Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Intermittent fasting and calorie counting about equal for weight loss, according to new study

The traditional approach to weight loss is to count calories and try to reduce the number consumed each day. This is a time-consuming and error-prone process — often with disappointing results. Intermittent fasting — and the popular version known as time-restricted eating — could be a simpler option for people wanting to achieve a healthy weight.

But is intermittent fasting any better than calorie counting for losing weight? A new study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, aimed to provide the answer. It showed that the two methods could be equally effective — if undertaken with professional counseling.

In this year-long study, researchers at the University of Illinois Chicago recruited 90 adults with obesity, aged 18 to 65. The participants were randomly allocated to one of three groups:

  • a time-restricted eating group who were required to consume all their calories each day between noon and 8pm
  • a daily calorie restriction group, who were required to reduce their calorie intake by 25% by closely tracking their diet
  • a control group who maintained their normal dietary patterns throughout the study.

The participants lost about 5% of their starting body weight on both diets in the first six months. The diets were then adjusted to help maintain this weight loss over the next six months.

The time-restricted eating group extended their eating window to ten hours (10am to 8pm) and the daily calorie restriction group increased their calorie intake to match their requirements, which was calculated based on their weight, height, age and activity levels. The control group maintained the same eating pattern.  

The researchers hypothesized that participants focusing on reducing the number of hours they ate would achieve and maintain weight loss better than participants focusing on counting calories. The effects of these two diets on body composition (muscle, fat and bone mass), waist circumference and a range of health markers were also assessed.

The study found that restricting the time during which you can eat and restricting the number of calories were equally effective for losing weight. Participants in both groups lost about 4% of their starting body weight after 12 months.

Both diets also reduced waist circumference and fat mass to a similar extent. Diet records revealed that calorie intake was reduced to a similar extent with both diets, despite the different approaches.

Neither diet showed any changes in health markers, such as glucose, insulin or cholesterol levels. One reason for this may be the use of a late time-restricted eating window (12pm to 8pm), which was considered to be more acceptable for participants.

There is evidence an early time-restricted eating window (8am to 4pm, for instance) can achieve greater weight loss and improve blood glucose regulation.

Scientists aren’t certain why this is the case. However, research suggests that our metabolism is more efficient earlier in the day, aligning with our natural waking and sleeping patterns. This means that the body may be better at using nutrients consumed early in the day.

These findings support previous studies that have found similar weight loss when comparing time-restricted eating and other popular versions of intermittent fasting (such as the 5:2 diet), to daily calorie restriction.  

These studies all show that calorie restriction — whether achieved by reducing the time during which people are allowed to eat or counting the number of calories eaten — is the main thing that determines weight loss.

The new study shows that time-restricted eating can lead to weight loss without explicit instruction to reduce calorie intake. Another strength of this study was the racial diversity of the participants (79% were black or Hispanic), meaning these results can be applied more widely than most previous studies.

 

Substantial counseling

However, one important aspect of this study that makes it difficult to conclude that these interventions alone are enough to help people lose weight is the fact that participants in both dietary intervention groups received a lot of counseling during the study.

This included healthy-eating guidance and cognitive behavioral therapy (a type of talk therapy) to reduce impulse eating. This probably helped participants reduce the urge to eat high-calorie food after completing their fasting window.

Whether this study shows that time-restricted eating and daily calorie restriction are equally effective for weight loss or whether professional support with healthy eating helps with weight loss, is debatable.

Interestingly, a recent study found that time-restricted eating without additional support did not lead to weight loss after three months.

There were also substantial differences in weight loss between individual participants on each diet. This suggests there may be factors that allow time-restricted eating or daily calorie restriction to be more effective for some people than others.

Dieting is difficult, regardless of the method used. This new study suggests weight loss can be achieved using intermittent fasting, but some people will probably benefit more than others. Why that is, we don’t currently know.

David Clayton, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition and Exercise Physiology, Nottingham Trent University

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

Legal scholar: Report suggests DOJ about to indict Trump’s “whole criminal gang” for conspiracy

The Justice Department is charging ahead in its probe of former President Donald Trump’s role in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Special counsel Jack Smith, who is also overseeing the prosecution of Trump in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, is spearheading the election-focused investigation. 

The Washington Post reported that the probe is moving forward on “multiple tracks,” focusing on ads and fundraising pitches that proclaimed election fraud as well as plans for “fake electors.”

Particular emphasis has been placed on a group of attorneys who specifically attempted to persuade state, local, federal and judicial authorities that President Joe Biden’s win was illegitimate. The DOJ is attempting to discern whether attorneys  Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, Kurt Olsen, Kenneth Chesebro, and then-Justice Department lawyer Jeffrey Clark were following orders from Trump and what the nature of said orders was.

Trump’s inner circle has alleged that preparing alternate electors does not qualify as criminal conduct, according to the Post.

Following the 2020 election, an advertising firm created three spots for the ex-president’s fundraising, titled, “Stop the Steal,” “Overwhelming,” and “On Tape,” according to the report. However, when Trump campaign lawyers reviewed the ads, they became worried about potentially false information contained within them, sources told the outlet.

“The campaign’s own legal team and data experts cannot verify the bullshit being beamed down from the mothership,” Trump advisor Jason Miller wrote to Larry Weitzner, an executive at the firm manufacturing Trump’s campaign ads, at the time. Miller added Trump’s legal team was “0 for 32,” a seeming reference to the number of times the attorneys had tried and failed to challenge election results in court. 


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


The correspondence between Miller and Weitzner is one of the numerous pieces of evidence that prosecutors have produced to show that MAGA allies were aware of the dubious nature of Trump’s claims. Smith’s team has issued subpoenas in connection to the ads as they endeavor to glean further information.

New York University Law Professor Ryan Goodman argued that Miller’s email to Weitzner contained “evidence of wire fraud.”

Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung dismissed the dissemination of “out-of-context information to the press.”

“Further, the DOJ has no place inserting itself into reviewing campaign communications and their meddling in such matters represents a grave danger to the First Amendment and should seriously concern all campaigns and Americans,” Cheung told the Post. “This is the continuation of the many witch-hunts against President Trump in order to meddle and influence the 2024 election in order to prevent him from returning to the White House. They will fail.”

Smith’s team is slated to interview Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Wednesday. On Jan 2, 2021, Trump placed a phone call to Raffensperger, asking him to “find 11,780 votes.”

Raffensperger’s sit-down with the DOJ, “tells me Smith is likely to ask a grand jury to indict the whole criminal gang that conspired to overturn the presidential election and overthrow the government,” tweeted longtime Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe.

“That includes Trump at the wheel’s center and his corrupt fellow seditionists and insurrectionists as its spokes,” he added.

How the “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” inspired me to make my childhood struggle meal gourmet

People in the trenches deserve gourmet food, too. I fully believe that, and that belief is the reason why a 13-year-old me — living, loving, and surviving in severe American poverty — once played around with some ingredients in the kitchen and created one of the fanciest struggle meals of all time. 

I must admit, I did not care for Nissin Oodles of Noodles or Top Ramen initially. I discovered them back when I was about six years old, in the house with an older cousin who was about nine, and we were starving. Not grumbling, belly-hungry — but “stomach touching your back, every rib visible, aching, and balled up on the floor in the corner” starving. The refrigerator held a couple of eggs, a half-eaten hot dog from the Civil Rights era, a couple of boxes of baking soda, and some ice packs in classic cookout condiments like ketchup, mustard, hot sauce, and relish. 

And in the cabinet, there was cereal, but no milk, and a bunch of packs of Top Ramen. 

“Yo, I’m gonna go outside and make some money,” my cousin said, heading toward the front door, “I’ll bring us back some mozzarella sticks, a pizza, or something.” 

“What time my mother coming back?” I yelled in his direction, but too late. He was gone.

I paced back and forth, with a pain inside my body that felt like it was eating itself, so I had to do something. Using the countertop to pull myself up to the cabinets, I was able to balance and explore the available options because maybe, just maybe, my cousin missed something. He didn’t. Defeated, I snatched a packet of ramen and leaped back onto the floor, landing like Spider-Man. I saw my mother cooking Top Ramen before. I was never really interested –– probably because she boiled the noodles in the seasoning and slammed those dry noodles onto my paper plate with a splat! Dry seasoned noodles are about as interesting as rearranging a sock drawer. But these were desperate times and called for desperate actions. 

So, I ripped the pack open and bit into the dry crunchy noodles that quickly pasted up inside of my mouth. It was a chunky bland glob. I didn’t choke. I almost choked, but I didn’t –– I just ripped into the packet of season and sucked the salty imitation beef flavor out. 

I repeated this over and over again, until all of the seasoning was gone and about half of the noodles remained. 

“Raw noodles, yo? You a real animal, savage,” my cousin laughed, holding a bag of hot food at the front door, “Any room left for some mozzarella sticks?”  

“Of course!” 

Two years later, I regularly made French toast, grilled cheese, and fried eggs. I also saw a television show called “The Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.” It was hosted by this guy with a rich voice named Robin Leach–– and I can’t say that I took away many valuable lessons from the program other than the fact that anything could be better. We all need homes, but bigger homes full of toys provide a better living experience; everyone needs a toilet, but toilet seats could be golden, which I didn’t understand, and still don’t –– or those seats could have a generous extra amount of cushioning, which is obviously more understandable. 

I learned that mom’s dried seasoned noodles, and my own sucking the pack of flavor approach, was unacceptable and could be better. 

So, the first thing I did was properly prepare the noodles. Ramen needs broth, a delicious salty fluid in which to suspend the noodles. This one simple fix instantly made me a fan, but understanding how luxury works committed me to noodles for life, because I did not have to just stop at the broth. I chopped and added onions, and the dish was better. I added hot sauce, and the dish was better; I saw the Korean dude enjoy his noodles with a boiled egg at the corner store near my house, so I added a boiled egg, and the dish was better. Pretty soon, onions, hot sauce, and a boiled egg were necessary for enjoying the dish–– but when I started cooking chicken, shrimp (or both!) in cast iron to add to my ramen, my struggle meal became gourmet. 

It was a staple well into middle school and high school, all the way up until I discovered pho spots, which are also inexpensive and typically delicious. I mean, how many times can you say you went to a pho spot and it was terrible? The answer for me is zero and I eat it religiously. 

So, here’s what I put in my Top Ramen.

My gourmet Top Ramen
Yields
1 big-ass serving
Prep Time
5 minutes
Cook Time
minutes

 

Ingredients

1 pack of Top Ramen

1 egg

1 chicken breast

1 table spoon of hot sauce

1 tea spoon of lime  

1 dash of cayenne pepper 

Vegetables of your choice 

 

Directions

  1. Boil the water for the ramen in a 2 quart pot. 
  2. Boil an egg in a separate pot. (soft to hard, to your preference)
  3. Fry the chicken, with olive oil in cast iron. Season to your liking.
  4. Slice and dice the vegetables. 
  5. Pour the boiled water into your ramen bowl. 
  6. Add the noodles, vegetables lime, cayenne pepper, hot sauce, and seasoning that came with the noodles (beef, chicken, or seafood) 
  7. Mix, mix, mix. 
  8. Plate the chicken in egg accordingly on top. 

“We haven’t seen anything yet”: Despite tape, experts say it “only gets worse for Trump from here”

CNN on Monday released an exclusive audio recording in which former President Donald Trump can be heard discussing “secret” classified documents in his possession that he acknowledged he could no longer declassify after leaving office – a conversation legal experts suggest will be pivotal for the government’s case.

The two-minute recording, made at his Bedminster, N.J., golf club, captures a moment where Trump suggests that he possesses a classified Pentagon document outlining potential plans for an attack on Iran. 

Trump can be heard referencing a “big pile of papers” and talking about former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley, who reportedly urged him not to attack Iran at the end of his presidency.

“The audio clip is powerful evidence for the government on multiple fronts,” Adam Kamenstein, a former federal prosecutor and current partner with Adams, Duerk & Kamenstein, told Salon. “It also proves not just that he possessed classified documents but that he knew he possessed classified documents, which will be crucial to the government’s case.”

The tape also reveals that “the classified documents were not subsequently planted by the government,” unlike what the former president has claimed in social media posts, he said. 

“In addition, it’s an admission that he had not taken steps to declassify it, as he has claimed and that he knew he had no authority to declassify it once his term ended,” Kamenstein said. “As damning as it is on its own, it likely only gets worse for Trump from here, because those in the room with him at the time have probably testified before the grand jury and, at trial, would be expected to provide additional context to the conversation, further cementing the government’s case.”

The audio clip was recorded in July 2021 during a meeting between Trump and publishers working on the autobiography of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. Trump aide Margo Martin, who regularly tapes conversations with authors to ensure accuracy, recorded the conversation.

Smith cited the recording in the indictment when Trump was charged with 37 counts related to stashing documents at Mar-a-Lago and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them earlier this month. 

But, the recording will not serve as “the singular piece of ‘smoking gun’ evidence” that the special counsel “uses to litigate the case for the criminal charges,” Javed Ali, a former senior counterterrorism official at the Department of Homeland Security, told Salon. 

Instead, it “could be a key factor that shapes the jury’s perceptions of Trump’s claim that he followed the strict guidelines for properly declassifying documents that he then took once he left office,” Ali said.

“There is a specific process overseen by the National Archives and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to ensure that formerly classified US government documents are declassified and approved for public release if so requested by presidents or other senior government officials while in office, and by all accounts President Trump did not follow these rules before leaving the White House,” he added.


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


Attorney Andrew Lieb suggested that Smith likely has more damning evidence.

“Make no mistake that he has the goods and we haven’t seen anything yet,” Lieb said. “This is going to be a multi-front war with federal indictments going on in different district courts simultaneously.”

Despite making claims in an interview last week that he had no classified documents in his possession, the recording contradicts Trump’s previous claims. 

In a Fox interview with host Bret Baier, the former president insisted “everything was declassified” and said he did not “know” if the materials he took contained documents detailing an attack plan against Iran even though the July recording suggests that he did. 

Trump has continued to defend himself on his social media platform Truth Social and lashed out at Smith after the leak.

“The Deranged Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, working in conjunction with the DOJ & FBI, illegally leaked and ‘spun’ a tape and transcript of me which is actually an exoneration, rather than what they would have you believe,” Trump wrote. “This continuing Witch Hunt is another ELECTION INTERFERENCE Scam. They are cheaters and thugs!”

Even though Trump has admitted the recording was leaked and alleges it was spun, he doesn’t “deny its authenticity,” Lieb pointed out.

“Yes, the tape is terrible evidence against Trump, but the real story is he is challenging to be the worst client of eternity for any criminal defense attorney because he gives real time admissions rather than keeping his mouth (Truths) shut while his attorneys do their job,” Lieb said. “It’s almost like he wants to be convicted.”

Here’s how much water it takes to make a serving of beef — and why its origins are so important

Almost everything we eat has consumed water somewhere in the process of being made and processed. But beef is credited with one of the biggest water footprints.

Our calculations for British beef, as well as studies for other beef producing countries, have assessed this at more than 15,000 liters for each kilogram.

But this figure doesn’t tell you the full story about the water needed to produce the beef on your plate and the impact it has on the planet. Looking in more detail reveals that how and where the beef is farmed has a huge effect on its water footprint.

Food production accounts for 70% of freshwater withdrawn from the environment. Using large amounts of water to produce beef has been driving water scarcity in the western US, among other places.

And as climate change threatens longer and more severe droughts, it’s important to scrutinize just how much water goes into making the food we eat.

So, how “thirsty” is beef? First, we have to differentiate between water from two sources. When we talk about water we usually think of rivers, lakes, reservoirs and groundwater aquifers.

This is what hydrologists call blue water. Consuming blue water to produce food depletes these water sources, leaving less for people’s homes, industry and maintaining a healthy environment.

Green water on the other hand is rainfall that plants consume. In some countries, the plants which are ultimately fed to cows (grass for grazing, hay or silage and cereals) are mainly rain-fed and green water accounts for a large part of the huge figures quoted for the water consumption of beef.

As green water cannot be re-purposed (unless you covered the ground with a tarpaulin and managed to catch some of it), we don’t consider its consumption as part of the impact of livestock production. We should concentrate on the blue water consumed instead and the amount of blue water needed to produce a serving of beef is much less than the 15,000 liters quoted above.

 

What’s the beef with blue water?

Blue water may be used to irrigate grass or other feed crops, in the feed processing industry and on farms for drinking water and cleaning and to rinse abattoirs. Small amounts are used in other things, such as veterinary products, but these are trivial in comparison.

The amount of blue water it takes to get the meat on your plate depends on the animal’s diet and the system that produced it. For the UK, we estimated a national average of 67 liters per kilogram of carcass.

This is relatively low, because most beef consumed in the UK is fed on rain-fed grass and crops. Production systems in the US, on the other hand, that rely on irrigated feed may consume almost 2,000 litres per kg. This is blue water that has been diverted from rivers and aquifers.

In addition to raising the animal, 700 liters to 1,000 liters of water is used per animal in the abattoir for washing and hygiene.

Not all of the carcass makes beef — some of it may make dog food and there’s also inedible hide and bone — so the total water consumption has to be allocated among all the products. Producing a serving (375g) of English topside consumes 33 liters of blue water, 96% of which goes towards feeding and raising the animal.

The consequences of using water to produce food depend on where the water has come from and how much is available. In the UK, most beef production is concentrated in south-west England, Cheshire, north-west England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland — all wetter parts of the British Isles.

But most of the water cattle drink and the water used to process their meat, comes from the public water supply where it competes with other demands. As of spring 2023, water restrictions are in place in parts of south-west England due to prolonged dry weather.

 

It’s not just water

The 33 liters of freshwater needed to produce a serving of beef is more than ten times as much as the 2.3 liters required to grow the potatoes you might have on the side, though it is much less than the 73 liters used to produce an avocado in Peru for instance or the 181 liters required to produce a serving of basmati rice in Pakistan.

But there are lots of other things to consider for a sustainable and healthy diet: Water scarcity is just one of the many impacts of producing beef. Cows emit potent greenhouse gas emissions such as methane and growing the crops that feed them, such as cereals, consumes a lot of synthetic fertilizer which is usually made by burning fossil fuels.

In some circumstances, the grassland cows graze may be a net absorber of CO₂ from the atmosphere and unsuitable for other agricultural uses. But a great deal of forest and other habitats has been lost to make way for this pasture and land used for growing cow feed could instead grow food for people. If poorly managed, slurry from livestock pollutes rivers.

To make informed choices about the impact of beef on the world’s water, you need to know where the meat was produced. If you are eating beef from the western US, it could have a serious impact on how much water is available for everything else, whereas beef in Britain is more benign.

You would also need to know what the animal was fed, whether the feed was irrigated, where the water came from and how scarce water is in that region. At that point, you have to consider how to trade off water use with other environmental and social consequences.


Imagine weekly climate newsletter
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 20,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


Tim Hess, Professor of Water and Food Systems, Cranfield University and Adrian Williams, Visting Research Fellow in Environmental Systems, Cranfield University

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

Moore v. Harper: Law professors warn SCOTUS just set itself up to “meddle in future elections”

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a far-right legal theory that would have upended the federal election process — but legal scholars warn that the ruling leaves big questions for the 2024 election.

The court voted 6-3 in the Moore v. Harper case to reject the fringe “independent state legislature” theory, which would have given state legislatures the power to establish rules for federal elections and draw congressional maps “warped by partisan gerrymandering.”

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, stating that the Constitution “does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law.”

The theory is founded upon a reading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause — “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” This interpretation, according to advocates of the “independent state legislature” theory, means that no other bodies of government can change a legislature’s actions on a federal election, The New York Times reported.

At the center of the case was a voting map drawn by the North Carolina Legislature initially struck down by the state’s Supreme Court as a partisan gerrymander. The state court claimed that state legislature theory would be “repugnant to the sovereignty of states, the authority of state constitutions and the independence of state courts, and would produce absurd and dangerous consequences.”

When the GOP attempted to reinstate the legislative map last year and asked SCOTUS to step in, justices rejected the request, and November elections were held under a map drawn by state-appointed experts. This ultimately yielded a delegation divided evenly between Republicans and Democrats. However, Republican lawmakers would appeal the Supreme Court, arguing that the North Carolina state court was not within its right to question the legislature. 

Following the fall elections, the North Carolina State Court flipped to favor Republicans 5 to 2, and the new majority gave discretion to the legislature to draw gerrymandered voting districts. 

But legal experts warned that the decision also sets up more litigation ahead of the 2024 election.

“The Court has provided some clarity about the independent state legislature issue: state constitutions continue to bind state [legislatures]. But it has also left a vague standard hanging over the 2024 elections,” wrote New York University Law Prof. Rick Pildes.

“The Court recognized some, vague constraint on state courts going “too far” (my words) when they interpret state elections laws or the state [constitution]. But we don’t even have a ruling on whether the NC court violated this standard.  The issue is going to be litigated in 2024,” he explained on Twitter. 


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


Fellow NYU Law Prof. Melissa Murray agreed that the ruling was “not a complete repudiation” of the independent state legislature theory.

“Court is really vague about what state courts can do in interpreting state constitutional provisions. We’ll see more litigation in the future,” she predicted.

While the ruling does not change any major law, wrote Georgia State Law Prof. Anthony Michael Kreis, it leaves “just enough room for a bit of mischief in the future to spare.”

Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, explained that amid “all the hoopla it is easy to miss that the Supreme Court has now set itself up, with the assent of the liberal justices, to meddle in future elections, perhaps even deciding the outcome of future presidential elections.”

Roberts, Hasen wrote in a Slate op-ed, “got the liberal justices to sign onto a version of judicial review that is going to give the federal courts, and especially the Supreme Court itself, the last word in election disputes.”

As a result, federal courts and especially the Supreme Court will have great power to “second guess court rulings in the most sensitive of cases,” Hasen warned

“But what Roberts left unresolved in his majority opinion is going to be hanging out there, a new tool to be used to rein in especially voter-protective rulings of state courts. Every expansion of voting rights in the context of federal litigation will now yield a potential second federal lawsuit with uncertain results,” he added. “It’s going to be ugly, and it could lead to another Supreme Court intervention in a presidential election sooner rather than later. Moore gave voters a win today, but it sets up a Supreme Court power grab down the line.”

“Actually an exoneration”: Trump flails on Truth Social after damning leaked recording

Former President Donald Trump bizarrely insisted on Monday that a bombshell leaked audio that experts have called “damning” was actually an “exoneration.” 

The recording, which was cited last month as part of Trump’s 37-count criminal indictment over his handling of national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, ostensibly reveals the ex-president bragging about possessing a secret document that he could not show others because he did not declassify it. 

“These are the papers,” Trump says in the recording, undercutting his claim that he did not posses the actual document.

Trump cited a New Yorker report that said Chairman of the Joints Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley argued against striking Iran and referred to something “highly confidential.” 

“He said that I wanted to attack Iran, Isn’t it amazing?” Trump says. “I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this – this is off the record but – they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.” The sound of papers shuffling is audible in the audio’s background. 

“See as president I could have declassified it,” Trump added. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

On Monday, Trump harkened back to his usual justification for his antics, making claims of a perpetual “Witch Hunt” against him. 

“The Deranged Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, working in conjunction with the DOJ & FBI, illegally leaked and ‘spun’ a tape and transcript of me which is actually an exoneration, rather than what they would have you believe,” Trump wrote. “This continuing Witch Hunt is another ELECTION INTERFERENCE Scam. They are cheaters and thugs!”

An all-caps rant ensued early Tuesday morning, with Trump continuing his attack on Smith. 

“COULD SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE DERANGED, TRUMP HATING JACK SMITH, HIS FAMILY, AND HIS FRIENDS, THAT AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I COME UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT, AS AFFIRMED BY THE CLINTON SOCKS CASE, NOT BY THIS PSYCHOS’ FANTASY OF THE NEVER USED BEFORE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917. ‘SMITH’ SHOULD BE LOOKING AT CROOKED JOE BIDDEN AND ALL OF THE CRIMES THAT HE HAS PERPETRATED ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, INCLUDING THE MILLIONS & MILLIONS OF DOLLARS HE EXTORTED FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES!” Trump wrote.

But Trump’s allies worry that he may not be able to overcome the audio recording. 

“There are some people around Trump who were pretty candid, who have been around Trump who are pretty candid that this is just not a good fact set for him,” New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman told CNN. “It doesn’t that they won’t find a defense for it, it doesn’t mean that they won’t argue all kinds of other things at trial or even before a trial, such as selected prosecution.”

Haberman added that “what has been said to me by several people is that this tape is the most damning piece of evidence that they know of existing in this case.”

“It doesn’t mean that there are other things that are problematic for him,” she added. “I am guessing that some of these tapes or other book interviews or other interviews he sat for, this is very specific and this was just… he knew his aides taped these meetings, it is not like this was a secret recording.”


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


Former Trump Associate White House Counsel James Schultz told the network that the audio bolsters the government’s case.

“Really, if anything it bolsters it, right? If this evidence is admissible – and I imagine they’re going to try to challenge on a number of different fronts, I’m not sure where they make their argument here to exclude this evidence. But if it is admissible in court, it’s certainly troubling for their defense,” he told CNN.

“It bolsters the government’s claim under the Espionage Act,” Schultz continued. “It also bolsters their claim, you know, under the obstruction case because one of the things he’s been saying all along is that he can just wave a magic wand and these documents are declassified. And in this instance, in his own words, he’s saying it’s not declassified. So that’s very troubling for him, no doubt about it.”

“Makes no sense”: Judge Cannon rejects DOJ request to shield identity of dozens of witnesses

Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointee overseeing the Mar-a-Lago documents case, rejected a request from special counsel Jack Smith’s team to shield the identity of dozens of witnesses with whom the former president has been barred from discussing his case.

Cannon, who has only 14 days of trial experience, denied Smith’s request on Monday in the Southern District of Florida. The New York Times reported that Cannon’s ruling means that “some or all” of the list containing 84 witnesses could eventually become public, which could become an issue given the ex-president’s propensity to openly target and harass people who might speak against him.

In April, Trump went after Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing his Manhattan prosecution in his indictment over hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016, as well as Merchan’s daughter in rambling Truth Social rants. Prosecutors had asked that a gag order be issued, which would have banned Trump from discussing the criminal case, owing to his potentially dangerous public rhetoric, though Merchan only barred Trump from disclosing evidence in the case.

In her order, Cannon wrote that the government’s request to keep the list of witnesses secret “does not offer a particularized basis to justify sealing the list from public view.”

“It does not explain why partial sealing, redaction or means other than sealing are unavailable or unsatisfactory, and it does not specify the duration of any proposed seal,” she added. 

Many of the witnesses are presumed to be close allies of Trump, the Times reported, with several of them thought to currently or previously have worked with him at Mar-a-Lago. 

On Monday, a group of media organizations — including The New York Times — filed a motion asking Cannon to make the list public, stating that Trump’s case was “one of the most consequential criminal cases in the nation’s history.”

“The American public’s interest in this matter, and need to monitor its progress every step of the way, cannot be overstated,” the filing said. 

Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de Varga said that Cannon’s ruling “makes no sense.”

It’s “important to note that Judge Cannon is not even requiring the list of witnesses to be filed with the court,” she wrote on Twitter. “So her decision doesn’t mean that the list will be revealed publicly. Currently, it is only the defendant who has the list.”

Former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann claimed Cannon’s “best point” was “why do you need to file the list with me at all?”

“The rest is needlessly persnickety. Very much in keeping with her tone and tenor last we saw her during the investigation,” he added.


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


Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman claimed that though Cannon’s response to the government’s request was “tart,” it’s “sensible to me.”

“She says you haven’t shown enough yet for why we need to seal the list—eg can you maybe redact—or why you need me to make Ds ‘acknowledge’ it,” he wrote.

“I kind of understand Judge Cannon’s position here,” wrote national security attorney Bradley P. Moss. “First, she asks why the court even needs to be provided with a copy of this list, at least at the present time.”

“Second, and more importantly, Cannon states that the Government hasn’t sufficiently explained its rationale for seeking the filing to be under seal. And she is right. The government didn’t really say much of *anything* about its rationale. It just said ‘we want one,'” he added.

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance argued that Cannon was “preventing prosecutors from protecting their record & their witnesses.”

“The govt wants to file the list so it will be part of the record on appeal (if there’s a conviction),” she tweeted. “Given Trump & his Trump followers history with witnesses, it has to be sealed.”

Tucker Carlson is irreplaceable, but Fox News bets on Jesse Watters’ popularity in that timeslot

In the hearts and minds of his viewers, Tucker Carlson is irreplaceable. His brand of white nationalist agitprop was its own blood pressure-raising secret sauce, and like the high sodium goop on those TV dinners that built his trust fund, it was easy for Fox News’ faithful to slurp down night after night.

But the network intends to try by sliding another of its oleaginous dollops, Jesse Watters, into the 8 p.m. time slot once filled by “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” This is part of an overall rearrangement bumping Laura Ingraham from 10 p.m. to 7 p.m. and Greg Gutfeld’s late-night hit to 10 o’clock. Only Sean Hannity isn’t budging from his longstanding 9 p.m. time slot.

Calling Watters a lightweight provocateur compared to his predecessor is a kindness.

Various framings of this primetime shuffle characterize it as a major shake-up, although it doesn’t come close to the upheaval caused by Carlson’s abrupt firing on April 24. The channel’s primetime ratings have been in a nosedive, shedding 37% of its viewership year over year and, horror of horrors — or miracle of miracles, depending on your partisan bent – coming in second place to MSNBC during the week of June 5 to June 11. That week coincided with a certain twice-impeached former president being indicted on 37 felony counts related to illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing the FBI’s attempts to reclaim them, which Fox downplayed while MSNBC covered it with festive aplomb. Fox News still closed out May as the most-watched cable news network, according to Nielsen.

A change was going to come. But moving “Jesse Watters Primetime” from 7 p.m., where it has been broadcast since January 2022, to 8 p.m. is conservative by Fox standards, signaling the network’s desire for stability instead of seeking out a new firebrand.

Watters is one of Fox’s most popular hosts, expanding his profile on the network since his early days as Bill O’Reilly’s man-on-the-street ambush interviewer without aspiring to much more depth. In no way, shape, or form is he in danger of bringing fact-based journalism to Fox’s primetime lineup or threatening to out-legitimize his cable news competition. But he may dial back his timeslot’s tenor from an all-out fashy conspiracy theory hour to the relatively low-key dogwhistling cultivated by Bill O’Reilly, where Watters got his on-air break after starting as a production assistant.

In 2016 the wider public was introduced to him when a “Watters’ World” segment on “The O’Reilly Factor” showed him stalking pedestrians in New York’s Chinatown and making them the butt of the joke.

In December 2021 he made inflammatory comments about Dr. Anthony Fauci at that year’s Turning Point USA’s Americafest, in which he encouraged the audience to conduct their own ambush-style interviews confronting Fauci about the origins of the coronavirus, using the phrase “go in for the kill shot” and summing up the effects of this theoretical debate with, “Boom! He is dead! He is dead! He’s done!”

Fauci, who at the time was the target of credible death threats, called for Watters to be fired. Fox News instead awarded him a TV show that debuted the following month.

Both Watters and Gutfeld will continue to appear on “The Five,” where the former recently claimed that he could tell whether someone is an undocumented immigrant just by looking at them. That platform is perfect for Gutfeld, who aborts comedy at its quickening stage several nights a week on his late-night talk show.

Moving “Gutfeld!” to 10 p.m. makes sense given its soft cable news competition and its prospects of peeling away viewers from non-news broadcasts. The 10 o’clock timeslot has been ailing across the board for the past few years, especially on broadcast.

In no way, shape, or form is Watters in danger of bringing fact-based journalism to Fox’s primetime lineup.

“The Ingraham Angle” provides a firm lead-in at 7 p.m. and better competition in the coveted 25-54 target demographic for “The ReidOut” on MSNBC, which has been handily beating “Jesse Watters Primetime,” although Fox still regularly attracts more total viewers than MSNBC.

Hannity represents Fox’s best chance to win back Donald Trump’s participation in the first Republican presidential primary debate in Milwaukee, which the channel is hosting in eight weeks. Trump, the current front-runner in the Republican field has threatened to skip the event, resting securely in the knowledge that the network needs him more than he needs them.

Between “Hannity” and “Jesse Watters Primetime,” the Murdochs have two personalities whose careers were made in-house and with whom longtime viewers are familiar. That may not stop MSNBC from gaining on them in the short-term ratings, but once the presidential election kicks into a higher gear this stable setup makes them better positioned to prevent additional defections to Newsmax and NewsNation.


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


And that will provide the first real test of Watters’ capabilities in the daypart responsible for earning the bulk of Fox’s revenue. The word gravitas could never come into play when referring to any of Fox’s pundits, but calling Watters a lightweight provocateur compared to his predecessor is a kindness.

Before Carlson became an advocate for testicle tanning and the great replacement theory, he built a career that approximated respectability, starting his career at The Weekly Standard before moving to CNN and MSNBC.  

By tapping Watters to take his perch, Fox is redoubling its investment in opinion programming while perhaps reducing its odds of negotiating another expensive PR nightmare involving settlements related to sexual harassment claims or defamation lawsuits. But given the network’s track record in that regard, who knows?

The channel’s new primetime lineup launches on Monday, July 17.

‘We’re not doing that’: Why a Black couple wouldn’t crowdfund to pay off medical debts

SUFFOLK, Va. — When Kristie Fields was undergoing treatment for breast cancer nine years ago, she got some unsolicited advice at the hospital: Share your story on the local news, a nurse told her. Viewers would surely send money.

Fields, a Navy veteran and former shipyard worker, was 37 and had four kids at home. The food processing plant where her husband worked had just closed. And Fields’ medical care had left the family thousands of dollars in debt.

It was a challenging time, said Fields, who has become an outspoken advocate for cancer patients in her community. But Fields and her husband, Jermaine, knew they wouldn’t go public with their struggles. “We just looked at each other like, ‘Wait. What?'” Fields recalled. “No. We’re not doing that.”

It was partly pride, she said. But there was another reason, too. “A lot of people have misperceptions and stereotypes that most African American people will beg,” explained Fields, who is Black. “You just don’t want to be looked at as needy.”

Health care debt now burdens an estimated 100 million people in the U.S., according to a KFF Health News-NPR investigation. And Black Americans are 50% more likely than white Americans to go into debt for medical or dental care.

But while people flock to crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe seeking help with their medical debts, asking strangers for money has proven a less appealing option for many patients.

Black Americans use GoFundMe far less than white Americans, studies show. And those who do typically bring in less money.

The result threatens to deepen long-standing racial inequalities.

“Our social media is inundated with stories of campaigns that do super well and that are being shared all over the place,” said Nora Kenworthy, a health care researcher at the University of Washington in Bothell who studies medical crowdfunding. “Those are wonderful stories, and they’re not representative of the typical experience.”

In one recent study, Kenworthy and other researchers looked at 827 medical campaigns on GoFundMe that in 2020 had raised more than $100,000. They found only five were for Black women. Of those, two had white organizers.

GoFundMe officials acknowledge that the platform is an imperfect way to finance medical bills and that it reaches only a fraction of people in need. But for years, health care has been the largest category of campaigns on the site. This year alone, GoFundMe has recorded a 20% increase in cancer-related fundraisers, said spokesperson Heidi Hagberg. As Fields learned, some medical providers even encourage their patients to turn to crowdfunding.

The divergent experience of Black patients with this approach to medical debt may reflect the persistent wealth gap separating Black and white Americans, Kenworthy said. “Your friends tend to be the same race as you,” she said. “And so, when you turn to those friends through crowdfunding for assistance, you are essentially tapping into their wealth and their income.”

“There’s a sort of a centuries-long suspicion of the poor, a cynicism about the degree of true need.”

Nationally, the median white family now has about $184,000 in assets such as homes, savings, and retirement accounts, according to an analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The assets of the median Black family total just $23,000.

But there is another reason Black Americans use crowdfunding less, Fields and others said: a sensitivity about being judged for seeking help.

Fields is the daughter of a single mom who worked fast-food jobs while going to school. The family never had much. But Fields said her mother gave her and her brother a strict lesson: getting a hand from family and friends is one thing. Asking strangers is something else.

“In the Black community, a lot of the older generation do not take handouts because you are feeding into the stereotype,” Fields said.

Her mother, whom Fields said never missed paying a bill, refused to seek assistance even after she was diagnosed with late-stage cancer that drove her into debt. She died in 2019.

Confronting the stereotypes can be painful, Fields said. But her mother left her with another lesson. “You can’t control people’s thoughts,” Fields said at a conference in Washington, D.C., organized by the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship. “But you can control what you do.”

Fields said she was fortunate that she and her husband could rely on a tight network of relatives and friends during her cancer treatment.

“I have a strong family support system. So, one month my mom would take the car payment, and his aunt would do the groceries or whatever we needed. It was always someone in the family that said, ‘OK, we got you.'”

“You fight whatever spirit that you don’t want near you. We are fighting this cancer thing.”

That meant she didn’t have to turn to the local news or to a crowdfunding site like GoFundMe.

UCLA political scientist Martin Gilens said Fields’ sensitivity is understandable. “There’s a sort of a centuries-long suspicion of the poor, a cynicism about the degree of true need,” said Gilens, the author of “Why Americans Hate Welfare.”

Starting in the 1960s, that cynicism was reinforced by the growing view that poverty was a Black problem, even though there are far more white Americans living in poverty, according to census data. “The discourse on poverty shifted in a much more negative direction,” Gilens explained, citing a rise in critical media coverage of Black Americans and poor urban neighborhoods that helped drive a backlash against government assistance programs in the 1980s and ’90s.

Fields, whose cancer is in remission, resolved that she would help others sidestep this stigma.

After finishing treatment, she and her family began delivering groceries, gas cards, and even medical supplies to others undergoing cancer treatment.

Fields is still working to pay off her medical debt. But this spring, she opened what she calls a cancer care boutique in a strip mall outside downtown Suffolk. PinkSlayer, as it’s called, is a nonprofit store that offers wigs, prosthetics, and skin lotions, at discounted prices.

“The one thing my mom always said was, ‘You fight whatever spirit that you don’t want near you,'” Fields said as she cut the ribbon on the store at a ceremony attended by friends and relatives. “We are fighting this cancer thing.”

In one corner of her small boutique, Fields installed a comfortable couch under a mural of pink and red roses. “When someone is in need, they don’t want to be plastered all over your TV, all over Facebook, Instagram,” Fields explained recently after opening the store. “They want to feel loved.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

 

“This is so bad for Trump”: Legal experts say leaked audio “even more damning” than indictment

Former President Donald Trump bragged about possessing a secret document that he could not show to others because he did not declassify it in an audio recording obtained by CNN and The New York Times.

Trump on the recording, which was cited in the 37-count indictment handed down by a federal grand jury earlier this month, suggests that he is holding a secret document detailing contingency plans to attack Iran while talking to former chief of staff Mark Meadows’ autobiography ghostwriters.

“These are the papers,” Trump says in the recording, referring to something “highly confidential” as he appears to show it to others in the room.

The quote was not included in the indictment and may undermine Trump’s claim to Fox News last week.

“There was no document. That was a massive amount of papers and everything else talking about Iran and other things,” Trump told the network. “And it may have been held up or may not, but that was not a document. I didn’t have a document, per se. There was nothing to declassify. These were newspaper stories, magazine stories and articles.”

National security attorney Bradley Moss tweeted that the audio shows “this wasn’t newspaper articles. He has the document right there.”

Trump in the recording discusses a New Yorker report that said Chairman of the Joints Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley argued against striking Iran and was concerned that Trump may start a war before leaving office.

“He said that I wanted to attack Iran, Isn’t it amazing?” Trump says as the sound of papers shuffling is heard in the recording. “I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this – this is off the record but – they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.”

Trump in the recording admits that he did not declassify the document despite repeated claims that he declassified the material he took home to Mar-a-Lago.

“See as president I could have declassified it,” Trump said. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

“Now we have a problem,” his staffer added.

“Isn’t that interesting,” Trump said.

“It’s so cool. I mean, it’s so, look, her and I, and you probably almost didn’t believe me, but now you believe me,” Trump added toward the end of the recording, before beckoning an aide to “bring some Cokes in please.”

“The audio tape provides context proving, once again, that President Trump did nothing wrong at all,” Trump spokesman Steve Cheung told The New York Times, claiming that Trump was “speaking rhetorically.”


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


But legal experts say the recording is more damning than the portions of the transcript cited in the indictment and predicted that it could doom Trump’s case.

“The defendant in his own words — essentially narrating his crime,” tweeted New York University Law Prof. Ryan Goodman.

“This is so bad for Trump,” warned MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang.

“This recording is even more damning than it reads in the indictment,” tweeted former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

“They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. This audio could be worth a thousand days behind bars,” he added.

“If the defendant doesn’t go to prison for at least five to ten years, it would be a travesty.  The prosecutors have him dead to rights, in more ways than we can count,” agreed conservative attorney and frequent Trump critic George Conway.

“To actually hear a former president of the United States committing a felony ― probably multiple felonies ― on audio tape while laughing about it … I think it’s just stunning,” Conway told CNN, calling the audio “another nail in the coffin.”

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who served on a special counsel Bob Mueller’s team, predicted the recording would doom Trump’s defense.

“This is game over if you are following the facts and the law,” he told MSNBC. “He’s charged with having classified information and knowing that he had classified information.”

Garrett Graff, the author of “Watergate: A New History,” compared Trump’s admission on the tape to the trove of recordings that sunk Richard Nixon during the scandal.

“Speaking as a Watergate historian, there’s nowhere on thousands of hours of Nixon tapes where Nixon makes any comment as clear, as clearly illegal, and as clearly self-aware as this Trump tape,” Graff tweeted, adding that “Nixon’s crimes were many and awful, and yet still not approaching Trump.”

Oldest ever Neanderthal art illuminated in new study

Neanderthals are popularly regarded as the large and stupid cousins of humans who lack our intellectual sophistication. After all, they went extinct — we didn’t (at least not yet.) Despite decades of archaeological research debunking the idea that our ancient relatives were the black sheep of our collective primate family, this disparaging anti-Neanderthal notion persists. Yet, according to researchers who recently analyzed famous cave paintings in France, we’ve known for a long time that Neanderthals are capable of tool-making, art, perhaps even music. Now, a new study sheds light on just how ancient Neanderthal art is, a staggering 57,000 years old.

According to researchers who recently analyzed famous cave paintings in France, there is another adjective that should be associated with Neanderthals — artistically inclined.

Indeed, as the scholars led by Jean-Claude Marquet of France’s University of Tours assert in their new study for the scientific journal PLOS One, Neanderthals used complex combinations of lines, dots and swirls in soft rock to create detailed images at the cave of La Roche-Cotard. Although some experts speculated that the symbols could have been made accidentally, by animals or by humans after the cave’s excavation in 1912, Marquet and his team conducted experiments to determine whether they were made with actual artistic intention.

To demosntrate this, they created 3D models of the caves using a technology known as photogrammetry, attempted to recreate symbols in similar parts of the caves using instruments available to Neanderthals, and ran through every conceivable scenario that could have led to those markings appearing in those caves.

Their conclusion? At least eight panels in the caves contain markings with intentional patterns and shapes, and were clearly created by human hands. (Neanderthals are technically human, which is how Homo sapiens have been able to breed with them.) Given the careful and precise nature of how they were created, they could not have been put there for some utilitarian purpose, such as scooping out large quantities of rock.

Neanderthal engravings on cave wallsExamples of engravings discovered in the Roche-Cotard cave (Indre et Loire – France). On the left, the “circular panel” (ogive-shaped tracings) and on the right the “wavy panel” (two contiguous tracings forming sinuous lines). (Jean-Claude Marquet)This means that those eight panels were “a seemingly organized set on the longest and most regular wall away from the cave entrance” and a “deliberate composition, and is the result of a thought process giving rise to conscious design and intent.” Additionally, they found that some of the stone tools in the cave were Mousterian, a Middle Paleolithic culture that is known for its skillfully crafted flake tools.

Although the researchers could not directly date the engravings (or finger flutings, as “engraving” here means rock manually removed by fingers), they used optically stimulated luminescence dating to determine that the minerals in the sediment were at least 57,000 years ago before the cave was sealed off, give or take 3,000 years.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


“The attribution to Neanderthal of the graphic productions at La Roche-Cotard pays tribute to this lost humanity, whose role in the biological and cultural evolution of humans is undergoing profound revision.”

“The attribution to Neanderthal of the graphic productions at La Roche-Cotard pays tribute to this lost humanity, whose role in the biological and cultural evolution of humans is undergoing profound revision,” the authors write in their conclusion. “In terms of culture, we now have a better understanding of the plurality of Neanderthal activities, attesting to elaborate and organized social behaviours that show no obvious differences from those of their contemporaries, Anatomically Modern Humans, south of the Mediterranean.”

The authors of the study mentioned other notable examples of Neanderthal art. In 2021, scholars writing for the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution reported the discovery of an at least 51,000-year-old engraved giant deer phalanx at the former cave entrance of Germany’s Einhornhöhle. They argued the engraved bone “demonstrates that conceptual imagination, as a prerequisite to compose individual lines into a coherent design,” existed in Neanderthals. In 2014 researchers announced the discovery in Gibraltar’s Gorham’s Cave of “the first known example of an abstract pattern engraved by Neanderthals” with a design whose lines were rendered through repeated using a pointed lithic tool to create precise grooves, “excluding the possibility of an unintentional or utilitarian origin.”

In 2013 researchers also contributing to the journal PLOS One found a fragment of a fossil marine shell in northern Italy’s Fumane Cave. After determining that the shell had been covered in a red pigment, the researchers examined all of its possible uses and determined the likeliest explanation is that “the object was modified and suspended by a ‘thread’ for visual display as a pendant.” A 2010 study in the journal PNAS similarly found evidence of shells and shell fragments being used as ornamentation.

All of this previous research reinforces the point made by those who studied the cave paintings at La Roche-Cotard: Neanderthals were much more interesting than their boorish stereotype has many believe. As the authors state in their conclusion, the cave painting they studied predates even “masterpieces” like “the cave of Chauvet-Pont d’Arc” or “those recently discovered in the Sulawesi caves.” Ultimately their study demonstrates “that the engraved marks at the [La Roche-Cotard caves[ are clearly attributable to an earlier period.”

“Trump thinks he has this big army out there still”: A MAGA movement betrayed has now morphed

For most of the press and political establishment, the insurrection of January 6, 2021 felt like a shock that came out of nowhere. For journalist David Neiwert, who has reported on the far-right for over three decades, however, it was all too predictable. Fascist movements, Neiwert tells Salon, have “been present in America since at least the early 1900s,” eager and ready to commit violence for their cause, and Donald Trump offered a catalyst. 

In his new book, “The Age of Insurrection: The Radical Right’s Assault on American Democracy,” Neiwert traces how groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have their roots in an authoritarian militia movement that goes back decades. He also details how knowing this history can help the rest of the country anticipate what comes next — as the violent impulses of the MAGA right have not receded. Neiwert spoke to Salon about his new book and how what was once a fringe movement has captured the Republican Party.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity

Most in the mainstream media talk about the events of January 6 like they were a surprise that came out of nowhere, but you were out there early, warning people this could happen. Why wasn’t this surprising?

I’ve been writing about writing extremists for a long time since at least the 90s. My main concern over all the years has been the infiltration of extremist beliefs into the mainstream of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. There’s been a gradual radicalization of the American. I published a book in 2009, before the Tea Party had actually erupted, warning of this radicalization process that really started taking off after 9/11. We certainly saw it take off once the Tea Party happened. It was very clear to anyone who had experience with the Patriot movement that this stuff was now being mainstreamed at a massive level, through the auspices of the Tea Party. Among the people that were responsible for that was Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers and others like him. These people are still very much with us, and they played a huge role in January 6.

I noticed one name you didn’t say: Donald Trump. There’s this narrative out there that Donald Trump is what radicalized Republicans, that this is his doing. That he has a magical hold on people that’s turning ordinary conservatives into fascists. What is your feeling on that? How do you understand the role he plays in the larger MAGA movement?

I don’t underplay the role that Trump played; it was critical to the final radicalization of the GOP. But he himself was a symptom of that growing radicalization. He really represented this conspiracy worldview that kept bubbling up on the right. His whole political career was founded on spreading the birther conspiracy theory. There’s no doubt that he played the major role of fulfilling their ambitions. He was exactly the kind of politician those of us who had studied the radical right for years feared happening to America.

If you understand fascism and neo-fascism, it’s actually been present in America since at least the early 1900s. Those threads that we now identify as fascist, many of them had their origins in the United States. Hitler was inspired by the Native American genocide and it inspired the Holocaust. He based the Brownshirts on the Ku Klux Klan. The Nuremberg laws were inspired by the Jim Crow laws in the United States. But even though we had these threads in our political system, fascism itself never took root in the United States in large part because there wasn’t really a good political space for it. It was always overwhelmed by democratic forces and the robust quality of American democracy. 

What all of these people found is that this beast that they’ve created is not something they can control.

But our democratic institutions have been increasingly hollowed out by extreme wealth, and by right-wing forces that are innately anti-democratic, over the last 30 years. It’s created space for fascists to emerge and gain traction. We’ve been very lucky through most of American history to not have that critical element that makes fascism actually succeed and gain traction, which is to have a singular charismatic leader. It has to be somebody with charisma and who has popular appeal. We’ve never seen that on the radical right. Most people on the radical right were horrendous people who turned everybody off. But when Trump emerged and was given a mainstream platform, and he insinuated himself into the mainstream, that was the realization of a lot of our fears. Now they have their charismatic leader. The fascist strands in American politics are emerging. 

Trump has now twice appeared in court to face felony indictments. Both times he really tried to amp up his followers into doing another January 6. He pushed violent rhetoric, he aligned himself with the Waco fire. He couldn’t have been more over the top about this. Why did January 6 happen, but they kind of didn’t heed the call to riot to stop him from getting indicted?

There’s a complex set of elements involved. First, Trump’s followers were able to see that he was all too happy to throw them all under the bus after they committed acts of violence on his behalf. Some people have peeled away from him because of that.


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


He didn’t have the ability to go on Twitter and send out “be there” and “will be wild” tweets. Organizations like the Proud Boys are now much less focused on Trump than on their ongoing post-January 6 strategy of targeting more localized entities like school boards, libraries, state legislatures, that sort of thing. One of the aspects of authoritarian personalities is that they uniformly overestimate, wildly, the amount of popular support they actually have. They believe they represent the real America, right? Trump thinks he has this big army out there still. There are still really dedicated fervent believers who will go out there and holler on his behalf and, and threaten people and get out their AR-15s. But there are fewer of them now than there were before. And not having the mainstream entity in power, which was the case during his tenure as president, makes a big difference for them.

Your book is about how Trump may have lost and January 6 didn’t work, but we should still be extremely concerned about this fascist movement, which has not given up. How do you square that concern with feeling like he’s lost some of this enthusiasm?

The people who’ve been radicalized into an authoritarian worldview are still very much enmeshed in that. Some have shifted their loyalties to Ron DeSantis or whoever else they might have. More importantly, there is still a substantial part of the country who are eager for and anticipates real violence. They’re all here for a civil war. They have AR-15s in their basements. They’re capable of violence and we never know what’s going to trigger them.

If you understand fascism and neo-fascism, it’s actually been present in America since at least the early 1900s.

I don’t think that a right-wing extremist coup is actually feasible or possible. I do think they are going to continue to try to replace American democracy with an authoritarian autocracy. A lot of people are very much working towards that. In the process, some of them are going to be acting out violently. Maybe in ways that will re-wake the country up as to the threat to democracy that we face. 

I don’t think they’ll win. I don’t think they’re capable of winning, but I think a lot of people can get hurt and I think there will be a lot of people hurt by this, including them. One thing I’ve learned about right wing extremists over 30 years of covering them is that people who get involved in these movements destroy their lives. It’s one of the most toxic forces in America. It draws people into the abyss. It ruins their family relationships, ruins their relationships in the community. A lot of the time they wind up in prison.

But even more so there are the people who they target, who will definitely also be hurt. I am thinking of  the shooter in Colorado who targeted the gay bar and the shooter in Allen, Texas who just went to a mall and started ripping off rounds. 

When you talk about the mainstreaming of these attitudes, the Club Q shooting is a really good example. Despite the fact that we’ve already seen how this escalating of transphobic and anti-queer rhetoric has led to death, has led to murder, you nonetheless got this widespread right-wing boycott over Budweiser, because they had a trans influencer do a little commercial for them. What are we to make of this? 

That’s the nature of the beast that they created. Think about how Trump tried to push back on the anti-vaxxers because he wanted to take credit for the vaccine. He dropped it because the pushback from his own followers was so intense and so immense.

Or think of how Fox News, in November 2020, briefly attempted to resuscitate their journalistic credibility by calling Arizona for Biden, which brought the wrath of all of those Fox viewers down on them. Their broadcasts promptly flipped. Even after the January 6 insurrection they were justifying the attack on Congress and normalizing it. Also normalizing the “Trump won” discourse. What all of these people found is that this beast that they’ve created is not something they can control. The authoritarians follow their own impulses and they believe their own things. What they believe is what everybody else has to get in line to parrot. They’re both so bellicose and threatening, and their numbers are quite large. 

“Cataclysmic evidence against him”: Espionage Act expert explains how Trump faces “historic” trouble

The legal noose is tightening around Donald Trump and his crime cabal. Special counsel Jack Smith has formally requested a December trial date for the case involving Trump’s alleged violations of the Espionage Act and other related federal crimes. Smith’s team has also sent Trump’s attorneys a list of witnesses and other information about the evidence that will be presented by the prosecution in that trial.

Trump’s response has been one of panic and even more paranoia where on his Truth Social disinformation platform and elsewhere the traitor ex-president has been lashing out against “scoundrels” and other “enemies” who are “persecuting” him in some type of “witch hunt.” He has also escalated his attacks on the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Attorney General Merrick Garland, telling his supporters that the United States is like a “communist” country and that the Department of Justice is some type of Gestapo force that does not have legitimacy or authority.

Contrary to what Donald Trump and his defenders in the Republican Party and across the right-wing echo chamber have dishonestly suggested, Trump’s violations of the Espionage Act are not mere “bureaucratic” or “technical” disputes about the types of documents a president can take with them once they leave office. As seen with the recent crisis in Russia, where last Friday and Saturday the Wagner PMC mercenary group mutinied and led an aborted march on Moscow with the goal of removing Putin and his military commanders from power, the types of documents that Donald Trump has admitted to stealing and then concealing from the United States government contain information with literal life and death implications.

In an attempt to better understand the broad impact of Trump’s secret documents scandal on the country’s national security, I recently spoke with Michael Nacht, the Schneider Chair Emeritus and Professor at The Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley. Nacht served as a high-ranking defense policy official in both the Clinton and Obama administrations. He is a recipient of the Department of Defense (DOD) Distinguished Service Medal, the DOD’s highest civilian honor.

In this conversation, Nacht explains how Trump’s alleged crimes in connection to the Espionage Act are truly “historic” and without precedent and have endangered the safety of all Americans. Nacht also shares his deep concerns about Trump’s corrupt motives for stealing some of America’s most closely guarded secrets and that the traitor ex-president may have actually shared them with Vladimir Putin or some of the country’s other enemies. Towards the end of this conversation, Nacht warns that Trump must never be allowed to become president again because such an outcome would be “cataclysmic” for the country’s future and safety.

This conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

How are you making sense of Donald Trump and this moment with his indictment for violating the Espionage Act and his continuing threats to the country?

I think it’s very tragic. He’s a troubled man, a flawed man — more flawed than most who due to various reasons rose to become elected president. As president Trump made one terrible decision after another, which obviously includes his attempt on Jan. 6 to overthrow the government. Trump then absconded with all these classified documents.

What type of institutional culture was at work in Trump’s White House that would allow him to apparently steal top secret and other highly classified information? 

I can’t really relate to it because Trump is a unique figure in American history. To my knowledge, no one with Trump’s ethics and beliefs — and career background — has ever served in the role of President of the United States before. Hopefully, such a person will not become president again. It must have been awful to work in the Trump White House and administration because people knew that he plays loose and fast with the facts, that he constantly lies, and that he abuses people all the time. Trump loves to belittle people; that is a sign of Trump’s weakness not a mark of strength.

“Trump knows this about his power, he said as much with his observation that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue, and he wouldn’t be punished for it. It’s Hitlerian.”

The people around Trump that should have tried to stop him and tell the public what was going on instead chose to butter him up, to enable him, to tell him what he wants to hear in the form of positive support and encouragement. Trump wants to be told that he is doing the right thing and that he is brilliant even when he obviously is not. The people who served in the Trump administration, the White House, knew that they had to be sycophants, or they would be out.

What is the lesson here about Donald Trump and the types of informal norms and rules that we incorrectly expected to limit any president’s behavior? An obvious one being a respect for the office of the presidency and love for the country’s democracy and well-being.

He was freely elected president. It wasn’t a rigged election. Trump has a type of charisma and set of beliefs that are appealing to lots of voters. Trump knows this about his power, he said as much with his observation that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue, and he wouldn’t be punished for it. It’s Hitlerian. Such a person comes along once in a great while. Trump’s power is shown by all the millions of Americans who continue to support him even to this day given all the horrible things he has done. Trump compiled all these secret documents in cardboard boxes, put them on shelves on stage, and put them in a bathroom and bathtub. Trump realized that this is unprecedented and that’s what attracted him to do it. It is a type of pathological behavior that demands explanations by psychiatrists and other mental health experts.

I was trying to think of a historical comparison for what Trump is alleged to have done in terms of betraying some of America’s most closely guarded secrets. This isn’t to the level of the Rosenbergs — that we know of. Trump isn’t Aldrich Ames either. What comparison would you make?

I really can’t think of someone with Trump’s behavior and skill set. Aldrich Ames was a spy. He and others like him were traitors to the country because they purposely stole highly sensitive information and passed it on to the Russians. We don’t know what Donald Trump has done with this secret information. How much has he passed on? Whether he’s been rewarded in any way for it or not? There is no parallel situation for Trump. He’s not some young kid who becomes idealistic about wanting to save the country. Trump is most certainly not like Daniel Ellsberg who saw the wrong in the Vietnam War and then released classified information. There’s no parallel to what Trump has done. I really think Donald Trump is a totally sui generis figure.

Based on what is publicly known, what is the potential harm to America’s security and national interests if these secret documents were compromised?

From what has been publicly discussed there literally may have been war plans regarding Iran. There may have been operational information about how the U.S. operates its nuclear forces and the vulnerability of those forces, and how the Chinese or the Russians are going to attempt to defeat America’s nuclear forces and how we would counter those efforts. There could have been personal information and profiles about our assessment of Kim Jong Un, or Putin, or Xi Jinping, or the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. It’s all very sensitive information that is classified for a good reason. I had clearances for 30 years and from the very beginning you’re instructed that this is very sensitive information that you cannot reveal to anybody. And of course, you cannot take a single piece of paper with you once you leave the government. You can’t even take notes with you. That is made crystal clear when you get a security clearance, even at the lowest levels. Anyone familiar with the process of how the nation’s secrets should be handled knows that every single thing Trump did with these documents was incorrect.

I didn’t realize the scope and extent of what Trump’s violations of the Espionage Act would ultimately be revealed to be. What Trump has done is far beyond anything I thought even he could do. The photos of the boxes are just cataclysmic evidence against him. No one has ever done something like this before because only a former president would have the ability to do such a thing. Nixon, for example, left office when he was told he would be impeached. Donald Trump says he will never quit. He means it. Donald Trump will run for office from jail.

How is the national security state reacting to what Trump did with these secret documents?

They’re doing a damage assessment. What is actually in all the boxes? Who knows what our allies are saying and doing? What of America’s adversaries? Donald Trump may have shared this secret information with Putin. I always believed that Donald Trump was connected to Putin and the Russians in some capacity. He was either being paid by the Russians or there were real estate or other dealings. Maybe Trump was going to be paid off by giving them secret information. In all, that’s why Trump is unwilling to be critical of Putin and Russia. Consider how Trump will not clearly state which side he supports in the war between Ukraine and Russia. At the Helsinki Summit, Trump took the side of Putin and disparaged and dismissed America’s intelligence agencies. Trump has taken a whole series of pro-Russian positions.


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


Trump and his defenders are trying to spin Trump’s obvious crimes against the nation as some type of petty bureaucratic dispute about documents. What is at stake here for the average American in their day-to-day lives? How do you make the importance of what Trump is alleged to have done by stealing these top-secret documents clear to the public?

If our systems are vulnerable to attack, you don’t know when an adversary will attack the country and how. There could be a war very soon with China over Taiwan, for example.

In terms of nuclear weapons, we have had threats by Putin to use them in the Ukrainian conflict. Would this just be in Ukraine? Against NATO? Against the United States? So any information on our weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and the ways our nuclear forces could be counted will be terribly damaging and threatening to our survival.

It may seem too remote to many Americans, but it could be 1938 all over again with an attack by America’s enemies.

One of the ongoing media narratives about Donald Trump is that he is “stupid” or “dumb.” Many people are pointing to Trump’s recent Fox News interview where he publicly incriminated himself, repeatedly, as proof of Trump’s stupidity. When I hear people making such claims, I respond by telling them that Donald Trump is a criminal mastermind.  When you see Trump how do you assess him?

Donald Trump is not stupid. He is not a genius given how uninformed he is on many issues. Trump is only informed about those things that matter to him, and where he himself can personally benefit. Trump is very clever in terms of how he uses that information.

How would you evaluate President Biden’s approach to the war in Ukraine as compared to the Trump administration? In what ways is America safer with President Biden than under Trump?

President Biden has been very adept at sustaining and strengthening the NATO alliance and its cohesion and getting all the members to work together. The war in Ukraine is a very dangerous situation. We don’t know how far Putin will go — especially if he is in trouble. Fortunately, Trump is no longer in office. Trump talked about getting out of NATO, dissolving the alliance and being pro-Russian in our country’s policies. Biden is the opposite of Trump in terms of Russia and Ukraine policy. If Trump were president when Putin invaded Ukraine, I believe that he would make excuses for the aggression. Trump would say it is a “border dispute” or otherwise minimized what really happened. Trump would also downplay any threat that Russia poses towards our democracies, the response would have been 180 degrees different than the one that Biden took. It’s plausible to believe that Putin’s current strategy is to hold that to the US presidential election in 2024 and hoping that lightning will strike again, and Trump will be reelected. A Trump win is Putin’s way to get out of the Ukraine mess.

What will happen to America if Trump returns to power? In particular, to the country’s foreign policy.

If Trump was reelected, he would act like there are no restraints on his power. Trump would seek to withdraw from NATO and destroy the alliance. Trump would also encourage Putin to be more aggressive. If Trump returns to office, it would be a catastrophe for American security.

What gives you the most hope for the country’s future? And what gives you the most cause for concern or alarm?

Churchill said, “democracy is the worst form of government except for all others”. It’s sloppy, it’s slow. It’s complicated. We make a lot of mistakes, but eventually, we get it right. To that point, we’re seeing the erosion of Trump’s support, albeit very slowly. We cannot allow him to become reelected president. It just would be cataclysmic for the country. I’m hopeful that Donald Trump will not win reelection because we are slowly and surely making progress in standing up against him. That must be the top concern for the country. I am most concerned that Biden gets sick. I am also worried about the Democrats fracturing and fighting against one another. I’m also concerned about another rash move by Putin in Ukraine. I can’t decide whether it’s better that he’s losing or that he’s winning. They’re both pretty awful situations, because Putin will never accede to anything other than victory in Ukraine. I just can’t imagine any situation in which Putin would pull out and negotiate an agreement because that would be the end of his time in power.

America’s “systemic racism” isn’t just domestic: Consider who dies around the world in our wars

A recent Justice Department report concluded that “systemic” racial bias in the Minneapolis Police Department “made what happened to George Floyd possible.” During the three years since a white police officer brutally murdered Floyd, nationwide discussions of systemic racism have extended well beyond focusing on law enforcement to also assess a range of other government functions. But such scrutiny comes to a halt at the water’s edge — stopping short of probing whether racism has been a factor in U.S. military interventions overseas.

Hidden in plain sight is the fact that virtually all the people killed by U.S. firepower in the “war on terror” for more than two decades have been people of color. This notable fact goes unnoticed in a country where — in sharp contrast — racial aspects of domestic policies and outcomes are ongoing topics of public discourse.

Certainly, the U.S. does not attack a country because people of color live there. But when people of color live there, it is politically easier for U.S. leaders to subject them to warfare — because of institutional racism and often-unconscious prejudices that are common in the United States.

Racial inequities and injustice are painfully apparent in domestic contexts, from police and courts to legislative bodies, financial systems and economic structures. A nation so profoundly affected by individual and structural racism at home is apt to be affected by such racism in its approach to war.

Many Americans recognize that racism holds significant sway over their society and many of its institutions. Yet the extensive political debates and media coverage devoted to U.S. foreign policy and military affairs rarely even mention — let alone explore the implications of — the reality that the several hundred thousand civilians killed in America’s “war on terror” have been almost entirely people of color.

The flip side of biases that facilitate public acceptance of making war on nonwhite people came to the fore when Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022. News coverage included reporting that the war’s victims “have blue eyes and blond hair” and “look like us,” Los Angeles Times television critic Lorraine Ali noted. “Writers who’d previously addressed conflicts in the Gulf region, often with a focus on geopolitical strategy and employing moral abstractions, appeared to be empathizing for the first time with the plight of civilians.”

Such empathy, all too often, is skewed by the race and ethnicity of those being killed. The Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association has deplored “the pervasive mentality in Western journalism of normalizing tragedy in parts of the world such as the Middle East, Africa, South Asia and Latin America. It dehumanizes and renders their experience with war as somehow normal and expected.”


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


Persisting today is a modern version of what W.E.B. Du Bois called, 120 years ago, “the problem of the color line — the relation of the darker to the lighter races.” Twenty-first century lineups of global power and geopolitical agendas have propelled the United States into seemingly endless warfare in countries where few white people live.

Racial, cultural and religious differences have made it far too easy for most Americans to think of the victims of U.S. war efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and elsewhere as “the other.” Their suffering is much more likely to be viewed as merely regrettable or inconsequential rather than heart-rending or unacceptable. What Du Bois called “the problem of the color line” keeps empathy to a minimum.

“The history of U.S. wars in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America has exuded a stench of white supremacy, discounting the value of lives at the other end of U.S. bullets, bombs and missiles,” I concluded in my new book “War Made Invisible.” “Yet racial factors in war-making decisions get very little mention in U.S. media and virtually none in the political world of officials in Washington.”

At the same time, on the surface, Washington’s foreign policy can seem to be a model of interracial connection. Like presidents before him, Joe Biden has reached out to foreign leaders of different races, religions and cultures — as when he fist-bumped Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, at their summit a year ago, while discarding professed human rights concerns in the process.

Overall, in America’s political and media realms, the people of color who’ve suffered from U.S. warfare abroad have been relegated to a kind of psychological apartheid — separate, unequal, and implicitly not of much importance. And so, when the Pentagon’s forces kill them, systemic racism makes it less likely that Americans will actually care.

Yes, we have home-grown fascists — and now they’re beginning to say the quiet part out loud

One day when I was about six, I was walking with my dad in New York City. We noticed that someone had stuck little folded squares of paper under the windshield wipers of the cars parked on the street beside us. My father picked one up and read it. I saw his face grow dark with anger.

“What is it, Papa?”

“It’s a message from people who think that all Jews should be killed.”

This would have been in the late 1950s, a time when the Nazi extermination of millions of Jews in Europe was still fresh in the American consciousness. Not, you might have thought, a good season for sowing murderous antisemitism in lower Manhattan. Already aware that, being the daughter of a Jewish father and gentile mother, I was myself a demi-semite, I was worried. I knew that these people wanted to kill my father, but with a typical child-centered focus, I really wanted to know whether the gentile half of my heredity would protect me in the event of a new Holocaust.

“Would they kill me, too?” I asked.

Yes, he told me, they would if they could. But he then reassured me that such people would never actually have the power to do what they wanted to. It couldn’t happen here.

I must admit that I’m grateful my father died before Donald Trump became president, before tiki-torch-bearing Nazi wannabes seeking to “Unite the Right” marched through Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, chanting “Jews will not replace us!” before one of them drove his car into a crowd of counterdemonstrators, killing Heather Heyer, and before President Trump responded to the whole event by declaring that “you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”

Are Queer People the New Jews?

Maybe the grubby little group behind the tracts my father and I saw that day in New York would have let me live. Maybe not. In those days home-grown fascists were rare and so didn’t have that kind of power.

Now, however, there’s a new extermination campaign stalking this country that would definitely include me among its targets: the right-wing Republican crusade against “sexual predators” and “groomers,” by which they mean LGBTQI+ people. (I’m going to keep things simple here by just writing “LGBT” or “queer” to indicate this varied collection of Americans who are presently a prime target of the right wing in this country.)

You may think “extermination campaign” is an extreme way to describe the set of public pronouncements, laws, and regulations addressing the existence of queer people here. Sadly, I disagree. Ambitious would-be Republican presidential candidates across the country, from Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to the less-known governor of North Dakota, Doug Burgum, are using anti-queer legislation to bolster their primary campaigns. For Florida, it started in July 2022 with DeSantis’s Parental Rights in Education act (better known as his “Don’t Say Gay” law), which mandated that, in the state’s public schools,

“Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

In April 2023, DeSantis doubled down, signing a new law that extended the ban all the way up through high school. Florida teachers at every level now run the very real risk of losing their jobs and credentials if they violate the new law. And queer kids, who are already at elevated risk of depression and suicide, have been deprived of the kind of affirming space that, research shows, greatly reduces those possibilities.

Is Florida an outlier? Not really. Other states have followed its lead in restricting mentions of sexual orientation or gender identity in their public schools. By February of this year, 42 such bills had been introduced in a total of 22 states and are creating a wave of LGBT refugees.

But the attacks against queer people go well beyond banning any discussion of gayness in public schools. We’re also witnessing a national campaign against trans and non-binary people that, in effect, aims to eliminate such human beings altogether, whether by denying their very existence or denying them the medical care they need. This campaign began with a focus on trans youth but has since widened to include trans and non-binary people of all ages.

Misgendering: As of 2023, seven states have laws allowing (or requiring) public school teachers to refuse to use the preferred pronouns of students if they don’t match their official sex. This behavior is called “misgendering” and it’s more than a violation of common courtesy. It’s a denial of another person’s being, their actual existence, and can have a lethal effect. Such repudiation of trans and non-binary young people significantly increases their chances of committing suicide.

It also increases the chances that their non-queer peers will come to view them with the kind of disrespect and even contempt that could also prove lethal and certainly increases their chances of becoming targets of violence. In 2022, for example, CBS News reported that “the number of trans people who were murdered in the U.S. nearly doubled between 2017 and 2021.” It’s no accident that this increase correlates with an increase in high-profile political and legal attacks on trans people. Sadly, but not surprisingly, race hatred has also played a role in many of these deaths. While Blacks represent about 13% of trans and non-binary people, they accounted for almost three-quarters of those murder victims.

Medical care: Laws allowing or even requiring misgendering in classrooms are, however, only the beginning. Next up? Denying trans kids, and ultimately trans adults, medical care. As of June 1st of this year, according to the national LGBT rights organization Human Rights Campaign, 20 states already ban gender-affirmative medical care for trans youth up to age 18. Another seven states now have such bans under consideration.

What is “gender affirmative” medical care? According to the World Health Organization, it “can include any single or combination of a number of social, psychological, behavioral, or medical (including hormonal treatment or surgery) interventions designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity.” In other words, it’s the kind of attention needed by people whose gender identity does not align in some way with the sex they were assigned at birth.

What does it mean to deprive a trans person of such care? It can, in fact, prove to be a death sentence.

It may be difficult to imagine this if you yourself aren’t living with gender dysphoria (a constant disorienting and debilitating alienation from one’s own body). What studies show is that proper healthcare reduces suicidal thoughts and attempts, along with other kinds of psychological distress. Furthermore, people who begin to receive such care in adolescence are less likely to be depressed, suicidal, or involved in harmful drug use later in life. As Dr. Deanna Adkins, director of the Duke Child and Adolescent Gender Care Clinic at Duke University Hospital, notes, young people who receive the gender-affirming care they need “are happier, less depressed, and less anxious. Their schoolwork often improves, their safety often improves.” And, she says, “Saving their lives is a big deal.”

Denial of life-saving care may start with young people. But the real future right-wing agenda is to deny such health care to everyone who needs it, whatever their ages. In April 2023, the New York Times reported that Florida and six other states had already banned Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care. Missouri has simply banned most such care outright, no matter who’s paying for it.

And the attacks on queer people just keep coming. In May 2023, the Human Rights Campaign listed anti-queer bills introduced and passed in this year alone:

“• Over 520 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced in state legislatures, a record;

“• Over 220 bills specifically target transgender and non-binary people, also a record; and

“• A record 74 anti-LGBTQ laws have been enacted so far this year, including:

“• Laws banning gender affirming care for transgender youth: 16

“• Laws requiring or allowing misgendering of transgender students: 7

“• Laws targeting drag performances: 2

“• Laws creating a license to discriminate: 3

“• Laws censoring school curricula, including books: 13″

We’re not paranoid. They really do want us to disappear.

Anti-Gay Campaigns in Africa: Made in the USA

Though they’re starting to say the quiet part out loud, even in this country, they’ve been so much less careful in Africa for decades now.

It’s not all that uncommon today for right-wing Christians in the United States to publicly demand that LGBT people be put to death. As recently as Pride month (June) of last year, in a sermon that went viral on Tik-Tok, Pastor Joe Jones of Shield of Faith Baptist Church in Boise, Idaho, called for all gay people to be executed. Local NBC and CBS TV stations, along with some national affiliates, saw fit to amplify Jones’s demand to “put them to death. Put all queers to death” by interviewing him in prime time.

In keeping with right-wing propaganda that treats queer people as child predators, Jones sees killing gays as the key to preventing the sexual abuse of children. “When they die,” he said, “that stops the pedophilia. It’s a very, very simple process.” (The reality is that most sexual abuse of children involves male perpetrators and girl victims and happens inside families.)

Though American “Christians” like Jones may be years away, if ever, from instituting the death penalty for queer people here, they have already been far more successful in Africa. On May 29th, Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni signed perhaps the world’s harshest anti-LGBT law, criminalizing all homosexual activity, providing the death penalty for “serial offenders,” and according to the Reuters news agency, for the “transmission of a terminal illness like HIV/AIDS through gay sex.” It also “decrees a 20-year sentence for ‘promoting’ homosexuality.”

While Uganda’s new anti-gay law may be the most extreme on the continent, more than 30 other African countries already outlaw homosexuality to varying degrees.

It’s a little-known fact that right-wing and Christian nationalist churches from the United States have played a major role in formulating and promoting such laws. Since at least the early 2000s, those churches have poured millions of dollars into anti-gay organizing in Africa. According to Open Democracy, more than 20 U.S. evangelical groups have been involved in efforts to criminalize homosexuality there:

“The Fellowship Foundation, a secretive U.S. religious group whose Ugandan associate, David Bahati, wrote Uganda’s infamous ‘Kill the Gays’ bill, is the biggest spender in Africa. Between 2008 and 2018, this group sent more than $20m to Uganda alone.”

Such groups often employ the language of anticolonialism to advance their cause, treating homosexuality as a “western” import to Africa. Despite such rhetoric, however, quite a few of them are actually motivated by racist as well as anti-gay beliefs. “Of the groups that are active in Africa,” says Open Democracy, “ten are members of the World Congress of Families (WCF), which has been linked to white supremacists in the U.S. and Europe.”

Is MAGA Really Fascism? And Does It Matter?

Back in the late 1980s, I published an article entitled “What Is Fascism — And Why Do Women Need to Know?” in Lesbian Contradictiona paper I used to edit with three other women. It was at the height of the presidency of Ronald Reagan and I was already worried about dangerous currents in the Republican party, ones that today have swelled into a full-scale riptide to the right. There’s a lot that’s dated in the piece, but the definition I offered for that much-used (and misused) bit of political terminology still stands:

“The term it­self was invented by Benito Mussolini, the premier of Italy from 1922 to 1945, and refers to the ‘fasces,’ the bundle of rods which symbolized the power of the Roman emperors. Today, I would define fascism as an ideology, movement, or government with several identifying characteristics:

“• Authoritarianism and a fanatical respect for leaders. Fas­cism is explicitly anti-democratic. It emerges in times of social flux or instability and of chaotic and worsening economic situations.

“• Subordination of the individual to the state or to the “race.” This subordination often has a spiritual im­plication: people are offered an opportunity to transcend their own sense of insignificance through participation in a powerful movement of the chosen.

“• Appeal to a mythical imperial glory of the past. That past may be quite ancient, as in Mussolini’s evoca­tions of the Roman Empire. Or it might be as recent as the United States of the 1950s.

“• Biological determinism. Fascism involves a belief in absolute biological differences between the sexes and among different races.

“• Genuine popularity. The scariest thing to me about real fascism is that it has always been a truly pop­ular movement. Even when it is a relatively minor force, fascism can be a mass movement without being a majority movement.”

“Having laid out these basic elements,” I added, one “real strength of fascism lies in its ex­traordinary ideological elasticity,” which allows it to embrace a wide variety of economic positions from libertarian to socialist and approaches to foreign policy that range from isolationism to imperialism. I think this, too, remains true today.

What I failed to emphasize then — perhaps because I thought it went without saying (but it certainly needs to be said today) — is that fascism is almost by definition deadly. It needs enemies on whom it can focus the steaming rage of its adherents and it is quite content for that rage to lead to literal extermination campaigns.

The creation of such enemies invariably involves a process of rhetorical dehumanization. In fascist propaganda, target groups cease to be actual people, becoming instead vermin, viruses, human garbage, communists, Marxists, terrorists, or in the case of the present attacks on LGBT people, pedophiles and groomers. As fascist movements develop, they bring underground streams of hatred into the light of “legitimate” political discourse.

All those decades ago, I suggested that the Christian fundamentalists represented an incipient fascist force. I think it’s fair to say that today’s Make America Great Again crew has inherited that mantle, successfully incorporating right-wing Christianity into a larger proto-fascist movement. All the elements of classic fascism now lurk there: adulation of the leader, subordination of the individual to the larger movement, an appeal to mythical past glories, a not-so-subtle embrace of white supremacy, and discomfort with anything or anyone threatening the “natural” order of men and women. You have only to watch a video of a Trump rally to see that his is a mass (even if not a majority) movement.

Why should it matter whether Donald Trump’s MAGA movement and the Republican Party he’s largely taken over represent a kind of fascism? The answer: because the logic of fascism leads so inexorably to the politics of extermination. Describing his MAGA movement as fascism makes it easier to recognize the existential threat it truly represents — not only to a democratic society but to specific groups of human beings within it.

I know it may sound alarmist, but I think it’s true: proto-fascist forces in this country have shown that they are increasingly willing to exterminate queer people, if that’s what it takes to gain and hold onto power. If I’m right, that means all Americans, queer or not, now face an existential threat.

For those who don’t happen to fall into one of MAGA’s target groups, let me close by paraphrasing Donald Trump: in the end, they’re coming after you. We’re just standing in the way.

Behind the scenes of Justice Alito’s unprecedented Wall Street Journal pre-buttal

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

 

Around midday on Friday, June 16, ProPublica reporters Justin Elliott and Josh Kaplan sent an email to Patricia McCabe, the Supreme Court’s spokesperson, with questions for Justice Samuel Alito about a forthcoming story on his fishing trip to Alaska with a hedge fund billionaire.

We set a deadline of the following Tuesday at noon for a response.

Fifteen minutes later, McCabe called the reporters. It was an unusual moment in our dealings with the high court’s press office, the first time any of its public information officers had spoken directly with the ProPublica journalists in the many months we have spent looking into the justices’ ethics and conduct. When we sent detailed questions to the court for our stories on Justice Clarence Thomas, McCabe responded with an email that said they had been passed on to the justice. There was no further word from her before those stories appeared, not even a statement that Thomas would have no comment.

The conversation about Alito was brisk and professional. McCabe said she had noticed a formatting issue with an email, and the reporters agreed to resend the 18 questions in a Word document. Kaplan and Elliott told McCabe they understood that this was a busy time at the court and that they were willing to extend the deadline if Alito needed more time.

Monday was a federal holiday, Juneteenth. On Tuesday, McCabe called the reporters to tell them Alito would not respond to our requests for comment but said we should not write that he declined to comment. (In the story, we wrote that she told us he “would not be commenting.”)

She asked when the story was likely to be published. Certainly not today, the reporters replied. Perhaps as soon as Wednesday.

Six hours later, The Wall Street Journal editorial page posted an essay by Alito in which he used our questions to guess at the points in our unpublished story and rebut them in advance. His piece, headlined “Justice Samuel Alito: ProPublica Misleads Readers,” was hard to follow for anyone outside ProPublica since it shot down allegations (notably the purported consumption of expensive wine) that had not yet been made.

In the hours after Alito’s response appeared, editors and reporters worked quickly to complete work on our investigative story. We did additional reporting to put Alito’s claims in context. The justice wrote in the Journal, “My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions,” and that none of those conversations involved “any case or issue before the Court.” He said he did not know of Singer’s involvement in a case about a long-standing dispute involving Argentina because the fund that was a party to the suit was called NML Capital and the billionaire’s name did not appear in Supreme Court briefs.

Alex Mierjeski, another reporter on the team, quickly pulled together a long list of prominent stories from the Journal, The New York Times and The Financial Times that identified Singer as the head of the hedge fund seeking to earn handsome profits by suing Argentina in U.S. courts. (The Supreme Court, with Alito joining the 7-1 majority, backed Singer’s arguments on a key legal issue, and Argentina ultimately paid the hedge fund $2.4 billion to settle the dispute.)

It does not appear that the editors at the Journal made much of an effort to fact-check Alito’s assertions.

If Alito had sent his response to us, we’d have asked some more questions. For example, Alito wrote that Supreme Court justices “commonly interpreted” the requirement to disclose gifts as not applying to “accommodations and transportation for social events.” We would have asked whether he meant to say it was common practice for justices to accept free vacations and private jet flights without disclosing them.

We also would have asked Alito more about his interpretation of the Watergate-era disclosure law that requires justices and many other federal officials to publicly report most gifts. The statute has a narrow “personal hospitality” exemption that allows federal officials to avoid disclosing “food, lodging, or entertainment” provided by a host on his own property. Seven ethics law experts, including former government ethics lawyers from both Republican and Democratic administrations, have told ProPublica that the exemption does not apply to private jet flights — and never has. Such flights, they said, are clearly not forms of food, lodging or entertainment. We had already combed through judicial disclosures, so we knew that several federal judges have disclosed gifts of private jet flights.

We might also have sent Alito some of the contemporaneous stories about Singer’s dispute with Argentina that were readily available online. Given Alito’s previous ties to the Journal’s editorial page — he granted it an exclusive interview this year complaining about negative coverage of the court — it’s probable that the stories we sent him would have included the page’s 2013 piece titled “Deadbeats Down South” that approvingly noted that “a subsidiary of Paul Singer’s Elliott Management” was holding out for a better deal from Argentina. We would have asked how his office checks for conflicts and whether he is concerned it didn’t catch Singer’s widely publicized connection to the case.

The Journal’s editorial page is entirely separate from its newsroom. Journalists were nonetheless sharply critical of the decision to help the subject of another news organization’s investigation “pre-but” the findings.

“This is a terrible look for ⁦@WSJ,” tweeted John Carreyrou, a former investigative reporter at the Journal whose award-winning articles on Theranos lead to the indictment and criminal conviction of its founder, Elizabeth Holmes. “Let’s see how it feels when another news organization front runs a sensitive story it’s working on with a preemptive comment from the story subject.”

Bill Grueskin, a former senior editor at the Journal and a professor of journalism at Columbia, told the Times that “Justice Alito could have issued this as a statement on the SCOTUS website. But the fact that he chose The Journal — and that the editorial page was willing to serve as his loyal factotum — says a great deal about the relationship between the two parties.”

Even Fox News got in the game. “Alito must be congratulating himself on his preemptive strike, but given that the nonprofit news agency sent him questions last week, was that really fair? And should the Journal, which has criticized ProPublica as a left-wing outfit, have played along with this? The paper included an editor’s note that ProPublica had sent the justice the questions, but did not mention that its story had not yet run,” the cable news outfit’s media watcher Howard Kurtz wrote.

There are lessons for ProPublica in this experience. Our reporters are likely to be a bit more skeptical when a spokesperson asks about the timing of a story’s publication.

But one thing is not changing. Regardless of the consequences, we will continue to give everyone mentioned in our stories a chance to respond before publication to what we’re planning to say about them.

Our practice, known internally as “no surprises,” is a matter of both accuracy and fairness. As editors, we have seen numerous instances over the years in which responses to our detailed questions have changed stories. Some have been substantially rewritten and rethought in light of the new information provided by subjects of stories. On rare occasions, we’ve killed stories after learning new facts.

We leave it to the PR professionals to assess whether pre-buttals are an effective strategy. Alito’s assertion that the private flight to Alaska was of no value because the seat was empty anyway became the subject of considerable online amusement.

And the readership of our story has been robust: 2 million page views and counting. It’s possible that Alito has won the argument with the audience he cares the most about. But it seems equally plausible that he drew even more attention to the very story he was trying to knock down.

Alito’s behavior underscores that the “no surprises” approach involves taking a risk, allowing subjects to “spit in our soup,” as Paul Steiger, the former Journal editor who founded ProPublica, liked to say.

Nevertheless, following our practice, we asked the Journal editorial page, Alito and McCabe for comment before this column appeared. We did not immediately hear back from them.

States weaken child labor restrictions 8 decades after US government took kids out of the workforce

A movement to weaken American child labor protections at the state level began in 2022. By June 2023, Arkansas, Iowa, New Jersey and New Hampshire had enacted this kind of legislation, and lawmakers in at least another eight states had introduced similar measures.

The laws generally make it easier for kids from 14 to 17 years old to work longer and later – and in occupations that were previously off-limits for minors.

When Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed her state’s new, more permissive child labor law on May 26, 2023, the Republican leader said the measure would “allow young adults to develop their skills in the workforce.”

As scholars of child labor, we find the arguments Reynolds and other like-minded politicians are using today to justify undoing child labor protections echo older justifications made decades ago.

Many conservatives and business leaders have long argued, based on a combination of ideological and economic grounds, that federal child labor rules aren’t necessary. Some object to the government determining who can’t work. Cultural conservatives say working has moral value for young people and that parents should make decisions for their children. Many conservatives also say that teens, fewer of whom are in the workforce today than in past decades, could help fill empty jobs in tight labor markets.

Opponents of child labor observe that when kids under 18 work long hours or do strenuous jobs, it can disrupt childhood development, interfere with their schooling and deprive them of the sleep they need. Expanding child labor can encourage kids to drop out of school and jeopardize young people’s health through injuries and work-related illnesses.

Long-brewing battle

Child labor protections, such as making many kinds of employment for children under 14 illegal and restricting the hours that teens under 18 can spend working, are guaranteed by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. U.S. law also does not treat 16- and 17-year-olds as adults. The federal government deems many occupations to be too hazardous for anyone under 18.

Until that law took effect, the lack of a federal standard always obstructed progress in the states toward keeping kids in school and out of mines, factories and other sometimes hazardous workplaces.

Three years after President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld it in the U.S. v. Darby Lumber ruling, which toppled a related precedent.

Challenges began during the Reagan administration

There were no significant efforts to challenge child labor laws for the next four decades. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan sought to ease federal protections to allow 14- and 15-year-olds to work longer hours in fast-food and retail establishments and to pay young workers less than the minimum wage. A coalition of Democrats, labor unions, teachers, parents and child development groups blocked the proposed changes.

By the late 1980s, child labor violations were on the rise. Some industry groups tried to loosen restrictions in the 1990s, but legal changes were minimal.

A more ambitious attempt to roll back child labor laws in the early 2000s, led by a homeschooling group, ultimately failed, but conservatives continued to call for similar changes.

When former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was vying to become a 2012 Republican presidential nominee, he made headlines by calling child labor laws “truly stupid.” He suggested kids could work as janitors in schools.

Today, the Foundation for Government Accountability, a Florida-based think tank, is drafting state legislation to strip child labor protections, The Washington Post has reported. Its lobbying arm, the Opportunity Solutions Project, has been helping push these bills through state legislatures, including in Arkansas and Missouri.

A young child at work in a field in an old black and white photo.

This 9-year-old boy worked as a picker at the American Sumatra Tobacco Company in 1917, before the U.S. government restricted child labor. Hine/Library of Congress/Interim Archives/Getty Image

Iowa and Arkansas

In our view, Iowa has the most radical new law designed to roll back child labor protections. It allows children as young as 14 to work in meat coolers and industrial laundries, and teens 15 and older can work on assembly lines around dangerous machinery.

Teens as young as 16 can now serve alcohol in Iowa restaurants, as long as two adults are present.

U.S. Labor Department officials argue that several provisions of Iowa’s new law violate national child labor standards. However, the department has not disclosed a clear strategy for combating such violations.

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed her state’s Youth Hiring Act of 2023 in March. It eliminated work permits for 14- and 15-year-olds.

Previously, employers had to keep a work certificate on file that required proof of age, a description of the work and schedule – and the written consent of a parent or guardian.

Arkansas has scrapped those safeguards against child labor exploitation. We find it puzzling that supporters touted the bill as enhancing parental rights because the law removes any formal role for parents in balancing their kids’ education and employment.

Federal vs. state laws

You may wonder how states can undermine federal child labor laws. Doesn’t federal law preempt state laws?

Both federal and state laws govern the employment of minors, and all states have compulsory school attendance laws. Federal laws set a floor of regulations in youth employment that cover maximum hours, minimum ages, wages and protections from hazardous jobs.

If states pass tougher laws, as many have, the stricter standards govern workplace practices. School attendance requirements vary by state, but once someone turns 18, they’re no longer covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act’s restrictions.

Federal law, for example, does not require minors to obtain work permits or employment certificates, but most states mandate such documentation.

With the exception of New Jersey, these efforts to weaken child labor laws are being led by Republicans.

To be sure, some states are still attempting to strengthen child labor protections.

Democrats in Colorado introduced a bill that would allow injured children to sue employers for child labor violations. Gov. Jared Polis signed it into law on June 7, 2023.

Having child labor laws on the books at both the federal and state levels is only half the battle. Enforcement is another matter. Many violations in recent years have involved children who immigrated to the United States without their parents, only to wind up working long hours, sometimes in dangerous jobs, at young ages.

Construction sites?

Other states are trying to weaken protections. Ohio state lawmakers want to allow 14- and 15-year-olds to work until 9 p.m. during the school year with their parents’ permission, even though federal regulations don’t allow teens that age to work past 7 p.m.

Some states are considering legislation that directly conflicts with federal child labor standards on hazardous occupations. For example, a bill Republican Minnesota state Sen. Rich Draheim introduced would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to work in or around construction sites.

Strong opposition from politicians, child advocacy groups, education associations, labor unions and the public has defeated some of these efforts.

Georgia Republicans introduced a bill that would have eliminated work permits for minors, but they withdrew it without a vote. And Republican lawmakers in South Dakota sponsored a bill to extend working hours for children 14 and under from 7 p.m. to 9 pm. It was withdrawn as well.

In Wisconsin, Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a bill in 2022 that would have let teens work longer and later. In 2023, some Wisconsin lawmakers are trying again. They want to let 14-year-olds serve alcohol.

Taking aim at federal rules

There are some national efforts to weaken – or strengthen – child labor rules as well.

Rep. Dusty Johnson, a South Dakota Republican, seeks to revise federal regulations to permit 14- and 15-year-olds to work until 9 p.m. on school nights and up to 24 hours per week during the school year. We don’t expect his bill to pass in today’s divided Congress.

There’s also a push in the House and the Senate to let 16- and 17-year-olds work in logging operations with parental supervision.

And yet there’s also support in Congress to increase penalties for child labor violations. Currently, the maximum such fine is $15,138 per child. Pending bills in the House and Senate would increase the penalty to nearly 10 times that amount if enacted.

And several Democrats have introduced measures to strengthen federal child labor restrictions, especially in agriculture.

With so many states seeking weaker child labor protections, we believe a federal-state showdown over the question of whether young people in the United States belong in the workforce is inevitable.

 

John A. Fliter, Associate Professor of Political Science, Kansas State University and Betsy Wood, Assistant Professor of American History, Bard College

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

Expert: Wagner’s mutiny punctured Putin’s “strongman” image and exposed cracks in his rule

Less than 24 hours after the mutiny began, it was over.

As the rebelling Wagner column bore down on Moscow, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko brokered a deal under which Russian President Vladimir Putin promised to drop criminal charges against the mercenary leader Yevgeny Prigozhin and allow him to seek asylum in Belarus. The departing Wagner troops were given a heroes’ send-off by some residents of Rostov-on-Don – the southern Russian town they had taken control over without firing a shot earlier in the day.

Prigozhin gambled and lost. But he lives to fight another day – for now at least.

The events of June 24, 2023, had observers searching for the right term to describe what was going on: Was this a coup attempt, a mutiny, an insurrection?

Did Prigozhin seriously think that he would be able to enter Moscow? Perhaps he genuinely believed that Putin would accede to his demand to fire Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov – two men that the Wagner group head has previously harshly criticized for their conduct of the war.

More radically, Prigozhin may have hoped that he would receive support from elements in the Russian military. Indeed, that seemed to be the case – his group encountered no resistance in taking over Rostov-on-Don or heading north for some 350 miles (600 kilometers) through Voronezh and Lipetsk provinces – though they were reportedly attacked by a helicopter gunship, which they shot down. Prigozhin claimed to command 25,000 troops, though the actual number may be half that figure.

A smiling man in the back seat of a car.

Head of the Wagner Group Yevgeny Prigozhin leaves Rostov-on-Don. Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

But while the mutiny was short-lived and its goals unclear, it will have lasting effects – exposing the fragility of Putin’s grip on power and his ability to lead Russia to victory over Ukraine.

Putin’s impotence

Prigozhin’s abortive insurrection has punctured the “strongman” image of Putin, both for world leaders and for ordinary Russians.

He was unable to do anything to stop Prigozhin’s rogue military unit as it seized Rostov-on-Don – where the Russian Southern Military Command is headquartered – and then sent a column of armored vehicles up the M4 highway toward Moscow. Putin was forced to make a televised address at 10 a.m. local time on June 24 describing the revolt as a “stab in the back” and calling for harsh punishment of the mutineers. But it was the intervention of Belarus President Lukashenko that brought about an end to the mutiny, not any words or actions from Putin. Somewhat uncharacteristically, both Prigozhin and Putin exercised restraint and stepped back from the brink of civil war by agreeing on the compromise deal that allowed Prigozhin to escape punishment.

Exiled Russian political scientist Kirill Rogov has argued that the most challenging development to Russia’s leaders may not be the mutiny itself, but the rhetoric that Prigozhin used to justify his actions. In an interview released on social media a day before taking control of Rostov-on-Don, Prigozhin argued that the Ukraine war was a mistake from the beginning, launched to benefit the personal interests of Defense Minister Shoigu and an inner circle of oligarchs. Prigozhin brushed aside all the ideological claims Putin has made about the war – the need to denazify Ukraine, the threat of NATO expansion – as just cover for self-interest. “Our holy war has turned into a racket,” he said.

Prigozhin’s words and actions have exposed the vulnerability of Putin’s grip on power and the hollowness of his ideological framing of the war in Ukraine and Russia’s place in the world.

Nationalist discontent

Putin’s constant refrain is that any opposition to his rule – whether it be from the Kyiv government or from protesters at home – is part of a Western plot to weaken Russia. It is hard to imagine that his propagandists will be able to argue that Prigozhin is also a tool of the West.

Over the past 10 years, and especially since the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Putin has ruthlessly deployed the coercive apparatus of the state to crush any liberal opposition. At the same time, radical ultra-nationalists – not only Prigozhin but also the military bloggers and correspondents reporting from the war zone – have been given a relatively free hand.

For the most part, they were kept out of state-controlled television broadcasts, but they have reached a wider Russian audience through social media channels such as Telegram, VKontakte and YouTube.

Prigozhin, a former convict who went on to provide catering for the Kremlin before founding the Wagner group, has seen his profile and popularity in Russia rise during the war in Ukraine. In May 2023 polling, he was cited among the top 10 trusted political figures.

It is unclear why Putin was tolerating the nationalists, Prigozhin included, as they increasingly questioned Russia’s war performance. It may be because the Russian president is ideologically aligned with them, or saw them as useful in balancing the power of the generals. Perhaps, also, Putin had come to believe his own propaganda – that nobody could be more nationalist than Putin himself and that Russia and Putin were one and the same thing – echoing presidential aide Vyacheslav Volodin’s 2014 comment: “No Putin, no Russia”.

Certainly prior to the Wagner mutiny, there were growing winds of discontent among nationalists. On April 1, 2023, one group of prominent bloggers, including Igor Girkin and Pavel Gubarev, announced the formation of a “Club of Angry Patriots.” As Wagner soldiers marched toward Moscow on June 24, the club issued a statement of indirect support for Prigozhin.

Prigozhin might now be in the Belarusian capital, Minsk, where – theoretically at least – he can do less damage to Putin. But there are other discontents still in Moscow, and politically active.

Security services in Russia have begun raiding Wagner group offices, but it remains unclear what will happen to Prigozhin’s extensive business operations around the world. Wagner soldiers will be offered the chance to sign contracts with the defense ministry – if they did not take direct part in the insurrection.

A lame-duck president?

Putin has no one to blame but himself for the crisis. Prigozhin’s Wagner group was created with his blessing and promoted by the Russian president. It was a tool that Putin could use to further Russia’s military and economic objectives without direct political or legal accountability – initially in the Donbas in eastern Ukraine in 2014, then in Syria, Libya and elsewhere in Africa.

It was not until July 2022 that Wagner was officially acknowledged to be fighting in the Ukraine war. But over the past six months, they have played an increasingly prominent role and have been rewarded with praise in the Russian media.

But as his prestige grew, so too did Prigozhin’s criticism of those around Putin. Starting in December 2022, he began openly challenging Shoigu. He avoided direct criticism of Putin, though in an expletive-laced tirade on May 9 – the day Russia commemorates the end of World War II – he complained about the lack of ammunition for Wagner fighters and talked about “a happy asshole Grandfather,” in what has been taken to be a clear reference to Putin.

It remains a mystery why Putin did not move to get rid of Prigozhin before now – one of the many mysteries of Russian politics over the past century.

Prigozhin has inflicted significant damage on his once all-powerful benefactor. Exiled Russian journalist Mikhail Zygar goes so far as to argue that the failed mutiny has exposed Putin as a “lame-duck” president; likewise, sociologist Vladislav Inozemtsev asserts that “Putin is finished.”

Such definitive judgments are premature, I feel. Putin is a tough and resilient politician who has faced down the most serious challenge to his authority since he came to power in 2000. But there can be no doubt that the aborted mutiny has exposed profound structural flaws in the Russian system of rule.

 

Peter Rutland, Professor of Government, Wesleyan University

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

Law professors torch Alito for demanding “safe space” and “complete insulation from critique”

Two law professors criticized Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s Wall Street Journal op-ed last week seeking to defend against a ProPublica report detailing his luxury fishing trip with Republican billionaire megadonor Paul Singer.

In an op-ed published last week, Alito attempted to preempt a report from ProPublica by explicating in detail the 2008 trip, in which Alito flew in a private jet to Alaska and spent time at a fishing lodge where he was hosted by another GOP donor. 

University of Michigan Law School professor Leah Litman and New York University Law School professor Melissa Murray, in a Sunday opinion piece co-authored for the Los Angeles Times, wrote that rather than reply to a list of questions sent by ProPublica journalists, Alito chose to “bitterly and preemptively complain about the story in an ideologically friendly outlet.”

“Alito’s reaction is entirely consistent with the worldview he has revealed within and beyond his jurisprudence time and time again. Because even though Samuel Alito is a Supreme Court justice with lifetime tenure and all the power that position entails, he still wants more,” Litman and Murray wrote.

“The justice seems to believe that he and the court are so thoroughly supreme that they must be free of even a whiff of public criticism. Alito demands perpetual public and professional affirmation — a safe space, if you will, where he is protected from micro-aggressions, bathed in praise and consistently depicted as reasonable and judicious regardless of whether he actually is,” they continued. “And when his reception falls short of that, he lashes out at his critics no matter who they are.”

The legal scholars argued that it “takes real cheek for a member of the Supreme Court to insist that he and the institution he serves are entitled to the public’s good opinion even in the face of indefensible behavior and decisions.”


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


“And yet this man who has penned fiery dissents in decisions securing equal rights for LGBTQ+ people and other minority groups is so thin-skinned that he can’t brook a hint of dissent directed at him,” they continued. “The man who represents an institution charged with interpreting the 1st Amendment can’t bear others exercising their free speech rights to criticize him. Instead, he uses his stature and appearances to take potshots at those bold enough to question an institution that, as we keep learning, is loath to observe rules or restrictions.”

Litman and Murray noted that the conservative legal movement has long identified itself in opposition to “liberal judicial ‘imperialism.'”

“And yet it is Justice Alito, a prominent face of that project, who insists on the prerogatives of an emperor-king, among them unstinting general adulation and complete insulation from critique,” they wrote. “It’s no wonder the court’s public standing is in trouble: Some of the justices seem to be letting the term ‘supreme’ go to their heads.”

Lab-grown meat is now approved for sale in the US. Will it help the climate?

Slabs of chicken meat grown from cells nurtured by scientists, rather than from birds raised and slaughtered by farmers, can now be sold in the United States. The U.S. Department of Agriculture greenlit two kinds of lab-grown chicken for the first time on Wednesday. The move makes the United States the second country in the world, after Singapore, to allow cultivated meats on the market.  Although the poultry (or poultry-esque) products — by Upside Foods and Good Meat — won’t be on the shelves at your local grocery store anytime soon, the approval marks a milestone for alternative proteins. 

The innovative meat, grown from cell cultures fed amino acids, sugars, salts and vitamins, has generated intrigue among investors, animal rights advocates and fancy-food connoisseurs. One of cultivated meat’s key selling points, beyond mere novelty, is that it could be a salve for global warming. Growing meat in a lab doesn’t involve livestock or land for grazing and cuts out the greenhouse gas emissions associated with raising cows, chickens and pigs for food — 11% to 14.5% of global climate pollution. By some estimates, cultivated meat could reduce those emissions by 92%.

“The key thing here is that it’s all about efficiency,” said Elliot Swartz, a scientist at the Good Food Institute, a nonprofit that promotes alternative proteins. Culturing cells in a lab is roughly three times more efficient at converting nutrients into meat than conventional chicken farming, Swartz said. “This efficiency means you need less crops to grow, which translates to less land.” That, in turn, means more land that could be used to store carbon through rewilding and habitat restoration, Swartz added. 

The story doesn’t end there. As with other emerging technologies, there’s uncertainty about the climate implications of cultivated meat. While feeding stem cells, muscle cells or fat cells doesn’t generate methane — the potent greenhouse gas belched by cows — a lot of energy goes into manufacturing the ingredients to feed those cells and maintaining the right conditions, like temperature, to nurture them. Some research suggests that replacing methane emissions from cattle with the carbon dioxide generated from meat cultivation could be worse for the planet in the long run. 

“For lab-grown meat, most of the emissions are associated with energy inputs,” said Marco Springmann, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute. Given how energy intensive the process is, Springmann expressed skepticism about the claims that cultivated meat is significantly better for the environment than the cuts you’d get today at the supermarket. A study by researchers at the University of California, Davis indicates that meat cultivation would have to become more energy efficient to compete with conventional meat from a climate standpoint. (Swartz said he sees potential issues with assumptions underlying that research, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, such as that cultivated-meat producers have already adopted energy-saving practices not reflected in the study.) 

One big advantage to cultivated meat, according to both Springmman and Swartz, is that it can be powered by renewables. Cows are always going to burp methane. But the carbon dioxide that comes from growing meat in a lab can be dialed back with wind or solar. “The manufacturer of cultivated meat has a lot of control over the carbon footprint,” Swartz said.

A host of questions remain about how manufacturers will scale up their products and what their emissions will look like. One thing that’s settled, according to Springmann, is that a better climate solution than growing meat in labs is eating less meat in favor of more vegetables. “It’s very unlikely you can design a product that can be more environmentally friendly than legumes.                 

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/food/lab-grown-meat-approved-us-climate-chicken/.

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

“This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist’s weekly newsletter here.”

                

Turner Classic Movies holds our cinematic past. Does it have a future under Warner Bros. Discovery?

You must remember this: Turner Classic Movies is one of the few surviving cable TV institutions that cannot be taken for granted. It was never a popular destination, not that anyone ever expected a channel allocated to old films to be. But it was and is a lighthouse of history and artistry in a gale of middling noise, featuring thoughtfully collated collections of seminal works made by and starring cinematic legends.

For almost 30 years TCM has offered something other channels don’t – a focus on movies that aren’t in circulation anywhere else and their influence on the people who create great TV and film. The technical methods that make prestige shows that stand above the rest of the rabble weren’t plucked from the ether. The directors, producers and writers employing them learned from filmmakers and screenwriters famous and unsung who came before them.

So when the news broke last week about TCM’s staff being slashed from around 90 personnel to about 20 – part of the layoffs rolling through Warner Bros. Discovery‘s TV networks – the filmmaking community was beside itself.

TCM is one of the few places on TV devoted to sparking memory and educational curiosity. But this is a romantic’s argument for its preservation.

“Turner Classic Movies has been a fixture in my life for as long as I can remember,” Ryan Reynolds tweeted last Wednesday after the layoff details went public. “It’s a holy corner of film history — and a living, breathing library for an entire art form. Please don’t f**k with @tcm.”

TCM host Dave Karger reassured viewers on Twitter: “My goal (and I know the other hosts agree) is to try to be a stabilizing and familiar presence in the months ahead. There will be some bumps, but we will all be on the road together,” he posted on Wednesday.

If you were to turn on the channel right now, it doesn’t look like anyone has messed with it. Yet. As TheWrap reported, among the channel’s departures are four senior staffers, including executives who oversaw programming and content strategy – as in, the people instrumental to the curation of TCM’s lineup, along with general manager Pola Chagnon, who guided the network for more than 25 years.

Warner Bros. Discovery’s chief content officer for its TV networks group Kathleen Finch assured employees in a staff memo shared in multiple trade outlets that the company remains committed to the TCM brand and “its purpose to protect and celebrate culture-defining movies.”

“As storytellers, that is our legacy,” she stated in the memo, “and we will continue bringing the history and impact of classic films to life on-air and in other ways.” Hmm.

The average viewer wouldn’t be familiar with the names of the departed executives. But its diehard supporters, including the likes of Martin Scorsese, Paul Thomas Anderson and Steven Spielberg, know those executives shaped the thematic scheduling and presentation of its schedule, as well as extending the brand beyond our small screens.

TCM sponsors one of the best-regarded classic film festivals in the country, held this year in April. On its opening night, Spielberg and Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav celebrated the world premiere of the 4D restored version of the 1959 Western “Rio Bravo.” Zaslav hailed TCM as “the history of our country,” at that event, making last week’s move even more galling . . . and entirely on brand.

Zaslav memorably declared back in 2008, right before Discovery Communications became a publicly traded company, that it would no longer be thought of as a cable brand but a “content company.” That manifested in a variety of ways in the years that followed, but there may be no clearer example than TLC’s transformation from a channel built around instructional programming into the home of the Duggars and “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.

Much more recently, Zaslav hired Chris Licht away from “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” to overhaul CNN. That experiment ended poorly earlier this month.

TCM has rolled with its share of changes and updates over the years too, sometimes to the ire of its faithful who, say, question the inclusion of ’80s films in the same arena as “Casablanca.” (Then everyone does the math, mourns their long-gone youth and quiets down.) In general, it has remained on mission and retained its cultural necessity.

That remains the case in the age of streaming. The greatest films of any era pass into a cultural void unless they’re shared or discovered, sparking curiosity and leading to more exploration and enrichment in one’s cinematic knowledge.

This is how film buffs and critics like me find their calling, along with filmmakers, designers and anyone who appreciates cultural aesthetics. TCM also draws those who simply want to watch an old Western or film noir that reminds them of a loved one who introduced them to the joy of classic movies, or some time in their lives when they stumbled upon a black and white feature that made its mark in their memories. In a culture given over to nostalgia this channel provides the ultimate fix, along with brief explanations of each movie’s historical significance. It’s one of the few places on TV devoted to sparking memory and educational curiosity.

But this is a romantic’s argument for TCM’s preservation. When it comes to the movie and TV business, rosy ideals are meaningless next to profit.

TCM was never a moneymaker for its parent companies, stretching back to its 1994 founding, when Ted Turner conceived of the channel as a clearinghouse for his expansive collection of classic films.

That linear TV legacy is part of the conundrum that whoever is taking charge of TCM must contend with moving forward. The channel earns its keep from cable carriage fees – a modest take compared to other WBD properties – but still amounted to around $266 million in net operating revenue last year, according to figures from S&P Global Intelligence reported by TheWrap.

Putting that in perspective, Variety reports that Zaslav’s total 2021 compensation package, which included a stock option grant from the company, was about $246.6 million.


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


Zaslav responded to the film community’s hue and cry by whispering to The Hollywood Reporter that two of the studio’s most respected producers, Michael De Luca and Pamela Abdy, will assume oversight of the channel. This comes after the initial announcement that Michael Ouweleen, who previously ran TCM and is now in charge of Cartoon Network, Boomerang, Adult Swim and Discovery Family would serve as the network’s new head. The THR report clarifies that Ouweleen and Finch would run the business side while De Luca and Abdy will guide its creative direction.

When it comes to the movie and TV business, rosy ideals are meaningless next to profit.

With the old cable subscription models becoming increasingly obsolete as consumers flock to streaming platforms, ensuring that TCM has a prominent place in that environment is crucial. If TCM were to receive a dedicated category within Max, WBD would still need to ensure that its content was prominently surfaced and recommended along with its more recently produced offerings. This would approximate the conditions under which an appreciation for the Golden Age of Hollywood is fostered. Where past generations of viewers might have encountered old movies on local stations, where they once filled the time between morning TV and early evening lineups, Millennials and Gen Z make their cinematic discoveries via algorithmic recommendations.

None of this can happen unless WBD gets its house in order with its Max streaming service. The service’s programmers have already infuriated the creative community by jamming its series and films into an undifferentiated pile, placing HBO’s programming on par with basic cable unscripted.

It’s all content, right?

Scorsese, Spielberg and Anderson met with Zaslav last week and explained via a public statement, “Our primary aim is to ensure that TCM’s programming is untouched and protected.”

The statement continued, “We are heartened and encouraged by the conversations we’ve had thus far, and we are committed to working together to ensure the continuation of this cultural touchstone that we all treasure.”

We’ll see. We hope.

Experts: Trump begs fans for campaign donations — but diverts them “for his own personal benefit”

Former President Donald Trump is diverting money he has raised from his 2024 presidential campaign into a political action committee that he has used to pay his personal legal fees, according to The New York Times

​​The disclosure text on the WinRed digital fundraising platform for the Trump presidential campaign was updated to state that 10% of the money raised will be sent to the Save America PAC, which has funded Trump’s legal bills in the past. When Trump first launched his campaign, 99 cents of every dollar went to his campaign while just one cent was directed toward the Save America PAC.

“President Trump’s Save America PAC has had a dubious track record of fundraising,” Temidayo Aganga-Williams, partner at Selendy Gay Elsberg and former senior investigative counsel for the House Jan. 6 committee, told Salon. “Now, President Trump continues to exploit his political base by raising money once again for his own personal benefit.”

The impact of Trump’s legal battles is evident in the increased legal expenditures of the Save America PAC, according to Federal Election Commission filings. These expenses reportedly surged from $1.9 million to $14.6 million in 2022.

The former president’s legal bills have piled up after he was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury on charges related to a hush-money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels and another indictment including violations of the Espionage Act arising from his possession of classified material and government records after he left the White House.

“The New York trial is scheduled for March and the federal trial for August 2024,” Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of Los Angeles-based West Coast Trial Lawyers, told Salon. “Trump will try to push the dates out, of course, but he needs to be prepared for the possibility that the judges won’t agree and he must face a jury before the November 2024 election. There also is the possibility of a Georgia indictment, so for both legal and political reasons, Trump has shifted his priorities to financing his legal battles for now.”


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


Since his second indictment, several lawyers have left Trump’s legal team with two resigning hours after he was charged with “felony violations of our national security laws” and “participating in a conspiracy to obstruct justice.”

His history of treating attorneys like personal fixers and not paying their fees has made him a difficult client to work with, experts say.

“Any lawyer who takes Trump’s case must be prepared to take the case all the way to trial because Trump won’t take any deal, nor will the Department of Justice offer one,” Rahmani said. “There also is the possibility the lawyer will lose other business because Trump is a controversial client. Federal judges make it difficult for lawyers to withdraw from a case due to client nonpayment. Lawyers may be asking for a significant up-front retainer to represent Trump in his federal case, and Trump needs money to cover his legal expenses now.”

It remains unclear whether Trump will try to use his campaign funds to pay for lawyers and whether such a course of action would potentially violate spending regulations, but his track record remains under scrutiny. 

“After the 2020 election, President Trump’s political operation raised hundreds of millions of dollars by claiming the funds were needed to fight election fraud,” Aganga-Williams said. “Despite the stated purpose, Trump’s team diverted much of the money to his Save America PAC, spending very little on actually fighting the election results.”

He added that federal officials, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission, will continue to closely scrutinize Trump’s political fundraising.

Lily Rabe waited 15 years to make her directorial debut: “It’s not the arena for playing it safe”

You might assume that after over a decade of acting together and raising a family together, Lily Rabe’s latest creative collaboration with her partner Hamish Linklater would have seemed like a no-brainer. Instead, the Tony Award-nominated actor and “American Horror Story” veteran said, “We had a lot of friends who were like, ‘God, guys, I don’t know.'”

Based on Chuck Klosterman’s 2008 novel, “Downtown Owl” tells the story of a disparate group of small-town residents whose fates are interconnected via a catastrophic winter storm. Rabe, who co-produced and co-directed the film, also stars as an emotionally adrift new schoolteacher in town. Linklater, meanwhile, co-directed, adapted the screenplay and has a small role as a school administrator. Looking back on the scale and intensity of the project, Rabe called it “a massive risk for our relationship and our children.”

But after getting encouragement from fellow actors and directors George Clooney and Ben Affleck, whom she worked with on “The Tender Bar,” Rabe said that she and Linklater “sort of held hands and jumped.” The film recently had its premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival, with Deadline praising its “disarming style.”

Watch the “Salon Talks” episode with Rabe here to hear more about why she’s a repeat customer with her favorite directors like Ryan Murphy and David E. Kelley, making “magic” in live theater, the trick to sloppy dancing with Vanessa Hudgens, and why she’s already planning future creative collaborations with Linklater. “We share a sensibility,” she said, “for sure.”

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

Tell me about “Downtown Owl.” 

We meet these characters in a very small, fictional town called Owl, North Dakota. [Author] Chuck Klosterman was from a very small Midwestern town. So it’s fictional [but] I think he was, in fact, drawing a lot from his experience. It’s 1983, and my character Julia comes into town. She’s planning on staying just for a short time and she’s figuring things out. She’s a teacher.

Not a lot of people come into the town. It’s that kind of town. It’s so small, it’s so insular and forges these relationships. Everything changes. It’s a hard one to give a log line about. There’s a big storm that comes — and that’s not a secret because in the book, it’s coming from the first page, and in our film, you know it’s coming as well.

And that is based on a real event.

Inspired by, yes. Yes, that storm was unbelievable.

What drew you and Hamish [Linklater] to the book? He wrote the screenplay. You co-directed it. 

I did the audiobook 15 years ago. I was doing theater. I wanted to make some extra money. I was doing off-Broadway [shows] and my agent at the time was like, “You’ve got a great voice. Let’s do some audiobooks and you can make a little cash.”

It was one of the first things that I did. There were three actors reading the different three protagonists. I had never quite had that experience where every moment of it, I just could see it in a way that felt so cinematic. It felt incredibly personal. I identified with all of the characters, particularly with her, but really with all of them. The tone of it hit such a kind of sweet spot for me. 

“We sort of held hands and jumped.”

I related to it. I felt seen and excited by it. Chuck has an amazing sense of humor. It’s very specific. It makes me incredibly happy, makes me laugh a lot. I find the underbelly of it. It’s like he has this hidden heart that I’m so drawn to. It’s entirely unsentimental, but it’s there and you feel it.

I was determined that it had to be a movie. At the time, really, I just wanted to play the part. I’d never produced anything, I’d never optioned anything. I wasn’t thinking about directing at that time. The rights were not available. This is a very long answer, but it’s a long story. It’s been many years in the making. I found out that the rights had been optioned by someone else. I wrote to Chuck, just got his email and wrote him a cold email and said, “I did the audiobook and here’s why I love it. If, for whatever reason, it doesn’t happen and the rights free up again, let me know.” Sure enough, three years later, there was a message in my inbox saying, “I’ve been following your career. I loved your performance in the audiobook so much. I’ve loved watching you, so if you want it, it’s yours.” That was the beginning of a whole other road of then getting the adaptation of it. 

Lily Rabe and Hamish Linklater of “Downtown Owl” pose for a portrait during the 2023 Tribeca Festival on June 8, 2023. (Erik Tanner/Getty Images)Hamish understood the book in a way that was so wonderful because we share a sensibility, for sure. All of the things that I loved about the book, he loved. We were a wonderful compliment to each other because there were things that he gravitated towards, so it was wonderful from the start. At that point, we still weren’t talking about directing it. He was writing it, I was going to act in it, we were going to go out to directors. It was in that process of starting to submit it to directors and talk to them that I just kept getting off these calls and feeling — and we were talking to wonderful, brilliant people who had amazing points of view — but something about it just didn’t feel like it to me.

Hamish really pushed me and said, “You have to do it. You have to do it.” I was like, “Well, I’m going to be in it, so will you do it with me?” We sort of held hands and jumped — and it was a long jump because it takes time for the money to come together and the cast and all of the things. It’s been such a complicated time, so dates were pushed and all of that, and then, it finally happened.

You’ve collaborated with Hamish for years and years, but this is different.

Yeah. It was a massive risk for our relationship and our children.

We had a lot of friends who were like, “God, guys, I don’t know.” But it was the opposite. It was so affirming — not that we needed it, but it was this incredible experience. We want to do it again together. We already are developing other things together and talking about directing again on some things. 

We’d acted together so much in the theater and then we had done some film and television together. Something I love so much about acting opposite him is that he is incredibly honest with me. To me, it is actually this rare and precious resource because it’s hard to find the people who will really, really tell you the truth without anything else. For you to really know that you’re getting the truth and that they feel safe enough they can really give you notes and they say when they think you should try something else or something isn’t working. I love to be directed. I love to be pushed. My favorite directors that I’ve worked with are the ones who do that, and then give you so much freedom and are hands-off when things are — it’s that balance. 

We’ve always had that together as actors, so I knew, as an actor, I would feel so taken care of by him directing me. But then, the co-directing part of it was this enormous unknown. We just both had an instinct that it would be OK, and then it was more than OK. 

The movie starts with the two of you, even though he’s not a central character at all. Knowing the two of you, knowing your careers, it feels like a very safe place as an audience to start.

It was the first scene we shot.

You’ve talked about other directors that you’ve worked with. The last time I talked to you, you had just worked with Ben Affleck, with George Clooney as director. Seeing other people making that leap, did that also inform your feelings about doing this?

Yes. Both George and Ben told me to direct. They gave me an incredible amount of confidence. Then when I was pregnant, I was like, “Well, I have a newborn.” They were like, “Maybe wait, so that you want to do it again.” But they were more than supportive. They were forceful. “Don’t wait, do it. You have everything you need. Do it.” That was a big part of getting me to that line where you’re actually saying, “OK, let’s go. Let’s do it.”

It’s so easy to talk yourself [out of it], or at least for me, to say, “Maybe someone else should play the part.” Then Ed Harris was also amazing because he’s done it, he’s directed himself. He’s a brilliant director, and he just said all the right things to keep me going and to open me up in ways that were such a gift. I do feel like the people who I was lucky enough to collide with on my path, the timing felt really particular and magical in terms of getting us there.

And this is not a little film of a play where it’s just two people in a room. This is an ambitious movie. 

Yeah, there is a snowstorm. Some of the pitch meetings we had, you’re talking about that you’re going to make a smaller movie, and then you’re going to have this massive snowstorm. I can remember some of the faces across those tables, sort of like, “What? How? No, that’s impossible.” 

“We just both had an instinct that it would be OK, and then it was more than OK.”

I really do believe, had we had — which we did not — $100 million, we wouldn’t have wanted to shoot the storm with a different approach. The thing about the storm and the way that Chuck writes the storm, and in researching the storm that happened, we were so struck by the lack of visibility and the sound, and the violence of the sound, and the disorientation. It’s not a “Day After Tomorrow,” blankets of snow situation. You are being shaken in the dark, and you don’t know which way is up, and you don’t know what’s happening. That’s how fast that storm hit. Not being able to shoot a huge amount of space was actually something that we didn’t feel hindered by. We felt really excited by that, that we were limited in our own visibility. We had to feel so claustrophobic and tight, because of the experience of that, and the sound of it felt like our way in.

You trained as a dancer and you’re working with Vanessa Hudgens, who is a great dancer. Then you do this montage of pretty sloppy dancing. How do two people who are good dancers choreograph sloppy dancing?

Here’s the thing. Her friend choreographed that dance for us, and then we learned it over Zoom. She taught it to Vanessa, and then Vanessa taught it to me on the lunch break of the day we then had to shoot the montage, so it was going to be sloppy.

It was one of those things that was a happy accident because at the time I was thinking, “Oh my God, I wish I’d had more time.” I love to dance so much, and I love dancing with Vanessa, and I love learning choreography. But no, we had no time. If we had learned it more, we would’ve had to end up messing it up, so it all aligns.

I want to ask you about some of the other things you’re doing, like “Love & Death.” You are often exploring stories of women and violence and motherhood. You’re going to be in “Presumed Innocent” coming up. This is your sweet spot. What is that about that trifecta?

Gosh, I don’t know. When I’m drawn to someone or something, whether it’s a role or a director, I do feel like it shifts, but I have ended up in harrowing situations more than once, certainly. They’re starting to feel a little too familiar. But then they do all feel incredible. They always feel unique, and I love a challenge. But I think that that can happen anywhere. It could happen in comedy, a musical, a Western. 

“The timing felt really particular and magical.”

Ending up in the Ryan Murphy world and spending all those years getting to play those parts in that genre, it was such a surprise. It’s never something I ever could have predicted. But I’m so grateful for it because the thing that’s so special about it is there really is no limitation. There’s so much freedom, and you’re really being asked to be brave. It’s not the arena for playing it safe. That’s why the actors who have come back and back, we all like that and are drawn to that. 

Sometimes, it’s the director. Susanne Bier could just call me up and say, “There’s this part,” and I would say yes. She doesn’t have to finish the sentence because the joy that I feel working with her and the way I trust her taste is a yes for me. I feel that way about George. I feel that way about Ben. I feel that way about Lesli Linka Glatter, who I just worked with, and David E. Kelley, who now I’ve worked with three times. I’m a real fan of repeat.

I don’t like a vacation. I have fantasies about how much fun it must be and how nice it would be to, I don’t know, go to work and do something that feels really easy, and then go home. I feel like I would enjoy that for a week, but then I would be itchy. But it’s not to say — because I think some of the greatest challenge does lie in comedy, and it is something I want to do more and more of — so it’s not to say only murder.

This movie is so much about those moments of, “Why am I here?” Asking those big questions. Did you have a moment of your life that you feel was, “Wow, I was really in the right place at the right time”?

The birth of all of my children definitely felt like that. But also, being on [New York’s Central Park] Delacorte stage, doing Shakespeare, often with Hamish. There are so many moments that I have because this overarching experience of it is magic. It’s just magic to do it every night. Because you’re outdoors and because you’re saying those words, I’ve had these moments [when] you’re talking about the rain and the skies open up. You’re talking about the wind and it changes, and you feel it, and everyone with you feels it. And I can feel those moments. There are so many of them from all the plays I’ve done in the park. They’re in my bone marrow, they’re in my cells.

I hope somehow they’ve been passed on to my children, just to connect the two, because I do feel like those moments, it’s like this electric shock. I’ve sometimes had people stop me on the street and say, “I was there the night that you said this thing, and that happened.” So it’s like, “You felt it happened. We were all there, it happened.” And that’s definitely the right place at the right time.