37 percent for Trump and 13 percent for Kennedy. Other candidates, Jill Stein and Cornel west, take 3 percent and 2 percent of the vote, respectively.

According to the polling data, 15 percent of respondents who had picked Trump in the head-to-head match-up instead pick Kennedy in a five-way race. By comparison, Biden loses just 7 percent of his support when Kennedy and others are included in the race.

Republican voters generally approve of Kennedy, with 40 percent expressing a positive opinion compared to just 15 percent who have a negative opinion of the candidate. A majority of Democratic voters, by contrast, express a negative view of Kennedy, with just 16% viewing him positively.

“At this stage, [Kennedy’s] appeal looks to be more with Trump than Biden voters,” said Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt, who conducted the NBC News survey along with Republican pollster Bill McInturff.

The findings do contradict the results of other national polls that show a bigger third-party vote would hurt Biden more than Trump. The Biden campaign has responded to those surveys by making a concerted appeal to Kennedy voters, including a recent campaign stop in Philadelphia at which the president touted support from other members of the Kennedy family.

McInturuff said it's possible the NBC News is an outlier. But it's also possible, he continued, that "our survey is a harbinger of what’s to come."

The big burnout: Life on the front lines of America’s wildfires

With record-setting blazes becoming more and more common, the demands placed on wildland firefighters are greater than ever. Already this year, the Smokehouse Creek Fire, which broke out in the Texas Panhandle in February, has become the second-largest wildfire in U.S. history, burning nearly 1.1 million acres. Last year, a relatively quiet fire season, saw the Lahaina fire on Maui, Hawaii’s largest-ever wildfire and one of the deadliest on record, with at least 100 fatalities. The previous year, New Mexico experienced its biggest and second-biggest fires simultaneously — the Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon Fire in the northern half of the state and the Black Fire down south.

But at this crucial hour, America’s last line of defense against fires is fraying. A recent ProPublica investigation found that the Forest Service is losing wildland firefighters, suffering an attrition rate of 45% among its permanent employees in the past three years. The investigation spotlighted the challenges that wildland firefighters face: weeklong stretches away from family, a bureaucracy indifferent to physical and mental health concerns and a byzantine pay structure that incentivizes risk.

When asked about the attrition, a Forest Service spokesperson wrote, “It is accurate to say that the U.S. Forest Service has lost firefighters to better paying jobs,” adding that the dynamic “is more pronounced in specific regions and states.”

For the fire-prone West, the stakes could not be higher. In 2022, the Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon Fire began when a federal prescribed burn escaped and merged with the smoldering remnants of another controlled burn to become New Mexico’s biggest-ever wildfire. ProPublica and its Local Reporting Network partner Source New Mexico spent more than a year reporting “The Long Burn” series, which chronicled the slow recovery from the fire. The reporting revealed that the Federal Emergency Management Agency had only paid out 1% of the $4 billion fund to compensate victims seven months after Congress approved it and that the agency had provided little temporary housing for survivors. The reporting also spotlighted ongoing lawsuits victims filed against FEMA to gain compensation for noneconomic damages and survivors’ hard-earned lessons learned from navigating disaster aid.

"We’re past the point of needing research. It’s absolutely clear that wildland firefighting is a cancer-causing occupation."

The U.S. Forest Service has said the wildfire prompted the agency to examine how to do its work more safely. FEMA officials have said they moved as quickly as possible to set up a claims office to pay for damages, a mission quite different from what it normally does, which is to provide short-term disaster aid. As of April 8, FEMA had paid out about 12% of the $4 billion fund.

At a recent virtual event in partnership with Source New Mexico and Outside Magazine, ProPublica convened a roundtable featuring the reporters and their sources to discuss these investigations. The first half of the hourlong discussion outlined the factors contributing to the exodus of firefighters from the Forest Service and what could be done to stem it. The second part examined the devastating aftermath of the Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon Fire, the grinding machinery of recovery under FEMA and the state of rebuilding efforts. Speakers included:

  • Kit Rachils, senior editor at ProPublica
  • Ben Elkind, wildland firefighter with the U.S. Forest Service
  • George Broyles, former wildland firefighter and public information officer, who spearheaded the Forest Service’s research into the physiological impacts of wildfire smoke from 2008 to 2014
  • Pat Lohmann, reporter for Source New Mexico
  • Yolanda Cruz, New Mexico resident affected by the Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon fire
  • Antonia Roybal-Mack, founder and managing partner of Roybal-Mack & Cordova PC and an attorney representing many New Mexico families affected by the fires

This interview, based on that event, has been edited for clarity and concision.

More Fires, Fewer Firefighters

Kit Rachlis: Ben, can you describe the challenges you face as you enter your 17th season fighting fires?

Ben Elkind: This year I took a job that’s three hours away from where I’ve been working for the last 10 years. The first thing I think about is, I’ve got a family in Redmond, Oregon, and we’re lucky we don’t own a house there, because now I’ve got to move. Just a few years ago, the Forest Service had a program where they would have bought your house and helped you with moving costs. Child care is difficult. One of the reasons we’re moving is so my mom can help out with child care.

Rachlis: What are the health risks of fighting wildfires? And what accounts for the Forest Service’s extraordinarily slow response to those concerns?

George Broyles: Their slowness to research dates back to 1989, when the National Wildfire Coordinating Group recommended that research needed to be done. Those experts understood there is a concern for cancer and respiratory disease for men and women like Ben who spent their career in smoke. I’m a proponent of research, but to a large degree, we’re past the point of needing research. It’s absolutely clear that wildland firefighting is a cancer-causing occupation.

Rachlis: What changes would you like to see in the Forest Service?

Broyles: I think they really need to be transparent with their employees. Exposure to noise is another topic I spent years researching, and it’s extremely hazardous. It causes hearing loss. It causes mental decomposition. It literally makes it harder to comprehend speech and think clearly, which is critical when you’re in that environment. The law is very clear on what employers have to do when folks are exposed to noise.

The agency had a small publication put out a few years ago, talking to people who wanted to become firefighters about what the risks are, but the word “cancer” was not in that. The term “noise-induced hearing loss” was not in there. These are really critical health issues that our firefighters face on a daily basis, and the agency continues to bury its head in the sand. I’ve had cancer, and I’ve got hearing loss. The young men and women coming in absolutely need to know what they’re facing. The agency has to say, “This is what we’re going to do to protect you, because when you retire, we want you to be healthier.”

Elkind: The way that we pay people with hazard pay is probably one of my top issues. The way the system works is: You’re actively incentivized to take on more risk to increase your pay for the day. You may have a lifelong illness — cancer, hearing issues — all these things you don’t get hazard pay for, even though it was from the work you did. When you retire, your hazard pay doesn’t count for your retirement pension. Also, your hazard pay doesn’t count for your worker’s compensation. It’s this pretty significant part of our income we rely on. People are getting 2,000 hours of hazard pay a year, and it’s 25% of your base pay. I think the incentives that we put in front of firefighters really need to be looked at in a holistic way, because I don’t think we’ve looked at how we’re paying people in a long, long time.

When a Controlled Burn Becomes a Wildfire

Rachlis: Through its Local Reporting Network, ProPublica worked with Source New Mexico to examine the grinding machinery of recovery under FEMA. Pat, could you provide some context about the Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon Fire and summarize the aftermath?

Pat Lohmann: New Mexico was the national epicenter for wildfire throughout the summer of 2022, where we had not only the biggest wildfire in our history, but the second biggest in southern New Mexico, called the Black Fire. What makes the Hermits Peak and the Calf Canyon fire different from the other 20 that were burning simultaneously in New Mexico is that both of them were the result of botched prescribed burns, ignited by the Forest Service on federal land. Ultimately those two fires merged and became what we know as the Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon Fire, which, over the course of several months, burned more than 530 square miles of land in a section of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, taking with it several hundred homes and acres of trees on federal and private land.

In late 2022, Congress approved nearly $4 billion to fully compensate victims of this fire. Beginning in January of last year, the question became: When the government makes a mistake this massive, what is it going to do to fully compensate the victims of that mistake? That was the question that undergirds most of our reporting, from examining the Stafford Act programs, which are the way FEMA handles every disaster that occurs, to the establishment of the claims office and this $4 billion fund.

Rachlis: Yolanda, can you tell us about the losses you and your family have endured in the fire and the status of your claims?

Yolanda Cruz: My family and I have 10 acres of property between Sapello and Rociada, and the fire crossed over the entire 10 acres. We were very fortunate that it did not take our home. The high-severity burn came right up to where we had raked and watered. We did lose about half of the trees on the property as well as a lot of personal items — vehicles and other items in our yard. My parents live in Las Vegas, New Mexico, and they had to leave because of medical reasons. So their losses were more along the lines of smoke damage and evacuation.

I have a few proofs of loss with FEMA right now. I have received a settlement offer on the smaller claim, and I have not heard anything on the other ones. The larger one was lost by FEMA, and I found that out about a week ago. Then on my parents’ claims, I was able to help them get the one settled for their evacuation, but it did take about nine months.

Rachlis: Antonia, as the attorney for many of those families, can you describe how FEMA has handled this, or not handled this, and what you’re trying to do to rectify the situation?

Antonia Roybal-Mack: FEMA is not set up to handle large volumes of claims. FEMA does not have the legal resources, the experts or the personnel to do this. There are companies around the country that could come in and set up a large claims process like this, and FEMA has refused to do that. What we’re trying to do is get transparency for the families, get speed and make sure that families receive 100% of what they lost, because this was the fault of the federal government. I represent hundreds of families, and we just want FEMA to do their job and get people paid and get people back in homes with as little litigation as necessary.

Rachlis: Yolanda, it’s been nearly two years since the fire. What do you and your neighbors need the most right now?

Cruz: We need this to be done, so we can move forward with our lives. There are still many people who have not been able to rebuild. As I’ve said, we were very fortunate that our home was still there. But we did have substantial damage to our well, to our septic system, to our road. There’s been so much anger and mistrust, but also a lack of resources. There are people who’ve had to relocate, who’ve been displaced, and the longer this takes to get settled, the longer it takes for people to heal and move forward.

Rachlis: What lessons are to be taken away from these experiences?

Roybal-Mack: I think what we learned is that rural America is not prepared for disaster. What we also learned is that on a national level, FEMA, the agency that we think is going to show up and help when there’s a disaster, is not well prepared to do so. I think as a country, we really need to look at the role of FEMA and put resources in our Department of Homeland Security. I think governments need good emergency management plans that are updated annually, and people need to just really be prepared for disaster for themselves and for their families, because FEMA is not up to the task.

Cruz: When President Biden visited the area and said everyone would be compensated and we heard that as well from our elected officials, the private philanthropy dollars began to slow down, because everyone thought the government had this. When that didn’t happen, the local community continued to care for the people who are impacted. Now things finally seem to be moving slowly with FEMA, but it’s not enough. There is so much bureaucracy and red tape. It shouldn’t take so long. You go through a “navigator” who goes through their supervisors, who go through three or four levels up and then come three or four levels down. In that process, paperwork gets lost, people are asked to do things over and over again. And a lot of people are just giving up with the whole process. The government just needs to figure out a better way to get resources on the ground.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

“It would be a disaster”: Judge’s ruling could “short-circuit” Trump’s plan to testify at trial

The judge overseeing Donald Trump's criminal hush-money trial on Monday ruled that prosecutors can confront the former president with his past misconduct if he chooses to testify.

Merchan ruled that prosecutors can ask Trump about six determinations in four previous court cases, according to NBC News, while noting that he "greatly curtailed" the list of topics the district attorney's office sought to ask about. 

Prosecutors can ask about Trump's civil fraud ruling and his repeated violations of a gag order in the case as well as the defamation and rape trials brought by writer E. Jean Carroll and another lawsuit in which the Trump Foundation was found to be engaged in repeated self-dealing.

Trump shook his head several times as Merchan read the ruling, according to The New York Times

The order "significantly increased the potential blowback" Trump could face if he takes the stand, noted The Times' Alan Feuer.

"Although Trump has said he wants to testify in his own defense, this ruling could short-circuit that, essentially defeating the purpose of him taking the stand," added the Times' Benjamin Protess.

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig warned before Monday's ruling that Trump testifying "would be a disaster."

"Anyone who takes the stand is taking an enormous risk," he said. "I know on TV everyone takes the stand because it's dramatic, [but] it's quite rare in the real world. Here, if you're Donald Trump – I mean, look, it would just be a disaster if you get caught in a contradiction as a defendant taking the stand, it's over. If you get caught in a lie, if the jury doesn't like you, it's over. I would beg, plead, urge him – I don't think he is going to take the stand. I think he's positioning right now. I just it's so tactically self-defeating, I can't see it happening."

We need your help to stay independent

Fellow CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen agreed, noting that Trump "cannot open his mouth without risking a lie."

"So I think it's extremely perilous that Donald trump makes his own case worse, compromises himself in front of the jury," he said. "That's in the liability phase. That's in terms of guilty or not. But then there's a sentencing that will come after that if he is held guilty. And the one thing judges hate more than anything else is when a defendant gets on the stand and lies to them and their juries."

Testifying "considerably worsens his peril at sentencing, which I already think is significant," he added.