Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Supreme Court orders feds to facilitate return of man sent to El Salvador prison

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia may finally be reunited with his family a month after he was deported over an "administrative error.”

In a unanimous ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return of the Maryland man who was erroneously deported to a prison in El Salvador.

All nine jurors upheld a district court ruling demanding his return, acknowledging his deportation to the Center for Terrorism Confinement, or CECOT, was unlawful.

“The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal …was therefore illegal,” the order read, adding that the ruling “requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.”

The court also instructed the Trump administration to “ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”

In a partial concurrence, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made it clear that she would have shot down the government’s request to appeal the lower court ruling entirely, making the Thursday ruling unnecessary. 

“To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it,” Sotomayor wrote. “The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law.”

The justices’ stances on the matter could come into play in other cases surrounding deportations to CECOT, the infamous prison holding nearly 300 Venezuelan deportees from the United States. D.C. District Judge James Boasberg had been hearing challenges to Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to facilitate such removals before the high court punted the case to the notoriously conservative Southern District of Texas instead.

“Terminate their fiscal lives”: Trump admin cancels some immigrants’ Social Security numbers

President Donald Trump continues to find new fronts in his attacks on non-citizens.

The Trump Administration moved this week to cancel Social Security numbers held legally by some non-citizens to encourage “self-deportation.”

The New York Times reports that DOGE engineer Aram Moghaddassi sent Acting Social Security Administration commissioner Leland Dudek a list of 6,300 individuals suspected by Homeland Security officials of crimes on Tuesday, and the agency promptly placed them on the “death master file,” a document logging deceased Social Security beneficiaries. 

Dudek wrote in an email obtained by the Times that the plan would “terminate” the “financial lives” of those targeted. 

Confirming the reporting, White House spokesperson Elizabeth Huston told the Times the rollback would “[remove] the monetary incentive for illegal aliens to come and stay” and “encourage them to self-deport” in a statement.

The action marks an escalation in the administration’s positions against many in the United States lawfully, including immigrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti who legally obtained their Social Security numbers and work authorization from the Biden Administration.

Lawful permanent residents came under attack last month when Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Department of Homeland Security claimed the authority to cancel a student demonstrator’s green card without due process. DHS officials detained Mahmoud Khalil on Rubio’s assessment that his presence undermined a “foreign policy objective.”

“We’re about to learn a few things”: Trump faces insider trading allegations after tariff tip-off

President Donald Trump is facing allegations of market manipulation over the pause in his market-roiling tariff scheme

Days of steep stock market decline triggered by the large tariffs eased on Wednesday after the White House announced a 90-day pause on the duties. It's likely that some traders were betting on a rebound, thanks to the president’s earlier suggestion on Truth Social that it was “A GREAT TIME TO BUY.”

In a Thursday letter, Senators Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., demanded “an urgent inquiry into whether President Trump, his family, or other members of the administration engaged in insider trading or other illegal financial transactions” based on non-public knowledge of the pause.

New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took a similar stance, urging transparency for traders in Congress who may have made a handsome sum on advance knowledge.

“Any member of Congress who purchased stocks in the last 48 hours should probably disclose that now,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a late Wednesday post to X. “Disclosure deadline is May 15th. We’re about to learn a few things. It’s time to ban insider trading in Congress.”

Trump brushed off those allegations in a Cabinet meeting on Thursday, refusing to answer a reporter's question as the press was ushered out.

Trump claimed he made the decision because financial big-wigs and other Americans “were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid,” though White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed the pause was part of a more deliberate strategy. 

“Thought crimes”: Rubio lays out government’s justification for deportations based on “beliefs”

The Trump administration is claiming the right to deport individuals based on their beliefs or speech alone, as pressure mounts to release activist Mahmoud Khalil.

In a memo obtained by The Associated Press, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the government can expel legal residents from the country based on “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful.” The memo came in response to a federal judge's order to show evidence in its case against Khalil.

Khalil was grabbed by federal agents inside his Columbia University housing last month and transported to a detention center in Louisiana.

Rubio pulled the alleged authority to rendition activists from a 1952 act that specifies the Secretary of State can flag an individual for deportation if their presence could have “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” The rarely-invoked clause is vague, though legal experts say the federal government cannot unilaterally revoke a person's green card status.

Rubio claimed in the memo that Khalil’s involvement in pro-Palestinian protests on Columbia’s campus constitutes a belief worthy of deportation based on the “U.S. policy to combat antisemitism around the world.”

“Condoning antisemitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would severely undermine that significant foreign policy objective,” he wrote.

The claim is in line with Rubio’s previous suggestion that college students who “create a ruckus” were deportable. Rubio made that case while defending his decision to cancel Tufts University doctoral candidate Rumeysa Ozturk's visa for an op-ed she wrote criticizing her university’s response to campus protests.

“Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa,” Rubio told reporters last month. "Go back and do it in your country."

Legal experts say the authority claimed by Rubio, left unchallenged, would constitute a major erosion of civil liberties in the United States.

“Welcome to the era of thought crimes,” prominent national security attorney Bradley Moss wrote on Bluesky.

Khalil is one of at least 600 international students across 100 colleges in the United States who Rubio has purportedly stripped of their visas, per an Inside Higher Education report. Thousands more could face a similar fate after DHS announced a plan to surveil the social media posts of non-citizens for pro-Palestinian or antisemitic ideology on Wednesday.

Trump’s EPA plans to stop collecting greenhouse gas emissions data from most polluters

The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to eliminate long-standing requirements for polluters to collect and report their emissions of the heat-trapping gases that cause climate change. The move, ordered by a Trump appointee, would affect thousands of industrial facilities across the country, including oil refineries, power plants and coal mines as well as those that make petrochemicals, cement, glass, iron and steel, according to documents reviewed by ProPublica.

The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Programdocuments the amount of carbon dioxide, methane and other climate-warming gases emitted by individual facilities. The data, which is publicly available, guides policy decisions and constitutes a significant portion of the information the government submits to the international body that tallies global greenhouse gas pollution. Losing the data will make it harder to know how much climate-warming gas an economic sector or factory is emitting and to track those emissions over time. This granularity allows for accountability, experts say; the government can’t curb the country’s emissions without knowing where they are coming from.

“This would reduce the detail and accuracy of U.S. reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, when most countries are trying to improve their reporting,” said Michael Gillenwater, executive director of the Greenhouse Gas Management Institute. “This would also make it harder for climate policy to happen down the road.”

The program has been collecting emissions data since at least 2010. Roughly 8,000 facilities a year now report their emissions to the program. EPA officials have asked program staff to draft a rule that will drastically reduce data collection. Under the new rule, its reporting requirements would only apply to about 2,300 facilities in certain sectors of the oil and gas industry.

Climate experts expressed shock and dismay about the apparent decision to stop collecting most information on our country’s greenhouse gas emissions. “It would be a bit like unplugging the equipment that monitors the vital signs of a patient that is critically ill,” said Edward Maibach, a professor at George Mason University. “How in the world can we possibly manage this incredible threat to America’s well-being and humanity’s well-being if we’re not actually monitoring what we’re doing to exacerbate the problem?”

The EPA did not address questions from ProPublica about the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Instead, the agency provided an emailed statement affirming the Trump administration’s commitment to “clean air, land, and water for EVERY American.”

The agency announced last month that it was “reconsidering” the greenhouse gas reporting program. In a little-noticed press release issued on March 12, when the EPA sent out 24 bulletins as it celebrated the “most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin described the reporting program as “burdensome.” Zeldin also claimed that the program “costs American businesses and manufacturing millions of dollars, hurting small businesses and the ability to achieve the American Dream.”

The loss of that data could have a devastating effect on the world’s ability to rein in the disastrous effects of the warming climate.

Project 2025, the far-right blueprint for Trump’s presidency, suggested severely scaling back the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program and also described it as imposing burdens on small businesses.

In contrast, climate experts say the EPA reporting program, which tallies between 85% and 90% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., is in many ways a boon to businesses. “A lot of companies rely on the data and use it in their annual sustainability reports,” said Edwin LaMair, an attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund. Companies also use the data to demonstrate environmental progress to shareholders and to meet international reporting requirements. “If the program stops, all that valuable data will stop being generated,” LaMair said.

The loss of that data could have a devastating effect on the world’s ability to rein in the disastrous effects of the warming climate, according to Andrew Light, who served as assistant secretary of energy for international affairs in the Biden administration. Light noted that addressing the dangerous and costly extreme weather events requires international collaboration — and that our failure to collect data could give other countries an excuse to abandon their own reporting.

“We will not get to the kinds of temperature stabilization needed to protect Americans against the worst climate impacts unless we get the cooperation of developing countries,” Light said. “If the United States won’t even measure and report our own emissions, how in the world can we expect China, India, Indonesia and other major growing developing countries to do the same?”

In its first months, the Trump administration has shown waning support for the reporting program. The EPA left the portal through which companies share data closed for several weeks and, in March, pushed back the emissions reporting deadline. Then last Friday, a meeting held with several program staff members raised further questions about the fate of future data collection, according to sources who were briefed on the meeting and asked not to be named for fear of retribution.

At the meeting, political appointee Abigale Tardif, who is principal deputy assistant administrator of the EPA’s office of air and radiation, instructed staff to draft a rule that would eliminate reporting requirements for 40 of the 41 sectors that are now required to submit data to the program. Tardif did not respond to inquiries from ProPublica about this story. Political appointee Aaron Szabo, who was present at the meeting and is awaiting confirmation as assistant administrator to the office, declined to answer questions, directing a reporter to EPA communications staff.

Before joining the EPA, Tardif and Szabo worked as lobbyists. Szabo represented the American Chemistry Council and Duke Energy among other companies and trade groups and Tardif worked for Marathon Petroleum and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Association.

Some climate advocates noted that industry stands to benefit from the elimination of greenhouse gas reporting requirements. “T​he bottom line is this is a giveaway to emitters, just letting them off the hook entirely,” said Rachel Cleetus, senior policy director with the Climate and Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Cleetus derided the choice to stop documenting emissions as ostrich-like. “Not tracking the data doesn’t make the climate crisis any less real,” she said. “This is just putting our heads in the sand.”

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

The latest book on the romance of Beatles lore reassesses Lennon and McCartney’s bond

When it comes to elevating our understanding of The Beatles, Ian Leslie’s new book "John & Paul: A Love Story in Songs" is a mixed bag. On the one hand, Leslie provides elegant readings of a host of Lennon and McCartney classics. But on the other, he romanticizes the legendary songwriting duo’s friendship out of proportion with the immutable facts of history. 

Don’t get me wrong: I share Leslie’s impulse to wax nostalgically about "the act you've known for all these years." There’s a symmetry, a kind of eternal beauty to their mythos that is irresistible. From Lennon and McCartney’s famous meeting at a July 1957 village fête to The Beatles’ recorded corpus itself—an incredible 12 studio albums committed to tape in just seven years—there is an inherent grace and power to their story. 

And then it was suddenly and ineffably over with the magisterial swan song of "Abbey Road" (1969). When the album proper came to a close with “The End,” the Fabs, it turns out, meant business. While their disbandment was the stuff of brute, emotional turmoil played out in highly public fashion for much of the first half of the 1970s, their legacy remains pure and unsullied by halfhearted attempts at reunion. 

In its finest moments, "John & Paul" deftly captures the sublimity and heartbreak of The Beatles’ story. Leslie traces Lennon and McCartney’s friendship from its wide-eyed, teenaged origins through its tragic denouement. It is absolutely true, as Leslie chronicles in painstaking fashion, that Lennon and McCartney shared a closeness during their formative years through The Beatles’ final months as a working rock ‘n’ roll band. This is not a matter that is under dispute among the vast majority of writers and thinkers about The Beatles. 

Even still, Leslie feels compelled to write, “there are several reasons why we get Lennon and McCartney so wrong, but one is that we have trouble thinking about intimate male friendships. We’re used to the idea of men being good friends, or fierce competitors, or sometimes both. We’re used to the idea, these days, of homosexual love. We’re thrown by a relationship that isn’t sexual but is romantic: a friendship that may have an erotic or physical component to it, but doesn’t involve sex.” 


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


I believe that Leslie’s contention is, at best, a straw-man argument. To my knowledge, no one is suggesting that we have a cultural dis-ease with the intense closeness of the Lennon-McCartney friendship. There is little doubt that they loved each other deeply, that they shared an extraordinary experience and, together, piloted popular music’s most influential and impactful musical fusion. 

But in endeavoring to couch their relationship in such platonic romantic terms, which seems to exist at the heart of his agenda, Leslie loses his grasp on the painful reality of the duo’s intimacy. Whatever closeness they shared had dissipated by at least 1977. Perhaps they were understandably exhausted by the trauma and infighting of The Beatles’ breakup. Or were they coming to the conclusion, as so many of us do in adulthood, that their friendship, while tender-hearted and creatively prolific, had simply entered a different and far less intimate phase?

There is little doubt that they loved each other deeply, that they shared an extraordinary experience and, together, piloted popular music’s most influential and impactful musical fusion.

As Allan Kozinn and Adrian Sinclair’s second volume of "The McCartney Legacy" makes clear, John and Paul had all but mothballed their friendship during their latter years. After Lennon’s December 1980 assassination, McCartney expressed relief that “the last phone conversation I ever had with him was really great, and we didn’t have any kind of blowup. It could have easily been one of the other phone calls when we blew up at each other and slammed the phone down.” It would be facile and easy to argue that this level of emotion is characteristic of their “intimate male friendship” and their shared passion run amok. But it is equally plausible that like so many friendships that have grown long in the tooth, they had become fed up with fighting the old battles, that they had developed new and more fulfilling relationships with their young families.

But the bitter truth is that we’ll never know, that all of this is the stuff of conjecture. Witness Beatles fans’ collective romanticizing about “Now and Then,” The Threetles’ posthumous 2023 UK chart-topper, as Lennon’s late 1970s ode to his friendship with McCartney. I get it. I really do. I, too, am drawn by this ineluctable desire to become sentimental about John and Paul. After all, they concocted a rich and deeply affecting songbook that never fails to rouse my inspiration and, truly, to heighten the experience of simply being alive.

We need your help to stay independent

This is their legacy, and when Leslie writes movingly about The Beatles’ music, his book genuinely sings. But at other times, Leslie seems to be overreaching in his quest to ascribe something greater to their relationship, a friendship that was cruelly and tragically cut short. In his first public statement after Lennon’s senseless murder, George Harrison remarked that “to rob life is the ultimate robbery.” To be sure, an assassin’s bullets robbed Lennon and McCartney of any hope for establishing a new and abiding friendship in middle age. But as I noted above, we’ll never know. Such is the insidious nature of taking another person’s life. To suggest anything else is to dabble in idle wish-fulfillment. 

As I observed at the outset, I understand Leslie’s impulses implicitly. I, too, wish that things were different, that the two men who acted as the fount for the most significant art in my life had been able to pass gently into that good night. But I am heartened by Lennon’s words when he pointed out, in a moment of great optimism, that people needed to give up their fixation on The Beatles’ relationship and the near-constant clamoring for the bandmates’ reunion and concentrate their energies on the music itself. “It’s only a rock group that split up,” said Lennon. “It’s nothing important. You have all these old records if you want to reminisce.” He was right then, and he’s right now. It’s the music, as opposed to our lingering desires to romanticize an unfinished past, that matters.

LAPD shoot Jillian Shriner, wife of Weezer bassist, before charging her with attempted murder

Authorities in Los Angeles charged Jillian Shriner with attempted murder on Tuesday, in the culmination of a dramatic scene that started with a hit-and-run and neighborhood manhunt and ended with a police shooting.

Members of the Los Angeles Police Department shot the wife of Weezer bassist Scott Shriner outside her home, during a search for suspects related to a hit-and-run on the nearby 134 Freeway. The author was not a suspect in the hit-and-run. Police allege she stepped outside of her home holding a handgun during the police department's search of the neighborhood. 

In a Wednesday press release announcing the charges against Jillian Shriner, the LAPD claim she refused orders to drop her weapon and took aim at an officer before being shot in the shoulder.

Per police, Shriner went inside her home after being struck, later surrendering to police and receiving treatment for her gunshot wound at a nearby hospital. The LAPD also says officers recovered a firearm from her home.

The writer covered the department and its prosecution of Samuel Little, a Los Angeles serial killer and the subject of her 2023 true crime book, “Behold the Monster: Facing America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer.”

The incident and subsequent charges have confused commentators, with some social media users questioning the validity of the attempted murder charges.

“I’m not sure the LAPD account of how they shot the Weezer bassist’s wife is gonna hold up mostly because it sounds like the most ridiculous story imaginable and they’re not very good liars,” one user wrote on Bluesky.

It’s still unclear why Shriner was carrying a gun or why law enforcement entered her yard, though the LAPD says officers were searching a neighboring yard at the time of the confrontation.

“Shriner was uninvolved in the hit-and-run and lived at the residence where she was observed,” the LAPD statement clarified.

Shriner, a former Salon contributor, posted bail on Wednesday shortly after her arrest. She is scheduled to appear in court later this month.

Tax refunds are getting smaller when we need them more than ever

Tax season is a time of confusion, stress, and — for some first-timers — literal tears. Between the fear of accidentally owing money to the IRS and the anxiety of navigating complex forms, filing taxes can feel like playing cards at a table where only the dealer knows the game.

But thankfully, there’s a light at the end of the tunnel: tax refunds.

According to a study published by Credit Karma, Americans have never relied more on tax refunds to make ends meet. Where in the past, refunds were considered “free money,” rising costs have forced people to use them less frivolously, and more out of necessity.

“Americans are using their refunds primarily for financial security,” said Courtney Alev, head of tax and consumer financial advocate at Credit Karma. Rent, groceries, paying off debt and shoring up savings are common targets of tax refund money, Alev said.

But refund amounts have become increasingly disappointing. According to the study, roughly half of Americans reported receiving less this year than the year prior, and two in five taxpayers were underwhelmed with the amount they got.

We need your help to stay independent

“42 dollar tax refund,” @elfeto22 tweeted on X, accompanied by a zany face emoji. “drinks on me (about 4 drinks total we may have to share)”

“I am also so excited to receive my net tax refund of $61,” @ch1cken_t3nder wrote.

Big or small, tax refunds may feel like free money, but in reality it’s your own money being returned — money you overpaid throughout the year, either through paycheck withholdings or estimated tax payments. Whether you're a W-2 employee or self-employed, if your total payments exceed your actual tax liability (the amount of tax you legally owe after applying all deductions and credits) you’re likely due a refund.

So how do you maximize that refund? By minimizing your aforementioned tax liability.

Start with tax credits, which reduce your tax bill dollar-for-dollar. The IRS highlights several valuable credits that many taxpayers miss out on: the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and American Opportunity Credit for students. These credits can significantly lower your liability — or even boost your refund if they’re refundable.

Don’t forget about potential deductions, like student loan interest, retirement contributions or business expenses if you’re self-employed. These reduce your taxable income, making it more likely that you’ve overpaid and are due money back.

Accuracy also plays a huge role in speeding up your refund. To avoid delays, make sure all information is entered correctly, from Social Security numbers to bank account details. Tax filing tools like TurboTax or Credit Karma Tax help catch errors and guide you through the process, but always double-check and make sure you’re not divulging any sensitive information to unsavory sources.

Accuracy plays a huge role in speeding up your refund

Phew! Now you’ve filed your taxes to the best and most efficient of your ability. How do you make the most of that refund once it hits your bank account?

First, consider where it’ll have the biggest impact. According to recent data, many Americans are using refunds to regain financial footing — paying down high-interest debt, covering essentials like rent or groceries or bolstering emergency savings. That’s not just responsible; it’s strategic for long-term financial health.

Of course, it’s OK to treat yourself — within reason. Experts recommend setting aside no more than 10% to 20% of your refund for discretionary spending and using the rest to shore up your financial stability. That way, you can enjoy the short-term reward without sacrificing your long-term goals.

“A lot of people use their refunds to pay off high-interest debt, build emergency savings or invest in their future by putting money into retirement or health savings accounts,” Alev said. “It's a sign that many Americans are prioritizing financial stability, especially given the rising cost of living.”

I used to post my lunch. Now I send it by mail

Around this time last year, I hit my limit with social media. You know the feeling: a doomscrolling blur of vacation flexes, political spirals and the neverending discourse about “White Lotus.” (Great show. Not worth the psychic cost.) I’d also reached a kind of platform fatigue — Instagram reels of TikToks about Bluesky posts featuring screenshots of X missives. Everything was everything. Nothing was anything.

And yet, unplugging felt like more than just a digital detox. It felt like losing a kind of community — or at least, the version of it that had once made sense to me. For years, social media had been how I shared and discovered food: new restaurants, dumb tweet-length food takes, light press release roasts during the height of the “New Southern” cuisine wave. (I lived in Kentucky then and one firm was particularly pushy in relaying their message that “artisan grits” were having a moment.) It was how I found chefs, cookbook writers, bartenders — and how I connected with people who, like me, actually did want to see what someone had for lunch.

So before I logged off for good, I put out a post: “Hey, do you like snail mail?”

Growing up in the '90s, I was always a little captivated by the magic of snail mail — the thrill of finding a fun letter nestled between the usual stack of bills, catalogs and junk. That single piece of personal mail could instantly shift your entire mood as you walked through the door, setting your keys down on the counter and feeling, for a moment, like the universe was offering you a small, delightful surprise.

As an adult, though, the thrill was harder to come by. Gone were the handwritten notes and greeting cards — replaced by spam and e-z pay reminders that only reinforced the feeling of everything being digital and fleeting. But there's this saying in the snail mail community: "To get mail, you have to send mail." Armed with a list of addresses and a sense of optimism, I thought I was ready to dive back in. Until I sat down with a blank piece of paper (or a notecard) and was utterly stumped. Where to begin?

One afternoon, at a local coffee shop, I tried to capture the essence of my week in an almost Austenian style for my sister. But as I reread my words, they felt bloated and uncharacteristically formal, the kind of thing I might write if I were trying to impress someone rather than just connect. Then, my gaze landed on the bowl in front of me: the perfect bowl of soup. It was chicken and rice — creamy, cozy, brimming with tender carrots and onions and served with a little hunk of sourdough. A meal my sister and I both absolutely adore. "I'm shifting into soup mode" is a phrase we've used in restaurants more times than I can count.

We need your help to stay independent

Suddenly, I had a way in. I grabbed a highlighter from the bottom of my bag and began sketching a little illustration of the soup, coloring in the carrot chunks with bright orange. I scribbled a note: "I wish you were here eating this with me." It felt simple, real and far more me than any flowery prose I could muster.

And just like that, a piece of snail mail was born — and a whole practice has since unfurled around it. 

A food writer friend and I now send recipes back and forth — nothing too serious, just the kind of thing you'd text if you could send a sandwich or a salad dressing via USPS. But instead, it's this card, with all the imperfections of handwritten notes and smudges of excitement.

Last fall, I bought a used film camera, and now I slip real photographs of real restaurants into my letters — the kind of personal touch that feels miles away from the performative posts on Instagram: "Hey, I ate at this place, and it made me think of you."

Lately, I've become a fan of restaurants that produce their own postcards, like Dove's Luncheonette in Chicago, which features charming illustrations of flowers used in their tablescapes and dishes like fried chicken with pearl onions and peas. The last time I visited, I sat by the window, with the blue line buzzing overhead, and slipped one of those postcards into an envelope addressed to one of my closest friends in California. "The postcard was too pretty to write on," I scribbled on a separate blank card, "But I'm sitting here drinking agua fresca (cucumber-mint) and just watching the trains go by. I miss you."

Rebecca Burick, the director of specialty commercial strategy for the stationery store Paper Source, met me last week at a bustling coffee shop catty-corner from Dove’s (she, too, is a fan of their postcards). She told me that the company regularly hosts challenges related to letter writing — like October's “31 Days of Bewitching Envelopes,” a series of follow-along envelope decorating prompts — and has seen participation nearly triple over the last three years. 

“I think letter writing, it forces me to be a little more thoughtful about my words,” she said. “Maybe you say things you wouldn't if you were just firing off a text. And then, on the flip-side, it’s not just that process for you personally, but it’s a meaningful way to connect with people. I think we are seeing an appetite, a craving for those kinds of experiences.” 

Burick noted how intimidating it can feel to step away from the immediacy of social media after you've spent years sharing your life in real-time. “What do I even write about?” is a question she’s heard from both friends and potential Paper Source customers who’ve considered giving snail mail a try. But, she said, it doesn’t have to be some grand, formal effort. It can be as simple as sending a movie ticket or a museum exhibit brochure, along with a quick note about why it made you think of someone. It’s about finding your thing — that simple, personal detail you want to share. For me, it just so happened to be food.

“When you think about gatherings and sharing food, there are so many reasons to send a note afterward,” Burick said. “I love the idea of sending something personal after a gathering, whether it’s at home or at a restaurant. It could be something simple, like a coaster, a menu scrap or even a doodle on a napkin. It’s a tactile way to share a little piece of the experience, like a tiny time capsule treasure.” 

To Burick’s point, beyond postcards, there are so many food-themed treasures you can tuck into an envelope: photos, honey sticks, ramen seasoning packets, salt blends. A friend who runs a taco truck once mailed me a hot sauce packet, lovingly double-wrapped for safety. My mom, a lifelong coffee drinker, just told me she’s getting into tea. Tea bags fit in envelopes.

What I miss about social media isn’t the likes or the reach. It’s the small flashes of recognition—“I saw this and thought of you.” Turns out, I didn’t need an app for that. Just some stamps, a pen and a bowl of soup.

The algorithm never asked what kind of soup I was eating.

But my sister always does.

You’ll never guess the secret ingredient in this comforting and verdant spring soup

The virtues of soup have never eluded me. It is my steadfast food companion and has been for all the years of my life. From canned childhood favorites to fortifying, wholesome, homemade, stick-to-your-ribs, main course soups that I grew up on and learned to make as I got older, nothing scores higher on the comfort scale for me than a simmering pot of seasonal soup.

Ready when you are, Love, it says, sitting there on the stove. 

No rush, never pushy, it can wait all day, and with an aroma that envelops me like a long, heartfelt embrace delivered from someone I have missed and truly adore, it is a soft landing at the end of the day.  

Soup is easy, relaxed and gifts us a sense of calm. I believe it has something to do with the way we breathe as we eat it. Each spoonful delivers a deep, full inhale as we tip it to our lips, then we hold our breath as we swallow before finally exhaling at the end. It is hard to rush through that process. Soup slows us down and we take our time.   

As the primary cook in my family, I appreciate that the work of making soup is all on the front end. There are exceptions where you must remain vigilant through the process, but for the most part, it is just wash, chop and . . . that’s really it.

Okay, you do technically have to put what you prepped into some sort of a vessel and add some liquid, but after that and hardly much more, you are free to roam. Leave it simmering or turn it off and finish it later. Soup does not mind. It is laid back. And, it only improves the next day (or even the next), which is so my kind of cooking. No constant monitoring, no worry and it is the coziest way I know to show off your plentitude of homegrown, or market procured, fresh produce.

Besides, spring produce has arrived — and so has the pageantry. We are covered up in flowers and wild blooms, and apparently, shifting from drab to gorgeous was all I needed to put a skip back in my step. The azaleas are at the end of their run, but were extra spectacular this year. The slightly more understated camellias, gardenias and magnolia blossoms will soon grace us with their beauty and intoxicating fragrance, but there is no shortage of perfume in the air with all the purple wisteria vines and star-shaped jasmine trellising up garden fences, arbors and carport pilings all around my little community. 

In eye catching shades of vibrant chartreuse, stubbly new growth covers previously bare branches of cypress trees and brightens the tips of dark evergreen live oaks and wax myrtle; all our flora are sporting their royal Spring regalia.

With dainty sprouts peaking up through rich soil beds and the overflowing pots of fresh herbs, this season is a delight. I will not wax poetic about the first baskets of strawberries coming in, but oh how I want to! All this freshness is like stepping into a Hallmark movie, sunshine and butterflies as far as the eye can see.   

We need your help to stay independent

After the rich and hearty stews of winter, I am craving lighter textures and brighter flavors, and everything I see — little green peas, thin spiky asparagus, feathery fronds of fennel — I want.

Spring vegetables have arrived to lift my palate (and my mood). 

This soup encompasses all of it: the color, the smells, the variety, the abundance. It is loaded with fresh vegetables and herbs and invites you to add just about anything you simply could not bear to leave behind at the farmers market. It does, however, always include two things: lettuce and peas, a quintessential spring pairing in my book. 

I was introduced to Lettuce and Peas as a side dish some twenty years ago and those two ingredients became the backbone of many of my spring soups. Before trying it I did not know you could cook salad greens. Preposterous really, how it never even crossed my mind.

At any rate, Lettuce and Peas is delicate and so simple to make. Simmer fresh green garden peas and chopped iceberg in butter with a little salt, pepper and an optional pinch of sugar. Cook until the peas are tender, and serve alongside or on top of a piece of fish or other mild protein. Add fresh herbs if you like — mint is nice — or a tablespoon of cream. It is definitely one to add to your list for the season, and it might inspire you — as it did for me — to create all sorts of dishes around which to celebrate springtime. 

Spring Soup
Yields
6 to 8 servings
Prep Time
20 minutes
Cook Time
45 minutes

Ingredients

1 onion, small dice

2 carrots, chopped

3 celery stalks, chopped 

3 cups of chopped, mixed, fresh vegetables: green onions, leeks, asparagus (save tips to add at the end of cooking), Jerusalem artichokes (or a new potato), cabbage, radishes

Salt and pepper

1 cup green peas, fresh or frozen

1 head romaine or iceberg, chopped  

4 cups chicken or vegetable broth

Fresh dill and parsley

Juice of 1 to 2 lemons

Optional: sour cream or creme fraiche, for serving

Optional: grated Parmesan, for serving

 

Directions

  1. In a soup pot over low heat, add oil and sweat onions. Stir and add a little water, then cover with a lid and allow them to cook slow. Keep them moist with water.

  2. Uncover once onions are translucent and add carrots, celery and sturdier vegetables in your mix.

  3. Add broth and raise heat. Stir to combine for several minutes, allowing the vegetables to wilt. Add water if needed, but only enough to just cover vegetables. Bring to a low boil and reduce to simmer. 

  4. Add a handful of dill, saving some for garnish and a sprinkling of parsley. Add salt if needed. Cook 10 to 15 minutes more, until vegetables are tender. 

  5. Add peas and lettuce. Simmer 10 minutes.

  6. Add juice of 1 lemon and taste before adding the second.

  7. To serve, ladle into bowls and then add a dollop of sour cream or creme fraiche. Top with grated Parmesan, if desired.

  8. Garnish with fresh herbs and decorative bits of vegetables.

“Hacks” provides lessons in unlearning the rules of showbiz

Our fear of the old boys' club must be unlearned. What reads like political sloganeering is merely a reality-based statement. If a system favoring one gender at every turn is the one that raises you, you either figure out how to game that system in your favor or become what’s expected of you and make do with the proffered scraps. 

This is what Deborah Vance (Jean Smart) internalizes in “Hacks,” although the portions she carved from her Hollywood exile are anything but meager. All unwritten but commonly understood laws have loopholes, a lesson Deborah’s protégé Ava Daniels (Hannah Einbinder) learns from Deborah before teaching her a few supplementary lessons. Deborah rolled the dice on Ava, a nobody who revives the veteran comedian's stagnant career. Yet at every turn, Deborah finds some excuse to backstab Ava, allegedly out of some version of respect, and Ava retaliates by sabotaging herself and her boss. 

Show business is fear-driven, and that fuels Deborah and Ava’s rashest decisions more than anything else.

The third season’s close is, therefore, equally shocking and inevitable. When Ava’s modern comedic instincts propel Deborah into the host chair of broadcast's biggest legacy late-night show, the young writer assumes her boat will rise too. But fear and those unspoken rules push Deborah to deny Ava the job she deserves. It’s not her, Deborah flimsily claims; it’s just that audiences demand stability, and the man who was the previous host's head writer can provide it.

So Ava pulls another time-honored Hollywood tactic, dangling Deborah’s dirty secret of having slept with the head of the network as leverage to secure the position that she deserves.

Truly, she has learned her greatest showbiz tricks from the master — Deborah is never above a little extortion to achieve her goals. But to what end? At some point, “Hacks” creators Paul W. Downs, Lucia Aniello and Jen Statsky are obligated to answer that question, and it looks like we’ve finally arrived there.

That may not be apparent in the opening moments of the fourth season. The action picks up from that double-cross, with the impossible-to-shock Deborah stunned and angry but playing along with Ava’s gambit while her overlords are watching. Otherwise, she hazes Ava in hilariously cruel ways.

Show business is fear-driven, and that fuels Deborah and Ava’s rashest decisions more than anything else. That the industry is also ruled by men isn’t a coincidence. Indeed, Deborah became a hard-driving force by mimicking the most ruthless of them. Those who love and know Deborah best are also mortally afraid of her. Making it into Deborah Vance’s inner circle is a mark of loyalty and one’s ability to survive her moods. 

Hannah Einbinder and Jean Smart in "Hacks" (Courtesy of Max). Despite all this, somehow, she and Ava manage to assemble a writers' room, but not before Deborah tests her old school Las Vegas habits on a new generation of comics unaccustomed to the sexist hedonism that informs her hard-boiled humor. Ava and Deborah are surrounded by men who expect them to fail (including Jimmy Kimmel, who takes a few jabs at Deborah in a cameo) and hounded by a woman, Helen Hunt's network executive Winnie Landell, doing her male superiors' bidding. After all, Deborah and Ava's history-making hires are directly tied to her keeping her job.

"Hacks" retains its sharpness by defying reflexive expectations of cause and effect, especially when it comes to gendered considerations of power.

Eventually, their sniping forces the network to bring in an HR representative to babysit Ava and Deborah. Luckily for us, that monitor is played by Michaela Watkins, who is unmatched in the realm of manufactured cluelessness for stage and screen.

However hateful Ava and Deborah may behave toward each other, their scorn carries an underlayer of heartbreak, reminding us of the profound, twisted love beneath their venom. That emotional depth lifts each scene, even the darkest— just as the supergroup of talent flanking Smart and Einbinder does. Along with Watkins, the new season introduces the loopy Robby Hoffman into the oddball galaxy forming around Jimmy LuSaque Jr. (Downs) and his loyal barnacle, Kayla Schaefer (the always delightful Meg Stalter).

While Ava and Deborah are clawing at each other, Jimmy and Kayla strive to emerge from their fathers’ shadows. This is particularly challenging for Kayla since her daddy is still alive and heads the rival management firm she and Jimmy abandoned to hang out their own shingle. But in backing Deborah and Ava, they’ve hitched themselves to winners – and like their biggest clients, they too are scrambling to figure out what to do next.

We need your help to stay independent

“Hacks” retains its sharpness by defying reflexive expectations of cause and effect, especially when it comes to gendered considerations of power. Most of Deborah’s career is a defiant reaction to men who either precipitated her fall or reveled in it, barring her participation in all the insular friendship networks that could have eased her path back to the spotlight. At night, hungry coyotes yap and howl beyond the walls of Deborah’s ample, manicured yard. This recurring motif may or may not be an apt metaphor for her outlook on life – predators are always waiting to pounce on what’s hers. 

But that’s Jimmy’s lot too, which he resists taking out on Kayla by shooting down her strange but often inspired ideas as they build a client base from scratch. 

Megan Stalter and Paul W. Downs in "Hacks" (Courtesy of Max)Downs received his first Emmy nomination for his portrayal of Jimmy in 2024, and his scene partnership with Stalter should earn him another. Smart and Einbinder gain the most attention for their two-handers in this show, but this season, Downs shows us new layers of sensitivity and forbearance even as Kayla continues to test Jimmy's boundaries. Stalter’s performance has also matured, but not enough to prevent Kayla from being one of the funniest things about TV’s best comedy. 

The pointed humor and soulful asides that make “Hacks” addictive remain largely undiluted four seasons in. Viewers have come to expect the friend/foe interplay between Deborah and Ava – and Jimmy and Kayla, to a lesser degree—but the writers prevent it from becoming stale by mapping a way beyond this bitter cycle. For these two, success depends on finding the line between what the genre demands and what their artistic integrity will bear.


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


Still, Hollywood and America are slow to change and quick to retreat from progress. Ava constantly gains fresh insights into what that means, as well as a new perspective on Deborah’s flintiness once she gets a bitter taste of what it takes to be in charge. Where past seasons favored Smart's emotional dexterity, the fourth provides ample opportunities for Einbinder to travel new highs and lows as Ava balances the burden of a high-pressure job and a barely-existent life she's never truly examined.

As other HBO titles show us, claiming the throne ends one battle and ignites the war to keep it. Moving its characters through that pain allows “Hacks” to theorize what can exist beyond fear, failure, or irrelevance without entirely divorcing the characters from the laws of show business gravity, the physics that held Deborah in place. 

Appropriately, Deborah receives her best advice about overcoming fear from the iconic Carol Burnett, appearing in the latest season’s fourth episode: Pick one person in the audience, Burnett tells Deborah, and do the show just for them.  
That’s what made “Hacks” extraordinary in the first place. Before Deborah and Ava aided and betrayed each other in so many ways, they were each other’s audience of one – a pair of very different women reminding each other that the greatest laughter is as fearless and rule-breaking as this show can be in its best moments. 

"Hacks" premieres with two episodes at 6 p.m. PT/ 9 p.m. ET Thursday, April 10 on Max.  

“Black Mirror” reflects on itself

Either Charlie Brooker has run out of ideas, or pop culture has finally eclipsed "Black Mirror," his technophobic-cum-miserabilist science fiction series that just dropped its seventh season on Netflix. After a decade and a half spent giving Luddites nightmares about the many ways our gadgets, gizmos and gigabytes may betray us all, the show is at the edge of obsolescence; gimmickry only goes so far for so long, especially when drawn from the same sling bag of tricks. 

Granted, it’s fitting that Brooker’s fearmongering approach to speculative fiction should outdate itself; our phones, computers and video game consoles are likewise outdated by tech consumers’ hunger for shiny new toys, which the tech industry is too happy to feed. Maybe it’s inevitable that "Black Mirror," once upon a time a show of unnerving political and social prescience, would become not simply passé but past expiration. Technology, after all, advances quickly. In fact, it’s advancing faster than ever. Pop culture develops at a sluggish pace by comparison, but the clip that TV and movies have kept up for the last couple of years has pushed them ahead of "Black Mirror" by a wide margin in the “future is bleak” space. Brooker, meanwhile, appears content playing the hits. 

Gimmickry only goes so far for so long, especially when drawn from the same sling bag of tricks.

The best evidence of this apathy is the first-ever sequel in the series’ lifespan, "USS Callister: Into Infinity," carrying on the plot of Season 4’s “USS Callister.” For fairness’ sake, Brooker’s unsavory "Star Trek"-inspired adventure still maintains a high ranking on “best 'Black Mirror' episode” listicles across the internet; add to that an open ending and suitability for serialization baked into its DNA, and “USS Callister: Into Infinity” makes sense commercially, but not creatively. Picking up the threads of “USS Callister,” “USS Callister: Into Infinity” cuts between the real world, where game programmer Nanette Cole (Cristin Milioti) deduces that her boss, Robert (Jesse Plemons), deceased per the events of “USS Callister,” kept digital clones of herself and her coworkers to torment in his private build of the game; and "Infinity," where Nanette’s clone struggles to keep her crew alive in an MMORPG world that’s grown increasingly hostile toward them.

Cristin Milioti in "Black Mirror" (Nick Wall/Netflix)“USS Callister” gravitated toward the ongoing accusations leveled at, and public scrutiny placed on, Harvey Weinstein for his nigh-endless abuses against women throughout his career; the episode didn’t predict the mogul’s future fortunes, but captured, to an extent, the moment’s atmosphere through its observations about powerful men exploiting their positions and authority. “USS Callister: Into Infinity” makes no such remarks on power; the sharpest comment Brooker offers us is that, when implicated in wrongdoing, men are willing to do unconscionable things to shield themselves from accountability. That’s hardly a blockbuster insight. Read the news. Tech CEOs — hell, entire companies — have a history of breaking the law to cover up their lawbreaking. “USS Callister: Into Infinity” and "Black Mirror" aren’t future-facing here. They’re gazing at the past instead. 


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


Earlier this year, Drew Hancock’s "Companion" drew similarly banal conclusions about how men in power interact in relation to technology. They lie. They kill. They play the victim. Josh (Jack Quaid), a nice guy on the surface and a cockroach underneath, cooks up a murder scheme, intending to pin the act on Iris (Sophie Thatcher), his girlfriend, but actually a jailbroken “companion” android. Hewing to genre conventions, Iris frees herself from Josh’s control and fights back, forcing him to whip up a plan B involving a fine-spun alibi made of stuff and nonsense. He might’ve gotten away with it if not for the meddling recording hardware built into her abdomen. Last resort? Kill everybody in the vicinity who can report Josh to the police. 

Treading old territory to make new paths is a fine exercise, though that’s not what "Black Mirror" does, per se, with this year’s slate of episodes. Rather, it cannibalizes old ones.

The escalation from pathetic incel to pathetic, murderous incel is an expected leap, but "Companion" raises questions to the audience on the way about the role technology plays in our daily lives and the social gaps it both can, and cannot, fill. If the film has familiar bones, at least they have meat on them. “USS Callister: Into Infinity” lacks even meager sustenance. Even the finale, where Brooker, his co-writers (Bisha K. Ali, Bekka Bowling, and re-teaming with him from “USS Callister,” William Bridges), and his director (Toby Haynes, also re-teaming from his stint directing “USS Callister), drive the same points home made in the original episode, about the personality profiles of men like Robert, as if that hammer needed be swung again. It’s one thing for "Companion" to recycle ideas from other sci-fi narratives — Hancock’s film is fun but hardly original — and another for "Black Mirror" to do the same with ideas the show already recycled eight years ago, when “USS Callister” premiered.

At least “USS Callister: Into Infinity” is Season 7’s closer, and the remaining handful of episodes spark brighter. With one exception, though, none of them ignite new thinking about the technologies represented in each. Deepfake software has ushered in a new era of digital gaslighting ("Bête Noire"); tiered payment structures nickel and dime their users into spending money they don’t have and still stick them with the indignity of ads ("Common People"); generative AI can’t make movies the way a crew of humans can ("Hotel Reverie"). The season’s most engrossing concepts are worked into “Plaything,” a morality tale where the antidote to mankind’s primitive genetic cruelty lies in digital life, and Peter Capaldi plays against type with his captivating portrait of an LSD-addled and twitchy shut-in; and “Eulogy,” a character study fixed on a man’s fractured recollections of the love of his life, where Paul Giamatti reminds us why he’s one of our great actors.

Cristin Milioti and Jimmi Simpson in "Black Mirror" (Nick Wall/Netflix)“Plaything” doesn’t say much; “be kind to pixelated critters in life simulation games” is a nice enough sentiment, backed up by air from Brooker and director David Slade, who at least builds eerie tension to unbearable levels as Capaldi’s character recites exposition at Michele Austin and James Nelson-Joyce. By the time the plot arrives at the point where it gets to be an actual story, instead of a forty-five minute flashback sequence, the credits start rolling. It’s “Eulogy” where "Black Mirror" hits hardest, painfully unpacking Phillip’s (Giamatti) decades of resentments over his relationship with Carol, heard in voiceover (via Rebecca Ozer) and seen, briefly, in Phillip’s memories, played by Hazel Monaghan. "Black Mirror" most often contextualizes technology straightforwardly as “bad.” “Eulogy” is the rare entry to give holistic consideration to its tech, in this case, a device that allows users to “enter” old photographs. The effect forces Phillip to look inward, acknowledge his own actions, and, ultimately, make a discovery that briefly shatters him but also lets him fully reform his memories as well as his affection.

But that’s one episode — one and a half, if we treat “Plaything” as the preamble to a robust and morally knotty drama about humanity’s next stage of evolution — out of half a dozen. Those remaining numbly reiterate the greats from "Black Mirror"’s yesteryear: “Common People” and “Bête Noire” echo themes from “Fifteen Million Merits,” “Hated in the Nation,” and “Nosedive"; “Hotel Reverie” attempts to riff on the “ghost in the machine” romance of “San Junipero"; and “Plaything” makes a muddle of “Smithereens,” “White Christmas,” and, frankly, “USS Callister” — which arguably makes it this season’s Polaris. Treading old territory to make new paths is a fine exercise, though that’s not what "Black Mirror" does, per se, with this year’s slate of episodes. Rather, it cannibalizes old ones.

We need your help to stay independent

Repetition is one of "Black Mirror"’s two misplays in Season 7. For a show comprising a scant 27 episodes to salvage itself for spare parts is unbecoming, not to mention dull; a show can only play the same note so many times before the piano string snaps, whether that means going with the most obvious resolution possible or with a resolution reached in older, better episodes. What compounds Brooker’s incuriosity, his hesitation to tackle unexpected and complex plot progression, and clinging to the safety of the most obvious developments possible instead, is that his contemporaries appear wise to "Black Mirror"’s formula, and have outdone it with their own projects, whether they’re in theaters or at home.

If there’s a common thread through these titles that can lead us back to "Black Mirror"'s structural problems, it’s humanity.

Dan Erickson’s corporate dystopian thriller "Severance" reads as if he cultivated the seed of a "Black Mirror" episode into a full-fledged show. "OBEX," the latest invention from Albert Birney, one of our contemporary mad geniuses of low-fi indie sci-fi, debuted at Sundance, and is on its way to theaters later this year; stripped down, sparse, and scary as hell, the picture gives empathy to people that "Black Mirror" shows contempt, namely, people with crippling social anxiety and a distaste for reality, for whom video games are a refuge from a hostile world. Hans Block and Moritz Riesewieck’s documentary "Eternal You" confronts death capitalism where it lives, with David Cronenberg’s "The Shrouds" not far behind. Forget digital cloning: think about physical cloning and its ramifications, as Bong Joon-ho digs into in "Mickey 17" with ruthlessly absurd zeal. And lest we forget that we live in conservative times, Fleur Fortuné tracks the arc of female bodily autonomy in "The Assessment" and finds that even under liberal rule, powers that be will still legislate uteruses as a solution to a global catastrophe.

If there’s a common thread through these titles that can lead us back to "Black Mirror"’s structural problems, it’s humanity. Brooker seems to have lost interest in people by now, focused as he is instead on the tech itself; at its worst, "Black Mirror"’s seventh season favors lines of code and shiny gizmos over human emotion, which, as a small mercy, explains why the episodes feel like their priorities are disjointed. Bad as the outcomes that the different forms of tech typically produce, it is nonetheless incredibly cool to see the tech do what it is designed to in "Black Mirror"’s world. 

But admiration is not the essence of the show. "Black Mirror" is, always has been, and should always be, about the woes that new tech visits on us when what we expect it to do is make our lives better or easier. It certainly shouldn’t glorify its make-believe tech or otherwise put it under so much scrutiny that we forget, ultimately, as Brooker has, that we’re meant to care about the people at the series’ center and not about the machines. 

“Suffering from the whims of a madman”: MAGA measures true cost of Trump’s tariff gamble

The penguins and seals won.

Donald Trump’s retaliatory tariffs, which he said would bring back manufacturing jobs, boost the economy, pay off the national debt and cure warts, were less than a week old when he announced he had substantially scaled them back for 90 days. “[B]ased on the fact that more than 75 countries have called representatives of the United States,” Trump explained Wednesday on Truth Social, “I have authorized a 90 day pause, and a substantially lowered reciprocal tariff during this period of 10 percent — also effective immediately.”

The exception was China, a country Trump said has shown the world a “lack of respect” and has had a history of “ripping off the U.S.A.” Trump bumped China’s tariffs to 125 percent. 

Heard Island and McDonald Islands, populated by penguins and seals and also subject to the tariffs, offered no comment.

“I’m glad Trump folded,” former Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger posted on Threads, asking, “What did we go through that for?”

“I’m not saying he’s insane,” a longtime Republican source told me. “But his administration is the most sloppy, unprofessional, arrogant and stupid group of people ever assembled in government.” Others, however, are saying he’s insane.

On April 4, Trump announced in a “Liberation Day” Rose Garden event that his tariffs “are already delivering wins for Americans.” Trillions had been invested, he insisted, and Americans were happier than pigs in slop over the tariffs.

But by Wednesday, he'd changed his tune. 

“We’ve been ripped off by everybody for 35 years,” he said in the Oval Office while signing a series of executive orders. “Everybody wants to make a deal,” he added while reversing course. Earlier on the South Lawn, while meeting with race car drivers, Trump said we are “transitioning to greatness,” in explaining why he caved.

More than one Washington wag said, “I thought he was against transitioning.” My GOP source, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, said, “We got everything we wanted with this guy, didn’t we?”

The real reason Trump caved was the stock market. After several days of spectacular losses, it responded with a record surge on Wednesday after Trump backed off the tariffs. “He saw the writing on the wall,” a GOP member of Congress explained. “With one signature, he was killing the economy. With one social media posting, he was able to reverse that. We’re on a yo-yo and he’s pulling the string.” 

Tuesday, the markets had also surged early until White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt showed up in the briefing room for her weekly visit to brandish her political pom-poms as Trump's one-person pep squad. As soon as she said Trump was doubling down on the tariffs and planned on hitting China harder, the markets tanked again and Trump freaked out.

Wednesday, he had just two things on his public schedule: that meeting with race car drivers on the South Lawn — a grip-and-grin public appearance — and another session in the Oval Office to sign executive orders. The first was originally open to the press, while the second was not. Speculation was that Trump would wait until the last possible moment and then open up the second event to the press pool as well. “He likes cliffhangers. He loves to tell us to stay tuned for the next exciting episode and we fall for it every time,” one White House reporter explained.

And with tongue firmly planted in cheek, my GOP source said, “We got everything we wanted with this guy, didn’t we?”

And, sure enough, Trump did just that. It’s all part of the chaos in a blender of the new Trump regime. Once the markets rebounded, Trump had the impetus he needed and the courage to jump in front of the cameras and give us another round of “Why Biden sucked” coupled with “the press still sucks” and then ending with why a law firm sucked.

He used the opportunity to field questions and tell us why he shoots rainbows and unicorns from his backside. During the nearly hour-long meeting in the Oval Office with the press pool, he discussed water pressure, opined on Asian carp, insulted Harvard, claimed the country was making $2 billion a day on tariffs (that he just paused), and then accused former employee Miles Taylor (author of “Anonymous”) of being a traitor. That’s no small accusation coming from the president, since a treason conviction carries the death penalty as a possible punishment. Never mind. Trump also went after Christopher Krebs, the former federal employee who said the 2020 elections were fair. Trump can’t have that, so he’s claiming the “rigged” election was in part Krebs’ responsibility. He said the Department of Justice will investigate both men.

That wasn’t all. Trump once again blamed Biden for everything that’s ever gone wrong on the planet, since Eve encouraged Adam to eat the apple. Trump said the U.S. was in dire straits before he blessed us all with his presence, and assured us that he pushed the pause button on the tariffs not because of anything any other country did, but because he had a good feeling about doing so. He also said he’d negotiate directly with Iran on the “nuclear question”  for as long as he could — based on his “feel” of the situation. What they have to negotiate remains unspoken since Trump — like other presidents before him — believes Iran shouldn’t be allowed to have nuclear weapons. That’s what they call a “deal breaker."

There are those who don’t appreciate Trump’s “feel” for anything. “He creates problems and then pretends to solve them,” my GOP source, a member of Congress, explained. “We enable him and we haven’t learned yet how to battle this stupidity. The country and the world is suffering from the whims of a madman.”

That may be true, but so far no one in the GOP has stood up to Trump and the Democrats are still trying to figure out how to handle him. The press? We gave up long ago. Now we’re just part of the circus.

We need your help to stay independent

Trump’s former fixer, Michael Cohen, has made the rounds on social media talking about the problem. He’s a frequent guest on Jim Acosta’s Substack show, as well as on Joe Walsh’s show and others. Cohen’s frequent rant is that Trump only cares about Trump and the rest of us are screwed.

Nothing drives that point home more than watching some of my colleagues in the press pool serve up softball questions to Trump that amount to asking “Can you tell us why you’re so great?” Trump usually responds to those with “that was a really good question,” if you need a prompt to understand what I’m talking about. 

Lost in the haze of Trump’s befuddled narcissism and fascism is the often ignored reality: This is not normal. There are many who were and are ready for something outside the box. That’s why they voted for Trump. That’s why many don’t abandon him even now. “He speaks his mind. He’s great,” my favorite Missouri in-law tells me.

But, let’s look at then and now.

When I was eight years old, man landed on the moon and measles was nearly a thing of the past. Today, millions believe both that the moon landing was faked and that the measles vaccine causes autism. In Texas, children are dying of measles again as the once nearly-eradicated disease makes a comeback. 

When I was a child, we sang “Give Peace a Chance.” In the Oval Office on Wednesday, the president of the United States boasted about the U.S. having weapons, “some of which you wouldn’t believe,” and he said he wasn’t above using them on Iran.

But wait, there’s more. 

When meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House earlier this week, Trump doubled down on his declaration that he wanted to develop Gaza, which he described “great oceanfront property.” He proposed a “Gaza Freedom Zone” that, naturally, would be free of Palestinians. Netanyahu and Trump both said the Palestinians should just move out. 

When I was a child, the New York Times broke the story of the Pentagon Papers. The Washington Post broke the Watergate scandal. A crooked president fell. Today, the New York Times has Maggie Haberman, who has been accused of being a shill for Trump. The Washington Post? It declined to endorse Kamala Harris for president for fear of angering Trump.

President Ronald Reagan, a key architect of the tragedy that is today’s Republican Party, opposed tariffs and supported a pathway to citizenship for immigrants. He believed that tariffs destroy economies and the country needs immigrants. Trump is happy sending immigrants to prison, deporting them and denying student visas to college-aged students while trying to wreck the economy with tariffs.

The Supreme Court backed the Washington Post and the New York Times in their battles against Nixon. Today, the Supreme Court is allowing Trump to extradite immigrants — even those like a father in Maryland who has committed no crime — to foreign prisons.

The popular destination is El Salvador, the new Gitmo and soon-to-be Super Max that may even house native-born U.S. citizens, if Trump has his way. Where’s Snake Plissken when you need him? “Welcome to the human race.”


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


Trump is also busy pushing voter suppression, and as long-time White House reporter Jon-Christopher Bua mentioned on X, Wednesday’s outing on the South Lawn and in the Oval Office was “another Trump opportunity to deflect & Flood The Zone — keeping the story far away from his reversal on tariffs & his possible market manipulation. Trump is a master of distraction. As you know, In politics as in comedy, timing is everything!”

Trump is a failed comedian, a successful politician and an absolute menace to the world. His current administration takes two steps backward for every step forward. Fire the FAA safety inspectors — then rehire them. Have DOGE come in and club a government office to death, then rehire those who got fired because they're essential personnel. Levy tariffs. Remove tariffs. Levy tariffs again. Put them on pause. Nothing is done by reason. It’s all by Trump’s “feel” for the moment, enabled by those who kiss his ring and nether regions every time they’re in the same room with him.

The press can’t push back because he’s co-opted us. Our constitutionally mandated job is to hold truth to power. That doesn’t make us fake news. it makes us vital. Since Trump now controls the corporate media, most independent and responsible voices have been chased away to Substack or other social media venues where their voices are lost among the cacophony of extremists.

Trump is greedy. Trump is arrogant. Trump doesn’t deserve the respect that comes with the Oval Office and Trump doesn’t care — as long as you pay attention to him.

I recently asked his niece, Mary Trump, if she believes Donald loves anyone. I’m not even sure he loves himself. She agreed, but says that her uncle never got love as a kid and never learned it as an adult. Empathy isn’t in his bag of tricks.

* * *

We recently lost the actor Val Kilmer. In the movie "Tombstone," Wyatt Earp (played by Kurt Russell, also the aforementioned Snake Plissken in "Escape from New York") as Wyatt Earp asks Kilmer’s Doc Holliday what makes a man like the criminal Johnny Ringo tick. Holliday says, “A man like Ringo has got a great big hole right in the middle of him. He can never kill enough or steal enough or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.”

Earp asks what Ringo needs. 

“Revenge,” Holliday says.

“For what?” Earp asks.

“For being born,” Holliday says evenly.

That remains the best explanation I’ve heard yet for the pile of steaming insanity that currently inhabits the Oval Office.

The sad part is, I remain convinced that we will not see the United States I grew up in for at least another 20 years — if we ever do — because of Donald Trump.

Still, it’s nice to see the penguins and seals notch a win, standing tall against the Donald.

“Just the first set of cuts”: Expert warns GOP budget is designed to collapse the social safety net

A government budget is a moral document, a statement of values and priorities. The 2025 federal budget that the congressional Republicans are proposing (as commanded by Donald Trump) is cruel. It takes more public money from the poor and working class and other low- and moderate-income Americans and gives it to the rich by cutting the social safety net. Social Security is also being targeted for large cuts in services and benefits.

In all, the statement of values the Republicans are making is a direct one: The poor and working class (and increasingly the middle class) are “takers” in American society and thus deemed “surplus” and “social parasites” while the rich and affluent are "makers" who should be subsidized and their wealth and power increased even more at the American people's literal expense.

To that point, a new report from the Yale Budget Lab warns that if enacted, the Republican Party’s 2025 proposed budget “would be regressive, shifting after-tax-and-transfer resources away from tax units (members of a household filing a tax return together) at the bottom of the distribution towards those at the top.”

Here are some specifics. The proposed Trump-Republican budget includes $4.5 trillion in tax reductions that would mostly benefit the richest Americans alongside $1.5 trillion in cuts to benefits for the public. The Trump-Republican budget punishes the poor by cutting approximately $230 billion in food assistance (SNAP), with $880 billion also cut from Medicaid.

The Republican Party’s proposed cuts to an already weak social safety net and other supports for poor and moderate-income Americans will shorten lives, make the public less healthy and less happy, more insecure and therefore less able to exercise their agency and freedom in a democracy.

The Republicans' proposed federal budget is also a profound moral hazard where the richest Americans — including Donald Trump and the members of his plutocrats’ Cabinet as well as the millionaires and other wealthy members of Congress — will be able to use the law to further expand their personal and dynastic wealth. When combined with Trump’s global tariff program (which is estimated to cost the average American household $3,800 a year), the impact of the 2025 Republicans' budget on poor and other vulnerable Americans — and the public at large — will be devastating.  

Brendan Duke is the Senior Director for Federal Budget Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He previously served as a senior policy adviser at the Biden-Harris White House National Economic Council, a volunteer on the Biden-Harris transition team and the Senior Director for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress.

In this conversation, Duke explains how the Republicans' 2025 budget will hurt the average American and negatively impact their daily lives. He also highlights the larger political and historical context of how these draconian cuts are the next step in a decades-long right-wing “conservative” project to gut social democracy. Duke exposes several of the standard right-wing propaganda myths and talking points about the federal government’s budget, deficits and spending.

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

How are you feeling given the destruction being caused by the Trump administration’s shock and awe campaign against American democracy and society? How are you managing day-to-day?

I feel shocked but not surprised. These are the same old goals that conservatives have been talking about for decades. But I didn't foresee whole government agencies being illegally dismantled. It's upsetting that we have a president and administration that doesn't play by the rules.

I'd obviously rather be fighting to give more Americans health insurance and a secure economic footing than fighting to protect their health insurance and dignity. But there's no fight I'd rather be in because I think, for most Americans, it's common sense that we can afford to provide health insurance and basic needs for low-income Americans since we are a really rich country. There's all of the extra stress that comes along with Trump, but I consider myself fortunate to work on a policy issue that's the bread and butter of American politics: How do we pay for basic investments in people?

What is it like in Washington, D.C. right now?

Lots of federal employees are worried about their livelihoods, which is understandable. And even more are upset that the Trump administration is systematically wrecking the work that they spent decades doing, whether that be fighting for consumers, researching public health or helping Americans get the benefits they're entitled to. I've been to parties where there's a ban on people talking about current events because people just want to forget about it for a few hours, since this is all anyone thinks about during the day. 

"The single most indefensible component of the tax bill congressional Republicans are trying to renew is a cut in the estate tax. They want to increase the amount a married couple can pass on to their heirs without paying a cent of estate tax from $14 million per couple to $28 million per couple."

Everywhere you look, you see an attack on core government functions. The Trump administration is trying to degrade the Social Security Administration's ability to provide elderly and disabled Americans the benefits they're entitled to. They are firing people working at the National Weather Service who provide the data for the weather report you see on your phone. They're hamstringing billions of dollars of cancer research by putting on leave the people who make sure that the research dollars go to cancer researchers.

The goal is not to let all of the horrible things distract you from doing your job, though. It's critical that people whose job it is to protect the programs that low- and moderate-income people rely on focus on the threats and opportunities that are appearing.

The Trump administration is following through on Project 2025. This was announced before the 2024 campaign and should not in any way be a surprise. How much of what we are seeing with the Trump administration’s assaults on democracy, the very idea of government itself, and the social safety net is actually new and/or novel? What is the larger context?

The plans being talked about right now, such as cutting Medicaid and SNAP to finance tax cuts for the wealthy, are part of the standard conservative playbook. The difference is that our fiscal situation has gotten worse over the last 25 years — we're a long way off from the Clinton budget surpluses — so they feel pressure to cut programs instead of putting tax cuts for rich people on the credit card.

We need your help to stay independent

We're still at the stage where they aren't providing specifics of how they're going to cut these programs, but the House Republican budget sets them on a course to cut Medicaid by 10 percent and SNAP by 20 percent. Those are enormous cuts. Some of the goodies they are planning to give to rich people include allowing high-income business owners to write off 20 percent of their profits, doubling the amounts the heirs of the largest estates can inherit tax-free from $14 million to $28 million per couple, and enacting hundreds of billions of dollars of tax breaks for businesses that don't need a tax break.

The Yale Budget Lab recently completed an analysis of the Trump-Republican 2025 proposed budget, highlighting how it disproportionately serves the richest and most powerful Americans, corporations, and other interests at the literal expense of the public, specifically the poor and the working class.

Normally, when we talk about tax cuts, we just talk about tax cuts. And it may be the case that Americans across the income spectrum get tax cuts. Perhaps low-income Americans' tax cuts are smaller than high-income people's, but they're getting a tax cut, so why should they complain?

The Budget Lab analysis is revealing because it shows that we should consider more than the tax cuts. We should consider how they're being paid for. In the case of the Republican House budget, it's being paid for through massive cuts to health care and nutrition for low- and moderate-income people. Americans in the bottom 40 percent would be worse off from this so-called tax cut bill because the cuts to programs are so deep and concentrated on support for low- and moderate-income Americans and their tax cuts are so small.

At the same time, high-income Americans get large tax cuts. This isn't shared sacrifice. This is income redistribution from the poor to the rich.

What are some specific examples of “welfare” for the rich in this proposed budget?

The single most indefensible component of the tax bill congressional Republicans are trying to renew is a cut in the estate tax. They want to increase the amount a married couple can pass on to their heirs without paying a cent of estate tax from $14 million per couple to $28 million per couple. This literally only benefits the heirs of 1 in 1,000 estates. And again, it's indefensible to do this while cutting health care and nutrition assistance for low-income people. People will go hungry or not get the right cancer treatment while we give a huge tax cut to the heirs of the wealthiest estates.

Budgets are the single clearest way to see a politician's priorities — there are numbers and policies behind those numbers. In cases like the House Republican Budget, I would say there's very little magic and trickery behind this one. They have been extremely clear that their goal is to cut health care and nutrition assistance for low- and moderate-income Americans and use those savings to finance tax cuts for the wealthy. The gaslighting comes from what they say — where they say a cut isn't a cut and won't result in anybody losing health or nutrition benefits when we know that the reason these cuts will generate savings is by cutting benefits.

What are some of the greatest and most dangerous myths about the federal budget and spending (and government more generally) that you see propagated by the Republicans? 

The most persistent untruth is the suggestion that tax cuts pay for themselves. We're seeing many different flavors of this, such as comparing actual tax revenue to projections of revenue before the tax cuts, but not accounting for the fact that those pre-tax cut revenue projections didn't foresee the 20 percent increase in prices we got because of the pandemic. The simple fact is that tax cuts don't pay for themselves, even conservative economists don't think added economic growth reduces the cost of tax cuts by much more than 10 percent. That's far from the 100 percent being asserted.

Another is that tax cuts for rich people and corporations will trickle down to workers. The economy's growth rate in the two years following the 2017 tax cuts was practically the same as the years preceding the tax cuts. And when you look under the hood, you see the main reason why GDP growth held steady was an increase in government spending under Trump. The growth rate of consumption and investment — the mechanisms by which the tax cut is supposed to help the economy — fell.

The federal government runs a persistent deficit and that's OK, especially over the business cycle, since running large deficits during recessions is a way to shorten them. Generally, as long as those deficits are smaller than our economic growth rate — i.e. our ability to pay that debt — the debt and deficit outlook is sustainable. The problem now is that we've had 25 years of deficit-financed tax cuts and deficits are noticeably higher than our growth rate. The solution is to bring back the revenue levels we had under Bill Clinton, which would allow us to meet national needs while keeping the growth of our debt in check.

Here is a second myth and right-wing talking point. The government is like a business and should make a “profit.”

Running the government like a business is a mistake. In my view, the biggest difference between a government and a business is that businesses fail all the time, and that's fine. That's how capitalism works. But we can't just start over if our government fails. That's why it's vital that Social Security checks go out in a timely manner and Americans get service when they need it. For example, they can't go to the Canadian government if they're not satisfied with the service. One of the most important roles of government is insuring against risks such as becoming too old to work (Social Security), losing your job (unemployment insurance), or becoming poor (SNAP). The fact that it protects some people who aren't "profitable" is a core function.

If the American government is a business, then where are “the profits” for the middle, working class, and poor? Most of “the profits” are being hoarded by the wealthiest (the submerged state and the top 20 percent), and the rest of us are stuck with the risk and expenses.

The key thing is the House Republican budget views low- and moderate-income families as a cost that we need to keep in check by cutting programs like Medicaid and SNAP that help people afford health care and groceries, while tax cuts for rich people, which also increase the deficit, are necessary. And just as importantly, the House budget likely adds something like $3 trillion to the deficit over 10 years despite massive cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. That means that this budget and eventual tax bill are just the first set of cuts to programs helping low- and moderate-income people they are enacting. The same legislators who are putting trillions on the national credit card to cut taxes for rich people are going to say that the ensuing deficits are too high and that's why we need to further cut Medicaid, SNAP, and eventually Social Security and Medicare.

If Donald Trump and the Republicans and the larger right wing get their way with this proposed 2005 federal budget as part of their larger plan to gut government and the social safety net what will America look like? 

More Americans would not have enough to eat and fewer will get the medical care they need when they get sick. Even worse, by adding to deficits the House Republican budget would increase pressure to enact further cuts whether it be to the same economic security programs it's slashing or Medicare and Social Security. Wealthy Americans, on the other hand, would have a larger share of the economic pie. 

Trump blinks on tariffs in face of GOP resistance — but hasn’t given up his cult-leader dreams

History's most famous cults are known primarily for their final suicidal acts: the mass poisoning at Jonestown, the self-immolation of the Branch Davidians, the self-asphyxiations of Heaven's Gate. We know these things happen, but it's still a mystery to most of us how cult members get to this point. Why didn't they hit the eject button sooner, as their leader descended further into incoherent megalomania? Why did they stick by him even as it became increasingly clear he was putting the whole community on a pathway to self-destruction? Why didn't more people voice doubts or even confront the cult leader before things got this bad? 

We're getting a compelling illustration on the national stage of how a cult leader can induce his followers to stick by him, even as he loses his mind and his behavior becomes too erratic and dangerous to defend. Almost every Republican on Capitol Hill knows that Donald Trump's tariff plan is political suicide, but few are willing to admit that Dear Leader fully intends to see this idiocy to the very end. Instead, most resemble the residents of Jonestown, many of whom hoped Jim Jones was testing their faith with all this poison-Kool-Aid talk, which allowed them to play along until it was too late to save themselves. 

But while the Republican Party acts very much like Trump's cult, there are still some obstacles between Trump and his Jim Jones fantasies. He doesn't have congressional Republicans geographically isolated, which is key to maintaining control over the flock. Their connections to the outside world, especially to constituents who frantic about rising prices and evaporating savings, are pulling them away. Many Republican politicians aren't true believers, anyway, but more like cynical operators whose "loyalty" to Trump only lasts as far as their perceived self-interest. As a result, a small but growing number of Republicans in both the House and the Senate started to back bills to roll back Trump's tariff powers. For now, the pressure is working. On Wednesday, Trump agreed to a 90-day "pause" on most tariffs, while escalating the trade war with China. 


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


But this victory is small and short-lived. At the risk of sounding like the kind of grubby leftist that Republicans want to ignore, the GOP has what you might call a collective action problem. Trump has a messiah complex, which has inflated to gargantuan size since that missed assassin's bullet from July was hyped by his followers into "proof" that he's the Chosen One. Even as he blinks momentarily on his tariff mania, his behavior is getting even more erratic in a way that's got "last days of Waco" vibes — from a person who has already unsubtly compared himself to David Koresh. His Truth Social meltdown when announcing the "pause" indicates a decline in Trump's already-fragile mental state. 

He's just making it up as he goes

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) April 9, 2025 at 1:28 PM

There have been various failed efforts, both from White House spinners and pundits, to sane-wash Trump's choice to torch the economy as some kind of "strategy." In a Tuesday speech before the National Republican Congressional Committee, Trump made clear that he's just a malignant narcissist whose only goals are self-worship and imposing increasingly baroque loyalty tests on his cult followers, i.e., the entire Republican Party. "I see some rebel Republican, some guy who wants to grandstand, say, 'I think that Congress should take over negotiations.' Let me tell you, you don't negotiate like I negotiate," he groused as the crowd nervously laughed to please Dear Leader. He pretended foreign leaders are "calling us up, kissing my a**." 

“They are dying to make a deal. 'Please, please sir, make a deal. I’ll do anything sir,'” he claimed, in a moment suggestive of how late-stage cult leaders experience a total collapse between reality and their grandiose fantasies. "BE COOL!" he barked on Truth Social Wednesday, promising, "Everything is going to work out well. The USA will be bigger and better than ever before!" Then came this confusing and chaotic "pause." It all feels like the final stage of cult decay, when the leader's frantic efforts to retain control result in escalating dictates and prophecies that become increasingly hard for even the most devoted followers to make sense of. 

"There is no grand plan or strategic vision, no matter what his advisers claim — only the impulsive actions of a mad king," explained Jamelle Bouie in the New York Times on Wednesday. "Trump’s tariffs are not a policy as we traditionally understand it," he continued, but an expression of Trump's inability to "conceive of any relationship between individuals, peoples or states as anything other than a status game, a competition for dominance."

Republican behavior helps illustrate the in-group dynamics of a cult that make it so hard for members to buck the leader when he puts them on the path to suicide, either literal or metaphorical (which is so far all that Republicans are contemplating). Few are willing to be the one seen questioning Trump's infinite wisdom, lest they draw his ire and be singled out for punishment. Instead, they resort to passive language, hoping they can convey their concerns without daring to question whether the MAGA prophet is not the wisest man who ever lived. 

"What’s happening is not good. Now will it continue?" Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said in a typical comment. "I think it is a mistake to assume that we will have high tariffs in perpetuity," said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. One would think they're talking about the weather, rather than a deliberate choice by Trump. Billionaire Elon Musk is trying a slightly different tactic, blaming Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro, rather than Trump himself. What ties all this together is the fear of criticizing Trump directly, and hoping instead that all this gentle hand-holding and blame-shifting will give their leader the space he needs to stop the madness. 

Republicans would be foolish to treat this 90-day pause as a victory big enough to justify scurrying back to their holes, to hide from the wrath of Dear Leader. He is spiraling. He sees these tariffs as the final proving ground of his total conquest of the GOP. He'll keep going back to that well — which means more economic tumult, more stock market crashes and more panicked constituents — unless this tariff nonsense is put to bed entirely. Republicans need to realize (not to return to the commie lingo!) that this is a moment to "hang together or hang separately." If enough of them join with Democrats to pass a veto-proof bill stripping Trump of his power to pass tariffs, there's nothing he can do but stand down. The irony is that they'd be saving Trump from himself. Honestly, that might be a price worth paying to save the rest of us, including their own corrupt and corroded party, in the process. 

How the deadly fruit in “The White Lotus” attacks the body

Like many characters in the third season of “The White Lotus,” the pong pong tree spends a lot of its air time hanging by the pool — but it ended up being quite the star of the show.

In the introductory episode of the third season of “The White Lotus,” which aired its season finale Sunday, a receptionist at the namesake hotel, Pam (played by Morgana O'Reilly), warns the Ratliff family that a poisonous fruit tree is growing in the middle of their habitation — planting a seed of suspense that grows throughout the season. 

That suspense culminated in the finale episode after Pam inadvertently gives instructions on how to prepare and eat the deadly plant to Timothy Ratliff, who has been contemplating suicide throughout the season after learning his family will lose their wealth after their vacation in Thailand ends. 

Known as the “suicide tree” in Southeast Asia and Australia where it grows, the pong pong tree (Cerbera odollam) has been linked to thousands of deaths. In fact, it may be even more toxic than the show depicts, according to Dr. Ryan Misek, an emergency medicine physician and clinical associate professor at Midwestern University who co-authored a case report involving a 22-year-old patient who consumed the pong pong’s seeds.

Although one study reported that it was once responsible for half of plant poisoning cases in Kerala, India, relatively little research has been published about it in the West. Misek said he published the case report to raise awareness about this deadly toxin in the U.S.

“This was a situation where this was a toxin that was not very well publicized,” Misek told Salon in a phone interview. “By publishing this case report, the hope was that we would increase awareness among doctors and toxicologists and people on the front lines, so that if the next victim came in, there would be some knowledge and we would be able to … save more of these patients.”

"Although we lack high-quality data determining the exact amount of takes to be lethal, just one kernel seems to be enough to cause significant toxicity and even death."

The fruits of the tree contain one or two bitter seeds containing cerberin, a toxin the plant evolved to prevent animals from eating it. Although Misek’s patient consumed an unknown amount of pong pong seeds, there have been deaths reported with people who ate just one of its seeds, he said. 

“The kernels are definitely deadly,” said Dr. Josh Trebach, an emergency physician and medical toxicologist at the University of Iowa Health Care who said he is not speaking on behalf of his institution or giving medical advice. “Although we lack high-quality data determining the exact amount it takes to be lethal, just one kernel seems to be enough to cause significant toxicity and even death.”

Cerberin, which is found in a handful of other plants, is a cardiac glycoside, which disrupts the electrical signaling in the heart.

Specifically, when ingested, the toxin targets the electrolyte pumps in the wall of the heart called the sodium potassium ATPase pump. In a healthy body, this pump helps shift electrolytes around in the heart and pump blood throughout the body. But cerberin poisons this pump, which can cause the heart's electrical system to fail. There can also be an associated increase in potassium found in the blood stream, which further poisons the heart. This leads the heart to slow down and can lead to a fatal arrhythmia, Misek said.

"The heart's electrical system ultimately stops conducting electricity and muscle cells lose their ability to contract in a normal, organized fashion," he said. "This ultimately leads to cardiac arrest."


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


Eating these seeds can lower a person’s heart rate and cause nausea, vomiting and stomach pain. When Timothy Ratcliff’s son, Lochlan, accidentally drinks the leftover toxic mixture he prepared in the blender in the season finale of “The White Lotus,” he displays some of these same symptoms before passing out, seeing some spiritual stuff and waking back up.

But what is displayed is a Hollywood version of the process, chopped and edited to fit into a 90-minute episode. In reality, it typically takes at least a few hours before a person would start to feel the effects of the cerberin. The patient involved in Misek’s case report ate the seeds seven hours before coming in to treat their symptoms. 

"Deaths reported from pong pong seeds are generally not as quick as depicted on television," Misek said. "Case reports of fatal overdoses often describe suffering during the hours after ingestion before the patient loses consciousness and ultimately dies."

Trebach emphasized how dangerous these seeds were and that it was important to seek medical care or call poison control if any ingestion is suspected. Treating someone who has ingested pong pong seeds usually involves treating the symptoms they are experiencing, Misek said. Doctors may also administer a digoxin immune fab antidote, which is used to treat a similar toxin.

We need your help to stay independent

After ingesting the seeds, Lochlan presumably fights for his life while unconscious, entering a dream-like state where he finds himself struggling to swim to the surface of a pool of water. On his way, he sees four monk-shaped silhouettes. In the moment he lets go, he wakes up, rolling over to tell his father he “saw God.”

The portrayal of Lochlan’s near-death experience might have been more realistic than his poisoning. Many people report leaving their bodies and other transcendental experiences after near-fatal accidents. 

But based on the amount of pong pong seeds he consumed, it would have been more realistic if Lochlan had died, Trebach told Salon in an email.

“Lochlan’s symptoms came on so fast (even before he finished drinking the entire thing) that I worry he was exposed to a consequential amount,” Trebach said. “Without medical treatment, I think it is extremely unlikely that Lochlan would've survived ‘The White Lotus’ season three finale.”

Feeling stuck in your job? Don’t despair — take these steps instead

Despite a growing acceptance of career changes and “job-hopping,” many working professionals feel trapped in roles they no longer want. According to the 2025 Career Gridlock Report from Resume Now, 60% of U.S. workers have stayed in a role longer than they wanted, even though 66% believed that changing careers could improve their happiness.

While shifting workplace norms should, in theory, make career transitions easier, financial fears, economic uncertainties and concerns about potential skills gaps and competition continue to hold workers back. 

But being stuck doesn’t have to be permanent. By understanding key barriers to career movement and the motivations driving the desire for change, professionals can begin to plan for and take strategic steps to help them successfully pivot into a more fulfilling role — without starting over from scratch. Let’s start by taking a closer look at the reasons so many workers feel stuck in their current jobs. 

Barriers to career change

The primary obstacle holding most workers back is financial risk. The report showed that 35% worry about having to start over at a lower salary, while 34% fear financial instability during the transition. Given the current economic climate and cooling labor market, these concerns aren’t surprising. 

Beyond financial fears, many professionals hesitate to make a change due to uncertainty about career fit, concerns about potential skills gaps and increased competition in the job market. The fear of making the wrong move can be debilitating, reinforcing the feeling of being stuck in a role you no longer enjoy. While these concerns are certainly valid, there are strategic ways to mitigate these risks and move forward with a plan.

Before diving into solutions, though, it’s important to understand what’s pushing workers towards change in the first place. 

We need your help to stay independent

Why workers crave change

While the obstacles preventing workers from making a career change are legitimate, so are the reasons that many feel compelled to move on. With financial risk being the top barrier, it makes sense that the leading motivation for change is the desire for higher pay and better benefits — something that 57% of workers are actively pursuing. 

Others are prioritizing work-life balance, including greater flexibility and more work options. Some are driven by burnout or dissatisfaction with their current role, while others feel the pull of a long-standing passion for a new industry or position. 

So how do professionals move from wanting change to actually making it happen, particularly without needing to start over from scratch? The key is approaching the process with strategy, not impulsivity. With the right roadmap, workers can reduce risk, build confidence and make meaningful progress toward a more fulfilling career.

A roadmap for career changers

A successful career shift might feel out of reach, but it’s often closer than it seems. Here are some small but meaningful actions you can take to increase your chances of success. 

Gain clarity on career fit. Whether you’re pivoting to a new field or simply looking for a different role within your current industry, every successful job search begins with gaining clarity about your career goals. Leveraging AI tools, taking career assessments and engaging in some honest self-reflection can help you start narrowing down your options.

Once you have a few potential paths in mind, it’s important to test those ideas. Researching different industries, conducting informational interviews with professionals currently working in roles you’re considering, volunteering to test new skills and interests or taking on short-term contract work can all give you valuable firsthand insight. These experiences not only help you learn more about a role but also allow you to confirm whether it aligns with your interests, strengths and long-term goals. 

Every successful job search begins with gaining clarity about your career goals

Taking the time to gain clarity before making a move helps ensure that your next step is intentional, reducing the risk of missteps and making it far less likely that you’ll need to start over again down the line. 

Reduce financial risk. Planning ahead is essential for managing the financial risks that often come with changing careers. Start by reviewing your personal budget and researching salary trends in your target field to ensure your financial needs will be met. This is especially important given that 73% of workers say they struggle to afford anything beyond basic living expenses, according to Resume Now’s 2025 Wage Reality Report.

If possible, work to build a financial safety net before making the leap. This is one of the biggest advantages of preparing for a career change while still employed — it allows you to map out your next steps while maintaining a steady income. In some cases, picking up a side gig or part-time work can also help you supplement your finances during the transition, providing an additional buffer as you move toward your new career. 

By proactively addressing financial risks, you can approach your career change with greater stability and avoid feeling pressured to make rushed decisions that could ultimately set you back. 

Upskill effectively and leverage existing skills. When making a career change, it’s common to discover some gaps between your current experience and the qualifications hiring managers expect in your new target field. As you plan your next steps, focus on building in-demand skills, like effectively applying AI tools in your work, that can ease your transition. According to Resume Now’s AI Compliance Report, 43% of employees say they need more training to use AI effectively — highlighting just how crucial this skill set has become. Online certifications, boot camps and employer-sponsored training programs can all offer practical ways to strengthen your skill set. 

At the same time, don’t overlook the value of the skills you already possess. Many of your existing abilities are likely transferable and highly relevant to the roles you’re pursuing. Take time to identify these strengths and present them in ways that align with what recruiters and hiring managers are seeking. By emphasizing your transferable skills, you can highlight your adaptability and problem-solving abilities — qualities that are particularly important for career changers. 

Strengthening your skill set while showcasing the value you already bring helps you avoid the need to “start over” entirely, positioning you for a smoother and more confident career transition. 

Strengthening your skill set while showcasing the value you already bring helps you avoid the need to start over entirely

Expand your network. Many would-be career changers hesitate to network for fear that their current employer will discover their plans. While it’s wise to be thoughtful about how you build new connections, you don’t have to put your intentions on display. Instead, focus on expanding your network in ways that naturally align with professional growth, allowing you to quietly build relationships in your target industry. 

A good place to start is by following and engaging with professionals who are doing the type of work you aspire to and who are working at companies you might be interested in. By participating thoughtfully in industry-relevant discussions, you can expand your knowledge, demonstrate genuine interest in the field and build relationships that could lead to new opportunities. You can also attend industry-specific events, join professional groups or participate in online communities related to your target field. 

By tactfully building connections before you make your move, you’ll ease your transition into a new field and avoid the career gridlock that often comes from trying to navigate change alone. 

Taking the first step toward career freedom

Skills-based hiring is on the rise, job-hopping has become more accepted and the traditional career ladder is being replaced by a more flexible, nonlinear career path. Today’s professionals have more opportunities than ever to change direction without starting over from scratch. 

Still, breaking free from career gridlock requires thoughtful, strategic planning. By taking small, deliberate steps, you can minimize risk, build confidence and make steady progress toward a more fulfilling career. Career change isn’t about erasing your past — it’s about building on what you’ve already accomplished to create a future that’s better aligned with who you are today. 

“Prime with human beings”: ICE director looks to Amazon as model for mass deportations

It's never a good thing when a government official starts dreaming about operating like a business. It's particularly heinous when that official is the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons told attendees at the 2025 Border Security Expo in Phoenix that he hoped to model his agency after online shopping giant Amazon, saying he was envious of their shipping and logistics. Lyons envisioned a future in which the mass roundups and deportations of people in the United States could run as efficiently as ordering a cheap pair of headphones. 

“We need to get better at treating this like a business,” Lyons said, per the Arizona Mirror.

The man charged with carrying out President Donald Trump's promised mass deportations hoped his agency could operate "like [Amazon] Prime, but with human beings."

Trump border czar Tom Homan also had the private sector on the brain, urging attendees to think about contracting out his administration's deportation scheme wherever possible. 

"We need to buy more beds, we need more airplane flights and I know a lot of you are here for that reason," Homan said. "Let the badge and guns do the badge and gun stuff, everything else, let’s contract out."

In the early months of his second term, Trump has ramped up immigration enforcement actions. His administration has loosed ICE on immigrant communities and sent the agency to detain lawful residents of the United States who speak ill of Israel

Most recently, the admin authorized deportations without due process to an ostensible prison and actual black site in El Salvador. 

Trump's agents rounded up Venezuelans in the country under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, declaring them to be part of an invasion of the United States by the gang Tren de Aragua, and shipping them off to El Salvador without trial. Many of the people snatched and disappeared by the Trump admin claim to have no affiliation with the gang in question. 

There's one area where ICE and Trump have no interest in acting like Amazon: the retail giant offers easy returns. Trump's administration has repeatedly defied court orders to halt deportations and return wrongfully deported people. In this, Trump's lackeys have a friend in the Supreme Court. The highest court overturned a restraining order on the admin's ongoing deportations and blocked an order to bring legal resident Abrego Garcia back to the United States.

“Getting yippy”: Trump says he reversed course on tariffs because people were “afraid”

In the coming days, you should expect President Donald Trump to find new and exciting ways to avoid mentioning the bond market. 

Trump buried the lede on the rapid sell-off of Treasury bonds by foreign investors — and the lack of long-term faith in the United States' market such a move signifies — on Wednesday, telling reporters that he reversed course on his much-touted trade war because people were "getting yippy."

"I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line. They were getting yippy, you know, they were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid," Trump said. "No other president would have done what I did."

Trump did say the bond market was "queasy," but only after saying it was "beautiful." 

Trump paused his raft of reciprocal tariffs for 90 days earlier in the day, leaving in place massive duties on Chinese imports over a purported "lack of respect."

While many conservative commentators lined up to congratulate Trump on his supposedly masterful gambit, others pointed out that Trump's hand was likely forced by economic disarray. Fox Business correspondent Charlie Gasparino told his rah-rah colleagues to tone down the celebration of Trump's deal-making. Gasparino said that Trump "capitulated" because of terrifying indicators in the market.

“To tell you right now that Donald Trump outsmarted the world," Gasparino said, "that’s not really what happened here.”

Though Trump has said that countries are "kissing [his] ass" and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made mention of deals with 75 countries, Gasparino splashed some cold water on the idea of Trump as a master strategist. Noting that the Trump White House has never been shy about announcing made deals, the reporter pointed a finger at the bond market as the real impetus behind Trump's 180. 

“If you have a mass sale of bonds, that means people are losing confidence in the U.S. economy, on the ability to do deals with us,” Gasparino said. "Those markets were imploding last night."

Liberated no more? Markets soar as Trump announces 90-day pause on tariffs

Donald Trump blinked. 

The president paused his plan to levy tit-for-tat tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners on Wednesday, following a week of widespread stock market chaos in anticipation of the new duties. In a post to his social media platform Truth Social, Trump scrapped his reciprocal tariffs and reverted to a base 10% tariff on imports.

Trump said the walk-back was due to the rush of other countries attempting to make deals with the United States. The president, who previously said other countries were "kissing [his] ass" to avoid new duties, wrote that 75 countries "have called representatives…to negotiate a solution." He offered a 90-day pause on his would-be trade war so that new trade deals might be worked out.

"These Countries have not, at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape, or form against the United States, I have authorized a 90-day PAUSE, and a substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff during this period, of 10%, also effective immediately," he wrote. 

Trump did not extend the same courtesy to China, which has responded to Trump's tariffs with retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. Trump raised his tariff on Chinese imports to 125%.

"Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately," he wrote. "At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable."

The news of a tariff pause caused an instantaneous boost to the U.S. stock market, which had dropped precipitously over fears of a tariff-induced recession. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose sharply following Trump's announcement, gaining over 6% as of this writing.

The Trump administration danced around the idea that Trump caved to economic pressure at home. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was asked directly about a "reversal" from the administration, but chose to paint the move as "[creating] maximum negotiating leverage." Given the good news in the stock market, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt took the opportunity to gloat to the press. 

"Many of you in the media clearly missed 'The Art of the Deal.' You clearly failed to see what President Trump is doing here," she told reporters. "The entire world is calling the United States of America, not China, because they need our markets, they need our consumers, and they need this president in the Oval Office to talk to them."

In the House of Representatives, Democrats lambasted the uncertainty created by Trump's on-again, off-again tariffs. 

"How is any company supposed to forecast for their future, build a plant, hire workers, if they have no idea what the hell this president is gonna do in his next tweet?" Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said. "I need a neck brace to be able to get through all this."

Federal agencies won’t disclose the name of the grower behind a deadly E. coli lettuce outbreak

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) won’t disclose the name of the grower behind a deadly E. coli outbreak linked to romaine lettuce in 2024. According to February reports obtained by Food Safety News, both agencies revealed that the same grower was responsible for an outbreak in 2021.

In the 2024 outbreak — which occurred in November and December — a total of 89 individuals became ill across 15 states. Seven individuals developed hemolytic uremic syndrome, a serious complication that causes kidney failure, and one person died.

The FDA explained that the grower is not named in its report because “by the time the investigation was over, the implicated lot of romaine lettuce was no longer available for sale,” Food Safety News reported. Additionally, the agency redacted the names of all firms and companies that handled and processed the tainted lettuce.

“The three traceback legs identified 4 distribution centers, broker, processors, [redacted] grower, and [redacted] ranch,” the FDA report outlined. “The traceback investigation determined that [redacted], the sole processor, sourced romaine lettuce from [redacted] grower, [redacted].”

“This romaine was available at all points of service (POS) during the specified timeframe of interest. Additionally, romaine lettuce supplied to [redacted] POS was traced back to a common ranch and lot,” the report continued. “Through analysis of records, [redacted] lots of romaine lettuce were implicated, resulting in confirmation of romaine lettuce as the vehicle.”

The FDA added that seven subclusters of E. Coli infections were part of the outbreak. They included catered events in Missouri, an Ohio school, an Indiana restaurant, an Illinois restaurant and an Illinois catered event, per Food Safety News. An investigation by the CDC found that out of 65 individuals who were part of the subclusters, 95% said they ate a mix of leafy greens before falling sick. 88% of individuals who could remember what leafy greens they ate said they consumed romaine lettuce.

“The traceback investigation determined that a sole processor sourced romaine lettuce from [redacted] grower that would have been available at all points of service during the timeframe of interest,” the FDA said in its report. “Additionally, romaine lettuce supplied to [redacted] POS was traced back to a common ranch and lot.”

Boomers are still bankrolling their adult kids — but not all are mad about it

The economic tension between younger and older Americans — millennials and Gen Zers in their 20s, 30s and 40s versus baby boomers and older Gen Xers in their 60s, 70s and 80s — has become Greco-Roman in scale.

From the younger adults’ perspective, much of their financial lives can be defined by what they lack compared to their parents: They can’t afford to buy a home, they feel like their wages have stagnated, they don’t feel “comfortable” with how much money they’ve got saved, they’re worried about AI obliterating their job prospects, consumer products aren’t quality anymore, all the furniture is cheap and, oh, right, they’ll be living through the more acute impacts of the climate crisis, explicitly caused by capitalistic oil boomers of the roaring 1980s.

For boomers, conventional wisdom says they resent millennials, that they think they’re lazy or entitled, and that, hey, maybe they could afford a home if they stopped shelling out so much on avocado toast. We imagine the average boomer as a wealthy, conservative, out-of-touch white suburbanite largely unsympathetic to millennial and Gen Z money troubles.

But new data challenges that assumption, and paints a more compassionate picture of boomers and Gen Xer parents as largely sympathetic to their kids' financial plight, and willing, sometimes gladly, to continue helping their kids cover financial odds and ends. At the same time, they’re worried their kids’ long-term dependence might jeopardize their own retirement, or even their ability to retire. Savings.com — an online coupon company that, yes, I recognize doesn’t have a classically prestigious-sounding name like The Johns Hopkins University, and I’m asking you to to challenge those frankly misogynistic assumptions about what companies with unserious names are capable of — surveyed 1,000 U.S. parents of adult children, specifically on how their contributions to their savings compared to their financial gifts to their children.

And in several anonymized survey responses shared exclusively with Salon, parents didn’t bemoan their offspring as being anything close to lazy or entitled. Instead, across all ages and incomes, parents showed “a lot more sympathy” for their adult children, as Beth Klongpayabal, analytics manager at Savings.com, described in an interview. 

“The respondents in our survey, I mean, they weren't rich people — they weren't all sitting around on their yachts replying,” Klongpayabal said. “A lot of what we're seeing is that these are people who don't want their kids to struggle the way they did.”

We need your help to stay independent

If one thing was made clear, it’s that there's a good reason these generations share a singular relationship. The survey found that parents providing financial support give an average of $1,474 a month, or $17,688 per year. Additionally, it found that working parents tend to contribute twice as much to their kids’ finances as they do their own retirement, and that half of the surveyed parents feel “obligated” to help their offspring with money. More than 80% of parents help pay for their adult children’s groceries; nearly half of the parents pay for their children's vacations. 

Granted, that $1,474 figure might be a bit inflated; most parents aren’t giving their adult offspring enough cash to snag a new MacBook each month. For adult children living at home, for example, the cost of what would’ve been their rent or mortgage contribution was included. Still, the figure crystallizes something we’ve all felt for a while — that boomers are giving more money to their millennial or Gen Z offspring than past generations. 

“Parents have never extended support of this scale and frequency before,” Dr. Michael Kane, a psychiatrist specialized in family medicine, told Salon in an email response to the survey.  

Despite providing unprecedented levels of support, though, most boomers weren’t resentful of their kids. Instead, they were rejecting a “kick the baby bird out of the nest” mentality, Klongpayabal said, that they felt was largely inflicted on them by their Silent Generation parents. “A lot of the parents are saying, ‘I had to struggle … and I don't want my kids to have to live through that the way I did,’” Klongpayabal said. “‘I didn't work so hard so that my kids could struggle. I worked so hard so my kids could have a better life.’”

"A lot of the parents are saying, ‘I had to struggle … and I don't want my kids to have to live through that the way I did"

Not all the responses were rosy. A 61-year-old father who pays for his Gen Zers' phone bill and college tuition described the dependence as “a burden.” And a 72-year-old woman who covers some of her 45-year-old’s discretionary spending described their current financial relationship as one in which her grown kid “constantly (asks) for small loans.” 

“I looked at her spending, and it was just her daughter apparently asking for money here and there,” Klongpayabal said. It added up to around $200 a month, she added. In the respondents’ additional answers that Klongpayabal described, the 72-year-old said she was in a lower-income bracket, and while she sometimes talks to her daughter about money, she’s still “knocking her door down.”

“She's exhausted,” Klongpayabal said.

Klongpayabal, 49, designed the Savings.com survey, and lives in Dallas with her husband and four of their grown kids — one a millennial and three Gen Z stepkids — all of whom went straight into the workforce after high school. “I am one of these people which I never expected to be when we started this research,” she said.

Part of her interest in the subject comes, naturally, from her own personal engagement with the material. And if the research shows this is a widespread reality among most people with adult children, it’s useless to subscribe to outdated expectations about what success looks like, she said — while also making sure you aren’t jeopardizing your own future.

“Equal isn't always fair when it comes to the children being cared for, or if their needs are different,” she said. “For all of my kids, as long as they're making progress toward a goal — as long as we're working toward that, and it's productive, then I think I am being successful in launching them.”

"Many of these same parents quietly tell me they’re afraid their death has become their kids' financial plan — and that's a terrifying position to be in"

It’s not exactly an ideal time for boomers to feel like perennial bank accounts, though. An estimated 58.8% of them are delaying their retirements due to financial stress. In 2024, 60% of boomers became eligible for full Social Security retirement benefits, but only 10% were fully retired. More than half have less than $250,000 in retirement savings, according to a 2024 study from the Retirement Income Institute and the Alliance for Lifetime Income, and will have to “rely primarily on Social Security as a source of income.” Those benefits are expected to be around $22,000 a year, according to AARP

“Boomer parents often feel torn between love, responsibility and fear,” Melissa Cox, a certified financial planner at Future Focused Wealth in Dallas, told Salon. “On one hand, they genuinely want to help. They see their kids navigating higher housing costs, student loans and stagnant wages, and they remember how hard it was even when things were 'easier.'”

“But on the other hand,” she said, “many of these same parents quietly tell me they’re afraid their death has become their kids' financial plan — and that's a terrifying position to be in.”

To that end, some survey respondents set firmer boundaries. 

“In this economy, I can barely support myself,” one wrote. “All I can do is guide and give advice.”

“Unless there's an emergency, of course — I’ll always be there for emergencies,” they added, I imagine with a sweet, frenetic energy, the way I’d picture it coming from my mother.

Giraffes for peace: Kenya’s Baringo giraffes are bringing warring communities together

On the shores of Lake Baringo in Kenya’s Rift Valley, an unusual common denominator has helped bring peace to two warring communities­ after generations of fighting: the love of giraffes.

Clashes between the two pastoral communities — the Pokot and Il-Chamus (also known as Njemps) — had ebbed and flowed over decades, with most of the conflicts revolving around access to land, water or cattle.

A cycle of droughts and floods, the spread of invasive plants that reduced grassland for livestock, and a surge of malaria made matters worse.

By 2000, the country was in the throes of its worst drought in 60 years. The impacts on the Lake Baringo region were devastating. People were displaced, and many lost much of their livestock. Already-existing tensions increased and spurred a steady stream of brutal skirmishes involving cattle raids, home invasions, attacks, and killings between the two groups.

“It was very bad,” recalls Rebby Sebei, a 35-year-old woman from East Pokot who now manages the Ruko Community Wildlife Conservancy in Baringo County. “It was based on who you were, if you had a different language.”

The violence continued to escalate. In March 2005 a series of armed attacks by Pokot warriors on the Il-Chamus resulted in several dead and more than 2,000 head of cattle stolen.

The brutality also pushed people from their homes.

To stop the violence, elders from both communities sought common ground. And they found it with giraffes.

“Women were forced to spend the night in the bushes and sleep there with their kids,” Sebei says. But the bush, too, was hazardous. “There were so many dangers, like snakes and scorpions.”

Families were often separated, including Sebei’s.

When she was around 15 years old, she came home for school break and found her family gone.

“At first I couldn’t find them,” she says. “I had to inquire, talk, get some good people to take me around. At that time, there were no mobile phones, no transport, no mobility. I needed to walk for long distances.”

When the family finally reunited, they stayed in the bush where it was safer.

“We spent many nights outside,” she says. “It was very memorable.”

A Big Idea

To stop the violence, elders from both communities sought common ground. And they found it with giraffes.

By restoring these animals they both treasured to their ancestral land, they would work together toward a shared purpose. That, in turn, would build trust and increase understanding among the different communities.

Historically, the area was home to the rare Baringo giraffe (also known as Rothschild’s or Nubian giraffe, Giraffa camelopardalis camelopardalis). A subspecies of northern giraffe, they’re known for a coat pattern that disappears down their legs so that it looks like they’re wearing white socks. According to the IUCN Red List, there are only about 2,000 left in the world, including fewer than 800 in Kenya.

 

Although Kenya has two other giraffe species (Masai and reticulated), this area was known for the Baringo giraffes who used to live here. But decades of conflict, expanding human settlements, and hunting had wiped them out. They hadn’t been seen there since the 1960s.

Even if more modern residents had never seen giraffes, both communities still revered them.

Charles Lekatai, a ranger commander for the Ruko Community Conservancy, told Northern Rangelands Trust in 2020 that he grew up hearing his grandfather’s tales about “a strange, long-necked, spotted animal that used to roam the rangelands around the village, feeding on trees and shrubs” and that it captured his imagination.

Sebei says the animals had a particularly important cultural relevance.

“Giraffe are associated with someone who plans, who sees far, because of their height,” she says. Like seeing into the future. “Elders equated that to the vision of people coming together and living in peace.”

Working Together

Based on that vision, the two communities came together in 2008 to establish the 44,000-acre Ruko Community Conservancy (so named because it brought together the Rugus and Komollion areas of Baringo County), with each setting aside part of their land for it and being part of the management board.

They also designated about 100 acres on the Longicharo peninsula as a special area for the giraffe. Not only was it lush with acacia trees — a giraffe favorite — but its geography (surrounded by water on three of its four sides) would make it easier to protect them from poachers.

In 2011 the communities worked with the Kenya Wildlife Service and others to move eight Baringo giraffes — two males and six females — to the conservancy.

The achievement, the first time that the animals had lived in this stretch of their native habitat in 70 years, received media coverage around the world.

“We sang, celebrated, and the elders blessed the giraffes,” conservancy warden James Cheptulel recalled to Northern Rangelands Trust in 2018. “Everyone, whether Il-Chamus or Pokot, came together to celebrate the return of the giraffe to Baringo.”

Both communities hoped that working together would not only help the giraffes but also ease tensions and make their own lives better by bringing in tourism.

And it worked.

By 2018 the conservancy had about 500 guests each year, with 40% of tourism revenue paying for conservancy operations and the rest split equally between the two communities for healthcare and education.

“In spite of our past differences,” Cheptulel said in 2018, “what matters to us now is the work that the conservancy has entrusted us with.”

Challenges

But it wasn’t all rosy.

“We were having all sorts of challenges,” Sebei recalls. Some giraffes died. Calves did especially poorly. The first was strangled by a python, and others died shortly after birth, likely related to nutritional deficits.

“Calves couldn’t survive more than 14 days,” Sebei says. “There were constant attacks by disease and pests. And there wasn’t enough forage to sustain pregnancies.”

To address the problems, the conservancy started to explore moving the giraffes. Together with the American group Save Giraffes Now, they built a 4,400-acre sanctuary on the mainland.

But they had to accelerate their plans.

In 2020, intense rains caused the lake’s water to rise dramatically, cutting the peninsula off from the mainland and trapping the giraffes on a small, muddy 8-acre island.

While the conservancy and its partners figured out what to do, rangers ferried lucerne pellets and other food to the island to help keep the giraffes alive.

Giraffe Rescue

Eventually the community designed a special barge to bring the giraffes across a mile of open lake. In essence, it was a big raft, with tall, reinforced sides on 60 empty steel drums for buoyancy, towed by motorboat.

One by one, the community — together with partners Kenya Wildlife Service, Save Giraffes Now, and Northern Rangelands Trust — brought the giraffes across the lake, with the first moved on December 2, 2020, and the last — a mom and newborn calf — four months later, on April 12, 2021.

“One unique thing about this move was that the community tried training the giraffes to enter the barge voluntarily using food — acacia and mangoes,” said Susan Myers, CEO of Save Giraffes Now. “They were able to move three of eight giraffes successfully that way, and this model is now being tried elsewhere in Africa.”

Today the herd has grown to 30, up from 18 in 2023. Translocations and successful births drove the population expansion. In July 2024 Kenya Wildlife Service moved seven giraffes overland by truck from a farm in Eldoret and, in January 2025, another two from the Giraffe Center outside Nairobi.

The partners hope the newcomers will improve the giraffes’ genetic diversity as they breed and multiply, which Kenya Wildlife Service notes will help “ensure the robust health in their offspring.” That, in turn, would eventually help them repopulate the entire region.

As before, the communities welcomed the arrival of the giraffes with singing and dancing. And they also recognized the burgeoning peaceful coexistence between them.

At the celebrations members of both communities expressed how the conservancy had brought them together. For example, James Parkitore, from the Il-Chamus community, told Agence France-Presse that he thought the conflict “is over now because we are interacting,” while Pokot farmer Douglas Longomo said “we can move freely without any fear.”

Kenya continues to experience devastating drought and floods — including a deadly flood in the capital city of Nairobi in May 2024. The constant flooding has doubled the size of Lake Baringo since 2010, which in 2022 inspired some residents to sue the government for not doing enough to address climate change. The region has also experienced outbreaks of malaria, exacerbated by the floods which leave pockets of standing water that act as breeding grounds for the mosquitos that carry the disease. And the people around Baringo have experienced an “endless cycle of displacement.”

But even amidst this stress, the giraffes and the most recent translocations remain “a game-changer to the community,” Sebei says.

“Giraffes have a symbolic meaning to the two warring communities and has united them,” she says. “When they see giraffes, they see peace.”

MAGA’s mixed messages on tariffs share one disturbing theme

What exactly is the vision for America that Trump and his people are trying to create with these reckless, chaotic policies? It seems as if it's different for everyone.

Trump BFF Elon Musk is thought by some to be a believer in a techbro vision of "The Network State" in which the titans of tech will replace the dollar with Crypto, as God intended, and divide up the world into mini-states that they will control like medieval fiefdoms. Unfortunately, there will have to be a purge of undesirables who do not meet the genetic standards of the new Superman to repopulate the earth with their superior genes. I wish I were kidding. Wired reported just last month that "Several groups representing “startup cities” — tech hubs exempt from the taxes and regulations that apply to the countries where they are located — are drafting congressional legislation to create “freedom cities” in the U.S. that would be similarly free from certain federal laws, " (Recall that Trump himself was promoting "freedom cities" during the campaign.)

But Musk may actually be beyond that vision with his infiltration of the federal government. As Kyle Chayka of the New Yorker explained, Musk no longer has any need for these little techtopian enclaves. Musk appears to be a techno-accelerationist (a subcategory of techno-fascism), which is defined as the total destruction of the existing order "to create a technologized, hierarchical one with engineers at the top." That sure sounds like a lot of fun.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, on the other hand, apparently believes we are in a MAGA cultural revolution, Mao Zedong-style. He told Tucker Carlson in an interview this week, "The president is reordering trade. We are shedding excess labor in the federal government and bringing down federal borrowings. And then on the other side that will give us the labor that we need for the new manufacturing."

So now we know that CDC scientists, NIH researchers, IRS tax experts, computer techs, program specialists and other professionals who've been fired by DOGE are going to be sent to work on the assembly lines. Maybe they'll learn to be good, productive citizens instead of "villains," as Trump's Director of the Office of Management and Budget (and project 2025 author) Russell Vought refers to them.

But Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has other ideas. He says those jobs are all going to be taken by robots— but there will be some mechanic types who'll fix the machines. And I'm sure there will always be a need for janitors to keep the place clean, so there's that. More likely, we'll need lots of workers to pick all the food, work in the meat packing plants and fill the jobs of servants for the massively wealthy billionaires, like Bessent and Lutnick, so all those teachers, scientists and educated professionals will no doubt have many job opportunities even if the factories are automated. Trump just announced that he's bringing back coal mining in a big way, so that presents some excellent possibilities as well.

Trump's vision is very different than any of that. He wants to go back to the Gilded Age of William McKinley in the 1890s. On Monday, he repeated the fatuous nonsense he's spewed for ages:

"Our country was the strongest believe it or not from 1870 to 1913. You know why, it was all based, we had no income tax then in 1913 some genius came up with the idea of let's charge the people of our country not foreign countries."

Tariffs, as everyone knows except him, are paid by American businesses and consumers. They were then and they are now just another form of taxation, and a regressive one, which he simply cannot fathom.

We know he didn't read a book about it, so at some point, someone told Trump that the country was very wealthy after the Civil War because it ran surpluses. Yes, back in the days of William McKinley, the federal government was funded almost entirely by tariffs. But the government was much smaller then and did very little for the people so they did have surpluses and there was a lively debate about what should be done with them, as Chris Isidore at CNN explained:

Funding the federal government with tariffs wasn’t nearly as difficult as it would be today. Federal spending was relatively minuscule in those years. Federal spending made up less than 3% of the nation’s gross domestic product, the broad measure of the size of the nation’s economic activity. By contrast, the $6.8 trillion that the federal government spent in its most recent fiscal year comes to 23% of GDP, with most of that money going to servicing the national debt, military spending and entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps.

We need your help to stay independent

During the Gilded Age, the country was in the midst of a rapid economic expansion (which, not incidentally, was heavily stoked by mass immigration), and to the extent it was "wealthy," almost all of the wealth accumulated at the very top among the robber barons.

I find myself in agreement with Brian Beutler, who observed that none of these facts and figures are the probable genesis of Trump's obsession with this era. It almost surely stems from his knowledge that the rich were very rich and built lavish, ornate mansions, which is what defines prosperity to him, as Beutler notes:

He lives in Mar-a-Lago, which was built by Marjorie Merriweather Post in the 1920s. And while she, as heiress to the Post Cereal fortune, was not a “robber baron” in the traditional sense of the word, that’s the vibe he likes. It’s what you’d expect in a “rich country.”

Just look at what he's done to the Oval Office. It's become an ersatz Versailles with phony gilt tchotkes jammed in every corner and gaudy picture frames crowded together on the walls:

The average citizen during the Gilded Age lived a bit differently:

The average family's annual income was around $500 (about $18,000 in today's money), according to an 1892 report from the Senate Finance Committee, yet the top 1% of families owned over half of America's wealth. During this era, known as the Gilded Age, the wealthiest families in America, such as the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts, formed a new social elite akin to European aristocracy.

On the other side of the wealth divide, workers and immigrants faced harsh living conditions…Children, who weren't protected by law from physically challenging labor, had often started contributing to their households by age 10.

In New York City, the population doubled every decade from 1800 to 1880. Tenement housing, where families packed as many people as possible into apartments by using cheap materials to create walls or add floors to existing buildings, quickly dominated parts of the city. These settlements often lacked indoor plumbing or ventilation, leading to a rapid increase in the spread of illnesses. The cramped conditions also led to many fires in major cities.

That was what it was like for most people when Trump believes America was "great" — they were poor, uneducated, sick and overworked — and they paid all the taxes while the rich got richer. And when you get down to it, while the billionaires in his orbit may have different visions, whether it's a futuristic techno "Freedom City" or back to the time of the Vanderbilts and the Morgans, in the end, they all want the same thing: They want it all.