Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Trump’s Ukraine peace “plan”: A massive betrayal of America’s friends — like me

So what did Donald Trump actually do this past week? Something that may well be remembered until the planet gets smashed by an asteroid or goes up in a nuclear fireball. Maybe that's the whole point — making sure his name stays in the history books, no matter how? Scandal, absurdity, outright disaster — especially on the world stage — those are the fastest ways to etch yourself into memory. Trump knows that better than anyone.

Blaming Ukraine for the last three years of war, while crediting Russia's "nobility" for not wiping the Ukrainian nation off the map in response, and parroting the Kremlin’s line about ousting Volodymyr Zelenskyy so Russia can finish what it failed to do on the battlefield — this is all three at once: scandalous, absurd and an outright disaster.

Trump is turning the world upside down, stomping on common sense and sowing pure chaos — admittedly, his standard modus operandi. More specifically, this torpedoes what Trump has tried to pass off as a "peace initiative." How do you talk peace and confront aggression while blaming the victim? How do you negotiate the victim into making major concessions while all but telling them to pack up and leave? (This echoes Trump’s demand that the entire Palestinian population of Gaza should be evicted so the U.S. can "own" it, although the situations are not identical.) That’s not diplomacy — it’s a guaranteed dead end. Ukraine can’t accept negotiations under those terms, which means they’re doomed before they even start.

Did any of this bring America closer to being "great again"? Not in the slightest. It’s a joke, one that makes the U.S. look like the Joker on a global scale — but without the demonic charm.

Let me tell you straight up what made America great in the first place. It wasn’t just power or wealth — it was the sheer number of America’s friends and allies. Perhaps even more important, it was the countless people around the world who admired America, believed in it and pinned their hopes on it. At the peak of its global influence, the U.S. had an enormous army of friends. A giant extended family. A vast support base. A legion of voluntary promoters of American culture and the American worldview. 

Here’s where we need to stress the difference between two concepts: the American world and the Russian world.

The Russian world is a fiction, a patchwork of "dead souls." People who speak Russian, who are Orthodox Christians, who were born in the Soviet Union or its successor states — Moscow slaps the label "Russian" on them and claims them as its own. There is no genuine love, no admiration, no choice, no longing — just an imposed identity, a bureaucratic annexation of human lives.

People choose to be part of America, to learn its language, adopt its culture, dream its dreams. It's not dictated by geography, religion or bureaucratic decree — it's fueled by the idea that America stands for something bigger than itself.

The American world, however, is (or at least was) entirely different. It’s built on admiration, aspiration and voluntary belonging. People choose to be part of it. They choose to learn its language, adopt its culture, dream its dreams. It’s not dictated by geography, religion or bureaucratic decree — it’s fueled by belief, by the idea that America stands for something bigger than itself. That’s what made America powerful. That is, in fact, what made America great.

Now all of that is in rapid decline, and about to shrink even more dramatically. And why? Because of a guy with a cameo role in "Home Alone" who thinks being "great" means screwing the world over.

At this point you may well ask: Who the hell am I to tell you this? Fair enough.

OK then: I was once one of your ultimate enemies. I was one of the millions raised to hate America, to want it gone. I was trained to shoot within walls that still echoed with anti-American slogans, beneath posters that painted America as the global villain.

The city of my birth, Minsk — the capital of Belarus, then a Soviet republic and now a Russian client state — was the place where Lee Harvey Oswald got so bored that he packed up and headed back to the U.S., and into into the history books. According to some theories, Oswald was trained for his deadly mission there. Who knows?

Either way, the city still looks and feels as if the Soviet Union never collapsed. It just got a modern upgrade, as in the classic Soviet sci-fi movies of my youth. It was designed to feel that way. Although the city’s history goes back to the Middle Ages, it was rebuilt under Joseph Stalin after World War II as a kind of triumphal arch and a gateway to Moscow, 700 kilometers away. One Belarusian artist called it the “Sun City of Dreams,” a showcase of Communist utopia, frozen in time.

Oddly enough, the man who served as Oswald’s KGB handler in Minsk would later go on to sign the Belavezha Accords — the very document that dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991. That was the  moment briefly celebrated as “the end of history,” which supposedly signaled America’s victory in the Cold War. 

In Minsk, that victorious moment didn’t last long. A leader emerged who was eager to turn back the clock and make the Soviet empire great again. That man, Alexander Lukashenko — the first and only president of supposedly independent Belarus — reinstated Soviet colonial symbols as early as 1995. In that same year, Lukashenko’s air force, acting more like enforcers of a bygone era than a modern military, literally shot down a hot air balloon carrying two Americans. That so-called accident felt more like a grim political statement.

Thirty years later, Lukashenko still rules Belarus with an iron grip, while his minions keep the anti-Western propaganda machine running nonstop.

So I was trained and groomed to become another America-hater — at least until we got full access to the internet. Before that, with Russian TV shaping the narrative, I was fed propaganda and I bought into it. There were moments when I was ready to go fight Americans in the former Yugoslavia. After the 9/11 attacks, I caught myself thinking, they had it coming.

Now, even as I see Donald Trump wrecking everything I loved most about America, I deeply regret ever thinking that way. And I still wonder: How the hell could I have been that blind?

Those episodes of propaganda-induced lunacy are far behind me. I grew up into an adult fully steeped in America. I soaked in America. I inhaled America. Not just the surface-level pop culture that seeps through every crack of the world, but the real, deep, unfiltered America. I didn’t just learn about America. I lived it. 

I know America’s fabric — its geography, history, culture and politics — better than I know any other country in the world, including my own.

Despite not having that little blue ticket to the land of the free — I have never set foot on American soil — I still feel like a part of it. I’ve poured too much time, too much emotion, too much of myself into understanding this country to feel like an outsider.

I love America. Not blindly, not naively. I love it in all its complexity, its contradictions, with all its mistakes and stains. I love it because I see it clearly — its highs, its lows, its reckless ambition and its messy, infuriating brilliance.

But that orange glitch in the Matrix, that reality-TV Frankenstein — he is too big of a stain, too much of a mistake to bear.

I love America. Not blindly, not naively. I love it in all its complexity, its contradictions, with all its mistakes and stains. But that orange glitch in the Matrix, that reality-TV Frankenstein — he is too big of a stain.

Somehow, we have to acknowledge that those who voted Trump into office had their reasons. Legitimate concerns and real frustrations — I get it. I’m not here to judge anyone for caring more about the price of eggs in Pennsylvania (or whatever else was rattling, disturbing or downright pissing them off at the time) than by events unfolding an ocean away. That’s human.

But here’s the thing: The chaos Trump is unleashing won’t do America a damn bit of good. What’s the point of winning if it means losing the people who once admired you, who chose to stand with you around the world? Alienating voluntary friends, burning bridges that took decades to build — how does that make America great?

If you think those lost friends can be easily replaced with new ones, forget it. They can’t.

Trump’s new friends are not America’s friends. They may be his friends, at least for the moment: political opportunists, power-hungry strongmen and regimes that don’t care about the ideals America once stood for. They don’t admire its history, its culture, its principles. They barely know anything about it.

They’re celebrating one thing: the fact that the America that once stood in their way is crumbling. They don’t respect a strong America. They relish the idea of a weak America, , an America too distracted, too divided, too consumed by its own chaos to stop them. And don’t fool yourself into thinking they’re satisfied with just a piece of the pie.

They want the whole damn bakery.

When I talk about myself as a genuine friend of America, you might get the impression that I was some kind of anomaly, a rare exception in these parts of the world.

Not at all.

In Belarus, there were plenty of people who could have ensured that the place remained friendly to America — if they had a voice. If they weren’t brutally silenced, persecuted, shoved into prisons, driven into exiled or simply made too afraid to speak. If only they had the freedom to shape the country’s politics.


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


In other words, if we had democracy.

One of the main reasons we didn't, and don't, is Russia’s grip on my country. I myself was forced into exile, fleeing from relentless persecution. That was how I lost my home and the life I had built for myself — for the first time. Where did I go? I moved to Mariupol, on the Black Sea coast of Ukraine, well before that city made headline news all over the world. 

Mariupol is close to the Russian border. It had been teetering on the edge of war since 2014. But despite all that I felt safe there, much safer than in polished, orderly Minsk, where it felt like I was being crushed under a giant concrete slab of pro-Russian dictatorship.

You may know the rest of the story. Not my story, but the story of Mariupol. It was bombed into dust after the Russian invasion. Very little of the city is left now. I lost my home, for the second time.

Please understand that Ukraine was on its way to becoming a faithful American ally. It’s the largest country in Europe by land area (not counting Russia, which frankly doesn’t deserve to be counted) and, I would argue, the bravest one.

Ukraine did what almost no one expected — it stood up against Russia. After the invasion, the rest of the world assumed the same thing Vladimir Putin assumed: Kyiv would fall almost immediately, and Ukraine would surrender within days. Instead, Ukraine fought. It’s still fighting, three years on.

If you ask me, that remarkable country is a friend worth keeping.

What’s the point of betraying and alienating Ukraine? Trading it in for a “bigger friend” in the geopolitical playground?

That’s not how this works. 

Abandoning Ukraine isn’t just about losing a friend. It’s about something much larger — demonstrating to the world that America’s word means nothing. The cost of breaking that trust will be unbelievably high.

Ukraine isn’t just some disposable pawn, in a game where you ditch one piece to grab a shinier one. The “bigger friends” Trump is flirting with — Russia for sure; possibly China too — will never be allies in the way Ukraine is. They don’t admire America. They don’t want a strong America. They don’t stand by its values or interests. They see it as an obstacle, a rival, a force to be undermined and outplayed.

Ukraine, on the other hand, chose to be America’s friend. Not out of cynical calculation, but because it genuinely wanted to be part of the Western world, to align with democracy, with freedom, with the ideals the U.S. claimed to uphold.

Abandoning Ukraine isn’t just about losing a friend. It’s about something much larger — demonstrating to the world that America’s word means nothing. That loyalty, commitment and standing up for allies are not principles, but endlessly negotiable bargaining chips. The cost of breaking that trust will be unbelievably high: Good luck convincing anyone else, big or small, ever to believe in America’s promises again.

Before I finished writing this article, Trump opened his mouth again. This time it was even more shocking. He called Zelenskyy a "dictator" and advised him to "move fast" — whatever that’s supposed to mean — or he might lose his whole country.

I would say that was crazy and unbelievable, but at this point it’s almost expected: The man who tried to overturn his own country’s election is calling Zelenskyy a dictator for postponing elections during a full-scale war. (As Winston Churchill did, for example, during World War II.) The audacity is staggering.

The U.S. president is effectively telling Ukraine not to resist, not to fight, but to throw in its cards and surrender, as the only acceptable option. Who is Trump speaking for here? It doesn't sound like America.

What kind of election can you possibly hold in a country torn apart by war, with millions of refugees scattered across the world, a significant chunk of its territory under occupation, and many of its cities facing constant bombardment? No functioning democracy on Earth would stage a nationwide vote under these conditions.

And what exactly does "move fast or there’s going to be no Ukraine anymore" mean? The sitting U.S. president is effectively telling Ukraine not to resist, not to fight, but to throw in its cards and surrender, as the only acceptable option. Who is Trump speaking for here? It doesn’t sound like America. It sounds like another Putin mouthpiece, spewing the Kremlin’s approved talking points.

But let’s set aside the Ukrainians — "these Slav-squatting, track-suited snow-apes," as Curtis Yarvin, one of Trump’s ideological whisperers, has so charmingly called them — and ask what else is at stake here

Alienating all of Europe? Pushing many European nations further into Russia’s sphere of influence, making the entire continent vulnerable to the same kind of dark forces that have already corroded its weaker states from within? Sure, that might be what Yarvin and his ilk want; they think an isolated, weakened Europe is a good thing. 

But exactly how does that make America great (again)?

What’s the grand strategy here? Gutting alliances, throwing away decades of trust and leaving the field wide open for America's biggest rivals? If this is supposed to be some 4-D chess move, it looks an awful lot like checkmate — for the wrong side.

My dear fellow Americans — for the moment, allow me to address you this way — can you see where this is heading? Do you understand that this path leads straight to disaster? If so, please don’t stay silent.

Elon Musk and other right-wing donors are “pouring money” into Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race

Not satisfied with his unprecedented grip on the federal government, billionaire Elon Musk is looking to tip the scales in state races, too. 

Beginning Thursday, Musk-funded Building America’s Future PAC has dropped $1.6 million on TV ad buys in Wisconsin, where a Supreme Court seat that will determine the balance of power is up for grabs. The buys will support former Republican state Attorney General Brad Schimel in the fight against liberal-leaning circuit court Judge Susan Crawford.

Musk first weighed in on the race in January, when he said on X that it was “very important to vote Republican for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to prevent voting fraud,” referring to the majority-liberal court allowing absentee voting to proceed last cycle. 

The election will take place on April 1. It's unclear if Building America’s Future will make additional contributions before then, but the flood of cash already spent may push Schimel over the edge in a state President Donald Trump carried by less than 1 percent. 

Building America’s Future — one of many PACs Musk used to drop more than $250 million on Trump last year — spent over $33 million on races in 2024, per OpenSecrets.

The group spent millions on disinformation ops, funding a set of contradictory ads in predominantly Muslim communities professing Vice President Kamala Harris’s support for Israel paired with messages of support for Gaza in predominantly Jewish communities. Another initiative from the group, Progress 2028, falsely presented itself as a left-leaning answer to Project 2025.

The first ad from the group in Wisconsin race aired on Feb. 20, invoking a similar bellicose style to the group’s prior efforts. The 30-second spot attacks Crawford, the liberal-leaning candidate, for a 2018 sentence in which she gave four years in prison to a man convicted of making sexual contact with two children in a public swimming pool, deeming her “dangerous” for Wisconsin.

In a statement to Salon, Judge Crawford said Schimel has "proven he is for sale, literally confessing to groveling on his knees for support from deep-pocketed, far-right donors."

"Schimel took money from big drug companies and then refused to sue opioid manufacturers to hold them accountable for harming our communities, and gave a lenient plea deal to a man with a huge cache of child pornography after his lawyer gave thousands to his campaign," she said. "Elon Musk and other right-wing billionaires are pouring money into this race because they can bank on Brad Schimel to protect their corporate dominance, restrict reproductive freedoms, and take our state backward at the expense of ordinary Wisconsinites."

In an appearance at Marquette University Law School earlier this week, Schimel addressed Musk’s contributions and said he “can’t do anything to stop the money that comes into these races.” He added that he construed donations as a sign that donors “like the things that you stand for not because they're buying some end result.”

Musk isn’t the only deep-pocketed donor to intervene in the race, however. On Crawford’s side, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and philanthropist George Soros donated $500,000 and $1 million, respectively, via the state Democratic party. Schimel also received nearly $1.7 million from Midwest business magnates Diane Hendricks, Liz Uihlein and Joe Ricketts via the state Republican party.

Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, told Salon the last state Supreme Court race in 2023 “was the highest spending judicial election in the history of the United States.” April's race could top that.

Two years ago, a liberal justice ended a 15-year conservative reign on the bench, in part fueled by millions in ad buys from Super PAC A Better Wisconsin Together, a progressive advocacy organization, and other groups. Spending on both sides surpassed $50 million.

“There's no reason why we're not going to see the spending continue in huge amounts in future elections,” Heck told Salon. 

Heck said that in the decade since Wisconsin made sweeping changes to allow more outside cash to pour into its election campaigns — allowing unlimited party-to-campaign cash transfers, raising individual contribution limits, and upping PAC restrictions — the state has become “a wild west in terms of campaign spending.”

“There’s no limit on what political parties can give to the campaigns of the Supreme Court justices,” he said, adding that more than any other race, big money poses ethical issues for judges and their ability to be impartial. “There needs to be more assurance on the part of candidates and Supreme Court justices that they're going to be able to render decisions from the court unencumbered by the pressure of campaign millionaires.”

We need your help to stay independent

Heck didn’t rule out another cash drop from Musk, or even a direct donation to the state party. Representatives for Building America's Future did not yet respond to a request for comment.

“They've dropped $1.6 million, I don't know if there'll be more. I suspect there'll be more money dropped in,” he told Salon. “He's the richest man in the world. He's got the unlimited capacity to be able to spread his money around.”

And there’s a big incentive to get involved for the ultra-wealthy. With Crawford’s win, liberal leaners could cement a majority on the court until at least 2028, Heck told Salon.

Local Democrats are condemning the effort from the DOGE boss — currently hard at work dismantling the federal bureaucracy — to reshape the Badger State’s top court.

In a statement, Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Ben Wikler warned that Musk’s “attempt to buy Wisconsin’s Supreme Court is a red alert that his attack on democracy isn’t limited to gutting the federal government.” Wikler also argued that a right-wing court could restore gerrymandered legislative maps and influence future election rules and certification fights.

But others point out that Musk could have lucrative business before the high court soon enough. Musk’s Tesla sued Wisconsin earlier this year, per Wisconsin Public Radio, arguing it should be exempted from a state law banning auto manufacturers from owning car dealerships. A hearing in Outagamie County Circuit Court is set for next month, and attorneys for Tesla argue a ruling in their favor would dramatically expand sales in the state.

“Old curmudgeon”: Stephen A. Smith fires back at Carville after being told to “stick to sports”

ESPN broadcaster Stephen A. Smith has no time for James Carville’s dated trash talk about his political prospects.

"Sir, do you have to be so rude?” Smith said on his podcast Friday, after the Bill Clinton strategist went on a long-winded rant about the sportscaster on his own podcast. “Dropping F-bombs and going off like that. I know that’s your nature…But let’s just say two can do that. I mean, if you really wanted to get raw, ain’t nobody hiding from that.

"I could be that way, but my mom told me to respect my elders," Smith continued. "And you are 80 years of age if I remember correctly."

The brash octagenarian Democratic Party lifer – who lately can be found trashing Kamala Harris’s campaign ad nauseam – took to his “Politics War Room” podcast earlier this week to claim that, “when it comes to politics, he [Smith] doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground.”

“He’s on there running his damn mouth about how he may have to run as a Democrat because there's nothing left of the Democratic Party, there’s no talent,” Carville said. “Before you start running f**king your mouth off about politics, a topic of which you really don't know anything about, you ought to sit back and think about it. Call some people and run it by them.”

Back on his own podcast, Smith went on to question the true source of Carville’s fury, suggesting that his loss of a podium was more to blame.

“You sound like one of those old curmudgeons that want things to stay the or be the way that they used to be. You're resentful, harboring an abundance of animosity because you're not being heard,” Smith said. “That's not Stephen A. Smith’s fault.”

The sportscaster asked Carville to consider the “havoc [he’d] wreak” if he made a move into politics, though he clarified there was no run for the White House in his sights.

“Are y’all sure you want that smoke?” Smith said. “Because it’s like you’re daring me to, Mr. James Carville, like you’re daring me to. You sure? Are you sure? You might want to think about that.”

Smith’s potential run earned a write-up from the New Yorker last weekend, weeks after a poll showed the “First Take” commentator capturing a shocking slice of Democratic voters in a hypothetical 2028 race. He gained attention for his criticisms of the Democratic party and its lack of substantive promises, ironically issues that Carville also raised after Harris’s loss.

Watch the full segment below

Federal judge temporarily halts Trump’s anti-DEI crusade

A federal judge temporarily blocked a series of executive orders from President Donald Trump aimed at gutting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives within the federal government late Friday night.

U.S. District Court Judge Adam B. Abelson sided with the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education in a 68-page ruling, issuing a temporary injunction and agreeing that plaintiffs would likely succeed in their argument that the orders were both “unconstitutionally vague” and “chilling [toward] free speech.”

The ruling blocks the Trump administration from axing contracts related to equity initiatives and from requiring contractors to ditch internal DEI plans. 

The pair of executive orders from Trump’s first hours in office, aimed at rolling back federal DEI goals and purging them from the private sector, fulfilled a central promise made on the campaign trail and inside Project 2025.

But the orders created a complicated path forward for private companies holding federal contracts, which might have forced them to roll back internal initiatives or language the Trump administration deems objectionable with little guidance.

The Biden appointee noted the executive orders “do not define any of the operative terms, such as 'DEI,' 'equity-related,' 'promoting DEI,' 'illegal DEI,' 'illegal DEI and DEIA policies,' or 'illegal discrimination or preferences,' – let alone identify the types of programs or policies the administration considers 'illegal.'”

He further ruled that the vague orders “leaves … contractors and their employees … with no idea whether the administration will deem their contracts or grants, or work they are doing, or speech they are engaged in, to be ‘equity-related.’”

The directives join a heap of Trump executive orders to face legal intervention so far: last month, a judge shot down a memo to end birthright citizenship, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” Trump and Elon Musk’s DOGE initiatives have also suffered numerous blows in court, though a judge last week declined to fully restrain the government-slashing body.

Navigating chaos: The science of uncertainty and how to build resilience in a constant state of flux

In one research study, participants were given a choice: Either they could pay $38 to guarantee they would get a $50 gift certificate, or they could pay $28 to enter a lottery for a chance to win either a $50 or $100 certificate. If given the choice, which would you choose?

Most participants in the study, published in 2006 in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, selected the former option, indicating something interesting about the nature of humans: Many of us seem to prefer to pursue a relatively negative outcome rather than risk an uncertain one. In other words, many would rather know their future — even if it sucks — than live with the fear that accompanies uncertainty. 

This idea makes evolutionary sense. After all, our ancestors had to balance the need to search for food and mates with the risk of consuming a toxic plant or being attacked by a wild animal. Something risky inherently has a chance of harming us, and we value our safety and want to protect ourselves. 

“As hominids leaving Africa and going through the mountains of Eurasia, these were very dangerous terrains, and if they didn't know what they were going to encounter, they could die,” said Dr. Michael Halassa, an associate professor of brain and cognitive sciences at Tufts University. “It makes perfect sense to be averse to uncertainty.” 

These days, the potential threats behind the uncertainty we live with are a little different in nature than those faced by our hominin ancestors. Today, humans are tasked with juggling the uncertainty of how long our overheating world will continue to be safe for us to survive, the looming threat of another pandemic occurring before recovering from COVID-19, and disruptive political changes like the chaos ensuing from the new Trump administration that upend life as we know it. 

"It makes perfect sense to be averse to uncertainty."

These threats are real, and are already transforming the lives of millions of people who have lost a home in a wildfire, grieved a loved one in the pandemic, or lost their jobs in the new administration. Yet our perception of these threats produces the same biological response that arose in our ancestors if they came face to face with a threat like a wild animal.

As humans encounter a threat, the body produces the stress hormone cortisol and mounts an inflammatory response to deal with the risk of injury, said Dr. Aoife O’Donovan, who studies stress and health at the University of California San Francisco. 

“One of the most exciting things about humans is that we can mount this response not only when we confront a real threat but when we anticipate a threat,” O’Donovan told Salon in a phone interview. “So when we have an uncertain time, like with a potential risk of wildfire, for example, or a major change in policy — if we perceive that as potentially threatening to us, we will mount a biological stress response.”

When these stress exposures are repeated or prolonged, they produce toxicity in the body’s cells and tissues, O’Donovan explained. Studies have shown that this prolonged stress response can lead to autoimmune conditions, cardiovascular disorders, and psychological disorders like depression and anxiety.

“When it comes to a threat in the environment, usually we mount this response, deal with the threat, the threat ends, and we go back to baseline,” O’Donovan said. “But when it comes to uncertain times, depending on your perception of the situation, you can be mounting this response for days, weeks or months — and that is when it becomes really harmful because the resolution doesn’t come.”


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


Humans aren’t the only animals to view uncertainty this way and an aversion to uncertainty is a natural response. In the laboratory, mice tend to avoid open areas in their environments because that is where their situation becomes uncertain, said Dr. Mazen Kheirbek, a neuroscientist at the University of California San Francisco. However, eventually they will explore it if they value the cost of what they are searching for as worth the risk.

“If you excessively avoid things that are aversive, that comes at the cost of getting rewards, finding mates, getting food, and things like that,” Kheirbek told Salon in a phone interview. “Your brain is always trying to find this balance of what we in the lab call approach versus avoidance.”

An important piece in how these stressors affect our physical body seems to lie in how they are perceived. For example, in one 2012 study O’Donovan conducted involving new mothers who were chronically stressed, her team gave participants a stressful task like giving a speech in front of an audience and compared how stressful they perceived the task to be with the stress response that it produced, measured through telomeres, which are used to measure people’s biological age.

What they found was that women who perceived that the task would be more stressful had an older biological age than women who perceived that it would be less stressful. But the experience of the stressor itself was not associated with biological age, O’Donovan said. 

"Increasing our tolerance for uncertainty is one way for people to experience less anxiety."

“In other words, the actual stressor was not associated with their biological age, but their anticipation of how threatening it might be was,” O’Donovan said. “This is relevant to the whole uncertainty piece because it suggests that under uncertainty, people who anticipate more threats, perhaps have cumulative effects over time that are harmful to their biological systems.”

Many factors can influence whether a person sees uncertainty with a negative connotation. Prior traumatic experiences or people who have already experienced many adverse experiences might be more likely to, understandably, assume that there is a threat in an uncertain situation. How you perceive these threats can also be influenced by your mood at the time, Kheirbek said. 

“You may be more likely to generalize across the sensory features in your environment if you are anxious for example, or you are stressed," Kheirbek said. “Our internal state — as in our anxiety levels or how stressed we are or how depressed we are — influences how we incorporate information in our world.”

Cognitively, some people also have a reasoning style that more quickly jumps to conclusions, Halassa said. People who are more tolerant of uncertainty have been shown in research to take more risks and decide more often to trust in others. The reverse also holds true, Halassa said.

“One of the things I feel is important to influence mental health positively is for people to try to stay away from forming very strong conclusions about the world and to try and get the opposite experience of what they are used to,” Halassa said. “Increasing our tolerance for uncertainty is one way for people to experience less anxiety.”

Kheirbek’s lab has conducted experiments in rodents that identified the part of the brain that is activated when animals enter fearful and uncertain environments. It is called the ventral hippocampus, which is responsible for learning, emotions, fear and memory. As such, this part of the brain could be working in these moments to learn about an experience while also incorporating how the body and mind feel when doing so, Kheirbek said.

“Whenever the animal entered into these kinds of fearful and uncertain environments, these cells in this area of the brain would fire,” Kheirbek said. “So we thought maybe these cells are actually encoding this experience of the apprehension and fear of these uncertain environments.”

We need your help to stay independent

In another experiment, Kheirbek used neurostimulation techniques to turn down these cells in rodents and found that the mice were less anxious and more willing to explore these uncertain environments afterward.

“Perhaps these cells in this part of the brain may be important for this kind of decision-making process of: Do I approach or do I avoid?” Kheirbek said. “Excessive activity in those cells may actually make animals extra avoidant, and if you turn down that activity, they may actually explore more.”

Whether this region of the brain can be manipulated — and we can reduce our own fear of uncertainty — is still an unanswered question. Kheirbek’s lab is working on early experiments to test whether changing certain physiological measures, like breathing rate, could influence the activity in this brain region. 

However, a few things have been shown to increase this resilience. It has been shown, for example, that exercise can change the hippocampus through a process called neurogenesis, where animals actually grow more neurons. Meditation and mindfulness can also help reduce our stress response and have been associated with a greater tolerance for uncertainty.

The idea through practices like mindfulness and meditation is that building some space in the mind can help reduce the judgements we make about uncertain environments. In that space, something that was seen as a potential threat can transform into a sense of possibility.

Donnovan Somera Yisrael, a senior health educator and well being coach at Stanford Vaden Health Services, emphasized the importance of cultivating this hope — especially in uncertain times.

“I think a lot of people in an uncertain world will go toward despair,” Yisrael told Salon in a video call. “We have to practice filling our bucket of hope because if it gets too low we are going to head toward despair, and despair is when all of the bad things happen.”

Our bodies are wired to protect ourselves against threats, and that response to uncertainty and risk is necessary for survival. Yet too many or prolonged exposures to this uncertainty can have toxic effects in the body. With these uncertainties seemingly increasing in number and intensity, it’s important to regulate our response to them the best we can.

Ultimately, we are tasked with the same dilemma our ancestors were, balancing the satisfaction of our needs with the risks that come along with the process of meeting them. While it’s important to stay alert to the real threats present to keep ourselves safe, perhaps it would also do us good to practice getting more comfortable with this uncertainty. 

“Stressors are ubiquitous in our lives, and building our resilience to stressors is always going to be advantageous," O’Donovan said. "Getting through uncertain times could leave us stronger."

The end of The Weeknd and the power of owning your name

One of pop music's biggest stars is calling it quits — well, kind of . . . 

The Weeknd, whose real name is Abel Tesfaye, is wrapping up his three-album journey of self-discovery and annihilation with the release of his sixth studio album, "Hurry Up Tomorrow." Tesfaye's expansive 22-track venture has already become the biggest debut of the year, just weeks after its release, acting as a follow-up to the artist's other smash hit albums, "After Hours" and "Dawn FM."

As one of the few dominant male pop stars of recent years, Tesfaye has consistently topped the charts, earning the longest-running Billboard No. 1 song ever with 2019's "Blinding Lights." In 2023, he explored new ventures with HBO's "The Idol," a drama series created alongside Sam Levinson, and though it became a staggering critical and commercial failure, Tesfaye has remained a cultural force, reinventing himself through his albums and tours.

But in "Hurry Up Tomorrow," the Ethiopian-Canadian singer is seemingly breaking free of the shackles of "The Weeknd" moniker. Tesfaye enlists heavy hitters like Giorgio Moroder, Anitta, Playboi Carti, Lana Del Rey and Travis Scott to aid him to "kill" his pop star persona, a "character" that has lived with Tesfaye since his mysterious and anonymous 2011 debut with the mixtape “House of Balloons,” groaning about drugs, girls and fame.

Nearly 15 years since his ascension into the upper echelons of pop and R&B music, Tesfaye no longer clings to his stage name and its pill-popping, party monster persona. As the son of two Ethiopian immigrants who migrated to Canada, Tesfaye is ready to reclaim his given name and identity — struggles that many diaspora people like myself know all too well. 

In a recent cover story interview with Variety, the musician said that inhabiting The Weeknd at this point is a mental challenge. “It’s a headspace I’ve gotta get into that I just don’t have any more desire for,” he said.

“You have a persona, but then you have the competition of it all. It becomes this rat race: more accolades, more success, more shows, more albums, more awards and more No.1s. It never ends until you end it,” Tesfaye explained.

As the son of two Ethiopian immigrants who migrated to Canada, Tesfaye is ready to reclaim his given name and identity — struggles that many diaspora people like myself know all too well.

Making moves towards this change for awhile now, in 2023, he told W Magazine, "I’ll still make music, maybe as Abel, maybe as The Weeknd. But I still want to kill The Weeknd.”

This sense of regaining ownership over his identity is felt through the track "Red Terror," off of his new album. The song is a reference to Qey Shibir, a violent period in Ethiopia's history that launched a civil war in the 1970s, sparking a famine that led to the mass exodus of Ethiopian refugees.

Tesfaye's parents were a part of this influx of refugees from Ethiopia seeking asylum in Western countries like Canada and the U.S. My parents also were persecuted by the government at this time and left the country for Somalia in 1990. My dad lives to tell the tale of how the violent militia, called the Derg, attempted to recruit him and ultimately beat and arrested him for his opposition.

Tesfaye sings from his mother's perspective, "I ran from the terror, the ground was red from the led/My only intention, alone, I left to the West/Then moved to the city, eight months, we wеre pregnant."


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


In the song's outro, Tesfaye says, "Death is nothing at all/Call me by the old, familiar name."

It's here that Tesfaye seems to come to terms with the evolution that has happened within himself, appearing to crave what is familiar to him — his cultural background — while moving away from the fame, success and alienation that went along with his moniker, The Weeknd. 

As a child who grew up in the internet age, I only learned about Tesfaye because of my older brother, Nathan. Just two years older, my brother was the person I looked to to determine what was cool or not. So when I asked him when he discovered The Weeknd, he texted me, "Been waiting my whole life to flex that I’m an OG fan."

There is a sense of pride in witnessing the rise of an Ethiopian artist on a global stage, but even more so, it is validating to experience— in real time—his rejection of the whitewashing that happens when one of your people makes it mainstream.

A fan of Drake, like many other perpetually online teenage boys at the time, Nathan found The Weeknd in 2011 when the rapper dropped a freestyle and name-dropped him. It was on Wikipedia that he found out that The Weeknd was a “dark rnb Ethiopian-Canadian singer from Toronto." 

"Outside of the obvious Ethiopian diaspora connection, the music was already insane," Nathan said.

There is a sense of pride in witnessing the rise of an Ethiopian artist on a global stage, but even more so, it is validating to experience— in real time—his rejection of the whitewashing that happens when one of your people makes it mainstream. Anyone with a name unfamiliar to the Western world understands its power. It is alienating when a teacher butchers your name in a classroom, when someone pauses before saying it, or when they altogether give you another name to simplify their inability to pronounce it.

We need your help to stay independent

While Tesfaye has been an advocate for the Ethiopian plight, donating millions to aid Ethiopians affected by the perils of war or funding research to preserve and further Ethiopic Studies at Toronto University, inhabiting his given name is the next step in rectifying the pain and generational trauma so prevalent in "Hurry Up Tomorrow." He sings in "Enjoy The Show," the "traumas in my life, I've been hesitant to heal 'em."

For me, as a third-culture kid navigating multiple identities, I always felt torn—caught between the cultural world my parents raised me in and the white Pennsylvania suburb that rejected our customs and native tongue. In response, I tirelessly corrected people who mispronounced my name or purposely tried to assign me another one. Yet despite my defiance, I still hated my name. I hated the difficulty attached to its pronunciation. In my teenage angst, there was nothing about it that empowered me.

In adulthood, however, I came to realize that I have nothing to prove—to others or even to myself. I had always questioned why my parents didn’t give me an easier name, like Saron or Salem, both popular Ethiopian names. But mine was a name I couldn’t escape; it followed me everywhere until I finally accepted its power. It holds thousands of years of history and culture, something I no longer want to shun just because it makes me different.

Similarly, Tesfaye seems exhausted from hiding behind the grandeur of his alter ego, finally ready to step out of the shadows and reveal his true face, name, and self. When all is said and done, I hope this version of the pop star finds peace and meaning in where he came from—because I know I did.

“More weakening of America”: Trump’s surprise firing of Joint Chiefs chairman roils Democrats

President Donald Trump kicked off his latest evening bloodbath on Friday with the firing of the highest-ranking military officer in the country, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Charles Brown, Jr.

The unprecedented move came as one small part of a shakeup of the Pentagon's top brass. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the highest-ranking officer in the Navy, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, and the Air Force's second-in-command, Gen. James Slife, would be relieved of their positions.

Trump nominated Brown to the Joint Chiefs in 2020, picking him to serve as Chief of Staff of the Air Force. His nomination made him the first Black leader of a branch of the Armed Forces. President Joe Biden tapped Brown to chair the Joint Chiefs upon the departure of Gen. Mark Milley — who has no shortage of words about the danger Trump's second term poses.

Trump thanked Brown for his decades-long career in a post to Truth Social and announced his pick to take his place: retired Lt. Gen. Dan Caine.

“I want to thank General Charles ‘CQ’ Brown for his over 40 years of service to our country, including as our current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He is a fine gentleman and an outstanding leader, and I wish a great future for him and his family,” Trump wrote. "Despite being highly qualified and respected to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the previous administration, General Caine was passed over for promotion by Sleepy Joe Biden. But not anymore!"

If Caine is confirmed, he will have leapfrogged the traditional process for earning the role, as nominations for the top position in the military tend to pull from current leaders of military branches. 

A story Trump shared at last year's Conservative Political Action Conference might shed some light on the president's reasoning. After praising Caine for his service in Iraq, Trump recalled a meeting with the lieutenant general where he donned a "Make America Great Again" hat.

Democrats on Capitol Hill were incensed over Trump's pick calling the move "completely unjustified" and a "weakening of America." 

"CQ Brown comes from a long line of servicemembers. He earned his position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his firing is a disgrace," Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y. wrote on X. "For this administration, if you are Black, qualifications don’t matter…they only see people of color as DEI hires."

From Gullah Geechee to global cuisine: Alexander Smalls explores African culinary heritage

Alexander Smalls is Southern through and through. “I’m like Faulkner,” he says. “We put commas, not periods on everything—it’s never over.” This sentiment rings true not only in his storytelling but also in his cooking, where each dish carries history, memories, and a sense of continuity.

His deep connection to Southern and Gullah Geechee cuisine naturally led him to “The Contemporary African Kitchen,” a project that explores the shared culinary heritage of the African diaspora.

As he puts it, “There are recipes that come home to me because of my own Gullah Geechee experience”—specifically chicken pilau, chicken perloo and jambalaya. “They’re one of those rice-and-chicken dishes — a one-meal wonder.”

In terms of standout recipes from the book, Smalls is particularly drawn to the Kenyan chef’s contribution, which incorporates Indian spices like masala. He connects that influence to a dish from his own childhood, Chicken Bob— a comforting Gullah Geechee dish his mother often made. “That’s exciting to me,” he says. He also recalls a shrimp dish from a Mali chef that reminded him of a smothered shrimp dish his father prepared for special occasions.

When asked what inspires him to cook, Smalls responds, “I can answer it this way: The same reason I breathe.” Cooking is an essential part of his life, and when he’s at home, he cooks every day. One meal he almost always prepares is breakfast, “come hell or high water.” If he misses it in the morning, he’ll sometimes make it again before bed.

“First of all, it’s very special. It’s something I do for myself. Most of my cooking is for other people. But breakfast is something I do for me, and it’s ritualistic,” he explains. His breakfasts vary widely, from duck eggs to oatmeal to smoked salmon on cornbread toast. He loves incorporating greens and, as a Southerner, grits. He also draws inspiration from the African dish jollof rice, combining it with a Charleston red rice dish for a breakfast hybrid. “I just have a ball! It’s time I spend with myself, being creative,” he adds.


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


For Smalls, cooking isn’t just about food — it’s about identity, memory and tradition. This philosophy also anchors his newly released children’s book, which draws from his own upbringing.

“That book really represents how I build character, self-esteem, courage and confidence through cooking,” he says.

The book’s premise is based on his real-life childhood experience, where his mother lets him know that he’s now old enough to “do Sunday dinner and dessert.” It’s a significant responsibility for young Alexander, and he’s determined to make the perfect lemon meringue pie. Sometimes, his mother would let him make two: one for himself and one for the family.

Smalls calls the book a labor of love: “I feel like I’ve been writing it all my life. It was in me to do, and something I always wanted to do because I had such an inspiring childhood — loving, caring — and I wanted to share that.” He hopes the book will reach children “at that place and space when they’re starting to understand who they are and believe in something.”

“Not all children have parents who nurture that — or for whatever reason can nurture it — so there should be books that become teddy bears,” he says. “Like companions [so] that kids can see there are situations they can learn and associate and identify with.”

We need your help to stay independent

With two wonderful books recently released, I asked Smalls if he has something else on the horizon. “Every book burner on the stove is going at the same time—the oven, too!” he says, excited. He’d love to write a part two of “Grace the Table,” expanding on the original, which took readers from childhood to the day he opened his first restaurant. “Obviously, I’ve opened several restaurants since then and lived two or three more lives, so at some point, I need to get back to that.”

Smalls also feels that “The Contemporary African Cookbook” is just “touching the surface” and would love to explore it further. “The premise was exciting for me because I want it to be an educational tool. I want it to be a welcoming call. I want white women in Arizona, Kansas or Wyoming, even, to make African food. I want people to have African parties and bring dishes.”

He also reflects on the journey of other cuisines, like Italian and Chinese, which were once considered “exotic” before becoming Americanized. Smalls jokes that Italians and Italian-Americans wouldn’t even recognize Chef Boyardee.

“The point is, you have this entry into society, and with the right mix of fate, education and entrepreneurial opportunities, more Africans will be visible in this country,” he says. “And that’s where we start to see the hope and the promise.”

“We are listening now”: Democrats’ path forward leads back to the economy

As Democrats look ahead to rebuilding and focus on elections in 2026 and 2028, party leadership has an urgent responsibility to regain footing with critical constituencies like working class voters and, in some cases, relearn how to communicate with critical voting blocs. On this score, the economy stands out.  

President Donald Trump’s win was driven in part by his ability to connect with voters on economic issues. Democrats, meanwhile, faced skepticism about their capacity to deliver financial security, with only 45 percent of voters believing the Democratic Party was better equipped to manage the economy.  

Regaining economic credibility with voters will require addressing the deep insecurities felt by a large share of workers and families. Democrats should start by fighting to give them access to the tools they need to build wealth and achieve financial stability and security.  

Consider retirement savings, which are the number one source of wealth for American households. According to the Federal Reserve, over one-quarter of non-retired adults have zero saved for retirement. This is in large part because more than 50 million Americans – many of whom are lower and middle income -– lack access to employer-sponsored retirement plans.  

Lawmakers who want to tackle this challenge and create an opportunity for real bipartisan policy innovation should look no further than the Retirement Savings for Americans Act (RSAA). This legislation would provide tens of millions of workers who are being left behind today with access to a plan and incentives nearly identical to the retirement benefits enjoyed by members of Congress and their staff. 

We need your help to stay independent

The RSAA has already garnered bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as endorsements from a wide range of nonpartisan and bipartisan experts and organizations. The bill exemplifies the type of cross-party collaboration that voters increasingly demand. In an era of political polarization, Americans are hungry for pragmatic solutions that transcend partisan gridlock. Championing RSAA will provide Democrats with a tangible, bipartisan policy achievement to present to voters. 

Of course, Democrats have long been champions of social safety net programs like Social Security and shouldn’t give an inch in fighting to preserve the future of those vital programs. But Democrats must also work to take the pressure off the safety net by expanding access to the wealth-building tools and incentives that upper-income Americans have long taken for granted.  

This is particularly important as Democrats work to rebuild trust with voters who may have felt disillusioned in 2024.

By supporting policies like the RSAA, Democrats can reinforce their party’s commitment to creating economic opportunities – especially for low- and middle-income workers who are largely excluded from traditional retirement savings programs. Such an approach can reinvigorate Democrats’ appeal to moderates and independents, who simply want Washington to work on their behalf, not get mired in ideological spats.   


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


As someone who has long served as a Democratic Party surrogate and spokesperson on the Harris, Biden, and Clinton presidential campaigns the past three presidential cycles, I’ve seen firsthand the power of policies that resonate with working-class Americans.  

Whether it was championing better wages, expanding healthcare access, or protecting Social Security, our campaigns emphasized the Democratic Party’s enduring commitment to lifting up hardworking families. Closing the gap in the U.S. retirement savings system would build on that legacy, providing greater economic stability for millions of Americans who are working tirelessly to secure a better future for themselves and their children.  

The stakes could not be higher. While President Biden’s administration achieved historic legislative successes on major economic bills that helped achieve record job growth, many Americans were still dealing with the effects of high costs and inflation. Many Democrats, frankly, weren’t listening to their concerns. We are now, and we’ve got to show it.  

The path forward is clear, and Democrats have a lot of work to do. It’s time to seize the initiative, address voter concerns about financial security, and rebuild trust as the party that delivers on its promises for American workers. 

Imminent recession? DOGE’s mass layoffs spark fears of broader economic ripple effect

A month into President Donald Trump’s second term, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — which is not a government agency, but an outside advisory group — has been on a rampage in what is shaping up to be the biggest purge of the federal government in modern American history.

The teams at Doge, which is run by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, have targeted agencies including the Department of Agriculture, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, Internal Revenue Service, National Park Service, Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

At least 85,000 federal workers have been impacted so far, with tens of thousands being fired or accepting “deferred resignation.” At the Office of Personnel Management alone, an estimated about 75,000 federal employees took the offer as of last week, the AP reported. 

While most Americans support the idea of making the government run more efficiently, the way these layoffs are carried out is raising concerns about the immediate and long-term impact on the U.S. economy.

“It seems almost unavoidable at this point that we are headed for a deep, deep recession,” Jesse Rothstein, an economist and professor at UC Berkeley, in a viral post on Bluesky on Tuesday. “Just based on 200k+ federal firings and pullback of contracts, the March employment report (to be released April 4) seems certain to show bigger job losses than any month ever outside of a few in 2008-9 and 2020.”

"It seems almost unavoidable at this point that we are headed for a deep, deep recession."

Rothstein, who served as a top economic advisor in the Obama administration, was quick to note that it’s not the layoffs themselves, but the workers’ lost productivity that presents a concern.

“Even greater damage will be done by the loss of federal government productivity,” he said. “The workers who are losing their jobs were worth more than they were being paid! We are all poorer when roads, planes and food are unsafe, when parks are closed.”

“Their absence is going to make the government run less, not more, efficiently”

While the exact number of how many layoffs are still to come is uncertain, with estimates up to 75% of the total federal workforce, their immediate impact could become more regional, some economists suggest.

“The direct macroeconomic effects of these layoffs will be localized and small in the aggregate,” says Neale Mahoney, an economics professor at Stanford University, noting that roughly 1.5 million are laid off in a typical month.

Like Rothstein, Mahoney is concerned about the long-term productivity effect on the broader economy and safety of U.S. aviation, health care and other industries that the laid-off federal works helped to keep on track.

“I'm concerned about the downstream consequences on the functioning of the government,” he told Salon. “The people who have been laid off — FAA aviation safety assistants, USDA specialists battling bird flu, IRS workers helping people navigate tax season — quietly help the government work for everyday people. Their absence is going to make the government run less, not more, efficiently.”

While this could be devastating and have serious consequences, it doesn’t necessarily lead to a recession, according to Deloitte’s chief economist Ira Kalish. There are elements of Trump’s economic policies that continue to be fleshed out, including tariffs and inflation.

“It is hard to make a forecast as we simply don’t know what the administration will do regarding tariffs,” Kalish told Salon. “Nor do we have a good indication yet as to what the Congress will do regarding taxes and spending. Assuming no dramatic policy changes this year, I don’t see a recession coming in the near future.’

Still, many politicians like Jasmine Crockett, U.S. representative from Texas's 30th congressional district, continue to warn about the risks of a recession.

We need your help to stay independent

“We’re living with this incompetent administration that is literally driving us to a recession at warp speed,” she said earlier this week, warning of more layoffs in the private sector. “All I can say is, Hold on to your money and make sure that you have a way to make money, even if you lose your job.”

The layoffs have not been limited to the federal sector, with the tech and airline industry also announcing layoffs in early 2025.

Earlier this week, Dallas-based Southwest Airlines announced the largest layoffs in the company’s history, which would impact 15% of its corporate workforce or about 1,750 jobs.

JPMorgan Chase initiated several rounds of layoffs, while Amazon, Blue Origin, Meta and Chevron are among the companies planning to lay off thousands of workers.

“If the private sector also loses jobs, which I expect it will, then that pushes you into deep, deep job losses that are the kind of thing you only see in very serious recessions,” Rothstein noted in an interview with Paul Waldman for his Substack newsletter The Cross Section. Rothstein didn’t reply to Salon’s request for comment before publication. “I would expect that there's already quite a bit of private sector pullback happening in the next couple of weeks.”

A recipe for baby stars: Just add fluffy molecular clouds

To understand how the universe was formed and how we got here, ancient stars are some of the best objects to study — yet astronomers know surprisingly little about the conditions in which they were formed. Dominant cosmological theories posit that stars are formed in molecular clouds that are sufficiently large and dense that it has the conditions necessary to create new stars. These same experts have been uncertain, however, about some of the specifics of those conditions. What is it really like in those interstellar nurseries known as molecular clouds?

According to a recent study in The Astrophysical Journal, some of the molecular clouds out of which stars are formed can be captured by an adjective one does not often associate with stars: fluffy.

Scientists at Japan’s Kyushu University learned this, in collaboration with researchers from Osaka Metropolitan University, by studying the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC), a dwarf galaxy near the Milky Way located roughly 20,000 lightyears from Earth. Because the SMC contains approximately twenty percent of the heavy elements of the Milky Way, it is believed to closely resemble the cosmic environment of the early universe from 10 billion years ago. That is why astronomers used the ALMA (Atacama Large Millimeter Array) radio telescope in Chile, which is powerful enough to capture higher-resolution images of the SMC.

“Our study was motivated by a fundamental question: how did star formation occur in the early universe?” Dr. Kazuki Tokuda, an Earth and planetary sciences professor at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, told Salon.

Molecular clouds in the Small Magellanic CloudMolecular clouds in the Small Magellanic Cloud (ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO), Tokuda et al., ESA/Herschel)“We sought to understand the formation and evolution of stellar nurseries — molecular clouds where stars are born — under conditions similar to those billions of years ago,” Tokuda added. “Typically, studying ancient star-forming regions requires observing galaxies that are tens of billions of light years away.”

Next the scientists assembled a dataset covering 17 distinct molecular clouds associated with massive young stellar objects. While coordinating this data from multiple programs can be challenging, Tokuda explained that it also presented “a unique opportunity.”

"Recent observations of our own Milky Way have increasingly highlighted the importance of filamentary molecular clouds as the primary sites of star formation."

“We focused on aspects of these datasets that had not yet been fully explored, and this approach not only tested our ability to integrate diverse observations but also revealed intriguing details about the evolution of star-forming regions in the SMC,” Tokuda said. 

This is where the “fluffiness” factor comes into play. Tokuda and the other scientists wanted to understand if filaments, or threadlike fibers, form during star formation, as this reveals key details about their density and overall composition. In the paper the researchers concluded that “even if filaments form during star formation, their steep structures may become less prominent and transit to a lower-temperature state.” Even though prior observation of the Milky Way showed these filaments were present in molecular clouds which became sites for star formation, Alma’s SMC studies demonstrate that stars can also form in fluffier conditions.

“Recent observations of our own Milky Way have increasingly highlighted the importance of filamentary molecular clouds as the primary sites of star formation,” Tokuda said. “However, more diffuse, fluffy molecular clouds have not received as much attention over the past decade.” 

Although these structures are lighter than the molecular clouds with filamentary structures, they are still quite similar in other crucial aspects.


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


“The environment, such as an adequate supply of heavy elements, is crucial for maintaining a filamentary structure and may play an important role in the formation of planetary systems,” Tokuda said in the study’s accompanying press statement. “In the future, it will be important to compare our results with observations of molecular clouds in heavy-element-rich environments, including the Milky Way galaxy. Such studies should provide new insights into the formation and temporal evolution of molecular clouds and the universe.”

The researchers determined that stars can be formed in a diverse range of structures, but that there are “systematic differences in the physical properties of filamentary and non-filamentary clouds. The former tend to have smaller velocity dispersions relative to their column densities and exhibit higher temperatures.” Additionally filamentary clouds tend to have faster velocities and at an increasing width relative to their columns' density, “consistent with the relationship observed in the [Large Magellanic Cloud],” a dwarf galaxy near the Milky Way.

Example of a filamentary (left) and fluffy (right) molecular cloud in the Small Magellanic Cloud captured by the ALMA telescopeExample of a filamentary (left) and fluffy (right) molecular cloud in the Small Magellanic Cloud captured by the ALMA telescope (ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO), Tokuda et al.)

Finally, they added that “the high temperatures observed in the filaments suggest that they likely preserve the heated conditions related to their cloud formation. In addition, [young stellar objects] with proto-stellar outflows have been found in some filamentary clouds.”

When their research into the SMC is synthesized with the growing body of knowledge about other galaxies, Tokuda told Salon that he hopes one day astronomers will be able “to deepen our understanding of how molecular clouds form and evolve under different conditions.”

We need your help to stay independent

Dr. Avi Loeb, a Harvard University astronomer, told Salon that the paper illuminates a previously mysterious story involving the history of the universe.

“The data indicates that the youngest stars form in filaments of gas,” Loeb said. “Subsequently the gas cools and fragments into later generations of stars in less filamentary structures. This behavior is not shared in star forming environments that are more enriched in heavy elements.”

He added, “The new behavior sheds new light on what star formation in the early universe, before the primordial gas was enriched with heavy elements.”

“Lying sack of s**t”: White House slams author of Trump campaign book

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung preemptively attacked Michael Wolff's inside look at the Donald Trump campaign, calling the author a "fraud" with a "peanut-sized brain."

The blistering statement was sent from Cheung to The Daily Beast, with Trump's senior adviser on the media attacking several stories that the outlet pulled from an advance copy of Wolff's upcoming book, "All or Nothing: How Trump Recaptured America."

"Michael Wolff is a lying sack of s**t and has been proven to be a fraud," Cheung wrote. "He routinely fabricates stories originating from his sick and warped imagination, only possible because he has a severe and debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that has rotted his peanut-sized brain."

The statement came after the publication shared a story from the Wolff book, in which Trump trashed Elon Musk after a bizarre appearance at a Butler, Penn. rally. 

According to Wolff's reporting, Trump was taken aback by the infamous Musk cameo, in which he bounced across the stage making an X with his arms and legs. Musk's untucked shirt frequently rode up to expose his stomach, leading the mogul-turned-president to question the SpaceX CEO's headspace and tailoring.

“What the f**k is wrong with this guy?" Trump reportedly said to Wolff. "And why doesn’t his shirt fit?”

Wolff's previous book, a behind-the-scenes exposé of the first Trump term, made him no friends among the MAGA faithful. Trump campaign manager Chris LaCivita issued a joint statement with Trump policy adviser Jason Miller, calling Wolff's new book "total garbage."

"The scenes are imaginary, the conversations are fake, the dialogue is made-up, and once again, just like his other books falsely attacking President Trump, nobody believes any of it," they wrote. "It’s been widely reported that Wolff’s previous works have been riddled with inaccuracies and copyediting mistakes, and this is no different."

“Strikes at the core of the First Amendment”: AP sues Trump admin over Gulf of Mexico spat

The Associated Press sued members of the Trump administration over their continued lack of access to President Donald Trump.

The wire service lost access to certain Trump events after the administration took offense at the outlet's guidance on reporting on the Gulf of Mexico. The AP maintains a stylebook that is used by many publications. The news service announced it would continue to refer to the body of water by its original name while admitting that the Trump administration preferred "Gulf of America."

"The Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years. The Associated Press will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen," they wrote. "As a global news agency that disseminates news around the world, the AP must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences." 

In the lawsuit, the AP accused the Trump administration of violating the Constitution. 

“The press and all people in the United States have the right to choose their own words and not be retaliated against by the government,” the AP said in the lawsuit. “This targeted attack on the AP’s editorial independence and ability to gather and report the news strikes at the very core of the First Amendment.”

Trump has outright admitted that he's attempting to strong-arm the news outlet into using the administration's preferred designation.

“We’re going to keep them out until such time as they agree that it’s the Gulf of America,” he said earlier this week.

Trump went even further in an interview with Fox News's Brian Kilmeade on Friday, calling the AP “radical left lunatics" and "a third-rate outfit with a first-rate name.”

“Trans people are beautiful”: Hunter Schafer raises the flag on Trump’s anti-trans executive order

"Euphoria" and "Cuckoo" star Hunter Schafer is sounding the alarm on President Donald Trump's anti-trans executive order inked in January, in which he proclaimed that the United States will only recognize two genders: biologically male and biologically female. 

In an eight-minute video posted to Schafer's social media, the actress reveals that Trump's order has already impacted her after a passport renewal led to her gender marker being changed from female to male. 

“Now, to specify, my gender markers were first changed in my teens, when I first got my driver’s license and then passports following all have been female since then . . . Hasn’t really been a problem,” she says in the video.

“I don’t know exactly what changed as far as the processing goes, but this is the first time this has happened to me since I changed my gender marker,” Schafer continues. “We’re coming up on a decade now, or something. And I do believe it is a direct result of the administration our country is currently operating under. And I guess I’m just sort of scared of the way this stuff slowly gets implemented.”

Elsewhere in the video, Schafer acknowledges that she doubted Trump's order would actually be enacted, referring to Trump as being "a lot of talk."

Schafer explains that she likely would not have been impacted by this new order so soon, had she not had to apply for an emergency passport after the original copy was stolen. 

"I put female, and when it was picked up today and I opened it up, they had changed the marker to male,” she says, describing her surprise at receiving her new passport.

The actress goes on to specify that her intent with the video was not to fearmonger or “create drama or receive consolation," emphasizing if this can happen to a privileged, trans celebrity then this could happen to trans people far more disenfranchised than her.


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


"I also want to say, I don’t give a f**k that they put a M on my passport. It doesn’t change really anything about me or my transness, however, it does make life a little harder," Schafer says. “Trans people are beautiful. We are never going to stop existing, I am never going to stop being trans, a letter on a passport can’t change that. And f**k this administration."

Earlier this month, the ACLU reported that seven people were suing the Trump administration for an allegedly "discriminatory and dangerous" passport policy that barred transgender, intersex and nonbinary people from being issued a passport with the gender they identified with instead of the sex they were assigned at birth.

This comes from a mandate in the executive order that now demands federal agencies require that government-issued identification documents — including passports, visas and Global Entry cards — reflect people's sex “at conception.”

We need your help to stay independent

Despite Schafer using her platform to address the passport issue, she objects to being labeled an activist by the press, even though she has had firm roots in activism. She first made headlines in 2016 when she was the youngest name listed on an ACLU lawsuit against a North Carolina bill prohibiting trans people from using the bathroom most appropriate for their gender identity. Schafer said she does not see herself as a trans activist because she just happens to be "a person who’s part of a marginalized community in the public eye." 

Other LGBTQ+ celebrities have also raised similar concerns following Trump's targeting of transgender people. "RuPaul's Drag Race" judge Michelle Visage said in response to GLAAD reposting Trump's inauguration speech, "You will not erase my child you POS."

Cynthia Lee Fontaine replied, "Trash. But we will continue to ensure we will continue with our rights. We will NOT be silent." 

While accepting her award for Best Pop Duo at the Grammys, Lady Gaga said, "I just want to say tonight that trans people are not invisible. Trans people deserve love.” 

You won’t believe what the air fryer can do for your steak

The idea of steak in an air fryer may seem counterintuitive.

Steak, with its perfectly browned crust and warm, pink interior, seems like it would suffer in a machine as seemingly simplistic as an air fryer. But what if I told you that assumption was wrong?

Yes — the same air fryer that turns leftovers into delights and makes the crispiest wings you've ever had at home — can also cook up a truly fantastic steak.

Why an air fryer works for steak

For beginner home cooks, an air fryer may be the way to go, especially when cooking indoors. Achieving a perfectly browned, crisp exterior on a steak typically requires a cast-iron pan to be almost searingly hot. But for those not yet comfortable with high-heat cooking, this can lead to issues — like smoke filling your kitchen or, worse, a fire from oil or fat splattering in the pan.

So, if steak is your go-to protein and you’ve got a great cut, using the air fryer might just be the smartest, safest option.

Choosing the right steak

It’s also crucial to choose the right steak for the air fryer. Filet mignon or sirloin? Those should work just fine. New York strip? Absolutely. But a porterhouse? That’s better suited for a cast-iron pan, grill, or oven—not the air fryer.

And don't forget to consider the size of your air fryer. If it’s on the smaller side, trying to fit a thick, expensive steak might not be the best idea.

Best practices

When it comes to preparing an air fryer steak, it's not challenging – the device does most of the "work" for you. However, there's some important things to keep in mind in terms of preparation. 

When it comes to flavoring and seasoning a steak, I like keeping it minimalist: heavily seasoned with salt and then simply basted with rosemary, garlic and butter. If you're a marinade person, though, then feel free to try that out. Just be careful to dry off the steak pretty well prior to placing it in the air fryer. 

When it comes to temperature, don't shoot for the highest temperature setting: I'd go with 12 to 15 minutes at around 350, flipping once halfway through. Of course, you might opt for a different cooktime based on the steak's thickness, your preferred doneness or the likes. Prior to putting the steak in the air fryer (or cooking a steak in any way), always remember to bring it to room temperature to ensure it cooks evenly. 

When it comes to what to avoid, I'd steer clear of any sort of garlic or Parmesan crust: that will definitely burn in an air fryer. Be sure, though, to add a spritz of cooking oil. If you'd like to amp up the richness, a knob or two of butter added directly to the surface of the steak about halfway through the cooking process will help add moisture, color and flavor.

If you're looking to really achieve perfection here, I'd advise doing a reverse-sear technique: Cook the steak in the air fryer as discussed for 10 to 12 minutes and then finish the exterior in a super-hot pan with a touch of neutral oil for a few minutes per side. 

An important note: be careful not to overdo the exterior, looking for a super-crisp, perfectly browned crust, which might throw off the internal temperature. Steak eaters tend to prioritize internal temperatures ("how do you want it cooked?"), so you should be cognizant of both your steak exterior and its crust, as well as how the interior might cook. Don't overshoot the mark on the crust and accidentally let the interior temp. get away from you. Be mindful of that balance. 

And finally, rest your steak!! A good 10 or so minutes is best to allow the juices to redistribute. This will further help guarantee a perfectly juicy, flavorful steak that’ll make you feel especially proud of your cooking skills.

“I don’t think he’s important”: Trump shares frank reason for Zelenskyy’s absence from peace talks

President Donald Trump is done listening to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

In an interview on Friday with Fox News's Brian Kilmeade, Trump explained why he felt that Ukrainian leadership didn't need a seat at the table in peace talks with Russia.

"[Zelenskyy's] been at a meeting for three years, and nothing got done. So, I don’t think he’s very important to be at meetings, to be honest with you,” Trump said. “He makes it very hard to make deals. Look what’s happened to his country, it’s been demolished.”

Earlier this week, Trump officials met with a Russian delegation to discuss peace – notably without Ukrainian representation. Trump didn't mince words while speaking with Kilmeade, saying he's sick of talking with Zelenskyy.

“I’ve been watching for years, and I’ve been watching him negotiate with no cards. He has no cards. And you get sick of it. You just get sick of it. And I’ve had it,” Trump said.

Trump added that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Zelenskyy “couldn’t even come close to getting a deal done” on Trump’s demand that Ukraine give up future stocks of rare earth metals in exchange for continued American support.

Zelenskyy on Wednesday told reporters that the president “lives in a disinformation space” following Trump’s claim that Zelenskyy had a 4 percent approval rating and was serving as a “dictator.”

“We must never forget that Russia is ruled by pathological liars – they cannot be trusted and must be pressured,” Zelenskyy wrote on X.

Speaking to Kilmeade, Trump said Russian President Vladimir Putin “wants to make a deal” before making a startling admission about just how far in the bag he is for Russia in the ongoing negotiations.

“If he [Putin] wanted, he’d get the whole country,” Trump said. 

“Why couldn’t it have been me?”: Alec Baldwin shares mental health update post-“Rust” shooting

Alec Baldwin is reflecting on his mental health in the aftermath of the "Rust" shooting that led to the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins in 2021.

The actor, a central figure in the new TLC reality show, "The Baldwins," speaks candidly in the first episode of the show, set to premiere Sunday, Feb. 23, about the ways in which his life has changed since the on-set fatality.

“This has been just surreal,” Baldwin says to his wife, Hilaria Baldwin, in the episode. “I mean, I can't even believe that we're going through this. And I always feel more pain for you than for me, because I think to myself, well, you know, I'm going to try my best to just get through it. And I think about what it's done to you, how much it's hurt you, and everything.”

“This past year was just terrible. There were times I'd lay in bed. I'd go, ‘Wow, my kids. I can't get up.’ That's not like me. I'm not like that at all, not in any way am I like that. Never,” he explains in a confessional, detailing the hit his mental health has taken.

Hilaria, explaining that Alec's overall mood shifted when he was charged with involuntary manslaughter, adds her own insight to his "darkest moments," saying, “Everyone who is close to Alec has seen his mental health decline." Adding that her husband was diagnosed with PTSD and has been heard saying, "If an accident had to have happened this day, why am I still here? Why couldn't it have been me?"

“You wake up in the morning and you're like, ‘Oh god, why did I wake up?’” she says to Alec, who remembers an instance where he didn't know how to answer a friend who asked how he was doing.

“I said, ‘I'm happier when I'm asleep than when I'm awake,’” he said.

The shooting incident occurred four years ago on Oct. 27, 2021, in New Mexico when a prop gun Baldwin held went off on the set of "Rust" and killed Hutchins. Baldwin has maintained he did not fire the prop gun and did not know it was loaded with a live bullet. The film premiered in Poland in November 2024 with a dedication to Hutchins.

KFC is bidding farewell to Kentucky and moving its headquarters to this state

KFC, formerly known as Kentucky Fried Chicken, is officially leaving the state it’s named after.

The fast food chain’s parent company, Yum! Brands, announced on Tuesday that KFC will be moving its corporate headquarters to Texas. Specifically, the Dallas suburb of Plano, where KFC will join sister brand Pizza Hut’s offices.

“The relocation plans are part of Yum! Brands’ larger execution to centralize their U.S. headquarters for their restaurant portfolio, which includes Taco Bell and Habit Burger & Grill alongside the aforementioned, to two locations: Irvine, California and Plano,” People reported Wednesday.

Yum! Brands CEO David Gibbs said in a news release, “These changes position us for sustainable growth and will help us better serve our customers, employees, franchisees, and shareholders.”

Yum! Brands added that the “relocation of approximately 100 KFC U.S. corporate roles will occur over the next six months.” The relocation of 90 remote-based workers will take place over the next 18 months. Employees will receive relocation and transition support throughout the process, Yum! Brands specified.    

Kentucky governor Andy Beshear said "I am disappointed by this decision and believe the company’s founder would be, too . . . This company’s name starts with Kentucky, and it has marketed our state’s heritage and culture in the sale of its product.”

Not all KFC offices will be moving to Texas, though — some will be staying in Kentucky. The chain’s corporate offices will remain in Louisville along with a “first-of-its-kind flagship restaurant.”  

“I’ve asked to meet with the Yum! CEO soon and am heartened Yum! will retain its corporate headquarters and 560 employees here,” Gibbs said. “I will work tirelessly with Yum’s leadership to continue growing its presence in Louisville."

“That’s Russia’s fault, Mr. President”: Fox News host pushes back on Trump’s Ukraine betrayal

President Donald Trump has been able to count the Rupert Murdoch-controlled media empire as an ally for the past decade – but the New York Post and Fox News Radio drew a red line on Friday, pushing back on the president’s defense of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump has sparked backlash this week with a series of Russia-U.S. peace talks that went on without Ukrainian representation and his assertion that Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskyy was a “dictator without elections.”

On Tuesday, Trump went so far as to blame Ukraine for starting its war with Russia, triggered by a 2022 Kremlin-launched invasion of eastern Ukraine.

The New York Post took issue with the framing, condemning Putin with a front-page editorial pleading with Trump to “remember the brutality of Russia’s actions.”

“Trump has a chance to bring an end to this war, to stop the killing. Maybe even win a Nobel Peace Prize,” the right-wing tabloid's Douglas Murray wrote. “But he will not be honored if the peace is an appeasement, one that bows down in the face of evil as it denies obvious truths.”

And the Post wasn’t the only NewsCorp property to push back on Trump’s tenuous narrative of the conflict.

In an interview with Fox News Radio’s Brian Kilmeade on Friday, Trump expressed skepticism about the narrative that Ukraine was a victim of the conflict.

“Russia was attacked – Russia attacked. But there was no reason for them to attack,” Trump conceded, but added that Ukraine had provoked Russia. “Every time I say, 'Oh, it's not Russia's fault,' I always get slammed by the fake news.”

When Kilmeade interjected, claiming massive destruction in Ukraine was “Russia's fault… Putin’s fault,” Trump deflected.

“I get tired of listening to it,” Trump said, adding that Zelenskyy had no right to complain about being left out of peace talks. “I don’t think he’s [Zelenskyy] very important to be at meetings, to be honest.”

“Not going to shoot from the hip”: Federal judge refuses to drop NYC Mayor Adams’ corruption case

A federal judge declined the Department of Justice's request to toss out a corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams

U.S. District Court Judge Dale Ho was in no rush to dismiss the charges, pushing back against Trump administration officials who argued that Adams needed to be freed from the burden of the case to better assist them in their immigration agenda.

Ho, a Biden appointee, wrote on Friday that the motion to dismiss had not been adequately tested, as no one appeared to argue against it. He appointed former Bush admin figure Paul Clement to counter the DOJ in an upcoming hearing.

"Normally, courts are aided in their decision-making through our system of adversarial testing, which can be particularly helpful in cases presenting unusual fact patterns or in cases of great public importance," Judge Ho wrote. "That is particularly so in light of the public importance of this case, which calls for careful deliberation."

The calls to dismiss the case have caused quite a stir within the Department of Justice. Eight federal prosecutors have resigned over the orders from Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove to kill the Adams case. 

While Ho provided no indication of his leaning one way or the other, he told Adams's attorneys that he wanted to avoid any rash decisions on an important case.

“But to exercise my discretion properly, I’m not going to shoot from the hip right here on the bench,” Ho said on Wednesday. “I want to take the time that is necessary to carefully consider everything that you have put before me and said today, and I am considering all of that. I want to make sure that I consider everything appropriate and that I don’t consider anything inappropriate, and make a reasoned decision that is mindful of my role."

Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library urges Indiana governor to reinstate funding

Dolly Parton's Imagination Library is asking Indiana Governor Mike Braun to reconsider the state's decision to cut funding from the organization, which gives young children access to free books in an effort to promote literacy.

According to local reports by South Bend Tribune, lawmakers in the Indiana House recently proposed a change in a two-year budget plan that would no longer include the usual 50 percent matching funds the state provides to run the program. The organization, the United Way and local community foundations make up the rest of the funds needed for Imagination Library.

In a statement to Rolling Stone, the president of the Dollywood Foundation, Jeff Conyers, said, “I am hopeful that Governor Braun and the Indiana Legislature will continue this vital investment by restoring the state’s funding match for local Imagination Library programs. The beauty of the Imagination Library is that it unites us all—regardless of politics—because every child deserves the chance to dream big and succeed.”

The country musician created Parton’s Imagination Library to serve young readers across the country and around the globe, providing children with one book a month from birth to age five. Nearly 30 years after it began, the program has sent books to more than 240 million kids in the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia. In Indiana, the program is thriving, serving every county in the state. The Imagination Library has been credited with improving the state’s national child literacy rate from 19th to 6th.

The state’s outgoing Republican Governor, Eric Holcomb, said in a piece for the IndyStar, “One of these days, Dolly Parton will pay us a visit to celebrate the statewide embrace of the Dolly Parton Imagination Library, another tool to help our kids read.”

Why you should consider freezing your credit right now

With the increasing frequency of cybersecurity incidents and data breaches across government agencies, protecting your financial information has never been more critical.

But for many experts and consumer data protection advocates, the scope and number of these data breaches in recent months is a new development that everyone should take seriously.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied a request from 14 Democrat-led states to block Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a temporary contracted organization the Trump administration has recruited, from accessing data systems and making personnel changes at seven federal agencies.

Increasingly, DOGE’s activities in recent weeks, as well as the safety of their own website, have raised concerns about the safety of consumer data.

"The concern right now is certainly unique, with DOGE accessing personal financial data across the government — that is certainly unprecedented in the access and scope,” says Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing counsel at Student Borrower Protection Center. "It's not entirely clear what their relationship is to the government and what their obligations are."

Yu notes that lack of firewalls for sensitive personal information within the federal government and how they plan to use this data are all causes for concern.

Bruce McClary, senior vice president of communications at the National Foundation for Credit Counseling, which is one of the oldest non-profits offering credit counseling services in the U.S., also says data breaches are increasingly common.

"So much of our data has been breached and stolen that everyone should assume they're vulnerable to identity theft."

"The more dependent we are on technology, the more we use these interconnected payment systems and data storage of account information with big retailers and banks, the more likely it is that there is going to be some vulnerability, and there may be a data breach where some of your information may be exposed,” he notes.

Credit freeze as the first step

Many financial experts like McClary are encouraging consumers to consider freezing their credit as a proactive measure against identity theft, especially if you’re planning any big purchases or moves in the immediate future.

For most consumers, a credit freeze can be a powerful tool that restricts access to your credit report, making it significantly more difficult for fraudsters to open new accounts in your name.

This added layer of security is particularly valuable in an era where personal information is frequently compromised in large-scale data breaches.

Liz Weston, author of “10 Commandments of Money,” also says credit freeze can be a good idea.

"So much of our data has been breached and stolen that everyone should assume they're vulnerable to identity theft,” Weston notes. “Freezes are relatively easy to set up and to temporarily suspend if you want to apply for credit.”

One of the most compelling reasons to freeze your credit is that it's now free to do so. In 2018, a new law mandated that the three major credit bureaus — Experian, Equifax and TransUnion — allow consumers to freeze and unfreeze their credit at no cost. This development has made credit freezes an accessible option for everyone concerned about their financial security.

To freeze your credit, you'll need to contact each of the three major credit bureaus individually. Once your credit is frozen, you can temporarily lift the freeze when you need to apply for credit, and then reinstate it afterward.

We need your help to stay independent

It's important to note that a credit freeze doesn't affect your ability to use existing credit cards or loans — it only prevents new accounts from being opened in your name. Also freezing your credit has no impact on one’s credit score.

While a credit freeze is a robust protective measure, it should be part of a broader strategy to safeguard your financial information. Regularly monitoring your credit reports for suspicious activity and maintaining strong, unique passwords for your financial accounts are also crucial steps in protecting yourself from identity theft.

And credit freezing alone is not a panacea to all your financial and digital security worries, according to Bruce McClary of the National Foundation for Credit Counseling.

"It's more important than ever to monitor your credit activity as closely as possible, and to keep an eye on all of your account activity,” he says.

Bannon’s “Nazi” salute spurs far-right French politician to back out out of CPAC

A prominent French far-right figure is backing out of a highly-anticipated speech to CPAC over after former Trump aide Steve Bannon ended his own remarks with what critics described as a Nazi salute.

Jordan Bardella, the 29-year-old far-right Frenchman making waves online, was slated to grace the American right-wing convention with a Friday speech on U.S.-France relations and the “recent electoral dynamic of patriot parties in Europe.” 

But Bannon's gesture — which he denies was inspired by German fascism — crossed a line, Bardella said.

“Yesterday, while I was not present in the room, one of the speakers out of provocation allowed himself a gesture alluding to Nazi ideology. I therefore took the immediate decision to cancel my speech that had been scheduled this afternoon,” Bardella said in a statement, per France 24.

Bannon is the latest MAGA figure to throw the salute, joining billionaire Elon Musk and ex-Anglican priest Calvin Robinson, which some have defended as mere trolling.

But that defense is not flying in France, where Bardella is president of the far-right National Rally party, founded by Holocaust denier Jean-Marie Le Pen. Le Pen’s daughter, Marine Le Pen, spent a decade at the party’s helm trying to rehabilitate the party’s image by denouncing Nazism and the Holocaust.

Bardella’s party won a plurality of votes cast in France’s 2024 legislative election but was locked out of government when other parties formed a coalition to keep them from obtaining power.

Bannon, in response to the cancellation, called Bardella “unworthy of leading France," telling a reporter for France’s Le Point newspaper that he was a “boy, not a man.”

“I did that exact same wave at Front National [the former title of National Rally] seven years ago when I gave a speech to them,” Bannon said, denying the gesture was a “Nazi salute.”

“The Monkey” wants to remind you that death is coming for us all, as if we didn’t already know that

Do you think about death a lot? Are you scared of it? Does it affect your life and your choices? Do you grieve easily? Have you come into close contact with death? Do you think about how you’d like to die? Has your life ever flashed before your eyes? Are there things you want to do before you die? Do you owe anyone an apology? Whose death will make you the saddest? What would you like people to remember you for after you go?

For a movie that starts dying a slow, painful death from its first act, its attempts to lampoon our fear of death are ironically futile.

These are some of the questions Osgood Perkins lobs at viewers in his new film “The Monkey.” They’re also questions that I’ve been more inclined to contemplate after absentmindedly chewing on the package of silica gels that come in a bag of beef jerky than I was while watching “The Monkey.” For a film positively obsessed with death, Perkins’ latest feature, adapted from a short story by Stephen King, has very little to say about our demise other than crudely commenting on its inevitability. A bevy of convoluted, gory sequences comprise the film, stressing death’s unpredictable and unfair nature. Other times, characters spit the truth at viewers much more plainly. “Everyone dies and that sucks” is repeated so often throughout the movie that it starts to sound more like a serenity prayer than a frank mantra. (A more explicit version of this phrase is also the film’s tagline.)

Yes, death is inescapable — that much has been drilled into our consciousness especially hard in the first few weeks of 2025 alone. Disappointment, however, is not so certain. Yet, it’s disappointment that Perkins serves up most frequently in “The Monkey,” detouring from every wide-open chance to showcase depth and humanity in favor of juvenile humor and gross-out splatter gags. Given that Perkins is still fresh off the success of his excellent breakout film “Longlegs,” the frustration is only magnified. In his latest, the writer-director pivots from the eerie thematic abyss he explored in last summer’s surprise hit to swim back up to the surface and stay there, trying to have a laugh or two as he catches his breath. As long as the jokes are funny, there’s plenty of space for humor in horror. But the film’s scattershot writing leaves its punchlines hitting dead air before falling smack against the floor. For a movie that starts dying a slow, painful death from its first act, its attempts to lampoon our fear of death are ironically futile.

That’s also one of the movie’s most glaring faults: “The Monkey” is certain that humans don’t think enough about death as it is, that we’re oblivious to the fact that it surrounds everything we do. Perhaps it’s a case of bad timing, seeing as the film is hitting theaters when planes are falling out of the sky. (A shot in the movie depicting just this feels particularly unsettling given the circumstances). But Perkins hops so quickly from one outrageous death to another that his screenplay leaves little room for rumination amid his constant fatalist sermonizing. Forget getting to know a character, or building empathy to connect a viewer to the person they’re watching onscreen. The fact that we’re all going to die isn’t a good enough excuse to write characters who serve no other purpose than to parrot the same cynical agenda. This kind of thin writing keeps the viewer at an arm’s length; not just disconnected but bored, no matter how excessive or bloody the deaths onscreen become.

But for those who are merely interested in the gore in this glorified splatter film, the carnage starts early and rarely lets up. In 1999, Captain Petey Shelborn (Adam Scott, in one of the film’s handful of cameos that excite for more than they’re ultimately worth) tries to return a toy monkey to a novelty store. Petey explains that, once you turn the wind-up key in the monkey’s back and the primate begins to bang his little drum, someone nearby is “utterly f**ked.” Not believing him, the salesman behind the counter becomes the sole fatality in a freak harpoon gun accident that’s much more disgusting than I’m giving it credit for. Perkins finds stable footing when “The Monkey” leans into the extremes of its gore and situational humor to tee up that brutality. Unfortunately, he never goes as far with the circumstantial death gags as, say, the “Final Destination” or “Saw” franchises, leaving the death scenes excruciatingly uneven aside from a couple of memorable casualties. Come for the Rube Goldberg machines, leave feeling like a rube.

The MonkeyThe Monkey (Courtesy of Neon

Witness to most of those deaths is Petey’s son, Hal Shelburn (Theo James), who discovered the monkey’s malevolence as a child when he found it tucked away among the junk his estranged father left behind. Hal and his twin brother Bill (played as a kid by Christian Convery) got a firsthand look at what this seemingly innocuous toy could do to their loved ones after a couple of fateful wind-ups. Knowing that the monkey would only keep killing, they threw it down a dry well, only for it to reenter their lives 25 years later.

Now, the brothers haven’t seen each other for decades. Bill fell off the grid, while Hal still lives and works near the town they were raised in. Hal even has a son of his own named Petey (Colin O’Brien), after his father, whom he sees just one week a year for fear that the inexplicable events of his childhood will somehow glom their way onto Petey. When Hal’s week with his son rolls around, he receives notice that an old family member has incurred a grisly death involving fishing hooks, natural gas and a realtor sign staked in her front yard. It’s too absurd to be anything but the damn monkey.


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


Since the monkey has somehow attached its evil to their family, Hal knows his next step is tracking down his brother, if only to determine that Bill is safe. This presents an opportunity for a wild goose chase, filled with death, destruction and buckets of blood. Instead, Perkins opts for something far more convoluted, mixing in dead-end narrative asides that seem like they’re headed in an exciting, new direction before dropping off completely. Occasionally, a shot or set piece that’s entirely out of step with the rest of the movie will appear, leaving the viewer to scratch their head and wonder about what the point is. Shoehorning these random digressions into the film without any additional context to surmise their meaning just feels like Perkins is doing weird for weirdness’ sake. There are far more awkward “what the hell was that” chuckles than resounding belly laughs to be had.

By depersonalizing death and making it into a rote spectacle, Perkins loses any heart that could give his film the resonance it so desperately needs.

For example, following two prominent deaths, a group of local cheerleaders waits nearby, reacting with excitement at the sight of a dead body. One could read this strange, extraneous sight as Perkins’ attempt to send up our macabre fixation with death, rubbernecking at gruesome sights we should want to turn away from. But “The Monkey” is already so entrenched in this phenomenon that the strange cheerleading metaphor reads like a joke that doesn’t land — not exactly out of place with all of the other gags meeting a similar fate. Some other shots are so incongruous that they’re less like jokes and more like editing mistakes, making the film genuinely difficult to follow at points. That would easily be less noticeable if “The Monkey” had a beefier central narrative, but Perkins opts to flesh out King’s source material with humor over added plot, and the film is all the weaker for it.

Because “The Monkey” arrives so soon after “Longlegs,” it’s difficult not to compare the two. “Longlegs” had an original screenplay written entirely by Perkins, and while the film took notable inspiration from “Silence of the Lambs,” it was heralded for Perkins’ ability to use thorny themes to build out a distinct, dread-filled framework. “Longlegs” had a lot on its mind, from how humans weaponize religion, to sexual abuse and the way trauma plays with the memory — not to mention a whole lot of Satanism. With “The Monkey,” Perkins seems to be careening in the other direction, going far more literal with his depiction of humanity’s capacity for evil. Perkins has spoken about taking liberties with the story, bringing in his own notable experiences with horrible, “headline-making” death. (His father, actor Anthony Perkins, died of complications with AIDS while his mother, Berry Berenson, died in the September 11 attacks.) Perkins sought to depersonalize tragedy so he could make a movie that continually emphasizes that death is a thing that happens to everyone; sometimes it’s clean and easy, other times, someone gets trampled by wild horses.

But by depersonalizing death and making it into a rote spectacle, Perkins loses any heart that could give his film the resonance it so desperately needs. Unlike similar franchises confronting the inevitability of death, “The Monkey” approaches that certainty with a shrug. “We’re all going to die, so we might as well get used to it” might have some level of truth to it, but that messaging is wholly counterintuitive to an already disconnected world. Sure, we’re all going to die. But just because it’s destined doesn’t mean it’s not still deeply sad. That melancholy provides critical nuance to our lives, keeping them from being pointless in the face of sure annihilation. Without elucidating those necessary subtleties, “The Monkey” has no more value than the glib words of comfort whispered by a family friend who only came to the wake for the free food.