Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Trump DOJ says “administrative error” led to an innocent father being sent to an El Salvador prison

The Trump administration conceded in a court filing Wednesday that it had deported a Maryland father to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador as a result of an "administrative error," The Atlantic first reported. But now that he's in foreign custody, officials claim, they cannot be compelled to do anything to bring him back.

The father and Salvadoran national, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, was granted protected status by an immigration judge in 2019 after ICE officials tried to deport him. At the time, ICE had claimed that he was a high-ranking member of MS-13, a Salvadoran criminal gang. Garcia disputed those charges and appealed for asylum over fears that he would be killed or tortured by gang members targeting him for extortion.

The judge's order prohibited the federal government from sending Abrego Garcia back to El Salvador, but that didn't stop the Trump administration from seeking to deport him.

On March 12, immigration agents told Abrego Garcia that his status had changed. Three days later, he was put on one of three planes destined for El Salvador, leaving behind his wife and five-year-old son, both U.S. citizens. According to court documents, the ICE agents who deported him knew that his protected status was still active.

A lawsuit by Abrego Garcia's representatives prompted the Trump administration to admit, for the first time, that it had committed a grave error.

“On March 15, although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error,” the filing states.

Two of the planes were sent to El Salvador under the authority of the Alien Enemies Act, which has been used by the Trump administration to expel immigrants it has accused of being members of the street gang Tren de Aragua. But Abrego Garcia himself was on a third plane that was only supposed to transport immigrants with formal deportation orders signed by a judge.

Now his lawyers fear that Abrego Garcia faces torture in CECOT, a prison widely documented by human rights watchdogs, and flaunted by both the Trump administration and Salvadoran government, as a "black hole of human rights."

Justice Department lawyers have argued that because Abrego Garcia is now in foreign custody, there is nothing they can do to effect his return, and asked the judge to reject his family's petition to bring him home. Vice President JD Vance defended the administration's decision, falsely claiming in a social media post that Abrego Garcia was “a convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right to be here.”

A billionaire’s club — and you’re not in it: What drama at a swanky bar says about Washington

Imagine, if you can: not liking somebody at work. Maybe it’s the way they suck at their teeth after eating microwaved fish at their desk, or just the emails that have too few exclamation points or a few too many. Or it’s more egregious: a colleague makes clear, time and again, that they have thoroughly Roganite views on politics, conspiracy theories and women’s role in society.

The point is that, for reasons petty or otherwise, you have come to the conclusion that you cannot stand someone; you think that they make life a little bit worse. It then follows that you won’t be attending the after-work happy hour; indeed, you won’t be doing anything that risks extending those 40 hours of irritation.

Now let's think about politics. Given what they say about each other in public, the earnest observer might assume elected Democrats and elected Republicans would not wish to mix after Congress closes for the day. It's hard enough to relax with everything that's going on in the news — would you willingly go to the same place as the worst of the worst on the other side?

Conventional wisdom holds that political disagreements are no reason to be impolite. It’s a mark of sophistication, as well as a displayed commitment to the democratic virtue of tolerance, to respect the person even as one opposes their political agenda.

In another era, when the heated debate is over whether to extend a tax credit for first-time homeowners by three years or five, it would be good counsel to remember politeness. Today, though, the government of President Donald J. Trump is asserting the right to send anyone who smirks at an ICE agent to a prison in El Salvador where they will be subjected to forced labor, indefinitely. Each day brings news of another government agency gutted or federal program eliminated in open defiance of laws passed by Congress. Academic research is grinding to a halt as universities suspend admissions and deny opportunities to the next generation of scientists, victims of a foreign billionaire’s expensive push for austerity.

In light of the circumstances, there is reason to be quite mad at those in government who support the total elimination of checks and balances in favor of an aging strongman’s personal judgment. But some Democrats aren’t as angry as they suggest in their fundraising emails, instead showing that they don’t loathe their Republican colleagues nearly as much as you might hate that guy in IT.

Highlighted in a recent gossip item, it reads like a Marxist screenwriter’s caricature of American politics: Democrats and Republicans are getting fashionably sloshed at a private club owned by a billionaire who donates to both parties, literally on top of a neoliberal think founded by a disgraced Wall Street guy who got a Trump pardon.

Kari Lake, the oft-defeated Republican from Arizona who President Donald Trump made the head of Voice of America, which she is eliminating, reportedly made a fool of herself at a place called Ned’s.

“As Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) headed toward the elevator to leave on a recent late-winter day, he ran into his former opponent, the infamous Trump acolyte Kari Lake,” The Bulwark reported. “As Gallego went for a handshake, Lake accepted it with both hands — a gesture that usually accompanies a warm greeting,” the outlet noted, but which in this case was followed by a personal attack, Lake asking: “How does it feel to be bought and paid for by the cartels?” The Daily Beast’s version of the story claimed one of her associates also flipped Gallego off, the outburst resulting in Lake being banned from a club that costs $5,000 to join and another $5,000 a year to remain a member (federal government employees get a $4,000 discount).

“I mean, look, it is pretty gross,” Gallego said of the exchange afterward. Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., also reportedly witnessed the conflict and chastised Lake for talking to a senator like that.

But is that all that's gross here? That the interaction was even able to happen. Lake was being a sore loser, in keeping with her refusal to acknowledge electoral defeat, but at least she was not being quoted in the paper about infringements on decorum at the club.

What is any elected official doing in such a place right now at all? In fundraising emails, Gallego’s office is telling supporters that he’ll “fight as hard as he can” against an “unconstitutional power grab from the Trump administration”; two thousand miles away from Arizona, he’s hanging out at the same “art-deco-inspired spaces” as those who are aiding that constitutional coup d'état.

“The glamour of the Roaring Twenties is something I really want to capture,” Gareth Banner, Ned’s managing director, said in a Washington Post feature on the DC property. But aesthetic alone does not a vibe make. How’s the crowd? And is it recalling the right decade?

On any given night, according to the Post, a guest at Ned’s could spot Trump Cabinet officials and members of the Democratic leadership alike, according to the Post: Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary; Howard Lutnick, the secretary of Commerce; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., the head of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee; and former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe. Head to the two-story bar and you’ll find, at least when the Post was there, a crowd of “tipsy and flirty” Washingtonians (can a crypto lobbyist and a pardoned J6 defendant find love?) — imbibing top-shelf liquors (try the “Nedgroni”) and $24 potato chips (honestly, they sound good).

We need your help to stay independent

For added populist grist, the club is located above the Milken Institute, a think tank founded by a formerly incarcerated financier, Michael Milken, and is majority owned by Ron Burkle, a billionaire investor. If you hate Wall Street, Trump or the two-party system, there’s a lot to work with here.

But the issue is not some club that scans more “corny” than cool, a symptom of the moral corruption in Washington but not its cause. Kari Lake getting in a fight with Ruben Gallego is an amusing tabloid story that hits a real nerve: DC is full of people who only pretend they can’t stand each other, but in practice do little to avoid each other’s company. The norm — one of the few still standing, Lake’s immaturity aside — is to act as if no one is personally responsible for the evils they personally sanction, be it children starving to death or babies being born with HIV because Elon Musk read conspiracy theories about USAID; to earnestly maintain one’s values is cringe and uncouth.

It’s cynicism, not a healthy democracy, that allows politicians from both sides to get buzzed at the same place while the country’s about to burn. That was on display when Gallego sat for an interview with the Arizona Daily Star, released after his club kerfuffle. Asked about the Trump administration’s decision to send hundreds of immigrants to a hellhole in El Salvador without any judicial process, and in apparent defiance of a court order, Gallego — who himself voted for the Laken Riley Act, gifting Trump the power to deport undocumented immigrants merely accused but not convicted of a crime — professed opposition but paired it with impotence.

“I honestly don’t know if there is much of anything we can do,” he said about “innocent people” being sent to Guantanamo Bay or a Salvadoran prison with no release date. His party, he continued, should highlight “real abuses,” but, at the same time, avoid the appearance of caring too much about too many of those sentenced without judge or jury, saying: “Look, what Donald Trump did was set up a trap for Democrats to run into because, of the 500 people they sent there, I’m sure 200 of them are actually hard-core criminals. Now, are we going to run to the podium and defend and try to get those people back? No, absolutely not.”

Cynicism is also accompanied by naivete in Washington, where Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. — having watched his Republican colleagues deny the outcome of an election and defend the man who encouraged a mob to march on the U.S. Capitol — remains convinced that members of the 2025 GOP are still his work friends. His hangout is by the stationary bicycles, where he develops a rapport with Trump’s most craven enablers.

“I talk to them,” Schumer recently told The New York Times. “One of the places is in the gym. When you’re on that bike in your shorts, panting away next to a Republican, a lot of the inhibitions come off.”

The head of the Democrats in the Senate doesn’t really dislike his Republican counterparts and thinks they’re a bad news cycle away from finally breaking with Trump. In another time, and maybe at Thanksgivings past, getting along with people on the other side of a political debate could be considered a virtue; in an era of fascism or competitive authoritarianism or whatever you want to call a government by and for the worst among us, it is how a democracy curls up and dies.

A tragedy and a scandal reveal Trump’s low regard for the lives of soldiers

It is one of the tragic truths of military life that oftentimes a soldier has to die before anyone notices where the soldiers are and what they’re doing there. This was the case last week in Lithuania when four soldiers from the First Armored Brigade of the Third Infantry Division went missing after their M88 armored recovery vehicle disappeared in what is described as a peat bog during a training exercise near the border with Belarus, a close ally of Russia.

The bodies of three of the four soldiers were recovered Monday after a week-long effort to pull the M88 from the swampy bog. The army has not announced their names, and efforts continue to find the body of the fourth soldier who remains missing. President Trump was asked during a press availability at the White House last week if he had been briefed on the disappearance of the soldiers in Lithuania. He replied that he had not, and the questioning from reporters moved on to other topics.

Now we have learned that four soldiers lost their lives defending European nations that neither Trump nor his vice president nor his secretary of defense care about. It is both a tragedy and a scandal.

This is sadly typical of what happens when soldiers are lost in training accidents, which happen all the time. When soldiers aren't at war, they are training, and much of what they do is dangerous. The M88 is what amounts to a 140,000-pound armored tow truck, equipped to pull other armored vehicles such as M1A1 tanks and Bradley armored personnel carriers that have either broken down or somehow gotten stuck in mud or snow or in a ditch. The army hasn't announced what the mission was that the soldiers were on, other than to say they had been sent out to recover another vehicle that had broken down. It isn't clear yet what happened to send the M88 into the peat bog, but it is suspected that the vehicle was moving down a road and somehow slipped into the swampy waters of the bog. If I were to guess, I'd say the M88 was probably lost at night when visibility was poor, and the road through a dense forest was unmarked.

The thing about armored vehicles is that, protected by their thick armor, you feel safe until something goes wrong. Then, as apparently happened with the incident in Lithuania, when the vehicle gets trapped and sinks into the bog, the crew is unable to escape.

Here is what may have happened. The M88 and its crew were being held in reserve and were sent out on the recovery mission when news came in over the radio that another vehicle was in trouble. Using a powerful winch, the M88 recovery vehicle can pull something that weighs up to 140,000 pounds out of trouble or lift a vehicle weighing up to 35,000 pounds using its crane-like boom. The M88 typically has a crew of three: a vehicle commander, a driver and a third soldier to assist in extractions. The three bodies that were recovered were found inside the vehicle. It is not known what happened to the fourth body, but he was probably the vehicle commander and was standing in the commander’s cupola at the time the M88 slipped off the road into the bog and was able to jump free, only to get sucked into the bog along with the M88.

I don't know how long the Third Infantry Division has been in Lithuania, but I do know what they're doing over there. They are deterring Vladimir Putin from any thought he has that he and his puppet president of Belarus might decide to roll over the Baltic states and Poland when Russia gets through with Ukraine, as unlikely as any of that might seem at this point in the three-year war Ukraine has fought for its survival.

Soldiers go where they are ordered to go. They don’t have a voice in the politics of their mission or in the rationale behind it. As we learned recently from the exchange of views among Trump's national security team on the Signal app as they planned the attack on Yemen, there is little love among people like Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for our European allies who find themselves on the front lines of what is rapidly becoming a new Cold War between the civilized world and Russia. Trump has made noises about pulling our military forces completely out of Europe and letting NATO and European Union states go it alone when it comes to defending themselves against any Russian aggression that might lie in their future.

We need your help to stay independent

But for right now, there are American soldiers and members of the Air Force stationed on European soil, with sailors in harm's way offshore in the Baltic, North and Red Seas. They didn't ask to be sent over there. They were ordered. Naval vessels and their sailors are being fired upon daily by Houthi rebels in Yemen. And though the soldiers of the Third Infantry Division are not engaged in combat in Lithuania, the job they are doing is not without danger, as we learned last week with the deaths of four soldiers.

Training accidents are a fact of life in the military. In the first Gulf War, more soldiers were killed or wounded in training accidents during the run-up to the war when they were in Saudi Arabia than were killed when they crossed the border into Kuwait and engaged the Iraqi army. Nearly everything soldiers do is dangerous. They carry deadly weapons. They shoot them in training. They ride around in heavy armored vehicles like tanks and armored personnel carriers and MRAP mine-resistant armored vehicles. If one of those things runs over you, you're dead. They are sometimes transported in combat helicopters like the Blackhawk, which have been involved in aerial accidents with each other and with ground obstacles. The Blackhawk that went down recently near Washington D.C. when it collided with a commercial airliner was operating in a training exercise.

Just as soldiers are killed in wars, they can also die in training for war.

We sit over here in our homes in the United States ordering pizza and watching Netflix and putting the kids to bed and getting ready to go to work in the morning, and overseas, soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines are in harm's way just by the jobs that they do. We have some 140 military outposts around the world. People wearing uniforms are stationed in every one of them. We don't know who they are or where they are or what they're doing until they make the news, and the way they usually make the news is by being injured or killed either in training or engaged with an enemy we don't even know about.

The loss of four soldiers from the Third Infantry Division is a tragedy. That the president of the United States had not even heard about it a day after it happened is sadly typical, especially of this president, who has repeatedly expressed his disdain for members of the military under his command.

Trump's national security team cared so little about the pilots they sent into combat against the Houthis that they used the insecure civilian Signal app to plan the mission. And now we have learned that four soldiers lost their lives defending European nations that neither Trump nor his vice president nor his secretary of defense care about. It is both a tragedy and a scandal.

Sadly, soldiers are learning that not even the loss of their lives has stirred the hollow souls of Donald Trump and his men.

Why butter boards had a moment — and what they tell us about how we eat now

I’m a huge fan of foods served on boards. That includes everything and anything from your typical charcuterie boards to more creative mini meal boards — like a baked potato board or a buffalo wing board complete with chicken wings and crudités.    

Most recently, I tried my hand at making a butter board. The food trend calls for sticks of softened butter that’s slathered onto a wooden cheese board. It’s then seasoned with a myriad of toppings (sweet and savory, whatever your heart desires) and served alongside toasted pieces of bread. In the same vein as charcuterie boards, butter boards are meant to be a table showstopper. Mine turned out to be the antithesis of that but regardless, the whole process of assembling smeared butter and then eating it was oddly…cathartic and whimsical.

Butter boards were first introduced by chef Joshua McFadden, who wrote about the trend in his 2017 cookbook titled “Six Seasons: A New Way With Vegetables.” In an interview with NPR, McFadden said he made his very-first butter board while living in Maine and working on a farm. “[I]t was a really fun way to kind of bring a limited amount of fresh crab,” he explained. “And it was, like, this butter board that had crab and preserved lemon and these seaweeds and all this stuff and then, like, this brown butter, as well, on top of the butter.”

McFadden added that butter boards aren’t a recipe — instead, they are “ kind of, like, a technique and an idea, so there's really no wrong way.”

Five years later, the boards went viral on social media after food blogger Justine Doiron shared her go-to recipe for smooshed butter on TikTok. Since then, the hashtag #ButterBoard has garnered 180 million views, as folks put their own unique spin on the growing trend. High-end restaurants even joined in on the fun by revamping — and upcharging — their measly bread-and-butter courses to $38 tableside “butter service,” Eater’s H. Claire Brown reported. Butter was certainly enjoying its moment under the culinary spotlight. So much so that last March, New York Magazine proclaimed that “butter has become the main character.”

The beauty of butter boards extends past its visual aesthetics. Interestingly, the trend’s resurgence in 2022 underscored a shift in both our eating and social habits: Following the pandemic’s peak, an increasing number of individuals were craving communal dining experiences and opportunities to reconnect. The desire to socialize was at an all-time high once lockdowns and other strict COVID-19 measures were slowly loosened.

“I was working at a restaurant at the time where they wanted to have the first course be a shared dish,” said Ann Ziata, chef at the Institute of Culinary Education’s New York City campus. “It was a hot pot and it made a lot of sense. It was very intentional. We’re coming together again and not eating in isolated bubbles. We’re all sharing from the same plate again.”

Butter boards are meant to be shared: “I just love serving soft butter and warm bread at dinner parties…This is just a fun way to have a new appetizer or starter on your table,” Dorian wrote. Enjoying a board is also an experience in itself. You can be civil and use a knife to spread the butter onto pieces of toasted bread, or you can go headfirst with a slice of bread (a cracker or a piece of veggie will also suffice) to scoop up as much butter as you’d like.

“I think it might have been a year or so ago when I first saw butter boards on social media. And, you know, it was something I had never seen before,” said Ziata. “I guess it just seemed like the next progression of all these charcuterie boards, which have been popular for at least a few years.”

She continued, “I think even right before COVID, every party or catering event I went to or worked at had a huge kind of smorgasbord table of shared things that were very artfully arranged, almost like a garden.”


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


Unlike charcuterie boards, butter boards feature one main ingredient: butter. “I would say, get a butter you think tastes delicious on its own, like maybe something that's a little higher in butter fats,” Ziata recommended for those looking to make a board at home.

The addition of toppings is what makes each board distinct from one another. Dorian’s board, for example, calls for flakey salt, citrus zest, fresh herbs, sliced red onions, edible flowers and a generous drizzle of honey. For another savory option, try adding roasted garlic and spices — like ground coriander or ground cardamom — alongside your butter base, salt, herbs and citrus.

If you have a sweet tooth and would like to make a board that’s on a par with dessert, try topping your butter with fruit compote, macerated strawberries or vanilla bean alongside drizzles of maple syrup or honey. You can also pair your board with pretzels or crackers instead of toasted bread. 

Per Ziata, butter boards are flexible, meaning you can make a special grocery trip to gather your ingredients or just use whatever you already have in your kitchen pantry.

“You can go as simple or as crazy as you want,” she said. “You can really have a lot of fun with it.”

DEI was never for us anyway

“Why are you attacking the good guys?”

More than once, I’ve received this question when pointing out problems with diversity initiatives. The well-meaning messengers posing this query mean to protect fragile work addressing issues of race, but they implicitly send another message. The message is that people of color should be happy with any effort ostensibly directed at them, whether or not that effort yields positive results in the long run. While I was once responsive to their frustrations, I no longer heed them. This time of upheaval around diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)  policies presents too great of an opportunity to shift the status quo. When so many workplaces have broken faith by doing away with DEI commitments they claimed were central to their core values, I am encouraging employees of color too to say good riddance to current workplace diversity programs, in favor of organizational justice and workplace equity.

I’ve spent the past 10 years researching the negative unintended consequences of diversity initiatives. This perspective has allowed me to recognize that DEI wasn’t built with me, or other people of color in mind. My work began in an unlikely place, the church. 

20 years of focused work toward diversity has resulted in a tripling of racially diverse congregations in the U.S. I was long an advocate for these efforts; however, I became increasingly troubled that while the complexion of churches began to change, the promised racial justice didn’t materialize. A 2021 report from Barna Group revealed that white practicing Christians remained unlikely to recognize past or continuing racial discrimination, cross-racial relationships continued surface level and Black congregants experienced racial slights in these multiracial spaces.

 Pastors of color also experienced difficulties in multiracial churches. And they couldn’t as readily go to another congregation because church wasn’t just a place of worship, but also one of work. As I spoke to Black pastors at churches that promoted diversity, I was shocked and angered to hear their stories of burnout, lack of opportunities for advancement and unceremonious firings. From this starting point, my investigation expanded beyond the church to incorporate other types of workplaces, finding the same struggles I saw with Black pastors in Latina professors and Asian marketers.

Through interviews with Black, Latino and Asian employees working in diverse organizations, I became convinced that there was a serious problem with the idea of workplace diversity. Not the demographic reality of having people from different backgrounds come together, but ideas of diversity people hold, the actions taken in the name of those ideas and the effects of those actions on employees of color. 

I believe the root of the problem with diversity is that many workplace programs focus on external appearances, what I term diversity displays. The superficiality of these displays is revealed by how easily  corporations havewalked back their commitments since Donald Trump won the 2024 election. 

Nine out of every 10 pastors and professors I spoke to, and three out of four corporate professionals, reported physical and emotional signs of stress that they directly attributed to their organization’s diversity efforts.

Diversity displays take two primary forms. First, there is the simple presence of numerical diversity. Many companies talk about diversity, equity, and inclusion, yet their primary measure is how many people of each group are presented. This counting can say nothing about the work environment folks encounter or whether these numbers are arrived at by a revolving door of hiring and attrition. The second form is activity around diversity done without regard to its effectiveness. For example, mandatory diversity trainings have long been known to be ineffective, yet they are still the most frequent program put into place. 

Workplaces are rewarded for these diversity displays because they receive benefits for just appearing to be diverse. These benefits include appearing more legitimate to potential customers and funders, and insulation from charges of racism. Workplace incentives for diversity have often been summed up by the business case for diversity. It is “the proposition that a diverse workforce is essential to serve a diverse customer base, to gain legitimacy in the eyes of a diverse public, and to generate workable solutions within a global economy.”  Put simply, hiring different sorts of people will help your company make money, be reputable and create. Shareholders embraced the business case because there was no murky morality involved; it simply focused on the bottom line. 

But there’s something important missing from the business case for diversity- the employees themselves. The benefits of monetary success and reputation accrue to the corporation, not to the workers on whom diversity relies. 

We need your help to stay independent

Because of this mismatch, I argue that diversity displays don’t just neglect employees; they’re actually costly for employees of color. While workplaces receive the bulk of benefits, employees of color receive the burdens of upholding the image of diversity, with serious costs in terms of additional work, questions about our capabilities, and the need to fit the appearance of diversity that our workplaces desire. Diversity programs, as they currently exist, shouldn’t be thought of as a gift to employees of color when the primary beneficiaries are organizations that are typically white-owned and led. 

As I spoke to employees of color across churches, universities and corporations, I found four primary ways that they paid in order for their workplaces to gain the benefits of diversity. In what follows, I share each cost and one employee’s account of it.

First, they experienced heavy work burdens. Employees of color often must attend meetings, pose for pictures, or even go on trips just so their department won’t show up with only white employees  Beyond the use of their images and bodies to display diversity, employees of color are often made responsible for diversity committees, work in addition to their job description that often goes unlauded and unpaid. The final work burden comes not from the work itself but the satisfaction of the work. Work that gives responsibility for an issue without authority to change it feels especially heavy for employees; this is the case when most employees of color are dealing with issues of race with no real authority to fix the problems they face.

A Latina marketing manager told me about the stress of being brought into pictures of teams that she wasn’t even on. It was so that the company could complete for contracts for which diversity was one of the metrics. She was also invited to sales meetings even though she was not on the sales team. Her role in those meetings, along with a Black colleague, was to give the diversity portion of the presentation. Her employer was not coy about the reasons for her presence, saying in the planning meeting, “Let’s get Teà and Lamont in here for some diversity.”

The second cost of diversity derives from how employees of color perceive the rightness of their employer’s actions, otherwise known as legitimacy. These employees see how their workplace purports to be diverse to outside parties yet doesn’t meet that standard in daily reality. The distance between the image and the facts on the ground creates feelings of guilt for employees of color, disillusionment from being part of something that isn’t quite true. 

When I spoke to a Black PR manager who used the same Black employees in publicity videos over and over again, she portrayed these exact feelings of guilt. First, she explained away her use of these employees. “There are a couple of women that we use a lot. They got a little irritated, like they're tired of being used to put up there. But they're good-looking women, very smart, and African American, so we want to use them.” Then, she explained away her own feelings about her actions and her employer’s. “I think that I see what they're trying to do, so I don't feel bad about portraying them in that way. And I just hope that then it gets there, and I think it will. So yeah, I don't feel bad. Is that what you asked me? If I felt bad?”  That wasn’t the question I asked, but that was the question at the forefront of her mind.

Third, employees of color experienced having their capabilities undermined. The barbed insult of “diversity hire” or “DEI hire” made them feel as though they didn’t quite belong despite their qualifications. As a result, these employees worked harder and didn’t allow themselves room to make mistakes, so that they would never confirm the worst suspicions about them. In the workplace, where efficiency is valued, spending extra time on this sort of perfectionism was detrimental to their overall performance. Yet, they couldn’t take the risk of error. As one Latino professor told me, “There’s definitely stress. Going through the interview process, and even now as faculty, I personally feel the need to disprove the belief that I’m a minority hire or that I was being interviewed because of my minority status. I feel the need to show that I am deserving, capable, my science is good. And I’m not a diversity hire.”

Finally, employees of color experience their identity being subsumed to what their employer needs for the image of diversity. This often entails employees being visibly non-white enough to display diversity, but not so non-white as to make their coworkers uncomfortable through speech or standards of dress. This intrusion into identity makes it difficult for employees of color to develop a holistic professional and personal identity. 


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


A Latina radio personality was asked to use a voice very different from her own while on English-speaking radio. She recounted, “I was told to be very happy and smiling and sound very much not like myself.  I sound naturally more laid back, more chill. A lot of Spanglish. My friends hear me on the radio; they're like ‘who is that? Like, you sound super white,’ and deep down I'm like, oh, ‘Why, I can't be myself even in my job,’ you know?” Her sense was that she could be “professional” or herself, but not both.

The employees I spoke to attributed physical, emotional and family issues to these costs of diversity. Fully nine out of every 10 pastors and professors I spoke to, and three out of four corporate professionals, reported physical and emotional signs of stress that they directly attributed to their organization’s diversity efforts. One Black pastor told me about the symptoms he experienced after being called an “affirmative action hire” by former congregants. “I did not know how unhealthy I was until I was diagnosed. I was having neurological problems, loss of balance, memory issues, substituted words for other words. I began to have massive headaches. I went to a counselor, and he said to me, this is chronic stress. So chronic stress is not event-based. It's years of your stress hormones being always on and feeling out of control, and that you have no way out. It is always a fight and flight. It is always constant anxiety. And when he said that, I realized for a good while I had been living every day anxious, worried about what was going to happen.”

To add insult to injury, employees of color experience these detriments while receiving substantial backlash. When non-targets of diversity initiatives believe DEI is a zero-sum game, with “others”  winning at their expense, they can become antagonistic toward employees of color. The result of this antagonism is employees being pitted again each other, preventing the improvements in workplace climate that result from joint perceptions of fairness and unfairness.

These examples make clear that neither the abandonment of workplace DEI initiatives nor the maintenance of them as they exist will result in all employees having what they need to succeed. Instead of defending the status quo of DEI initiatives or ignoring workplace climate altogether,t a new way forward can be found through organizational justice, a system whereby there are fair processes, fair outcomes and fair interactions within the workplace. 

Unlike DEI, which tends to obscure racial inequality, organizational justice requires that imbalances in advantages and burdens borne by individuals and groups in society be dealt with to arrive at fairness in processes, outcomes, and interactions. What’s more, the foundations of organizational justice are moral, rather than financial. It requires that workplaces do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do. There are better outcomes for the business that come along with organizational justice, but profit is not the key driver, resulting in a commitment that can withstand changes in public opinion.

Organizational justice practices also result in people-centered management. Environments that focus on organizational justice reward leaders who use inclusive practices providing focused, supportive, and fair treatment of all employees. These practices do not stop at the presence of women and people of color; they provide a means for these groups to contribute fully to the workplace by reducing stereotypes. Inclusive leadership also makes all employees feel more respected by increasing trust with supervisors and improving communication.

Unlike diversity displays, organizational justice benefits workers through improved well-being, job satisfaction and commitment. It also benefits workplaces through reduced employee turnover and increased employee capacity. And it doesn’t increase backlash. It is the definition of a win/win that doesn’t happen without equity or inclusion, but it doesn’t stop there. Organizational justice is both morally laudable and financially smart because it includes all of us.

In the current attacks on DEI and the broader attack on civil rights, there has been a sharp dichotomy in terms of corporate responses. Some companies have doubled down, with shareholders affirming diversity as necessary to business success. Others have backed away from past commitments. When I say that even the actions taken by companies staying the course aren’t enough, it may sound like attacking the good guys. It is really holding workplaces accountable to what they say they want to do, and what I believe they want to do, which is create an exceptional environment where both their workers and their business can thrive. 

The current era of DEI is ending. Replacing current initiatives with organizational justice offices that assess management on inclusive practices, track all employees’ assessments of fairness and dignity, and make targeted changes, would be a welcome new beginning. It’s time to stop defending the status quo with the same old rationale and move forward to the employee-focused solutions we each deserve.

Signalgate resets the standard of scrutiny for Team Trump

In the past month, Trump has threatened to imprison peaceful protest organizers, falsely declared a national invasion, invoked war powers in time of peace, serially ignored court orders and sent people to an El Salvador prison without due process or review, all while making outrageous comments meant to distract the public from his administration’s illegal conduct. Last week served up the capper when we learned that Trump officials are coordinating their actions on Signal, an app with an auto-delete feature, in violation of multiple federal laws requiring communications to be preserved and protected.

All angles spell danger for the Republic

The Signal breach is appalling from all sides, each so dangerous that it is hard to determine which angle is more threatening from a national security perspective:

As the absurdity of this clown car of ignorance and arrogance unfolds, the most dangerous aspect of it has, at least so far, received the least media attention: Trump advisors are exchanging official communications on an app deliberately set to delete all evidence of their communications, which appears to be their standard operating procedure.

Trump’s team is breaking federal law by deleting evidence

Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, testified this week at a Congressional hearing that the Signal app came “pre-installed on government devices,” suggesting its use was not limited to the Yemen fiasco. From the content of the group chat published this week by The Atlantic — only published because Trump officials kept lying about what was on it — Signal looks like the default method used by administration officials to communicate with one another. The Yemen group chat explicitly referred to another such chat, making clear that this was not their first.

By running “off the books” official communications, Trump advisors are deliberately circumventing federal law to evade public and legal scrutiny, in line with Project 2025’s calls to conceal damning information from the public.

Gabbard, in her testimony, did not mention Signal’s primary feature, which is a built-in option, activated by Trump officials, to automatically destroy its own contents on a pre-selected date. The Yemen screenshots show that, in coordinating their airstrikes, Trump officials set Signal to erase all messages coordinating them. Some were set to disappear after one week, and some were set to disappear after four weeks. Deleting official communications is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

It is a crime to destroy any federal record

Legal mandates, including the Espionage Act, the Presidential Records Act and the Records Management by Federal Agencies Act, require that ALL federal records created by the president, vice president, Cabinet agencies, and the intelligence community be preserved, protected and produced for review by any court of jurisdiction that requires them.

We need your help to stay independent

Under the Espionage Act, 18 USC § 793, anyone who through gross negligence permits such information “to be removed from its proper place of custody” or allows it “to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,” or fails to promptly report any such destruction to his superior officer “Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Because of the typo-free and specific attack details in his lengthy texts, Hegseth appears to have cut and pasted the attack plan from a secured source into the unsecure app, thereby endangering the lives of the servicemen involved.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2071, anyone who conceals, removes, or mutilates records “shall be fined, imprisoned not more than three years, or both and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” The disqualification is mandatory, not discretionary.

The worst takeaway from Signalgate is Trump’s attempts to block scrutiny

Even if sharing the Signal chat on Yemen was a mistake, as officials claim, choosing to set the date(s) on which all content would be destroyed could only be deliberate, a fact not lost on American Oversight. After the Signal breach was reported, American Oversight filed suit against Hegseth, Gabbard, Marco Rubio and other officials, seeking to enjoin the Trump administration from continuing to destroy evidence of their own conduct. As detailed in their complaint, Trump officials appear to be using Signal in other governance contexts as well, creating records that are deliberately destroyed in violation of the Federal Records Act and/or the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).

The purpose of FOIA and federal records laws is transparency: to make sure we know what our government is doing, to protect American citizens from rogue and illegal government actions. Under the Constitution, this power belongs to the people.

Transparency in government is one of our oldest and most sacrosanct rights; it is what protects us from jackboots in the night. By running “off the books” official communications, Trump advisors are deliberately circumventing federal law to evade public and legal scrutiny, in line with Project 2025’s calls to conceal damning information from the public.

That Trump, his buffoonish Cabinet and the architects of Project 2025 would go to such lengths to hide what they are up to should keep every American up at night.

“Victory gardens,” once a wartime necessity, now a TikTok trend

As grocery bills continue to soar and the economic outlook remains uncertain, more Americans are turning back the clock to find inspiration: their grandparents, and the gardens they grew during tough times. 

Victory gardens, embraced by Americans as a patriotic duty during World Wars I and II, are experiencing a renaissance on social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok, where the #victorygarden hashtag and how-to videos for beginners have been gaining momentum.

The concept dates to 1917, when a wealthy Michigan timberman named Charles Lathrop Pack started the National War Garden Commission, according to the World War I Museum and Memorial in Kansas City. It was a “decree from the top” operation: The Commission encouraged Americans of all ages to garden as a way to support the troops overseas. The effort produced genius posters like "Every Garden a Munition Plant,” "Sow the Seeds of Victory" and “Worms Will Win the War.”

Years later, during World War II, the movement gained traction as President Franklin D. Roosevelt encouraged the public to grow their own produce. The government actively promoted the initiative, with the Department of Agriculture publishing guides for first-time gardeners like "ABC of Victory Gardens."

In 2025, victory gardens — and the motivation for Americans across the political spectrum to start them — look a little different. While historically they were aimed at combating a foreign enemy and were government-led, their modern-day equivalents are grassroots and target a domestic nemesis: government dysfunction and the breakdown of the food supply system.

The gardens provide a solution for people dissatisfied with the price and the quality of produce they have access to. And instead of the Department of Agriculture taking the lead, social media creators are building this ecosystem and nurturing a budding interest in farming. 

We need your help to stay independent

According to Axiom's 2025 Garden Outlook Study, nearly 40% of respondents plan to invest more time and money into their gardens this year. Younger generations are fueling this trend, with 69.2% of Gen Z and 51% of Gen Y planning to spend more.

"Seeds of rebellion"

Kendall Brown, 38, grew up in Oklahoma and has been farming or around farms her entire life. Now based in Kansas, she began noticing low-quality gardening products on TikTok Shop and a lack of quality information about how to begin gardening.

Brown posted her first video about victory gardens on March 10, giving her followers tips on where to find low-cost seeds and when to start planting. The post went viral with over a million views.

For Brown and her followers, gardening is also an act of political resistance: They're worried President Trump's policies could lead to a recession. 

“There are a lot of people that are getting into gardening specifically because they see it as an act of rebellion and as an act of taking back some control over their life at a time when not only is there quite a bit of feeling out of control as a society, but also we have a presidential administration that specifically wants people to feel like they don’t have control,” Brown said.

She and her followers are workshopping a rebranding of sorts to reflect their point of view.

“They don’t like the name 'victory garden',” she said. “They would like to rename it, and the one that comes up over and over again that most people seem to really like is ‘Seeds of Rebellion.’”

"Everybody is so stressed about what the government is doing that they are like, ‘I have to do something, and it’s got to be something tangible"

In 2012, Christine Terramane, a Vermont-based farmer known as "your cool farm aunt" on TikTok, began working at one of the nation's oldest victory gardens in Massachusetts. She moved to Vermont with her spouse and two kids to start their own in 2021. 

"During World War II, enough people grew their own victory gardens to supplement their own diets, so that there would be enough food for the troops overseas — that's a lot of people doing victory gardening and doing what they could to raise their food at home,” she says in a TikTok video. “We could do that, yeah we could do that."

Last year, she started posting more educational videos when she realized she’s living the “Instagram farm dream” many fantasize about. Now she’s seeing more direct messages and questions as her followers ask her for feedback on their progress.

Their motivation to garden stems from "a multitude of things," she said. Some yearn for healthier food options, while others want to make a political statement. All are sick of big corporations, she said. 

She compares it to the sourdough baking trend that emerged during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic five years ago, during Trump's first term.

“Everybody is so stressed about what the government is doing that they are like, ‘I have to do something, and it’s got to be something tangible,'" she said.

Beginner gardeners don’t need to invest a lot of money to get started. They can volunteer at a Community Supported Agriculture farm or find a community garden in their city.

“I think people want to have more food security, spend less money long term and have a sense of a hobby that doesn’t cost tons of money,” said Karissa Cooper, who has been volunteering at a farm in Wisconsin three hours a week.

Correction: The victory garden movement gained traction during World War II when President Franklin D. Roosevelt encouraged it. A previous version of this article misidentified the president.

Trump admin’s attacks on chronic disease research abandons long COVID and ME/CFS patients… Again

Dr. W. Ian Lipkin, director of the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University, has spent more than two decades studying a debilitating chronic illness that is often misunderstood and stigmatized, known as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Lipkin's work faces an uncertain future after grants from the federal government were terminated last week, stripping patients with this chronic disease of one of the few sources of research endeavoring to understand their condition and find treatments, he said.

The Center for Solutions for ME/CFS is one of a few centers across the country dedicated to studying this condition, but it can no longer remain operational, Lipkin said. It was receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health, but the Trump Administration cut about $250 million in grants to Columbia, which the agency said occurred due to the university's "continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.”

The center is one of several efforts to combat chronic illnesses stemming from infection affected by cuts made in the first few months of the Trump administration. In an executive order, President Donald Trump eliminated the Department of Health and Human Services advisory committee on long COVID, a condition in which symptoms of COVID-19 last for months or even years. Like many viral illnesses, including hepatitis B, Epstein-Barr virus and "long flu," fully recovering from COVID does not always happen quickly — or ever. An estimated 8% of American adults has ever had long COVID.

But the Trump administration has launched an all-out assault on programs designed to help long COVID patients or research the condition. The administration is not only dismantling the Office of Long COVID Research and Practice at HHS, the NIH has also said it was canceling some of the grants going to long COVID research under the Researching Covid-19 to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) program, although Chemical & Engineering News reported that some of those had already been restored.

This week, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also announced he would remove 10,000 positions at the health agency, while HHS canceled more than $12 billion of federal grants used by states to in part track infectious diseases. 

"It does not seem as though the priority for this administration is chronic illness."

The NIH and HHS did not respond to Salon's request for comment, but Kennedy said in a video posted to X that the decision to reassemble the HHS was made in part to make the federal government more efficient and save taxpayers "nearly $2 billion dollars a year."

Yet those involved in the research affected by these cuts say they will serve as a major setback in the pursuit of finding treatments to better the quality of life for patients with ME/CFS and long COVID — neither of which currently has a cure.

“We have samples banked that we took from patients who presumed their time and energy … was going to produce results — maybe not for them tomorrow but for people like them years from now," said Jaime Seltzer, Scientific Director at #MEAction, which advocates for people with ME/CFS. 

Kennedy claimed he would prioritize “ending the chronic disease epidemic,” and said he would commit to funding research into long COVID during his Senate confirmation hearings. But recent decisions to reduce the long COVID support within the federal government appear to contradict that, Seltzer said.


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


“It does not seem as though the priority for this administration is chronic illness because we have cut funding for studies on both chronic and acute illness,” Seltzer told Salon in a phone interview.

ME/CFS affects multiple parts of the body, including the brain, the immune system, and the endocrine system. Patients experience extreme fatigue, post-exertional malaise, cognitive dysfunction, and chronic pain. Despite the severity of these symptoms, patients feel left behind by the medical system, and the community has fought for decades to gain recognition for their condition. 

This constellation of symptoms overlaps with long COVID. For one, both conditions are infection-associated chronic illnesses characterized by extreme fatigue. People with long COVID are also at an increased risk of developing ME/CFS. As one patient with ME/CFS and long COVID told Salon in 2023, the symptoms made her feel like she was in a “living dead state.” 

“A quarter of ME/CFS patients are bed-bound or house-bound," said Beth Pollack, a research scientist at MIT studying ME/CFS and related illnesses. Up to 75% are too sick to work, she added.

“We’re looking at very severe illnesses where there are no [FDA-approved] treatments and patients in many cases are left to fend for themselves," Pollack told Salon in a phone interview.

The long COVID community, often referred to as "long haulers," has also struggled to be recognized by the medical community. However, the federal government did commit just over $1 million in federal funding to study the condition in 2020, and another $515 million in 2024. The federal government also established the Long COVID Advisory Committee in 2021 to coordinate a national approach to research and policy involved with the condition.

Many patients were discouraged that the funding issued in the Biden administration had not yet led to any successful treatments, and long COVID experts told STAT News last year that the federal programs were set up in a way to fail. Nevertheless, many were hopeful that the additional funding granted in 2024 could turn things around.

The Long COVID office was starting to have a real impact, getting researchers, patients and policymakers talking to each other and amplifying patient voices, said Michael Sieverts, the policy advisor of the Long COVID Patient-Led Research Collaborative. This included collaborations with the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery–Treating Long COVID (RECOVER-TLC) program, he said.

“They were proactive at reaching out to us and getting feedback and then taking that to their federal colleagues and helping either make changes to programs or helping new programs get developed,” Sieverts told Salon in a phone interview. “The Office of Long COVID Research was right at the center of [RECOVER-TLC] coming into being.”

Federal agencies recognizing Long Covid also helped attract a new generation of young scientists to the field, Sieverts said. 

“Having all of that thrown into turmoil is what is most discouraging,” Sieverts said. “It’s a new field, so it doesn’t have much of a foundation, and what is there is going to be in real jeopardy.”

While Long Covid might have brought some increased recognition for the ME/CFS community, the same degree of funding and recognition was not given to ME/CFS research, which received about $13 million in federal funding for 25 research projects in 2024. This amount has been declining since 2021.

Now, a critical source of ME/CFS research has been slashed as well, Lipkin said. Several projects were underway at the center at Columbia, including studies designed to test the role of genetics in ME/CFS, find biomarkers that could explain flare-ups, and track which infections went on to form ME/CFS in patients. Lipkin is personally donating money to help keep a small portion of the research afloat, but this barely covers a single employee and some supplies, he said.

“A significant portion of NIH funding for ME/CFS is funded through these centers,” Pollack told Salon in a phone interview. “So losing even just one center can have a really big consequence in the field.”

As of 2022, 1.3% of the U.S. population was living with ME/CFS. With tens of thousands of COVID infections still being reported weekly in the U.S., there will be more and more long COVID diagnoses in the population as well. Each time you catch COVID, it also increases the risk of developing long COVID, research has shown repeatedly.

We need your help to stay independent

“If we don’t finish the studies that we started with long COVID, we are going to be set back to the beginning again the next time we see an infectious disease like this spreading through the population,” Seltzer said. That's because conditions like ME/CFS and long COVID are an outcome of pandemics and epidemics, she said.

Federal funding is responsible for more than half of all academic funding. While the Trump administration has said many of these cuts are intended to reduce federal spending and downsize the federal workforce, many researchers say it is interrupting scientific research.

“We have these public institutions as public institutions for a reason, and decimating them by firing one employee out of 10 is just leading to destabilization," Seltzer said.

Despite this setback, advocacy efforts in place for decades will continue to fight for recognition and resources for the ME/CFS and long COVID communities, Seltzer said.

“MECFS researchers and advocates have been managing to do the impossible with next to nothing, and we will continue to do so,” Seltzer said. “So for all of those folks with long COVID out there who are looking at this and feeling in despair, we have been here before and we have persisted … We are unlikely to snap our fingers and find a cure, but that was always true, and advocates are going to keep fighting.”

“I’d love that”: Trump welcomes a showdown with Obama to take third-term

It's a future as narratively neat as it is blatantly unconstitutional, and Donald Trump is all for it.

Speaking to reporters from the Oval Office on Monday, the president welcomed a hypothetical showdown between himself and former President Barack Obama in the 2028 presidential election.

"I'd love that," he said when asked by Fox News' Peter Doocy if he'd be ready to face his fellow two-termer. "That would be a good one."

Though Trump spoke extensively about the possibility of another term over the weekend, he told Doocy that he'd done no research into the idea. 

"They do say there's a way to do it," he said. "I have not looked into it."

In an interview with NBC News's Kristen Welker, Trump said he was deadly serious about running again. The president has teased the possibility of ignoring the 22nd Amendment and remaining the face of the GOP well into his eighties, saying on Sunday that he "likes working." 

“I’m not joking,” Trump said. “But I’m not — it is far too early to think about it.”

Obama's roasting of Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2011 is widely viewed as the moment that kickstarted Trump's decade of revenge. During a monologue, the president joked about Trump's racist birther conspiracy theories.

"I know that he's taken some flak lately, but no one is happier, no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than the Donald," Obama said at the time. "And that's because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter — like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?"

Trump opted out of a run in 2012 and endorsed Mitt Romney. With a party that's remade itself in his image in the years since it is doubtful he'd be so humble with nothing but the Constitution between him and a third term.

“My fault”: Ye wears KKK robes to interview, says he “didn’t want” children with Kim Kardashian

Ye is still circling the block trying to shock every household on the cul-de-sac.

The rapper formerly known as Kanye West recently granted an interview to internet personality DJ Akademiks. In the interview, he took his swastika tee-shirt stunt a step further, appearing for the length of the interview in black Ku Klux Klan robes.

Ye, who has four children with Kim Kardashian, told Akademiks that he never wanted to raise a family with the reality TV star and mogul.

"That was my fault," he said. "I didn’t want to have children with this person after the first two months of being with them, but that wasn’t God’s plan."

Ye accused the Kardashian clan of exerting control over his children, taking offense at her alleged attempts to stop the release of a song that featured vocals from their daughter, North West. The track, called “Lonely Roads Still Go to Sunshine,” also featured an appearance from accused sex trafficker Diddy.

"When my daughter was put on the song, that's when I realized that I didn't own their name and likeness," Ye told Akademiks. "This white woman and this white family have the control of these highly influential Black kids that are half the kids of Ye and that's just in everybody's face. They play in my face like that."

Ye later said that he was willing to go to "war" with his ex-wife and in-laws, accusing them of raising his children in an unhealthy environment.

"When you're a celebrity, it starts to be about more what fame it's going to get you, what clout it's going to get you, what money it's going to get you over, 'Is this the right thing for your children?'" he said. "I'm willing to die for my children than to allow them to be in this environment that I know they're in."

“Cleaning up his messes”: Alleged mother of Musk’s child sells Tesla over lack of support

UPDATE: Elon Musk has acknowledged Ashley St. Clair's claims publicly for the first time. 

"I don’t know if the child is mine or not, but am not against finding out. No court order is needed," he wrote on X. "Despite not knowing for sure, I have given Ashley $2.5M and am sending her $500k/year."

Original story continues below.

Many people have soured on Tesla since Elon Musk joined the administration of President Donald Trump. If her allegations are true, however, Ashley St. Clair turning on the electric vehicle manufacturer has to hit a little closer to home for its billionaire CEO.

The conservative influencer, who has repeatedly claimed to be the mother of Musk's 13th child, sold her Tesla this week in a video shared by The Daily Mail. St. Clair told reporters that her hand was forced, alleging that Musk cut her child support payments by 60%.

When asked if the claimed cuts were "vindictive" in nature, St. Clair said that would be in line with how Musk operates. 

"That's his modus operandi when women speak out," she said, sharing that the last time she had spoken with the DOGE head was February 13.

St. Clair noted that she was part of a growing movement of people who are dissatisfied with Musk's actions, albeit for more personal reasons. Pointing toward Tesla's recent stock plunge, a downward turn that the president himself attempted to head off with an ad on the White House driveway, St. Clair said that it's obvious Musk's antics have worn out their welcome. 

"You can check the stocks," she said. "I'm not the only one who is cleaning up after his messes."

St. Clair's claims date back to the early days of the Trump administration. In February, the conservative influencer revealed on Musk-owned social media platform X that she was the mother of a child called R.S.C. St. Clair said at the time that she feared reporters would uncover the truth, asking in advance for privacy.

The 26-year-old former employee of the Babylon Bee said the pair began seeing each other after Musk messaged her on X. She said the world's richest man was "very funny" and "down to Earth" in an interview with the New York Post

That apparently changed after her son's birth. She told the outlet that she's had trouble getting in touch with Musk and that the secrecy around her pregnancy was warping her life.

"Almost every relationship in my life would be bastardized and disingenuous because I couldn’t tell them what was going on. My son has never taken a walk outside — in five months," she said. "I have never been able to take my baby for a walk. I was terrified that someone would see I had a baby and it would get out."

Musk has not publicly acknowledged St. Clair's claims, though the pair appear to be sparring in court.

“It’s not the thing, it’s the story about the thing”: Andy Kaufman’s life was one long performance

There are few comedians who polarized audiences like Andy Kaufman. His style of deadpan humor was deliberately designed to make people uncomfortable—and he achieved that with long, pregnant silences or performance art sketches that bordered on anti-humor, such as inviting audience members on stage to touch his cyst.

But back in the late 1970s, Kaufman was unbelievably popular. His appearance on the first episode of “Saturday Night Live” lead to his being cast in the hit sitcom, “Taxi,” where he had a breakout role as the sweet and lovable immigrant, Latka Gravas. Kaufman also played the extremely unlovable Tony Clifton, a lounge lizard who performed an appalling act to shocked and bewildered audiences.

As director Alex Braverman’s illuminating documentary “Thank You Very Much” proves, for Kaufman, life was “one long, complicated, beautiful performance.” Everything the comedian did was an act. He was trolling audiences who always wondered, “Is this real?” or “Is this for real?” which only prompted the question: “Is it?” 

The magic of what Kaufman did was in creating a contrast between reality and performance art. He worked as a busboy in a deli while also starring in a hit TV series, much to the surprise of many customers. During his appearance at Carnegie Hall in 1979, he had a woman pretend to die from a heart attack on stage mid-performance, horrifying the audience, who were later taken out by buses for milk and cookies after the show. Kaufman was also the World Inter-gender Wrestling Champion. He competed only against women and would pay $1000 if they beat him. (They didn’t.) The film also considers the rumor that Kaufman faked his own death. 

"I don’t think he was as concerned if you were laughing, or liking or disliking what he was doing. It was about paying attention to what he was doing."

“Thank You Very Much” features interviews and performance clips to recount these and other wild episodes from Kaufman’s life. The documentary shows the influences that informed some of Kaufman’s characters, such as his college roommate, Bijan Kimiachi, who became the inspiration for “Foreign Man,” his Latka character. Many of Kaufman’s co-conspirators, including his writer Bob Zmuda and Laurie Anderson, his heckler, as well as his TV costars — Danny DeVito, Marilu Henner, Steve Martin and Melanie Chartoff, among others — describe working with the comedian and provide insight into his life and career. 

Salon spoke with Alex Braverman about Kaufman and “Thank You Very Much.”

Thank you very much for making this film. But I’m curious, why did you want to make a doc about Kaufman, and why now? 

I am a legitimate fan of Kaufman, and I guess my experience in making anything in the documentary world is that these things take a long time. Documentaries are so involved that you better be really into the topic and ready to live in that world for many years. I started working on this eight and a half years ago, from idea to release. I looked around and understood there wasn’t a definitive Andy Kaufman documentary that tells the story of his life and career start to finish. There was “Man on the Moon,” which is a scripted biopic, and “Jim and Andy,” about Jim Carrey’s process getting through that film. I felt there was still an opportunity to tell his story in a non-fiction archival-based way. 

As for why now, the real answer is that now is when I had the idea to do this. But I think there are so many echoes of his work in the fabric of our culture today, whether you are talking about other entertainers or politicians. We have never been less trustful of the veracity of truth in certain mediums as we are today, and he was an early person to call that out and call attention to it.


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


Which of Kaufman’s stunts is your favorite and why?

I have two favorites. For me, when anyone asks me which clip they should watch first, it is the 1977 “HBO Young Comics” special where he starts out as a bad comic and begins bombing, and the bombing turns to crying, then it becomes rhythmic [makes noise] and that turns into a conga routine. It encapsulates his entire act. You start out with a sense of embarrassment, and you think, “What is going on?” and then it explodes and completely transforms into something else. You get everything about him from that routine. 

Personally, where others may not, I have a deep appreciation for the wrestling. On the surface, what he is doing and what he is saying is not funny, but I feel it is so rich and such a perfect encapsulation of so many aspects of this country. It is the most American of his act — the way we gravitate towards liking good guys and bad guys. It’s walking this razor-thin line: Does he mean what he’s saying? Is he making fun of the people who would say the types of things he’s saying? For me, it’s as fresh today as it was then, and I think that’s backed up to some extent by how dramatic people’s reactions to it could be, how much they love it or hate it.

Is there a performance of Kaufman’s that you don’t like?

No. I don’t necessarily think of his performances as are they funny or are they not. There are some that I don’t know that I would have wanted to be there in person. I don’t know how long I could sit through “Gatsby.” [Kaufman read the Fitzgerald novel aloud to a restless audience.]

I love “Gatsby!” I would totally listen to him read the whole book. It’s not a long book. I would have done that!

I love it, too, but how long would you last? I like all of his bits. I really do. I didn’t set out to make a film just saying this guy is perfect, and I love everything he does. “Heartbeeps” [Kaufman’s 1981 film] can be a challenging film to get through in one sitting. It’s not a perfect film, but I like a lot of it. Nothing he does I don’t like. 

Kaufman seemed to enjoy his polarizing effect on people. Why do you think that is? The documentary suggests that he was almost happiest when his career was in freefall.

It does suggest that. I think he was someone — and this is just my theory, I don’t really know this because I wasn’t there — I don’t think he was as concerned if you were laughing, or liking or disliking what he was doing. It was about paying attention to what he was doing. It was about focus and attention and being fully immersed in his performance. This is where the connection to Transcendental Meditation (TM) comes in. Meditation, whether TM or other forms, is about limiting all distractions and outside stimulation and just focusing on mantra or your breath or an image on the wall and allowing that experience to wash over you. To a certain extent, his ‘act’ is not something you can take in passively or while multitasking. It’s about being there with him in the moment and feeling the passage of time he is creating with you. A lot of the time, it could be funny, or it could be less funny, but his goal is to have you asking, "What is going on?" Or, "Is that for real?" Or, "What are these guys doing?" Really grabbing the attention of the audience, so whether it was good or bad or failing or succeeding, as long as you were paying attention, it was working for him.

Andy Kaufman as Elvis Presley (William Knoedelseder)You open the documentary with Kaufman describing how he would make a film about his life, with climax after climax, with some silence in between. What decisions did you make in how you approached telling his story?

This isn’t John Lennon or Steve Martin, or someone where you know everything about their career and start wherever you want. Kaufman may be familiar to some people, but I’m hoping the audience is coming to him encountering this for the first time or were familiar with him but have forgotten. I do think you need to be reacquainted with the way his material feels and be exposed to it in a way where it is given proper onscreen time and space to elicit the feeling an audience member had where you are really enduring the passage of time. In the film, when he reaches a certain level of success and fame in his career, that is when you want to go backwards and ask, "How did this person come about?"  

"His career is not following this very clear trajectory. It is a lot of explosive stuff that is just happening."

To get to your original point about how the movie starts, it is a very happy accident or coincidence that we found this tape that was recorded by his then-roommate, Richard Beymer, from “West Side Story” and “Twin Peaks.” They were living together because they were both into TM. We saw that clip [of Kaufman narrating the film of his life] and thought, this is actually true. His career is not following this very clear trajectory. It is a lot of explosive stuff that is just happening. He is loving where it lands. 

Should we have a moment of silence, where I don’t ask a question or you don’t give an answer, which might be how Andy would approach an interview?

As long as you want. [16 silent seconds pass] That was a topic of major discussion, by the way. How long to let black play in the beginning of the film. We ultimately landed on 11 seconds. I wanted to do a minute of black because that’s what he says [in a clip], and we tried it, and I was overruled by a number of people that I trust. Maybe it is the perfect amount of silence. 

Can you talk about assembling all the clips and interviews?

We had a wall of index cards before we started editing. We know the great milestones in his career and in his life. What information do we know we want to communicate regardless of what we find in archive boxes or what people say about him? We tried to make it so that each sequence, whether it was driven by a career or life milestone, we wanted something behind each sequence — what is this sequence actually about — that is separate from clips we are using. Some things we knew in advance, but some were surprises. 

We need your help to stay independent

What was the biggest surprise? 

We went through boxes at Bob Zmuda’s house and found interviews from folks we didn’t expect to hear from because they had already died. The greatest example of that, for me, was Andy’s father. I heard stories, and sometimes, when you hear a story from Bob Zmuda, you don’t really know if you should believe it or not. He is such a keeper of the legend of this stuff; he never lets the truth get in the way of a good story. He told me about Andy’s teenage years — running away and taking drugs and living under park benches. I thought there was some truth to this, but I wasn’t sure how much to believe. But then I found this interview with Andy’s father Stanley, where he is verifying how difficult it was to connect with his son, which lead to one of my favorite sequences in the whole film where he is telling this story of reading “On the Road” together, and crying, and reconnecting. That was the one day in the edit where I got chills watching raw footage. I was just moved by the generosity in that as a dad and taking the time to dig deeper into your very confusing child’s interests and sharing that experience. 

The most polarizing things Andy may have done were his character Tony Clifton and the wrestling. What did you think of these extended performance pieces? 

He is putting on these performances whether it is for one person on the street or for the cast of “Taxi” — or if it is Clifton, in Harrah’s. The “Taxi” blowup, for example, they called the Los Angeles Times and said, “You’re going to want to be on set tomorrow.” There is a whole other layer to the performance: How is this story going to be transmitted to the public? Is it going to be hearsay from the cast? They invited a journalist and photographer to set so they would write about it and become part of the legend. Even though he is never going to explain, “See what we did here was…” They are playing with the media. It’s not the thing, it’s the story about the thing. With Clifton at Harrah’s, it’s not about confusing the crowd, it’s getting local news to do a story about it. That is what will live on, more than just that single night. He’s savvy about how he communicates about his act.

"I think we can know him as much as we can really know anyone."

The other thing your question brings up is that I want to believe that if I had been there at that time, I would have thought to myself, “This is so bad it’s funny.” But I think he was so original that it was possible to conceive of a world where it was one of the first times you imagine seeing this happen. His friend Bob says in the film, “People want to see who is the next Kaufman.” But his theory is that Andy created this thing, and he killed it. Once you know a performer is operating on a meta level and it’s about reacting to the performer, it’s over. 

Sasha Baron Cohen did that with Ali G and Borat.

It’s true, but we the viewer are in on that [Ali G] joke from the beginning. With Kaufman, there wasn’t a way to be in on it. I see echoes of Kaufman in Ali G, especially when Kaufman flat out infiltrates a TV show, like “The Dating Game.” There is a throughline. 

The film emphasizes that everything Andy did was real, but everything he did was also an act. How might you describe the real Kaufman? Can we know him?

I think we can know him as much as we can really know anyone. Most people put forward a version of themselves that on the surface seems more straightforward, or believable, or sincere, but we are all presenting ourselves as a character we have developed over the course of our lives. That doesn’t change as much as his various characters did over the course of his life. He had all of these different characters at his disposal to express the various parts of him. If you look at all those characters as a whole, it creates a composite of someone that we can know.

“Thank You Very Much” was released in theaters and on demand on March 28. 

How queer nightlife shaped Chicago — and America

In Chicago, Boystown — with its mix of cocktail lounges, gay bars, nightclubs, parades and drag brunches — has become a well-oiled machine for queer culture in the city.

Long before Mayor Richard M. Daley anointed the area bounded by Briar Place to the south, Halsted Street to the west, and North Broadway to the east as the nation’s first official gay village in 1997, the community had already made that roughly triangular patch in Lakeview East its home decades before. That’s because Chicago is, and always has been, a very queer town. It’s where the seat of our community’s culture exists in the city today, but it is certainly not the first place in Chicago where identity, politics and partying for the community collided.

It was actually three and a half miles directly south that Chicago's queer community found its first semi-permanent home in the city. Today, it’s hard to imagine the Magnificent Mile and its surrounding blocks, with its mix of luxury new-build construction and brick pre-war walk-ups, as anything but an upper-class repository on Chicago’s North Side. This wasn't the case a century ago, though. The area that surrounded the historic water tower was a known bohemian enclave. Chicagoans referred to the neighborhood as “Towertown,” and it was where writers, artists, communist revolutionaries and queer folks often lived and even more frequently partied during Chicago’s rowdy Jazz Age.

While Towertown was buzzing with progressivism, Bronzeville was beginning to shape a different, yet equally important, queer landscape — a cultural revolution that would come to define Chicago's queer community in the years after World War II. It wasn’t until after increased racial segregation of quietly accommodated queer bars on the city’s North Side, however, that Bronzeville’s queer community would dramatically reshape nightlife and culture for queer Chicagoans.

During the 1920s, though, Towertown became a crucial physical space for the rapidly growing city’s progressive and left-wing citizens. Although the streets are all still there, the only physical landmark of note that remains in the defunct neighborhood is the historic water tower itself. Few Chicagoans would even know what area you were referring to if you mentioned a place called “Towertown.” There is a lineage, though, that should not be forgotten. 

We (queer people in Chicago especially) should make a point to know it and hold onto it.

Under the cover of night, our queer forebears squeezed through a narrow passage down Tooker Alley in Towertown between Dearborn and State Streets. Eventually, those who made the venture came face-to-face with an orange door illuminated by a green light, with the words “STEP HIGH STOOP LOW LEAVE YOUR DIGNITY OUTSIDE” scrawled across the mysterious door. They had reached the entrance to the odd, outlandish, and legendary Dill Pickle Club (sometimes spelled “Dil Pickle Club”). The club itself is remembered for being, basically, a hollowed-out barn in less-than-amazing shape. 

We need your help to stay independent

It was, after all, an illegal dram shop during Prohibition and the need for secrecy was essential, especially since the queer patrons themselves were breaking the law by openly existing in public. Once there, clubbers — known as “Picklers” — drank outlawed liquor and listened to leftist activists speak of a better world for working people, dance to jazz, and kiss each other under the discretion of the dark. A few blocks south, in the candlelit dark of the Seven Arts Club, queer people of all stripes, conservative novelty seekers from other areas of the city, and additional alternative crowds of the Jazz Age gathered to debate nudism, communism and to watch the club’s master of ceremonies and known homosexual of the time, Edward Clasby, preside over a drag review while wearing full drag.

Nothing remains of the Dill Pickle Club today beyond memories and a few stray photos on the internet. To date, I’ve never been able to find a picture of the club’s interior, though a few scant sources tell us what it was like inside: there was a, “tearoom, art exhibitions, stage, standing capacity for a reported 700, and without fail, the eccentric [owner John “Jack”] Jones, met visitors with the greeting, ‘Are you a nut about anything? Then you have to talk to the Picklers!’” 

Now all that stands at 10 Tooker Alley, or on today’s map “10 West Tooker Place,” is the backside of a parking garage. The Seven Arts Club that was housed at 59 E Grand Ave, at least for a moment in 1926, has since been demolished and paved over for Nordstrom Michigan Avenue. Our history was not preserved beyond oral tradition and written memory. There aren’t even historical markers to denote the significance of those city lots. Now, the area is instead home to the amenities that supplanted Chicago’s first socially complex, intentionally provocative, and culturally essential queer-accomodating neighborhood.

But queer nightlife in Chicago didn’t begin with Towertown, and it obviously didn’t end there either. A confluence of gentrification and changing social attitudes towards queer people in post-war society fractured the city’s physical queer community north across neighborhoods like Old Town and Lincoln Park. In the 1980’s, though, we finally established a firm foothold in Lakeview East, known then, and still socially for now at least, as Boystown.

Dancing in the dark

Last fall, I interviewed several queer culture experts and entertainers on why drinks in gay bars are stronger than in not-queer bars. There wasn’t a definitive, single answer. Instead, all the perspectives my sources provided me coalesced around the idea that nightlife has been, for at least a century, a safe haven for queer people and that our drinks are poured heavy with the cultural context that more alcohol in the glass signifies a hearty gesture of welcoming. The summation of my sources’ answers didn’t surprise me, but it did leave me asking more. Since then, I’ve been wondering about queer nightlife, the clubs I go to and the history we as a community of queer Chicagoans don’t have easy access to.

I’ve been thinking about all the queer people who partied in this city before me and all the queer people who will take up the mantle after me. I’ve been thinking about the nightclubs our community used to frequent and the ones we patronize now. I wonder how many Saturday-nights-into-Sunday-mornings my queer forebears shared that I’ll never know about, before Boystown existed as it does now. I want to know what they drank through the ages. I wonder about all the streets they wandered down in the night with their friends as part of their partying routine. I’ve been straddling between living in the moment and documenting our culture as we create it and wondering about the history we dance on top of without realizing it. I think of all this with my thoughts punctuated by the grim onslaught of transphobic — and broadly queerphobic — legislation promised to be delivered from Congress and the cultural vitriol espoused by our nation’s sitting president.

These are the thoughts running through my mind at 3:30 a.m. in a dank basement on a dance floor my friends and I love to live on.

On January 4, The Atlantic published an op-ed titled “Americans Need to Party More.” The piece guides readers through the data-backed evidence that as a society, Americans aren’t partying as much as they used to. Americans have fewer friends. Americans are experiencing an epidemic of loneliness. Americans need to throw more parties and be social again in order to save themselves. It was an interesting, quick read.

"I want to know what they drank through the ages. I wonder about all the streets they wandered down in the night with their friends as part of their partying routine. I’ve been straddling between living in the moment and documenting our culture as we create it and wondering about the history we dance on top of without realizing it. "

I don’t like to make assumptions, but I will give the author the benefit of the doubt and believe, even if for my own peace of mind, that she did not intend to oversee the crucial importance of queer partying and nightlife in the scope of her premise that Americans aren’t partying anymore. I finished the piece with the impression that the author’s concept of her imagined community of Americans was too monolithic, too broad and too assuming. As someone who spends a solid chunk of his time in bars, at nightclubs, at gay house parties and at drag shows tipping queens for their community service, I truly felt like she wasn’t talking to me. She couldn’t have been talking to me. She also could not have seriously been talking to any other queer person with a proclivity for our community in Chicago.

This isn’t to say that all queer Chicagoans like to party, at least in the traditional sense. But I’d argue that a lot of us do, and those of us who prefer not to party, per se, still often seek out socialization with our queer peers as a restorative act of self-care — which seemed to be the author’s main motivation for urging Americans to party. The party was simply a means to an end for Americans to be less lonely. I walked away from the brief plea, and rudimentary roadmap, for a renaissance of house parties that the queer experience was not part of her understanding of American social life.

The party is the purpose

At the end of January, I was walking south on North Halsted Street in Boystown. Outside of Progress, a gay man’s sweatshirt caught my eye. He was waiting at the cross walk with his back facing me wearing an off-white mohair sweater. Across his back in bold, black lettering was the phrase “JOY IS AN ACT OF RESISTANCE” (after some digging, I now believe it was this sweater designed by Sherifa Gayle’s brand Black N Ugly Clothing). 

In my relentless pursuit to understand why queer people party and what the function and purpose of our parties is, I have been inching ever closer to an unsurprising realization for someone who pays attention. The vitality so many of us queer folks experience in our culture of dimly lit dance floors, exceptionally strong drinks and unbridled joy in the face of a brutal world is heavily informed by Black culture.

Joy in the face of adversity, or perhaps remaining joyous because of adversity, has a long and storied history in the Black community. A recent, exemplary testament to this feature of Black culture and the significant influence Black culture has had on queer culture is Beyonce’s dance album “Renaissance.” Initially planned to be the second installment of a trilogy of albums, which now includes the 2025 Grammy Album of the Year “Cowboy Carter,” “Renaissance” was instead released as the series’ frontrunner. In a press release reported on by Variety, the lauded singer-songwriter decided to release her testament to the contributions of queer, Black musicians who pioneered dance music on the heels of the COVID-19 pandemic because, as she put it, “there was too much heaviness in the world. We wanted to dance. We deserved to dance.”

And queer Chicagoans aren’t strangers to dancing. Long after the Dill Pickle Club closed, pioneering queer DJ and record producer Frankie Knuckles was instrumental in establishing and fostering house music in Chicago, which has since been popularized across the entire world where anyone loves to dance. Furthermore, the Midwest broadly has a history of engineering new music to dance to, as queer Black men in Detroit are often uncredited as the progenitors of techno as we understand it today.

"There was too much heaviness in the world. We wanted to dance. We deserved to dance."

In Chicago, queer people have been partying for over a century and nightlife has always been a home for us. And yes, at times, it can take a toll. But I never hear people who choose to go to our parties regret the toll it takes on them. For everything getting dolled up and showing out takes, I constantly hear, instead, everyone say they had so much fun that night. They feel better being around our people. Being in a space we have made for ourselves allows us to let our guard down. We realize that even though all of our experiences are individual, our collective experience as queer people across all sorts of demographic lines, like class and race, is singular. I always feel spiritually renewed after being in a queer space, whether it's a dance floor or a queer bookstore.

In the wake of Donald Trump’s inauguration, writer and LGBT activist Dan Savage rallied queer people with this same idea: that we need to remain joyful and energized in order to effectively fight back. “We should spend as much time as we possibly can over the next four years,” he wrote on his Instagram story, “with friends and lovers doing things that bring us joy.” Savage went on to empower our community to admonish naysayers of queer party-going, community enrichment, and quality time — however we choose to define those terms. 

Because the truth is that although a lot of us, myself included, love our nightlife, a lot of us don’t. That’s perfectly fine. There are endless ways to connect with the community outside of a literal party. Partying itself, though, has an unshakably important role in the way we connect with our peers, organize, and fight back against the world beyond the walls of our dance floors. Savage added that this joy in the face of institutional indifference to our suffering, our dancing into the small hours of the night, was indispensable for establishing political force and pushback during the AIDs crisis. “The dance kept us in the fight,” Savage continued, “because it was the dance we were fighting for.”

"The dance kept us in the fight, because it was the dance we were fighting for."

One of the best feelings in the world is being as joyous and gay as possible in a space our community has fostered for itself without fear of violent retaliation. There’s almost no better feeling than being as free and gay and loud and funny as you want knowing that it just pisses off some nobody who sits at home far, far away. Our political dissidents imagine us to be too flamboyant, too outrageous, too inappropriate, too obscene, too freaky and altogether too much to bear. We remember them as they actually are because we grew up among them: bitter, mean, and self-righteous. So we dance anyway. In fact, for me, it makes the dance even more freeing to know that I’ve chosen to inherit the tradition of being a queer person in a nightclub in a city that loves to dance.

Just as queer Chicagoans throughout the ages before me risked their lives to squeeze down an alley and party at the Dill Pickle Club and drink illegal liquor, today we are still at the clubs. The elements that underpin queer partying are the basic necessities we are fighting for. We deserve to see and be seen; we deserve to celebrate the one life we’ve got; and we deserve to gather with our community and to enjoy openly living our lives. If there is a partying problem in America as The Atlantic says, it’s not among queer people. For us, the party has always been the way we fight and the fight’s purpose.

Queer people never stopped partying. Maybe it’s time the rest of you found a good reason to party, too.

“The Woman in the Yard” and the horror of getting what you asked for

Keep these traits in check the next time you find yourself in a horror film scenario: curiosity—the genre’s original sin—and dissatisfaction, its slipperier cousin. Corralling the former is as easy as ignoring the scraping sounds echoing from the basement and bolting the door shut. Whatever you think about doing when you hear something go bump in the night, don’t. That’s a surefire strategy for surviving horror, or at least outlasting everyone else.

Malcontentment is another matter. The heart wants what it wants, and people can’t help what they feel, but the sinister forces at the heart of all horror movies — man, manmade, natural or eldritch — have a dreadful knack for clocking existential malaise and reacting accordingly. In Danny and Michael Philippou’s 2022 smash hit "Talk to Me," for example, a grieving teenager reaches beyond death’s veil to communicate with her dead mother’s ghost; instead, she’s gulled by a cruel, duplicitous entity that cosplays as her mom and exploits her despair so thoroughly, it almost persuades her to roll her best friend’s little brother into traffic.

That’s called “effing around and finding out” in the parlance of our times; a succinct, coarse way to sum up one of horror cinema’s traditional functions. On Friday, director Jaume Collet-Serra and writer Sam Stefanak kept that tradition going with "The Woman in the Yard," the latest addition to Blumhouse Productions’ repertoire of contemporary campfire stories. The movie embraces the get-what-you-ask-for dynamic, centering on a fractured family – Ramona (Danielle Deadwyler), her son Taylor (Peyton Jackson), and her daughter Annie (Estella Kahiha) – still recovering from the sudden and recent loss of David (Russell Hornsby), her husband and their dad. 

It’s a gorgeous day on their homestead: the sun’s beaming down on the field, the barn, the chicken coop and the black-garbed mystery woman (Okwui Okpokwasili) patiently sitting on an ornate chair between the fork in the dirt road. The woman appears out of nowhere with elusive purpose, taunting Ramona — who is hobbled by the broken leg she sustained in the car wreck that took David's life — warning, “Today’s the day,” in wicked sing-song. How well Ramona understands the woman’s meaning is an open question, but given that she limps off immediately on hearing the threat, “well enough” seems a reasonable estimation. 


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


"The Woman in the Yard" dissolves into a mess right after. Ramona is emotionally distant and prone to fearsome outbursts, notably berating Annie for repeatedly miswriting her “r”s on her homework. Meanwhile, as the family stays locked down in the house, the woman (and her exquisite chair) moves closer, foot by foot, toward their doorstep. Her shadow interacts with the physical world, too, making wind chimes whistle with a wag of her fingers — a deliciously spooky detail the movie doesn’t make enough hay out of. "The Woman in the Yard" much too coyly invites the audience to wonder whether the woman, or Ramona, is the greater danger; like too many modern horror films, it’s about trauma, actually, where the monster is an ancillary villain and the lead’s mental wellbeing is the true antagonist. 

A second of longing is all it takes for evil to seep into the cracks of your life’s foundation.

Collet-Serra knots that thread with a third-act scene of unexpected tenderness, where Ramona and the woman do what people and monsters so rarely do: talk. “I don’t come unless I’m called,” the woman explains to Ramona, as Okpokwasili cuts a regal, gothic figure of steely poise, practically engulfing Deadwyler merely by sitting beside her. For a minute, the film seems to invoke Samuel Coleridge: “Death came with friendly care.” It turns out that Ramona unwittingly summoned the woman the night David died. A flashback shows the pair arguing over their living situation; he’s enthusiastic about relocating the family to the farmhouse, and she’s preemptively suffocating from seclusion’s effects on her work as an artist. On the drive home, Ramona catches the woman’s notice without realizing it, then loses control of the car. 

Ramona (Danielle Deadwyler), Annie (Estella Kahiha) and Taylor (Peyton Jackson) in "The Woman in the Yard" (Daniel Delgado Jr. / Universal Pictures)Cut to "The Woman in the Yard"’s present, when the woman has come to collect whatever debt she’s owed per Ramona’s accidental plea to her. Whatever Ramona wanted in the car, she’s experiencing ontological buyer’s remorse in the now. But that’s classic horror: a second of longing is all it takes for evil to seep into the cracks of your life’s foundation. It doesn’t matter how fast you come to your senses and put away those selfish desires. You effed around, and now you’re finding out, a sentence that bleeds into horror’s other function as a gauge for measuring the anxieties that weigh heaviest on our cultural consciousness. Horror films have a way of knowing what frightens people on a social scale, even before we do. What "The Woman in the Yard" lacks in cohesion, it makes up for as a bridge connecting genre with current events. 

Horror films have a way of knowing what frightens people on a social scale, even before we do.

America’s writing a new, alarming, and astronomically stupid chapter on fascism and schadenfreude, having recently made the collective decision to re-elect Donald Trump to the highest office in the land; we made it through the first four years, after all, and the last four weren’t much better, so what’s the worst that could happen? Roughly 220,000 lost jobs later, with roughly 62,000 of those being government jobs slashed by a cohort of unelected Rand McPherson cosplayers, “the worst” looks catastrophic, and that’s not accounting for a sobering rash of black bagging incidents, a “brain drain” on the horizon as our bright scientific minds consider moving to Europe and imminent inflation spikes consequential to a brewing trade war with our longtime archnemesis, Canada. 

Okwui Okpokwasili as the Woman in "The Woman in the Yard" (Daniel Delgado Jr./Universal Pictures)If a reminder is necessary: people voted for this, another stay at the madhouse, knowing full well what the last stay was like and what fresh innovations Trump declared he had in store for the next one. It is little to no consolation, either, that the people responsible for inflicting the orange scourge on the red, white and blue with their votes again count among the number of Americans affected by this administration’s reckless ignorance — or who will be affected. Granted, there are folks out there giving Trump 2.0 a passing grade to date. But regretful voters exist, too. Some even feel as if they’ve been had. Whether or not developments like these will prove significant further down the road is uncertain. 

What is certain, for the time being, is that like Ramona, Trump’s voting public is paying a price for their indulgences. In the car, Ramona wanted the woman’s intervention; in the voting booth, an embarrassing number of American voters wanted Trump to shake up our standards and violate our norms. If Ramona could take back that car ride, most likely she would. If rueful MAGA junkies could go back to November 5, 2024, they might swap their vote or abstain altogether. "The Woman in the Yard" lives about as far from the American political zeitgeist as Ramona, Taylor and Annie do from civilization; distance notwithstanding, the film taps right into this moment of national guilt and despondency over choices made. It’s a moral lesson older than the movies, older than horror itself: Be careful what you wish for, and be careful what you vote for. 

Rubio says another 17 people have been sent to a prison in El Salvador

The Trump administration expelled another 17 immigrants alleged without evidence or due process to be members of Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gangs to El Salvador Sunday night, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on X Monday. 

"These criminals will no longer terrorize our communities and citizens," Rubio said in the statement, adding that the group included "murderers and rapists."

The move comes after a federal appeals court last week upheld a court order barring the Trump administration from expelling detained immigrants suspected of gang affiliation, but not convicted or charged with gang-affiliated criminal activity, to a maximum-security Salvadoran mega prison under the Alien Enemies Act. 

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said in a post on BlueSky that if the Trump administration is "not violating the AEA court order," this action means "these people had final orders of removal." He added, however, that he "wouldn't trust any allegations of gang membership." 

Earlier this month, the Trump administration invoked the 1798 wartime authority to expel some 260 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center, a notoriously opaque facility that prevents prisoners, largely suspected or convicted gang members, from having contact with the outside world. Family members and immigration attorneys of the deportees maintain that many if not all of the men were not gang-affiliated and were unfairly accused based on their tattoos.

Human rights advocates previously told Salon that El Salvador's prison system is "no place for migrants" because of its sprawling list of alleged human rights violations, including instances of extreme overcrowding, torture and denial of access to adequate medical care. 

"It's likely that, given how widespread throughout the Salvador criminal justice system these violations are, the kinds of suffering that we have documented in our jails would be similar to the conditions faced at [the Terrorism Confinement Center]," said Juanita Goebertus, director of the Human Rights Watch Americas division.

France’s far-right Marine Le Pen convicted of embezzlement, banned from running for office

Marine Le Pen, the far-right French politician, was banned from running for office Monday after being convicted of embezzlement in criminal court, the Associated Press reported.

A Paris court returned the verdict on Monday. It will prevent La Pen from running in the 2027 presidential election unless she wins on appeal. If upheld, Le Pen will also be barred from seeking any other office for five years.

Jordan Bardella, Le Pen’s 29-year-old protégé who is likely to move to lead the far-right National Rally after LePen, claimed on social media that “French democracy has been executed.” Other far-right European leaders, like Viktor Orban, the Hungarian prime minister, also voiced support for Le Pen.

We need your help to stay independent

Alongside Le Pen, twelve assistants where convicted of concealing the embezzlement, which the court estimated to be to the tune of 2.9 million Euros, about $3.1 million. Le Pen was also sentenced to four years in prison and a fine of 100,000 Euros, about $108,000.

"The court took into consideration, in addition to the risk of reoffending, the major disturbance of public order if a person already convicted… was a candidate in the presidential election," said Benedicte de Perthuis, the presiding judge.

Since the party’s creation in 1972, the National Rally has always been led by either Le Pen or her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who died earlier this year. Recent polling had indicated that Le Pen was the leading candidate in the 2027 presidential election.

“People don’t have to leave”: Under Trump, resistance means promoting trans “visibility and joy”

In recent weeks, My Sistah's House finished its 11th tiny home, the latest iteration of its Tiny House Project, which seeks to provide transgender and gender non-conforming citizens with transitional housing in a safe, inclusive community in South Memphis, Tennessee.

The LGBTQ+ housing organization has built 10 other homes since it established the project in 2022 and is working on erecting more while developing the community green space at the corner of the neighborhood. The goal, according to Founding Director Kayla Gore, is to chip away at the high rates of housing instability for transgender and gender expansive Memphians, who, like trans Americans across the country, more frequently face homelessness and housing insecurity due to employment discrimination.

"A lot of trans people are seen as the problem, so they're either not hired or they're fired very quickly," Gore told Salon in a phone interview. "Our program, it helps people in the sense that, one, the housing is affordable, it's safe, it's adequate, it's in a nice community. But it also shows other organizations that this is a community that really needs to be prioritized within your programming."

Since President Donald Trump took office and signed an executive order limiting sex to male and female at the federal level, My Sistah's House has had to funnel more of its limited resources into national organizing, a change Gore said she'd prefer not to have to make. But, she said, the top-down attacks have inspired the organization to temporarily take their project in a new direction: building an emergency shelter. It's just one example of how the 2024 election has prompted activists to reassess their work and the needs of their communities.

Amid the onslaught of anti-transgender legislation threatening their rights, freedoms and access to basic services in state legislatures and with the Trump administration's laser-focus on the demographic fanning the flames, trans activists are finding different ways to support their community and address disparities. In the process, they're shifting focus from just staving off the infringement of their rights and freedoms from outside actors to cultivating joy and belonging within their communities. 

"A lot of people are in fear, so it would be really important for us to come together and show a unified support system that's here in Memphis, that people don't have to leave the city or the state to flee to a sanctuary city or state, that there is a sanctuary within the state of Tennessee," Gore said, adding that she's hoping to provide a glimpse of that during a rally for International Transgender Day of Visibility on Monday. 

While anti-trans legislation in Tennessee, like the state's recently passed bathroom bill, has been an issue for years, the Trump administration's moves to eliminate what the president terms "gender ideology" from the federal government threatens to upend Gore's efforts. The Department of Housing and Urban Development earlier this year announced it would no longer enforce the Equal Access Rule, which barred discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation and marital status in HUD-funded housing, facilities and services. Gore said that she and other housing rights activists anticipate the administration will move to eliminate the rule altogether.

But the threat has only made her more determined to continue her work. Though My Sistah's House initially had plans to build a triplex — each unit with two bedrooms and a backyard porch — Gore said the organization, instead, has decided to build a shelter and drop-in space in anticipation of greater need for housing and resources for trans Memphians during the Trump presidency.  

Current plans for the building include a top-floor emergency shelter with four, single-occupancy living quarters and a commercial ground floor replete with a communal space for hosting programming, internet access, shower and bathroom facilities, and mailboxes. If all goes according to plan, Gore said she hopes the space will be near completion in December. 

"It's really so many different layers to how impactful this work is, not just to the folks who are in the houses but to the people who live in the community," she said. "They're seeing streets that once had no houses on it or rotting lots or dilapidated houses that we've come in, purchased the land, tore down the houses, and we're rebuilding the community."

In Texas, where state lawmakers are considering bills to establish biological definitions of sex in state code and charge people with a felony for identifying with a gender not aligned with their birth-assigned sex, activists with the Normal Anomaly Inititative have launched new health and advocacy programs dedicated to empowering community members to fight for themselves and safely navigate the current political climate. 

It's PrEPHer program, named after the preventative medication protecting against HIV transmission, seeks to provide Black and brown women with education on sexual health, encourage PrEP usage and connect them with resources. 

Volunteers with My Sistah's House help build a tiny home in South Memphis, Tennessee. (Sean Black/My Sistah's House)

Joelle Espeut, the Normaly Anomaly Initiative's advocacy program director, said that the program's inclusion of Black and brown women across "the spectrum of womanhood" builds an intentionally inclusive space that similar sexual health programs don't typically do.

"It's [for] cisgender women, heterosexual women, queer women, trans women," Espeut said in a phone interview. "We wanted to create space for women to engage with their sexual health and wellness, and that is unique in the sense that we usually don't see that, especially for Black and brown women."

Meanwhile, the group's Drag University cohort — part of its Luminate initiative aimed at teaching members of queer subcommunities how to advocate  — connects drag entertainers across the gender spectrum with leadership skills and resources. It also enriches their drag performance through lessons on makeup application, garment tailoring and stage presence. The program culminates in a an outreach activity, a digital media project and a pageant during the organization's annual Black Queer Advancement Festival, slated for the final week of April. 

The Trump administration's executive orders have inflamed the barrage of anti-trans legislation and opinions targeting the trans community, which have sparked "necessary" outcry, marches and protests. But, Espeut said that, going forward, the organization will commit further to creating more positive visibility of and "brave spaces" for Houston's trans and broader Black and brown LGBTQ+ community that allow them to be their "full authentic selves."

"Our work has always centered community. Our work has always centered creating brave spaces, but we've really leaned into, 'What does visibility and joy mean?'" she told Salon.

"We think that that is one of the most important things because if the community can't experience joy, and trans people can't experience joy, then there really is no hope for the future," Espeut added. 

Activists with One Iowa in Des Moines, which works toward bolstering equality in education, workplace culture and healthcare access, have taken a similar approach in the wake of Trump's presidency. Executive Director Max Mowitz told Salon that the state-wide organization has shifted its focus more to supporting individuals and marginalized rural communities in 2025, a reaction both to the fallout of Trump's anti-DEI efforts and the increased attacks on trans rights within the state. 

In February, Iowa's Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law that strikes "gender identity" from the list of protected groups in the state's Civil Rights Act, making it the first in the nation to strip civil rights from a previously protected class. The law, which takes effect July 1, opens trans and gender expansive Iowans up to discrimination in housing, employment, education and public services. 

"Visibility without safety is tokenization — it's dangerous. I think that we are more at the apex of that than we maybe have ever been in American history," Mowitz said. "It feels a little bit more dangerous and unsafe than before because all of our protections are being rolled back, and we're being villainized in these ways."

To combat that, One Iowa has started to recenter its workplace education on equipping individual workers with tools to take care of themselves and protect themselves from discrimination rather than only offering diversity trainings to corporations. One such effort, Mowitz said, is to increase the amount of educational resources the organization provides to rural healthcare providers.

The group has also started to embed itself in smaller communities, traveling to rural parts of Iowa to host office hours, connecting with LGBTQ+ residents and better supporting their Pride events. While still in its early stages, those communities have so far been receptive to One Iowa's increased presence.

"We know that the Iowa State Legislature and the Trump administration, they want us to feel isolated. They want us to feel, like, very, very disconnected from each other," Mowitz said. Residents have recognized that "there are people that are fighting for us. There are people that want to connect, and there are people that care about us outside of our small town."

Mowitz said that he's taken away a similar lesson from the current moment: Iowans, including cisgender allies, are strong in numbers and unrelenting in their fight against the attack on trans Americans' rights. That's also the message he said he wants the trans community to internalize on Trans Day of Visibility. 

"For all of the stuff that I see that is really bad, up close and personal — legislation, vitriol, hostility — I see just as many people that are trying to step up and do something to support our community," Mowitz said, adding: "Even if you don't see them, folks are fighting for you in every single corner of our community."

Bracing for “Liberation Day”

Back in June of last year, as I was still high on the hopium of dispatching Donald Trump and his MAGA cult once and for all, I recall reading a piece by Asawin Suebsaeng and Adam Rawnsley in Rolling Stone with the provocative headline "Trump’s Not ‘Bluffing’: Inside the MAGA Efforts To Make a Second Term Even More Extreme." I read it with great interest, but it sounded crazy. They quoted a bunch of Trump insiders saying things like “Yes, we do really want to burn it all down," and when asked about potential court challenges, they replied, “Who cares?”

I didn't take it too seriously at the time. Trumpers are often blowhards just like their boss, and at the time, I confess I didn't believe that America would restore Trump to the White House after what he did on Jan. 6, the stolen classified documents and his felony convictions. Why would people want to buy that mess again?

Well, they bought it. And I don't know about you, but it's been worse than anticipated. Even having read that article and many others about what Trump had in mind, the fact that "guardrails" would be completely torn down and he would be hiring nothing but ruthless henchmen to carry out his whims and wishes, I was still unprepared for his reckless lack of restraint in ways that were never discussed prior to his winning the election. Sure, we knew that he was going to enact the Project 2025 blueprint and appoint a bunch of MAGA extremists to the Cabinet. I don't think we thought, however, that he'd stoop so low as to choose someone as unqualified as Pete Hegseth for the important job of defense secretary or RFK Jr. for Health and Human Services but we probably should have known he'd have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to ensure the extreme loyalty he required. And I think we were all aware that he was going to use all the power at his disposal to exact revenge on his political enemies. (I did expect to see more resistance from the powerful institutions he's targeted.)

The deportation campaign of undocumented immigrants is about what I expected, although the sickening spectacle they are making of it is even more grotesque than I thought it would be. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem is showing a previously untapped theatrical talent, with more frequent costume changes than Beyoncé on tour. I didn't expect the expulsion of foreign students and scientists who have expressed views the government does not like, however, especially the use of creepy masked secret police to haul them off the streets with no notice and throwing them into distant detention camps.

And, yes, we knew he would foul up the economy with his obsession for tariffs, which he called "the most beautiful word in the English language" and nobody even thought it was weird. I suspect that most people assumed that he would simply do what he did in the first term and make a big show of it without actually killing the golden goose of a good economy. It appears that was far too optimistic. He's planning what he's oddly called "Liberation Day" on April 2, when he says he's going to throw a bunch of tariffs on everyone, although even his closest economic advisers admit that he's still deciding minute-by-minute what he's going to do.

But for all the outrages we've seen in these first couple of months — and there are so many — Trump has come up with a few that are so beyond the pale that you have to start questioning his sanity and the sanity of those who are enabling him. But when you consider everything he's actually doing, I think you have to take him seriously.

For instance, I guess we knew that he had mentioned buying Greenland during his first term, (or exchanging it for Puerto Rico) after someone told him that Denmark was having trouble supporting the island. He thought it could be an acquisition like Alaska. (Trump's folly?) Nobody thought much of it, but now it's quite clear that he actually means to do it, as if territorial expansion is a perfectly normal thing in the 21st century.

And then there's the crazy feud with Canada which seems to stem from the same impulse as the Greenland obsession. Trump looks at a map and thinks he can consolidate all of North America into the United States, perhaps even change the name to Trumplandia for all we know.

We need your help to stay independent

This map is what gets him excited.

Consider that incredibly bizarre meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at which he publicly floated the idea of forced relocation of the Palestinians to other countries where they would be provided with nice houses and the U.S. would take over Gaza and turn it into an international resort. He hasn't mentioned it recently so maybe someone finally explained to him that it would be better to put that idea on the back burner, but he was quite serious about it when he said it.

Trump has always been a narcissist but it has now become full-blown megalomania. These are peculiar, radical, extreme ideas far outside even the MAGA mainstream, that are nonetheless being taken very seriously by people in his orbit and around the world. JD Vance, the alleged true blue MAGA America Firster, went to Greenland on Friday and basically proclaimed it to be American territory.

I don't know if any of this will or can happen, but considering how many of his proposals that we previously thought were completely mad are actually being implemented, I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss the latest daft idea that he can run for a third term.


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


I know that his former adviser, the influencer Steve Bannon, has been floating that for a while, largely based upon some very fringe ideas from an activist lawyer named Mike Davis. The vast consensus is that it's impossible because the Constitution clearly forbids it. But when asked by Kristen Welker in a phone interview on Sunday if he was joking when he said that he might run for a third term, Trump said no. He said that he is so popular, more popular than any president in history — in the high 70 percent — that it might make sense. (The highest approval rating he has gotten so far is 50%)

He said:

Well, there are plans. There are — not plans. There are, there are methods which you could do it, as you know.

Welker asked if he was talking about the idea that Vance could run for president with him as vice president and then hand power back to him on the day after the inauguration. "Well, that’s one," Trump replied. "But there are others too. There are others."

I have no idea what those plans might be but there has indeed been talk that the Vance hand-off might actually be doable under a certain reading of the constitution.

Do I think it's probable? Not likely. He'll be 82 in 2028 and he's already losing a whole lot of steps. Even saying "there are plans" out loud is a sign of instability. But the way things are going I think it would be a huge mistake for the opposition to just ignore this talk. These people have an extreme, autocratic, authoritarian agenda and we are seeing it unfold in real time before our eyes. Literally nothing is impossible. 

How a handful of nuts can transform your cooking

In my kitchen, nuts are more than just a snack — they’re an essential ingredient.

Pecans add crunch and texture to soups, walnuts liven up pasta dishes and Marcona almonds bring a buttery, salty note to verdant salads. Other favorites include macadamia nuts, hazelnuts and pistachios — my dad’s favorite. While I do snack on them, it’s important to recognize that nuts are much more than just something to munch on. They have so much more potential as ingredients.

Nuts can transform a dish with a crunchy, salty bite, elevating something ordinary into something extraordinary.

Beyond nut milks, pestos and Romesco sauce, nuts are particularly vital in Mexican and Mexican-American cuisine, enriching salsas and sauces with texture, richness and depth. The range of nuts used in Mexican sauces, salsas, condiments and dishes is unmatched.

Take mole, one of the most complex and magnificent sauces in the world. Chef Sabrina Goncalve of Nomada in Verona, New Jersey, describes it as a “mix of chiles, nuts, and seeds blended with aromatics such as garlic, tomatoes, and onion — and of course, chocolate — where each ingredient adds a layered element that helps balance the others in a magical way.”

Speaking specifically about Nomada’s mole, Goncalve tells me, “We utilize a blend of almonds, peanuts and sesame seeds to bring a well-rounded flavor to our sauce. When blended in, they add a creamy element and help thicken the sauce, while imparting all their wonderful flavors.”

She continues:  “The almonds add a touch of sweetness that helps cut through some of the heat from the chiles, while the peanuts add a buttery undertone to the dish.”

Chef Akhtar Nawab of Alta Calidad, a renowned Mexican restaurant in Brooklyn, New York, says that nuts “add a richness and deep flavor that make Mexican cuisine unique.” He adds that “long-cooked moles really benefit from the use of nuts, not only for flavor but also for achieving a silky, creamy texture.” At Alta Calidad, Nawab uses peanuts in their macha sauce, pistachios in a mole for fish tacos, and a variety of nuts — cashews, almonds, pistachios — as well as pumpkin, sesame, and sunflower seeds in his manchamanteles.

We need your help to stay independent

Nawab highlights the contrast between the “fiery serrano chiles” and ingredients like tomatillos, juxtaposed with the earthy flavors and rich texture of the nuts, which balance beautifully.

Chef Claudette Zepeda, who recently opened the San Diego restaurant Leu Leu and frequently competes on food shows (most recently on Food Network’s “Tournament of Champions”), says roasted nuts “lend earthy, grounded flavors and a touch of natural sweetness” to salsas and sauces. Zepeda notes that “the same base recipe can result in two different flavors entirely with just the choice of almonds or peanuts, an Encacahuetado or Almendrado.”

“There are thousands of mole recipes in a single city, let alone a state,” Zepeda says. “While there are classic tenets to follow, most cocineras have their preferred nuts or ingredients that make their dish special. Each woman leaves a very specific fingerprint in her family’s culinary legacy.” Zepeda uses macadamia nuts in her salsa macha because “the sweetness and fatty nature of the nut help curb the heat from my chile blend.”

Next time you have a hunger pang and grab a container of nuts to snack on (I bet you have almonds, walnuts, or pecans on hand right now), consider incorporating them into tonight’s dinner instead. Nuts can be the secret, always-accessible ingredient that opens the door to silky sauces, fiery salsas, smooth milks and so much more.

“Foreign object”: Coca-Cola recalls 10,000 cans due to plastic contamination

A major company is the latest to be hit with an FDA recall announcement: Cola-Cola

According to the release, the "voluntary, firm-initiated recall" impacts 12-ounce Coca-Cola Original Taste cans due to "foreign object (plastic)." The date code on the affected product is SEP2925MDA and the recall is defined as a Class II, meaning that the "product may cause temporary or reversible health problems or a slight change of serious health problems." If you do have the impacted product on hand, be sure to either discard or return it.  

 As Sabrina Weiss with PEOPLE notes, this is just one of many recalls within the past two weeks alone, which included Chomps beef and turkey sticks, Aldi shredded cheese, hot sauce and Lean Cuisine meals.

As Gabe Hauari at USA TODAY writes, the recall impacts 10,000 cans of Cola-Cola — but they were only in two states: Illinois and Wisconsin.

RFK Jr. champions ban on artificial food dyes as states follow suit

In addition to his fight against ultra-processed foods and seed oils, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is pushing to ban artificial food dyes from the nation’s food supply — and many states are following suit.

Last week, West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey signed into law a bill that was passed earlier this month by state lawmakers banning seven food dyes commonly found in food products and drugs. The ban applies to Red No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2 and Green No. 3 along with the preservatives butylated hydroxyanisole and propylparaben.

“West Virginia ranks at the bottom of many public health metrics, which is why there's no better place to lead the Make America Healthy Again mission,” Morrisey said in a statement obtained by CBS News, citing RFK Jr.’s ongoing campaign. “By eliminating harmful chemicals from our food, we're taking steps toward improving the health of our residents and protecting our children from significant long-term health and learning challenges.”

Starting Aug. 1, the dyes will be banned from meals served through school nutrition programs, according to the governor's office. On Jan. 1, 2028, the dyes and the two preservatives will not be allowed in drugs and foods sold in the state.

According to the Environmental Working Group, a food safety advocacy group, 58 states have introduced legislation targeting artificial food dyes and food chemicals. Twenty of those states — including Arizona, Oklahoma, West Virginia and New York — have introduced nearly 40 bills within the first three months of this year. Arizona’s H.B. 2164, for example, would prohibit public schools from serving or selling foods containing the following additives: Red No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, Green No. 3, potassium bromate, propylparaben, titanium dioxide and brominated vegetable oil (BVO). Additionally, New York’s S. 1239 and A.B. 1556 would ban the sale, distribution and production of food products containing Red No. 3, potassium bromate and propylparaben. It would also ban public schools from serving or selling foods containing Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2 and Green No. 3.

The recent legislation comes after California enacted the California Food Safety Act back in 2023. The law prohibits the use of four harmful additives — potassium bromate, propylparaben, Red No. 3 and BVO — in food products sold, manufactured or distributed in the state. Last year, California also enacted the California School Food Safety Act, which bans Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2 and Green No. 3 from food served in public schools.

Concerns about artificial food dyes have regained traction in the wake of the Trump administration. RFK Jr. and supporters claim that synthetic dyes are both unnecessary and harmful, pointing to reports linking such dyes to behavioral problems in children. 

Most recently, RFK Jr. urged CEOs of several food industry giants — including PepsiCo, General Mills, Smucker's, Kraft Heinz, and Kellogg's — to eliminate artificial food dyes from their products. The secretary “expressed the strong desire and urgent priority of the administration to remove [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, or FD&C] colors from the food supply,” said Melissa Hockstad, president and CEO of the Consumer Brands Association, in a readout first reported by Food Fix. RFK Jr. reportedly “wants this done before he leaves office” and expects “real and transformative” change by “getting the worst ingredients out” of food.

The readout also included a statement from Kyle Diamantas, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who attended the closed-door meeting. Diamantas “recognized the industry can’t [eliminate harmful colorants and additives from the food supply] alone and that FDA will step up and work with [industry and stakeholders] to reinforce the need for a federal framework and avoid state patchworks,” per the readout.


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


The FDA permits the use of 36 color additives in food and drinks, including nine artificial dyes. They include Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, Green No. 3, Orange B, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Red No. 3 and Citrus Red 2. In January, the FDA banned Red No. 3 from the nation’s food supply in response to a 2022 color additive petition filed by two dozen food safety and health advocates. The petition found that Red No. 3 causes cancer in male laboratory rats exposed to high levels of the dye. Although similar effects were not observed in other animals and humans, they were enough for the FDA to issue a ban.

Red No. 3 — which gives certain foods and drinks a bright, cherry-red hue — is commonly found in candies, artificial fruit products, processed meats, frozen desserts and baked goods and snacks.

“Manufacturers who use FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs will have until January 15, 2027, or January 18, 2028, respectively, to reformulate their products,” the FDA said in a statement. “Consumers could see FD&C Red No. 3 as an ingredient in a food or drug product on the market past the effective date in the order if that product was manufactured before the effective date.”

Marco Rubio’s mission to root out students “making a ruckus” causes collateral damage

Until March 25, 2025, Rumeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University graduate student from Turkey, might have assumed that when she wrote an op-ed in the school’s newspaper critical of her school's failure to stand up for the human rights of Palestinians, she was doing what people in the United States were free to do. Indeed, all who live in the U.S. might have thought the same thing, even if we disagree with the views she expressed in her piece.

Those assumptions were well grounded. The Washington Post notes, “The First Amendment protects the right to speak, protest and publish views, regardless of citizenship status.“ It quotes a 1953 Supreme Court decision that said: “’Once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country, he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.’”

But since then, the Court “has not directly addressed the issue of immigrants’ free speech rights.” Whether people here illegally are protected by the First Amendment has not been settled by the Supreme Court. However, that silence on immigration status is irrelevant in this case.

Öztürk was here legally on a student visa. 

She was seized and taken into custody because "DHS and ICE investigations found Öztürk engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans."  

No one has said what those activities were. But Öztürk has never been charged with a crime or with violating the rules or policies of Tufts University.

That didn’t stop the Trump administration from revoking her visa and spiriting her off to an ICE detention facility in Louisiana. It claims that the secretary of state has authority under what the Associated Press calls “a seldom-invoked statute… to revoke visas of noncitizens who could be considered a threat to foreign policy interests.”

Efforts to silence people who create a ruckus suggest that “the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says, “If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us that the reason why you’re coming to the United States is not just ’cause you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we’re not going to give you a visa.” 

“If you come into the U.S. as a visitor and create a ruckus for us… We don’t want it in our country. Go back and do it in your country,” 

All Öztürk did was write an op-ed in March 2024, long after university buildings had been vandalized or taken over. No evidence has been presented to suggest she was involved in those activities.

The “ruckus” that made her unwelcome to continue to study here was caused because she said something in public that the administration in Washington did not want people to say.

Seems odd and out of step with the First Amendment. 

We need your help to stay independent

The First Amendment protects speech even if it creates a commotion, disturbance, stir, or fuss and is troublesome, offensive, or even hateful. Only if it falls into specific, narrowly defined categories of unprotected speech, like incitement to violence or true threats, can speech be prohibited or punished. 

Speaking out on topics where there might be disagreement is not prohibited speech. In fact, If some speech didn’t create a ruckus, it wouldn’t need protection. 

As Princeton’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions says, exchanging ideas should “disturb and unsettle us." Their statement continues: “That means that all positions and points of view, no matter how radical or even unjust or immoral they may seem to people who oppose them, are on the table for discussion, scrutiny, and assessment on equal terms.”  

Considering those principles, let’s look at Öztürk’s op-ed.

Its purpose was to take the administration of Tufts University to task for ignoring resolutions passed by the Tufts Community Union Senate, a student government body. 

Along with three co-authors, Öztürk acknowledged, in the best First Amendment tradition, arguments against their position. “(A)n argument may be made,” the students wrote, “that the University should not take political stances and should focus on research and intellectual exchange.”  

But they argued, “the automatic rejection, dismissive nature, and condescending tone in the University’s statement have caused us to question whether the University is indeed taking a stand against its own declared commitments to free speech, assembly and democratic expression.”

So far, it is hard to see any hint of the kind of ruckus or threat to foreign policy interests that should get someone who is here legally deported. The authors were engaging in a spirited discussion about the nature of the University’s commitment to free speech. 

The problem seems to be that Öztürk and her co-authors went on to demand that the “University acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, … disclose its investments, and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.” The op-ed called for Tufts “to end its complicity with Israel insofar as it is oppressing the Palestinian people and denying their right to self-determination — a right guaranteed by international law.“ 

Let me say, if it matters, that I strongly disagree with this description of the war in Gaza and with the call for divestment. I also think the authors should have condemned the October 7 terrorist attack in Israel as part of their account of the war. 


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


But there is nothing here that would suggest that they support either Hamas or terrorism. In fact, the op-ed  “affirm(ed) (its belief in) the equal dignity and humanity of all people.” I don’t see anything beyond what is universally regarded as protected speech.  

Why Öztürk came to be a target remains somewhat unclear, although reports surfaced saying pro-Israel groups gave her name to the authorities. They did so even though, as the Boston Globe notes, “friends and family said Öztürk isn’t actually much of an activist, let alone a terrorist sympathizer ….. Multiple people who know Öztürk told the Globe… that she had not been a leading figure in protests at Tufts last spring.”

By grabbing her off the street in broad daylight, the Trump administration signals the lengths to which it will go to instill fear in those who use their free speech rights in ways that they consider unacceptable. 

We have seen attempts by those in power in this country to silence dissent before. Professor Wilson Huhn reminds us that examples of such things date back to the Republic's early years. The early twentieth-century Red Scare and its later incarnation in the McCarthy period provide other instances in which government officials tried to stop people from saying things or supporting causes of which they disapproved.

In each of those “limitations on freedom of speech were,” Hun observes, “in effect, limitations on the right of the people to govern themselves.” He cites Alexander Hamilton, who characterized the relationship between the people and their government “as one of principal and agent.” 

Efforts to silence people who create a ruckus suggest that “the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master.” “The implication for freedom of expression,” Huhn says, “is that just as an agent may not silence the principal, the government may not silence the people.”

Make no mistake, what has happened to Ruymesa Öztürk (and to others) is a sign that the Trump administration is prepared to set the government above the people, and not just green card holders and those who are here on student visas. That is why we all have a stake in Öztürk’s fate and why we should call out this violation of our constitutional norms for what it is.

Signalgate is a consequence of anti-DEI hysteria

Lloyd Austin, the former defense secretary and a four-star general with 40 years of military experience, was nonetheless labeled a DEI hire of the Biden administration. Pete Hegseth, the current secretary of defense, lacks adequate expertise and experience, on top of the fact that he’s had allegations of sexual assault and is known as an excessive drinker. A former National Security Council member and a Senate member deemed Hegseth unqualified for the position. However, according to Donald Trump, Hegseth had a tremendous track record that qualified him for the position.

The MAGA crowd called for Austin to resign because he failed to share that he had an emergency medical procedure, yet they explain away Hegseth’s failure to keep the details of a war plan confidential. Clearly, the ability to keep a secret wasn’t a qualification for Hegseth to get the job as defense secretary. What Signalgate, the recent scandal involving the Trump administration discussing war plans in a text thread with a journalist mistakenly added to the conversation, made abundantly clear is that the only qualification for Hegseth is that he was what Mishel Williams calls WEI: white, entitled and incompetent. 

This scandal is a microcosm of where we stand as a country. Believing that whiteness will save America has put the nation at risk.

The rationale of white people who’ve accepted privilege in exchange for power in solidarity, what W.E.B. DuBois coined the racial bribe — the deliberate and strategic method of the planter elite class to extend special privileges to poor whites to drive a wedge between them and enslaved African people — is that a Black person in a position of power and authority is unqualified. Specifically, it is the belief that affirmative action and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are merely a euphemism, implying that a Black person, or a person of color, was hired for a position or selected to attend a prestigious institution solely to fulfill a quota. Rather than accept that affirmative action and DEI initiatives address the systemic racist practices and policies of the past that prevent African Americans and other historically oppressed and underrepresented groups from gaining access to positions they are qualified for, many white individuals believe that only they are capable of holding positions and occupying spaces of power, privilege and authority. 

What this scandal shows is that the practice of hiring unqualified and mediocre white people — and calling it making America great — can, and has, compromised national security. And yet, many white people are so convinced that Black people and other people of color are wholly unqualified to lead, specifically those who don’t think like or act like them. 

Donald Trump has reinforced that belief, proving Lyndon B. Johnson right when Johnson said, “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” I guess you can call Donald Trump the pick-pocketing pied piper… say that three times fast.

The Trump administration's removal of all DEI initiatives through executive orders will undoubtedly keep people uninformed and restrict others from attaining positions and places of power and influence. But it’s important to understand that a driving reason for these executive orders is to appease the racism he has fomented among his voter base. The consequence of this is the perpetuation of white mediocrity.  

Historically, the cause of racial justice has needed to align with the agenda of white people. Legal scholar Derrick Bell referred to this as interest-convergence. According to Bell, racial progress for marginalized groups only occurs when the aims of racial justice converge with the goals of the dominant oppressor — in this case, white people — or if those aims are beneficial to them. An example is the Brown decision. The doctrine of "separate but equal," established in Plessy, was overturned by the Supreme Court in Brown, in part due to the executive branch's efforts to win the trust and allegiance of Black and brown nations around the world during the Cold War by granting African Americans rights. A more recent example was the Trump administration and the GOP supporting prison reform to reduce federal spending on inmates, aligning with advocates against mass incarceration.

We need your help to stay independent

It’s likely that before anything changes for the better in a second Trump administration, white people, particularly the MAGA base, will need to experience some discomfort. With cuts to federal jobs, reductions in funding for federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, and tampering with Social Security, there’s pain to be felt by all… including white people. Perhaps then, things will begin to change. It shouldn’t have to come to that, but these individuals are too accustomed to having their pockets picked versus being outright robbed. It’s why a convicted felon was elected president and why his incompetent advisors are permitted to stay in their roles.  

And as conservatives determine their fate, those on the side of justice can’t wait to act. We must continue to highlight injustice and resist it. However, we cannot operate business as usual. The goal shouldn’t be a return to what America was before Donald Trump. The goal must be to construct the America our collective humanity deserves. That means finding new leaders to champion the cause of human rights; we can’t afford to follow those who are too afraid to fight or those who go on tour, acknowledging our anger only to lead us back to those who are too afraid to fight or the oligarchy being criticized.

This scandal is a microcosm of where we stand as a country. Believing that whiteness will save America has put the nation at risk, and the pain stemming from the mistakes of white mediocrity will be, in the words of el Hajj Malik el Shabazz, the chickens coming home to roost. Expect to see and hear more chickens roosting in the next four years.

Moon dust could be dangerous. We may have figured out a new way of handling it

We tend to think of the moon as little more than a barren rock, but it’s very, very dusty. However, this dust is a little different than the stuff that collects on our bookshelves. Every time an Apollo astronaut walked off the moon and into his spacecraft, he tracked a load of dust with him. Breathing dust in, as Harrison Schmitt reported during Apollo 17 in 1972, caused sneezing and allergies like "lunar dust hay fever." 

A NASA study in 2005 noted the particles damaged instrument covers, spacecraft radiators and spacesuit seals and "generally coated everything with surprising tenacity." The floating, sticky dust, technically known as lunar regolith, also made it tough to see during landing or during surface activities; for example, the Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 repeatedly tripped over an external TV cable obscured in powder. 

These moon landing excursions only lasted a few days, at most. What about NASA's ambitions to remain on the moon for longer, including building bases? Apollo 17's Eugene Cernan warned the dust would be "one of the most aggravating, restricting facets of lunar surface exploration." More than 50 years later, a new Canadian experiment aims to tackle dust mitigation; its company's president, Jacob Kleiman, told Salon dust is "one of the hottest topics" in moon exploration.

The experiment rode to the moon March 2 aboard Blue Ghost, a private lander from Firefly Aerospace. Built by Integrity Testing Laboratory (ITL), a Toronto-area company, the experiment included two identical cylindrical wheels exposed to the surface for different lengths of time. Each had 15 "sample surfaces," which were monitored throughout the two-week mission to see how the dust adhered over time.

It will take many missions to the moon, with careful study of the dust, to understand its properties fully.

ITL's two sample surfaces on each wheel had a twist: dust mitigation technology. Engineers did years of testing on the ground suggesting they could limit dust accumulation, by using polymers designed to dissipate the electrostatic charge attached to the dust.

ITL will compare the data from their moon mission to what they gathered from samples on a ground-testing program similar to the moon, which varied the temperatures, dust simulants and times of exposure to a vacuum. If the dust accumulation pattern is a match, "hopefully, [we] will learn more about conditions on the moon that aided in formation of the dust patterns on lunar samples," Kleiman said.

It will take many missions to the moon, with careful study of the dust, to understand its properties fully. Kim Prisk, a professor emeritus at the University of California, San Diego, has been studying the effects of lunar dust on the human body for decades. "We currently do not know if any high surface reactivity – if it exists – persists in the lunar dust," he warned.


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


Past studies, however, suggest why humans and equipment are so prone to issues, though the health risks are largely unknown. The dust's fine grains, just one or two microns in size, makes it easy to inhale and difficult to remove. The dust is also sharp due to slow erosion on the moon, Prisk observed: "this matters in terms of abrasive ability, for equipment." 

Dust hovering and obscuring the landings is also no surprise, he said. Even small particles on Earth tend to fall slowly when suspended in water. Put similar bits into the light gravity of the moon, and they will drift for a long time. "There is nothing 'strange' about lunar dust," he said.

While ITL has no immediate plans to fly other experiments, once they see how well their dust mitigation works, they will bid for future flights. One example Kleiman cited is NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services program for private landers, which brought Blue Ghost and two Intuitive Machines landers to the surface already; only Blue Ghost has run a fully successful mission, however.

We need your help to stay independent

NASA tentatively will fly astronauts to the moon's surface again with Artemis 3, but the timeline is unclear. Official agency schedules suggest 2027, but the crew has not yet been named and the landing vehicle – SpaceX's Starship – is not yet certified to carry humans. The new Trump administration's budget in the coming weeks may determine the future of moon exploration.

In the meantime, new research into managing moon dust is ongoing, with NASA announcing on March 27 that its Electrodynamic Dust Shield successfully demonstrated its ability to remove regolith from its various surfaces on the moon during the Blue Ghost mission. These tests will ensure that lunar dust is no match for the human urge to explore the cosmos.