Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Jim Jordan issues sweeping information requests to universities researching disinformation

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

House Republicans have sent letters to at least three universities and a think tank requesting a broad range of documents related to what it says are the institutions’ contributions to the Biden administration’s “censorship regime.”

The letters are the latest effort by a House subcommittee set up in January to investigate how the federal government, working with social media companies, has allegedly been “weaponized” to silence conservative and right-wing voices. So far, the committee’s investigations have amplified a variety of dubious, outright false and highly misleading Republican grievances with law enforcement, many of them espoused by former President Donald Trump. Committee members have cited supposed abuses that include the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago, its investigations of Jan. 6 rioters and the Biden administration’s purported use of executive powers to shut down conservative viewpoints on social media.

Now, universities and their researchers are coming under the spotlight of the committee, which the Republicans have labeled the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. The letters, signed by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who is chair of both the House Judiciary Committee and the subcommittee, were sent in early March.

They cover an investigation into how “certain third parties, including organizations like yours, may have played a role in this censorship regime by advising on so-called ‘misinformation,'” according to a copy of one of the letters obtained by ProPublica.

The committee requested documents and information dating back to January 2015 between any “employee, contractor, or agent of your organization” and the federal government or social media organizations pertaining to the moderation of social media content. ProPublica confirmed the requests went to Stanford University, the University of Washington, Clemson University and the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

The letters have prompted a wave of alarm among those in the field that the congressional inquiry itself, no matter what it finds, will lead universities to pull back on this research just as the 2024 election gets underway. “Recent efforts definitely have a chilling effect on the community of experts across academia, civil society and government built up to understand broader online harms like harassment, foreign influence and — yes — disinformation,” Graham Brookie, who leads studies in this area at the Atlantic Council, told ProPublica.

“The ‘weaponization’ committee is being weaponized against us,” another researcher told ProPublica. Like half a dozen others interviewed for this story, this person asked not to be identified because of the ongoing congressional probe.

Democrats have called the committee a modern-day House Un-American Activities Committee, akin to the congressional committee that pursued alleged communists during the McCarthy era.

Since Rep. Jordan took over the gavel of the judiciary committee in January, he has issued more than 80 subpoenas and requests for documents. Recipients have included the CEOs of social media companies, intelligence officials who signed on to a statement about Hunter Biden’s laptop during the 2020 campaign and members of the National School Boards Association who asked the Justice Department to investigate threats of violence against school board officials. Jordan himself refused a subpoena to testify before the Democratic-led House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, prompting that committee to refer the matter to the House Ethics Committee.

Jordan’s missives were sent a day after a committee hearing on the “Twitter files,” leaked internal communications from the company that purported to show how right-wing accounts were sidelined and silenced. In written testimony, a panelist accused a broad swath of organizations and individuals of being members of the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” including, he implied, the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, CIA, Department of Defense and universities. The witness wrote disinformation researchers, working with the government, are “creating blacklists of disfavored people and then pressuring, cajoling, and demanding that social media platforms censor, deamplify, and even ban the people on these blacklists.”

A New York University study concluded in 2021 that social media had not silenced those on the right. “The claim of anti-conservative animus” by social media companies, the study said, “is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it.”

A spokesperson for Rep. Jordan did not respond to requests for comment.

Since the 2016 elections, Stanford, UW, Clemson and others have engaged in research, sometimes in partnership with social media platforms, government officials and each other, into ways that disinformation can pose threats to democracy and how such efforts can be meaningfully countered. The role of lies and disinformation leading to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol gave increased prominence to their work.

As ProPublica has previously reported, sustained accusations by congressional Republicans and right-wing influencers that the Biden administration is stifling dissent have caused the administration to back away from its efforts countering disinformation, including canceling research contracts and sending messages inside the administration that disinformation work is too hot to handle.

Those moves followed a bungled rollout of a clumsily named “Disinformation Governance Board” to coordinate efforts to counter what the administration had called “dangerous conspiracy theories that can provide a gateway to terrorist violence.” Following criticism, the administration disbanded the board and accepted the resignation of its executive director, Nina Jankowicz.

Jordan has subpoenaed Jankowicz, too. She is scheduled to testify April 10 and said she will happily testify under oath.

“This sort of inquiry isn’t something that belongs in the United States Congress,” said Jankowicz. “But given that this method of bullying has caused other institutions to fold to Republican pressure in the past, I fear we may see the blunt force of congressional committees continue to be used in ways that are in direct opposition to the safety, security and free expression of the American people.”

Stanford did not answer a question about whether it stood by its research or make its researchers, the Stanford Internet Observatory‘s Alex Stamos or Renee DiResta, available for comment. The university referred ProPublica to an online fact sheet addressing “inaccurate and misleading claims” made in the congressional testimony about Stanford’s “projects to analyze rumors and narratives on social media relating to U.S. elections and the coronavirus.” The German Marshall fund said it was working to address the request and Clemson University’s media relations department did not respond to requests for comment.

The University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public issued a statement that said “We’re incredibly proud of our work,” adding that “some of the projects CIP researchers have contributed to have become the subject of false claims and criticism that mischaracterizes our work, a tactic that peer researchers in this space are also experiencing.” The statement did not specifically address the House requests.

A university spokesperson, Victor Balta, said in an email, “The UW stands behind this important research aiming to resist strategic misinformation and strengthen our discourse. We have received a request for documents and information, and a response is in progress.”

Why do fewer women die of COVID? The answer could lie in the X chromosome’s superpower

It’s a mystery that has left doctors scratching their heads for decades: Why, compared to women, are men more likely to get sick and even die from viral infections?

Take SARS-CoV-2, for example. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), males made up a majority of COVID-19 deaths. In fact, males were three times more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit and had a 15 percent higher chance of dying than females.

It isn’t just COVID-19 either. When the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak occurred in 2014, 32 percent of infected men died compared to 26 percent of women. During the 1918 influenza pandemic, young adult men died at higher rates compared to females.

“We find that a lot of males tend to be more susceptible to viral infections, and one major example that we’ve seen is with SARS-CoV-2,” Cheng said. “And our big question is, ‘Why?'”

Indeed, scientists have long wondered why some viruses affect males more than females. Could it be a difference in immune systems, sex hormones, environmental factors — or something else?

According to a new study published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Immunology, the answer could simply lie in a chromosomal difference. In those without chromosomal abnormalities, males have XY chromosomes, females have XX. Could there be something more protective about having the extra X chromosome?

Mandy Cheng, PhD, lead author and a postdoctoral student in molecular biology at University of California, Los Angeles, told Salon she and her colleagues were interested in understanding the main immune responsive differences between males and females.

“We find that a lot of males tend to be more susceptible to viral infections, and one major example that we’ve seen is with SARS-CoV-2,” Cheng said. “And our big question is, ‘Why?'”

Cheng and her colleagues looked at NK cells, which males typically have more of than females. NK cells are a type of white blood cell that kills human cells that are infected with a virus. While males have more of these cells, it was confusing to scientists as to why having a higher number of them didn’t necessarily equate to a higher level of protection.

Additionally, there was little knowledge as to whether there were sexual differences to NK cells, aside from the number.

In lab work, Cheng and her colleagues found that both female mice and human females’ NK cells have an extra copy of UTX, a gene specifically associated with the X chromosome. UTX acts as an epigenetic regulator, which boosts NK cells’ function when it comes to fighting viruses.

“Under the same inflammatory conditions, it seems like females make a lot more immune mediator[s] — such as interferon gamma, which is what we mentioned in the study,” Cheng said. Interferon gamma, Chen noted, is a “super important molecule” that helps damage viruses and virally-infected cells. 

Because the gene that controls the expression of interferon gamma is on the X chromosome, it “escapes X inactivation in females” — meaning “there’s more of it in females compared to males.”

Cheng added: “That’s one possible reason for fighting off the viruses a little bit better in the females compared to the males.”

Co-senior Dr. Tim O’Sullivan, assistant professor of microbiology, immunology and molecular genetics at the Geffen School at UCLA, elaborated and said their findings highlight the importance of understanding how NK cells are “programmed” to respond to a viral infection. In other words, quality over quantity.

O’Sullivan said it is possible that, in the future, immunotherapy treatment could be “female derived.”

“That seems to be a little bit more telling in terms of how an NK cell is going to control a viral infection,” O’Sullivan said. O’Sullivan explained that if you have a female NK cell with more of this epigenetic regulator UTX, it “programs an NK cell all the way from birth to have enhanced production of these effector molecules,” which are “potently antiviral.” 

That means that even if women have fewer of those NK cells, they work better — hence the “enhanced protection.” 

“Now you have maybe a little bit less of those NK cells, [but] they can do a better job of controlling viral infection,” O’Sullivan noted.


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


Dr. Maureen Su, co-senior author and professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, told Salon their findings also highlight the need for scientists to take sex into consideration when developing immunotherapy responses and treating viral infections.

“We know that women get more autoimmune diseases,” Su said. “Clearly, there’s something really important about being male versus female here, and we have only started figuring out what it is.” If they can figure out these sexual differences, “maybe we can target it with therapies,” Su speculated.

O’Sullivan said it is possible that, in the future, immunotherapy treatment could be “female derived.”

“If they’re going to be better agents against cancer or better agents against infection, it’s something that we should be thinking about from the beginning of our treatment strategy,” O’Sullivan said. “I really think it moves us in a direction where we have to consider the sort of personalized therapies and use sex as a very important variable in determining those outcomes.”

“They’re going to have different regulatory mechanisms,” he continued. “Perhaps female cells will have better outcomes in certain settings and male cells might have better outcomes in other settings.”

Public health advocates demand Simon & Schuster stop distribution of AIDS denialism book

An alliance of more than 30 organizations and 70 public health advocates are urging Simon & Schuster to stop the distribution of a book pushing both AIDS denialism and HIV/AIDS misinformation.   

Called “The Real AIDS Epidemic: How the Tragic HIV Mistake Threatens Us All” by Rebecca Culshaw, the book “explains how the current, government-based structure of scientific research has corrupted science as the search for truth,” per its synopsis. It also challenges the reporting in journalist Randy Shilts’ 1987 book “And the Band Played On,” which chronicles the emergence and spread of HIV/AIDS. 

Furthermore, Culshaw — who is a mathematician and HIV researcher — “offers not only scientific reasons for HIV/AIDS being untenable, but also sociological explanations as to how the theory was accepted by the media and the world so quickly.”

“In particular, this book offers a scathing criticism of the outrageous discriminatory measures that have been leveled at HIV-positives from the inception. She also warns that the toxic drugs being foisted on the Black and gay communities constitute one of the worst medical violations of human rights since the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.”

In a letter penned by members of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP NY), the coalition demands Simon & Schuster “immediately end plans for distribution of the book,” “reassess other future releases to ensure that other books won’t assist similar damage to public health” and “create a public health working group to assure community members that this will not happen again.”

https://www.instagram.com/p/CqAxRnuO52F/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=079f3e7c-14ff-4170-aba6-62eedb121726  

“The thesis of Culshaw’s book is that HIV does not conclusively cause AIDS, but that this was a ‘mistake’ made in the 1980s and never amended or corrected,” the letter — which is addressed to Jonathan Karp, President and Chief Executive Officer of Simon & Schuster — states. 

“To the contrary, that HIV causes AIDS was demonstrated first in the 1980s, when the virus was discovered, and subsequently research has only strengthened that causal link in the subsequent decades, including via in vitro systems, in animal models, including non-human primates, via molecular phylogenetics, and in human samples.”

The letter cites research, specifically from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that shows how “misinformation and denialism do material harm to HIV/AIDS prevention, testing, and treatment.”

“By releasing an AIDS denialist book, Simon & Schuster would be encouraging vulnerable people to ignore medical directions and to stop their medications, which is dangerous to their health and is likely to lead to a higher amount of virus in their bodies,” the letter adds.


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


When emailed by Salon, a representative from Simon & Schuster responded saying they had no further comment at the time.

In a follow-up email from the publishing company’s communications department, Simon & Schuster clarified that Skyhorse Publishing is a distribution client — or a third-party, independent publisher for whom Simon & Schuster handles functions such as warehousing, shipping, order entry and more — and not a subsidiary of Simon & Schuster. According to the email, the publishing company has no input into Skyhorse’s editorial decisions. They also aren’t able to pick and choose which of their titles to distribute.  

The letter concludes, “As a major publishing house, Simon & Schuster has a duty to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS misinformation and denialism. Every occurrence adds needless life to an epidemic that has persisted for far too long.” 

“These concerns listed from HIV/AIDS advocates, organizations, and public health experts must be prioritized and taken seriously by Simon & Schuster.”

Culshaw’s “The Real AIDS Epidemic: How the Tragic HIV Mistake Threatens Us All” is slated to release on March 28.

Stormy Daniels turns over messages from Trump lawyer — and they could “disqualify” him in the case

Adult film actress Stormy Daniels’ attorney handed over her communications with Trump attorney Joe Tacopina to the Manhattan district attorney’s office, according to CNN.

Daniels, who is central to Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg’s investigation into Trump’s connection to alleged hush money payments made in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign, was seeking an attorney in 2018 when she was purportedly in touch with Tacopina. 

CNN reported that Daniels’s attorney, Clark Brewster, stated that the communications between Daniels and Tacopina and his firm included information relevant to her situation, some of which may have been confidential. Tacopina has denied any form of correspondence with Daniels, adding that he never met her. 

Brewster shared with CNN that he decided to turn Daniel’s communications over to the D.A. after hearing Tacopina make statements that he contradicted what was contained in the email exchanges.

CNN also reported that a 2018 interview between Joe Tacopina and Don Lemon points to the possibility that Tacopina spoke with Daniels as she searched for legal representation amid the hush money scandal.

“I can’t really talk about my impressions or any conversations we’d had because there is an attorney-client privilege that attaches even to a consultation,” Tacopina said in the clip.

Tacopina on Tuesday told CNN that the remarks made during 2018 “lacked clarity” and were made to ” terminate the inquiry, because someone on Stormy Daniel’s behalf did ask whether I would represent her, and I did not wish to discuss the matter on television.”

“However, those circumstances do not give rise to an attorney-client relationship in any form,” he added. Following the circulation of the interview, Tacopina’s firm issued an affirmative statement that “there was no attorney-client relationship.”

CNN did not see the communications but legal experts told the outlet that “they could lead to limits being placed on the role Tacopina can play at trial or even his disqualification.”


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


The communications could lead to Tacopina or his entire firm being barred from cross-examining Daniels during a potential trial, Stephen Gillers, a New York University School of Law professor, told the outlet. And if Tacopina has information that contradicts Daniels’ testimony, he would not be able to act as a witness for Trump.

“He has to have critical testimony for the judge that the witness-advocate rule disqualifies him,” Gillers told CNN.

“Usually in these cases, they don’t actually disqualify the person,” CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers said during a segment on Tuesday. “Courts do like to honor a criminal defendant’s choice of counsel. So probably they will say, you can’t use anything you learned, you can’t cross examine her. If this goes to trial, but they’ll probably let him stay on the case.”

The Daily Beast reported that Tacopina had referred to the hush money scheme as “illegal” in a 2018 interview with CNN.

“It’s an illegal agreement. It’s a fraud, if that’s, in fact, the case,” Tacopina said. “It doesn’t pass the straight-face test, and quite frankly, if that is what happened, we have a potential campaign finance issue.”

Trump thinks perp walk would be “fun” — and muses about whether he should “smile” for cameras: NYT

Former President Donald Trump is “ready for his perp walk” and appears to be relishing in the idea of a performative spectacle if he is charged in connection to the 2016 hush-money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels, according to a New York Times report from Michael C. Bender and Maggie Haberman.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s grand jury investigation into Trump’s role in wiring hush money payments to Daniels appears to be wrapping up and Trump expects to be indicted imminently. Trump in a tirade on Truth Social over the weekend claimed that he would be arrested Tuesday and called for his supporters to protest, though neither an arrest nor a large protest came to fruition. The looming potential charges, which would mark the first indictment in history of a former president, have raised questions about whether Trump would be perp-walked at the courthouse like many defendants.

Trump has described the hypothetical experience as “fun,” Bender and Haberman write, and “welcomes the idea of being paraded by the authorities before a throng of reporters and news cameras.”

“He has even mused openly about whether he should smile for the assembled media,” the report added.

It’s unclear how serious Trump’s remarks are and whether he would be taken into custody by the New York Police Department in public view. The Times reported that if Trump surrenders voluntarily, Secret Service will likely coordinate with New York law enforcement to keep Trump out of public view and stave off a “media circus.”

Trump’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said in a Monday interview with former Trump adviser Kimberly Guilfoyle that an “all-out war” will ensue if that former president is indicted.

“They can do what they want,” Tacopina said, “He’ll be there loud and proud, and there’s nobody that’s gonna make him cower.”


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


The Times report added that Trump has remained significantly detached from the severity of his potential indictment, and has been “spotted zipping around his Palm Beach resort in his golf cart and on one recent evening acted as D.J. at a party with his personally curated Spotify playlists, which often include music from the Rolling Stones to ‘The Phantom of the Opera.'”

Trump’s congressional hit men: House Republicans recycle anti-Clinton playbook

There are so many lawsuits and criminal investigations involving Donald Trump in the news right now that it’s hard to keep up. The indictment he announced was coming on Tuesday didn’t materialize but by all accounts, it is imminent, possibly even today. If that happens Trump won’t be immediately handcuffed and extradited to New York on Con Air. Prosecutors will arrange for him to appear for an arraignment which, according to the New York Times will disappoint Trump as he is looking forward to the spectacle so that he can “show strength.” I don’t buy that but I can certainly see that he might look forward to bilking his loyal following for another chunk of their social security checks by playing the martyr.

Lucky for him, his defenders have circled the wagons and are preparing to fight fire with fire.

At the moment they are concentrating their efforts on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Trump himself has called him every name under the sun, of course, but his defenders are homing in on a complaint that he is abusing his power out of partisan animus (which is hysterical coming from them.) House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., went on record immediately denouncing the case as “an outrageous abuse of power by a radical D.A. who lets violent criminals walk as he pursues political vengeance against President Trump.” Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky distilled Republicans’ feelings on Tuesday into one basic cri de guerre: Lock him up.

No, not Trump — the District Attorney.

Perhaps they can join his trial with Hillary Clinton’s and Dr. Fauci’s to save money.

McCarthy directed the House of Representatives to begin an investigation into Bragg and his office, citing some interest in knowing whether he was funded by the federal government which is a reach. Nonetheless, Committee chairs Jim Jordan, Bryan Steil and James Comer immediately sent a letter to Bragg saying “your decision to pursue such a politically motivated prosecution—while adopting progressive criminal justice policies that allow career ‘criminals [to] run[ ] the streets’ of Manhattan — requires congressional scrutiny about how public safety funds appropriated by Congress are implemented by local law-enforcement agencies” and demanded that he immediately come to Washington to testify before the committee. They may have to “de-fund the prosecutor” you see in order to prevent him from abusing his power.

What other jurisdiction they believe they have for doing this is obscure and Oversight Chairman James Comer doesn’t seem to know what it is either:

If you can make heads or tails out what he’s trying to say there, good luck to you. But at this moment nobody knows what charges or under what laws Bragg may be bringing so this whole federal pushback is premature, to say the least. A respectable Oversight Committee chairman would hold his fire until he has the facts. But James Comer is not a respectable Oversight chairman and in that he is upholding a long-standing GOP tradition.


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


The Times published a long profile of the new chairman on Tuesday, in which he’s extolled as a major political talent with a huge future ahead of him — and also revealed him to be exactly the kind of hypocritical, hyper-partisan operator he appears to be. For instance, Comer admitted that as a candidate for governor, he was involved in a devious plot to discredit a girlfriend who alleged he had abused her and helped her get an abortion — by siccing a prosecutor on to a blogger who had been publishing the information. (He seems to know a lot about how abuse of power works.)

He is obsessed with Hunter Biden and what he commonly refers to as “the Biden Crime family” but he knows it’s all a lie. He’s just giving the MAGA folks what they want. It’s clear that he is completely devoid of integrity. But lest anyone get the idea that he is something unique to the Trump era, he is not. He is following in the footsteps of one of the great GOP Oversight Committee reprobate chairmen in history: Dan Burton of Indiana.

Dan Burton ascended to the powerful chairmanship in 1997, immediately after Bill Clinton’s re-election victory and he didn’t waste any time in going after what was the right called “The Clinton Crime Family.” (They do believe in recycling their insults.) He’s especially remembered for his pursuit of the idiotic rumors emanating from the right-wing fever swamp about White House aide Vince Foster’s suicide, famously saying of Clinton, “if I could prove 10 percent of what I believe happened [regarding the death of Foster], he’d be gone. This guy’s a scumbag. That’s why I’m after him.” He even re-enacted a fantasy of the alleged crime in his backyard by shooting a canteloupe with a gun and causing unfathomable misery to Foster’s family with his endless sensational probing of the tragedy.

In 1998 Burton was one of Clinton’s most vociferous critics during Special Prosecutor Ken Starr’s investigation — until it was reported that had secretly fathered a child in an extra-marital affair years before. (There were a lot of Republicans caught in that particular trap that year.) He spent millions of dollars investigating allegedly corrupt Democratic campaign fundraising even as he was an incorrigibly corrupt fundraiser himself and delivered openly for those who funded him. One of Donald Trump’s top advisers David Bossie first came to national attention working for Burton as his “investigator” when he was exposed for editing some transcripts causing even then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich to denounce the investigation as a “circus.” He was anti-vax before anti-vax was cool.

It’s hard to believe, I know, that a quarter century ago, the House GOP was just as batshit as they are today but they were. There may have been more sane ones but they behaved the same way the vanishing few behave today. They just let it happen.The Times article ends with a most telling anecdote about the man who is on TV every day railing about “abuse of power”:

Mr. Comer recalled a local deputy sheriff who had recently pulled him over for speeding but let him go when he realized who he had nabbed — only after leaning in to ask one question.

“We going to get Biden or not?”

At least he didn’t call him a scumbag. I guess that’s progress.

 

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that Rep. Dan Burton represented Indiana. 

Judge orders Trump lawyer to reveal evidence in “criminal scheme” — and there may be tapes: report

A federal judge on Friday ordered Trump attorney Evan Corcoran to turn over evidence in what she described as an alleged “criminal scheme” after special counsel Jack Smith’s team argued that former President Donald Trump “deliberately misled” his own attorneys about classified materials at Mar-a-Lago, according to ABC News.

Prosecutors asked Judge Beryl Howell, the chief judge of the D.C. district court, to pierce Corcoran’s claims of attorney-client privilege, invoking the crime-fraud exception, which suggests that prosecutors believe Corcoran’s services were used in furtherance of a crime. Corcoran led Trump’s negotiations with the Justice Department last summer and drafted an affidavit affirming that Trump had returned all classified materials from Mar-a-Lago in response to a grand jury subpoena before the FBI found 100 more classified documents in an August search.

Howell, who stepped down on Friday, wrote in an order last week that Smith’s office had made a “prima facie showing that the former president had committed criminal violations,” according to ABC News, and ordered Corcoran to comply with a grand jury subpoena related to six separate lines of inquiry over which he had previously asserted attorney-client privilege.

Howell also ordered Corcoran to turn over records related to what she described as Trump’s alleged “criminal scheme,” according to the report. The report also revealed that Corcoran may have recorded his discussions with Trump, noting that the records include “handwritten notes, invoices and transcriptions of personal audio recordings.”

Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman said the evidence “could be absolutely dynamite.”

“It appears that Corcoran took notes & maybe RECORDED Trump, his client (sense a pattern of mistrust by Trump lawyers?),” Litman tweeted. “If doc or taped evid shows Trump knows the subpoena is false, that is killer.”

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who led special counsel Bob Mueller’s successful prosecution of former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort, predicted that the order could be a “gold mine” for proving Trump obstructed the Mar-a-Lago probe in “precisely the same way that Manafort obstructed the DOJ investigation by having his lawyers repeat to the [government] a series of lies.”

Howell ruled “identically in both,” Weissmann tweeted. “You would think Trump would have learned from the Russia investigation what happened to Manafort when he used his lawyer to try to obstruct a DOJ investigation.  Well, he didn’t.”

Howell in her order agreed that Smith’s prosecutors have shown that Trump appeared to have committed crimes but stressed that prosecutors will need to meet a higher bar of evidence to bring charges or seek a conviction.


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


“It is a lower hurdle, but it is an indication that the government had presented some evidence and allegation that they had evidence that met the elements of a crime,” Brandon Van Grack, a former top national security official at the Justice Department, told ABC News.

Howell found “sufficient” evidence that Trump “intentionally concealed” the existence of additional classified documents from Corcoran before he drafted a document claiming that a “diligent search” of Mar-a-Lago turned up just 38 classified documents. Prosecutors later discovered evidence that Trump was keeping more documents and the FBI executed a court-authorized search of the premises in August.

Prosecutors have also sought to pierce privilege claims from another Trump attorney, Jennifer Little, who is representing Trump in the Fulton County, Ga. investigation into his efforts to overturn the election in the state. It’s unclear why prosecutors targeted Little but Howell ordered her to testify as well, with one exception for a topic she sought to assert attorney-client privilege over.

Trump’s attorneys appealed Howell’s ruling on Tuesday and an appellate court panel could rule as early as Wednesday morning on the order. Both sides could appeal again after the appeals court rules on the order.

Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in the case.

“Shame on Fake News ABC for broadcasting ILLEGALLY LEAKED false allegations from a Never Trump, now former chief judge, against the Trump legal team,” a Trump campaign spokesperson said in a statement to ABC News. “The real story here, that Fake News ABC SHOULD be reporting on, is that prosecutors only attack lawyers when they have no case whatsoever.”

But MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner said the judge’s order dealt a big blow to Trump’s defense in the case.

“If that reporting is accurate,” he said Tuesday, “then a charge against Donald Trump for obstructing justice or making a false official statement… those charges would be legal layups.”

Until this week, Earth was the only planet known to have active volcanoes

Venus is sometimes called Earth’s twin, as it is roughly the same size as Earth, occupies the orbital lane adjacent to ours, and has a problem with greenhouse gases (namely carbon dioxide) in its atmosphere. Yet the similarities between the two worlds end quickly: The greenhouse effect spiraled out of control on Venus, meaning it is a toasty 900 degrees Fahrenheit at the surface — hot enough to melt lead. Beyond carbon dioxide, its atmosphere is, unlike Earth’s, filled with churning yellow clouds composed of malodorous sulfuric acid. And its geology is very, very weird compared to our planet’s: while Earth’s surface is comprised of continental “plates” that slowly drift across the crust over millions of years, Venus has no plate tectonics and a completely different geology. 

One of Venus’ lingering geologic mysteries involves the innumerable volcanoes which pepper the planet’s surface. Astronomers and planetary scientists were unsure if and how many were active, and what their relationship was to the planet’s evolution. This is particularly a mystery because in other ways, Venus is so similar to Earth, even on the inside. Hence, the notion that it would have such alien geology seems peculiar indeed.

Now, thanks to a recent study in the journal Science Magazine, astronomers are closer to answering their burning questions about Venus’ evolution. After analyzing eight months worth of images of the Venusian surface as captured by the Magellan spacecraft in the early 1990s, researchers from the University of Alaska Fairbanks and the California Institute of Technology found changes which they believe reveal ongoing volcanic activity — meaning the planet could join the small club of solar system bodies with active volcanoes, which currently counts only two members (Earth and Io).

“The upcoming missions are going to provide radar images that will be much more equivalent to seeing the big island of Hawaii erupting as you fly over in an airplane.”

What the researchers found specifically wasn’t quite a smoking gun — nor a smoldering, lava-spewing one — but rather a volcanic vent that is roughly 2.2 square kilometers. During the eight-month observation period, that vent changed shape, suggesting active volcanism.

Similarly, researchers discovered volcanic flows downhill from that vent which were visible in later images, although these may have been present before and were simply missed.

Regardless, the potential implications of the new study are massive. 

“I think all planetary scientists agreed that Venus is still volcanically active in the sense that we knew future eruptions would occur, but we did not know whether the times between eruptions, or when the next eruption would be, was going to be months, years, decades, or thousands of years, all of which would have been acceptable with the data we had before,” explained Dr. Robert Herrick, a study co-author who works the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Geophysical Institute, in an email to Salon.

Herrick noted that it is theoretically possible (though unlikely) that this is the only active volcanic activity to occur on Venus in millions of years, and that they therefore coincidentally happened to capture an image of during it during an eight-month span three decades ago. Herrick added that he feels this is unlikely.

“Realistically seeing a volcano change after searching a small fraction of the planet over an eight-month period means that eruptions probably occur every handful of months or so,” Herrick argued.


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


Dr. Scott Hensley, who works at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology and also co-authored the study, elaborated that this revelation about likely volcanic activity raises many provocative questions. For one thing, astronomers have long speculated about how rocky planets evolve; in Earth’s case, the surface breaks out into mountains and other landmarks based on ever-shifting masses beneath our feet known as tectonic plates. The tensions between these plates as they move to and fro causes everything from earthquakes to volcanic eruptions to the slow reshaping of continents.

Yet Venus, unlike Earth, does not have plate tectonics, so Hensley and other scientists want to know how its surface evolved, and whether its geologic evolution is unusual among rocky planets — or, perhaps, if Earth is the weird world. Hensley offered the possibility that Venus’ behavior could be due to “episodic volcanism where periods of intense activity, and interspersed with periods of dormancy whereas another has steady rate of volcanism.” This theory suggests that Venus undergoes a cycle in which it is relatively calm for millions of years, followed by sudden, planet-wide volcanic activity that resurfaces much of the planet. 

Herrick shed further light on how active volcanoes might exist without plate tectonics. He added that because planet formation produces heat and radioactive elements (which, in turn, supply a long-term heat source), planets themselves are actually much hotter than outer space.

“Volcanism, and plate tectonics on Earth, is literally bringing hot material up to the surface and cooling it off,” Herrick explained. “Smaller planetary bodies generally cool more quickly than large ones (sort of like a cup of soup cools more quickly than a large pot of soup), so the smaller bodies like the moon have had volcanism in the past even though they had no plate tectonics.”

Taking off the hat of jargon-citing scientist for a moment, Herrick seemed compelled to the elaborate on the “coolness factor” of the upcoming Venus-based missions.

“The change we see is a change that is a couple of miles in scale, but Magellan resolution only gives us several dozen fuzzy pixels to see it,” Herrick gushed. “The upcoming missions are going to provide radar images that will be much more equivalent to seeing the big island of Hawaii erupting as you fly over in an airplane.”

These upcoming missions, known as VERITAS and EnVision, “will almost certainly map many new examples of activity on Venus and thus enabling us to understand how Earth and Venus evolved so differently,” Henley told Salon. Yet even if those missions prove to be a wash, one thing is indisputable thanks to the new analysis of the Magellan images: In Henley’s own words, “Our research has shown Venus is volcanically active today and is not in dormant state. Thus Venus joins Earth and Io as being volcanically active rocky bodies in our solar system.”

In other words, the volcanism club has expanded its membership roll.

Whatever justice Donald Trump may face, America will need a reckoning

Donald Trump has spent the last seven years emotionally, physically, mentally, financially, and politically abusing the American people. The groups targeted as enemies by Trump and his movement have felt the abuse even more severely, where their literal safety is imperiled. For the LGBTQ community, these fears are especially acute because the forces on the right are publicly targeting them for eliminationism and other forms of mass violence. Abuse victims often share how the worst part of their experience is the feeling that one’s sense of being grounded and certain in the world has been taken away. Normalcy is gone because life is shaped by the moods and whims of the abuser and what he or she may do next. Of all of the many horrible things that Donald Trump has done to the American people, that may be the worst of his crimes.

Now Trump may finally be facing some consequences for his political crime spree and years of abusing the American people. It is widely anticipated that a grand jury in Manhattan is going to indict Donald Trump for crimes connected to hush money payments that he made to his former mistress Stormy Daniels. It is the least serious of the many other charges that Trump may soon face for election fraud, concealing top secret documents, financial fraud, and other crimes connected to the Jan. 6 coup attempt and beyond.

This is a very dangerous moment in Donald Trump’s abusive relationship with the American people.

When abusers are held accountable for their wrongdoing they often react with great violence. It is not uncommon for the victim to be killed when they tell finally tell their abusers “no!” and then try to leave the relationship.

Donald Trump is no different.

He attempted a lethal coup on Jan. 6 after the American people voted him out of office. He is now attempting to return to power with the stated goal of getting revenge and “retribution” on the enemies of his MAGA movement. These are not empty threats. Trump has shown himself to be a likely sociopath who possesses a deep attraction to and personal capacity for violence.

Like other abusers, Trump claims that he is really an “innocent” victim who is being unfairly persecuted. In keeping with that behavior, when Trump threatens and incites violence, he then claims that it is all a misunderstanding and he is actually peaceful and innocent.

This is a very dangerous moment in Donald Trump’s abusive relationship with the American people.

When a person tries to escape there is a fear of not just what the abuser will do in retaliation but what his or her friends, family members and other enablers will do on their behalf. This is true of Trump as well. To that point, Trump is publicly inciting his followers to commit acts of violence to protect him from being indicted for his crimes. Law enforcement is preparing for protests and violence by Trump’s followers when and if he is indicted. Republicans in Congress are now targeting Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for hearings and investigations in an effort to intimidate him. More importantly, the harassment is an attempt to squash the other far more serious investigations into Trump’s obvious criminal wrongdoing. On Tuesday, for example, a bomb threat was made against the courthouse where New York Attorney General Letitia James is bringing a lawsuit against Trump, his family, and company for real estate fraud.

Ultimately, it is not sufficient to escape the abuser one must escape their agents as well.


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


During a recent interview on Mehdi Hasan’s MSNBC show, Dr. Mary Trump, who is a psychologist and the niece of the former president, issued this warning about her uncle:

This is a person who does understand on some level that he’s getting closer and closer to some sort of accountability. He probably doesn’t believe it entirely because it’s never happened. But he knows that if he makes his grievance the grievance of the mob, if he makes the rule of law, holding him accountable, a crime against real Americans, then we might be in for some trouble here…… he didn’t stay at the Oval Office after he lost the election. He left. The only punishment was not to attend the inauguration….he knows when he needs to cede certain ground. But that’s because he has millions of people who will do his bidding. And it is not an accident that he is already preempting reactions by calling for protest. We saw this happen before. We’re gonna see it happen again, and it is cause for concern.

As we wait for Trump’s supposedly imminent indictment in New York, I keep thinking about my conversation with legendary CIA profiler Dr. Jerrold Post.

In the last chapter of my new book I quote one of my favorite poems, which is, “Do not go gentle into that good night, but rage, rage at the dying of the light.” I do not believe that Donald Trump will go gentle into that good night. In a close election, there is a very real hazard in terms of both potential outcomes. Should Trump win, as he did in 2016, he will make it a much bigger win and talking about the fraudulent election support on the Democratic side. But should Trump lose narrowly, I think we can be assured that he will not concede early. Trump may not even recognize the legitimacy of the election.

As for impeachment, should the Senate not vote to convict, Trump will take that as the indication that it was all somehow a “witch hunt” by the Democrats against him. Whatever happens, Trump will not go gentle into that good night.

Dr. Post was prophetic; his counsel that late night is one of the main reasons that there are few things that Donald Trump has done or is capable of doing that could ever surprise me. He is evil; unlike others with a public voice and platform, I do not run away from using the correct moral language to describe the forces that are working to end this country’s multiracial democracy.

We often talk about “the soul of our Nation.” Whatever one believes that civic soul to be, it has been gravely injured by Donald Trump and his acolytes. I include Trump’s rank-and-file foot soldiers and cultists as well: they have been severely abused by Donald Trump but do not realize it yet. Alas, there are too many people who confuse abuse with love.

The political and pundit classes routinely describe American society in the Age of Trump as being extremely “polarized.” That is distant and cold language. As a practical matter, the American people feel broken, possessed by a sense that something is very wrong. Public opinion polls and other research show that a plurality, if not the outright majority, of Americans feel the country is heading in the wrong direction and that the country’s major social and political institutions are illegitimate.

Whatever may happen with Donald Trump and his indictment and trial the American people need to do what therapists and other counselors describe as “soul work.” We need a reckoning, to confront the trauma and damage caused by the Age of Trump and this democracy crisis, and to ask ourselves about who we really are as a people. There is so much work to be done beyond one man named Donald Trump and what he has unleashed. Once again Donald Trump and Trumpism are a symptom of a very serious cultural and political disease and not the cause of the profound and perhaps lethal existential malady.

As journallst and author Steven Beschloss writes in a powerful new essay at his website:

But let’s be clear: This is a story about serving justice and repairing our democracy. Either there’s rule of law or there’s not. Either we are defined by a system of justice that holds the guilty accountable or we aren’t. Either we have a democracy that limits the use of violence to define our public life and the rights of our citizens or we have a country devolving into authoritarianism in which a strongman leader can employ fear and intimidation to get and keep power.

After the exhausting years of Trump—including over 30,000 documented lies, dozens of discernible criminal acts, and a near-daily effort to spur a climate of chaos and a growing appetite for hatred and carnage—this is a moment to declare: We will not be held hostage once again by a tyrannical minority or its leaders that are abusing their power to undermine democracy and democratic institutions, permanently break peoples’ belief in justice and the rule of law, and drive a deeper wedge between Americans with grievance and outrage.

Many members of the so-called “Resistance” are hungry and eager with anticipation at the mere thought of seeing Donald Trump indicted and arrested and then “perp walked.” (The latter almost certainly will not happen) Such celebrations are very premature.

Here is the question that must be confronted: What do we do if Donald Trump the abuser is not held accountable and vanquished?

Trump is one of the most successful criminals in American history. He hasn’t gotten in real trouble before so why will this time be any different? This is the fear that abuse victims know all too well. You gather up the kids and pets and whatever else matters to you and you try to get away, and he or she finds you and brings you back. Or you finally call the police, and they take the abuser away and then that night or a few days later you come home, and they are waiting for you on the couch.

In the mind of the abuser, THEY get to decide when the relationship is over and not YOU.

Donald Trump’s mind works the same way. What will the American people do then?

“The customer’s always right”: New Fox News lawsuit explains why the GOP is captured by conspiracies

“You know, the customer’s always right.”

Rep. James Comer gave this juicy quote to Jonathan Swan and Luke Broadwater for their New York Times profile of the Kentucky Republican. He was explaining his affection for right-wing conspiracy theories. The “customer[s]” in this case, as Swan and Broadwater write, are the “vengeful, hard-right voters” who “propelled Comer to stardom” in the GOP.

It’s quite an admission from the newly crowned chair of the House Oversight Committee. When asked why he is so intent on using his powers, as Swan and Broadwater write, “to investigate unhinged claims about President Biden and Democrats,” Comer could have played political word games, pretending either to take these conspiracy theories more seriously than he actually does. He could have feigned outrage at the suggestion that his motives are anything less than honorable. Instead, Comer seems unconcerned to be seen, to the readers of the New York Times anyway, as a huckster for disinformation scraped out of the darkest corners of the internet.

“They don’t know that it’s QAnon,” he even told Swan and Broadwater, “but it’s QAnon stuff.”


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


Comer’s audacity is especially surprising in light of the ongoing Fox News scandal, stemming from court documents filed by Dominion Voting Systems, which is suing the network for defamation. The filings included a staggering number of text messages and emails from Fox hosts and executives, revealing that they knowingly spread Donald Trump’s lies about the 2020 election, repeatedly amplifying and validating false claims that President Joe Biden stole his victory.

But what is perhaps most interesting about the texts is how the Fox leadership echoes the “customer is always right” rationale that Comer uses to justify his devotion to elevating evidence-free accusations against Democrats. Throughout the texts, Fox News leaders express fear that the “network is being rejected” for not playing along with the Big Lie. Amplifying election conspiracy theories, they told themselves, is “letting the viewers know we hear them and respect them.” 

As Adam Serwer at the Atlantic wrote, “Fox News executives and personalities understand that their own network loses traction with its audience when it fails to tell the lies that the audience wishes to hear.” The customer, as Comer said, is always right — even when they are utterly wrong. 

On Tuesday, a new wrinkle was added to the ongoing Fox News scandal, after Fox News producer Abby Grossberg filed two lawsuits against her employer, claiming they had coerced her “to deliver shaded and/or incomplete answers during her sworn deposition testimony.” Grossman alleges that the company’s culture of misogyny led them to set up female employees, including herself, as the fall guys in the Dominion lawsuit. 

“Her allegations in connection with the Dominion case are baseless,” Fox News said in a statement to Salon, claiming her accusations were made “following a critical performance review.” Grossman’s allegations echo a long and public record of similar stories of sexual harassment and abuse at Fox News, which reportedly has cost the company over $200 million over the years dealing with the legal fallout. 

The pair of lawsuits add to the larger question that has been raised by the Fox News fiasco: Will this impact the network’s popularity with Republican voters? It’s been widely believed, especially in liberal circles, that if Fox viewers learn the sordid details, they will be turned off from the network. 

New polling data from Variety, however, suggests that those hopes may be misplaced.

Only one in five Fox News viewers reported being rattled by the news that their favorite on-air personalities knowingly lie to them and speak of them with contempt. The data also suggests even this slight spike in distrust of the network is temporary at best, as “only 9% of Fox News viewers say they aren’t watching the network as much as they used to.” Even those few people may be exaggerating their tuning-out to the pollsters. Fox News told Variety that “viewership levels had not been impacted.”

The viewership numbers are backed up by more objective sources. Fox News not only remains the most popular cable news network by healthy margins, but there appears to be no meaningful drop-off in viewer share since the Dominion filings became big news. On the contrary, Tucker Carlson has seen ratings for his show soar at times in the past month. Disinformation continues to be a big winner for Carlson, who saw a ratings spike for an episode he did in which he falsely portrayed the January 6 insurrection as non-violent, while insinuating the rioters were justified in their claims that Biden stole the election. 

These numbers provide a substantive, if chilling, context to Comer’s claim that “the customer’s always right.” His perception is that what the GOP voting base wants is conspiracy theories. That’s especially true of those who are most enthusiastic about organizing and donating. More importantly, those voters don’t care if the stories they’re told are false. As the Variety polling shows, even when presented with irrefutable evidence that Fox News knowingly lies to them, the vast majority of Fox viewers don’t waver in their support of the network. 

As Serwer notes, the Dominion lawsuit has revealed there is “a strong demand for falsehoods,” exacerbated by a social media environment that alllows “individual hustlers to amass an audience of sycophants by feeding them conspiracies.”

Nor is the problem limited to the media enviroment where cynical liars like Alex Jones or Tucker Carlson can become wealthy by pandering to audiences who don’t care about the truth. As the Comer profile in the New York Times shows, this same disdain for the truth helps politicians become swiftly rising stars in the Republican party. Unsurprisingly, as Steve Benen at MSNBC documented, Comer spends a truly astonishing amount of time with Fox News, clocking in eleven on-air appearances in the course of 8 days. Comer spent most of that time “peddling thoroughly discredited claims related to Hunter Biden.”

In light of all this, it’s less surprising that Comer was willing to be honest about his dishonesty to New York Times reporters. He has every reason to believe that Republican voters don’t have a problem with lying and spreading conspiracy theories. As the Fox News texts show, the concern is actually the opposite: That GOP voters will punish any leaders perceived to be hamstrung with moral concerns about lying.

To become a well-liked and popular figure in the Republican Party in this day and age, it’s important not just to be cavalier with the truth, but downright hostile to it. 

These four dangerous fungi pose a serious threat to public health

The popular HBO drama series “The Last of Us” instilled images of fungal devastation in the minds of millions. But while a fungal pandemic is a real possibility, the reality of it would look much different than the TV show or video game.

Indeed, thanks to “The Last of Us” and other recently alarming fungal public health news, fungi are progressively centering themselves in public health threats — an alarming trend that could foster a pandemic unlike anything seen before. For now, that risk is relatively low. But of all the microorganisms that attack humans, fungi are some of the most threatening, largely because we know so little about them and have few tools to monitor them or fight back.

In its first-ever global effort to rank fungal pathogens by threat level, the WHO released a call-to-action in October 2022, urging public health agencies to pay more attention to fungi’s growing perils.

Thankfully, there has never been a major fungal pandemic like we’ve seen with swine flu (H1N1) or COVID. But there’s nothing entirely ruling out such a scenario, either. Humans often can and do get sick with fungi, which can easily kill some people, especially elderly, very young or immunocompromised folks. Public health experts are becoming increasingly vocal about the lack of research or surveillance of these fungal hazards.

For the most part, “The Last of Us” was an inaccurate depiction of a fungal pandemic. For one, many of the most worrisome fungi are microscopic. They also won’t turn humans into zombies.

But in some ways, the real-life fungi that can attack human health are more terrifying than cinematic monsters. From eating holes in people’s brains to generating nasty tumors to putting folks in comas, some fungi are not to be trifled with. (Others are delicious and definitely should be truffled with.)

One of the biggest problems with a fungal pandemic is we don’t have a lot of tools to fight infections. Few antifungal drugs are approved for use in humans, despite the fact that around 150 million infections occur annually, resulting in some 1.7 million deaths per year.

In its first-ever global effort to rank fungal pathogens by threat level, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a call-to-action in October 2022, urging public health agencies to pay more attention to fungi’s growing perils.

“Despite the growing concern, fungal infections receive very little attention and resources, leading to a paucity of quality data on fungal disease distribution and antifungal resistance patterns,” the WHO warned. “Consequently, it is impossible to estimate their exact burden.”

In their report, the WHO categorized 19 fungi that pose a major threat to global health. Here are some that top the list.

01
Cryptococcus neoformans

We typically think of yeast as the stuff that makes our bread or beer, but Cryptococcus neoformans is a fungi that is the opposite of fun. When it infects someone, it causes a disease called cryptococcosis — which, despite the name, is not a illness conctracted by listening to tech bros rant about Ethereum. Not only can this yeast damage the lungs, causing chest pains and coughing up blood, it can spread into the bloodstream and the central nervous system (CNS). From there, it can create abscesses in the brain that elicit strokes and dementia or carve lesions into the spinal cord.

 

It kills between 41 and 61 percent of patients it infects, and is especially deadly for people with HIV, cirrhosis (liver disease) or weakened immune systems. Those that survive can expect to spend an average of 18 days in the hospital. There is no vaccine, but it can be treated with the antifungal medications like fluconazole and amphotericin B. However, some of these drugs are unavailable in many countries and the fungi may be evolving resistance to them. One bit of good news is that humans can’t spread C. neoformans to other humans, which would prevent an outbreak from getting especially large, but it’s no less detrimental.


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


02
Candida auris

Candida auris is another type of yeast, but it generally isn’t a threat to healthy people. When it does attack, however, it can be highly fatal, infecting the blood, heart, CNS and even the eyes and bones. As such, it’s especially bad for immunocompromised patients, such as those with cancer or recipients of bone marrow and organ transplants. The disease, called candidiasis, often requires months of hospital stays and is fatal in 29 to 53 percent of patients.

 

More and more hospitals are experiencing outbreaks of C. auris, which is complicated by difficulties in identifying this pathogen and the fact that it is inherently resistant to many antifungal drugs. There is no vaccine.

 

On March 20, 2023 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a bulletin concerning an “alarming” rise in outbreaks at U.S. healthcare facilities between 2020 and 2021. The report detailed nearly 11,000 cases since 2016, with 3,270 causing infection. (The fungi was detected in the rest, but wasn’t causing illness.)

 

“The rapid rise and geographic spread of cases is concerning and emphasizes the need for continued surveillance, expanded lab capacity, quicker diagnostic tests, and adherence to proven infection prevention and control,” Dr. Meghan Lyman, a CDC epidemiologist, said in a statement.

 

The CDC notes that the COVID pandemic may be the catalyst behind the rise in cases, as it put a lot more people in the hospital, giving the fungi more opportunity to spread. The increase could also be due to increased detection methods. At any rate, the agency said it is expanding its testing capacity for C. auris from seven labs to more than 26 labs nationwide, so we can keep a closer eye on it.

03
Aspergillus fumigatus

Aspergillus fumigatus is a grayish-green mold that gets its weird name from the shape of its spore-producing structures, which resemble an aspergillum, a Christian liturgical tool used to sprinkle holy water. (It won’t surprise you that an 18th century priest came up with this one.) But you wouldn’t want to be sprinkled with this fungi. If it got into your lungs, it could cause serious respiratory problems. The fungus is also able to spread through the central nervous system and the brain.

 

The critically ill are especially vulnerable, especially immunocompromised patients or those with lung diseases, cancers or transplants. It has an extremely high fatality rate, ranging from 47 to 88 percent. Some studies even report a 100 percent fatality rate. There is no vaccine. Even more alarming, A. fumigatus is steadily gaining resistance to a class of antifungal drugs called azoles, which can partially be blamed on their prolific use in farming practices.

 

“Antifungal resistance is on the rise,” the WHO reported. “Widespread use of azole fungicides in agriculture to prevent crop losses is contributing to the rising rates of resistant aspergillosis in humans.”

04
Candida albicans

If you’re less of a fan of yeast after reading this article, we’d understand. But actually this yeast, Candida albicans, is more of an antihero than an outright villain. Chances are, you have some C. albicans in your guts right now. This fungi naturally coexists with humans, generally doing no harm.

 

But every once in a while, typically following an illness that degrades the intestinal lining, too much of this fungi will spread into other tissues in the body. This increases the risk of bowel cancers and can infect everything from the blood and heart to the eyes, bones and internal organs. These infections, known as invasive candidiasis, have a mortality rate between 20 and 50 percent, even though resistance to antifungal drugs is relatively uncommon. Nonetheless, resistance seems to be on the rise and no vaccine is available, so we need a lot more data on how prevalent these and many other pathogenic fungi are.

It’s difficult to calculate just how much of a risk these fungi pose from a pandemic perspective. On an individual level, however, the fact that more and more people are contracting illnesses from fungi is justified cause for concern. The WHO and the CDC both recommend increasing our capacity for detecting fungi as well conducting more research into treatments. While it is unlikely fungi will ever outpace basteria or viruses in terms of how serious they are to public health, we shouldn’t underestimate how disastrous these mushroom-related organisms can be to us.

Kevin McCarthy’s first legislative farce: The “Lower Energy Costs Act” is a fossil-fuel scam

The first new legislation of Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s Republican Congress — HR1, the Lower Energy Costs Act — is an exorbitantly mislabeled bill. It allows utilities and pipeline companies to build thoroughly unnecessary energy infrastructure, which will be paid for by electricity and gas consumers decades into the future. Despite its name, it will raise energy prices by fast-tracking efforts by oil, gas and coal producers to export an ever-expanding share of U.S. production, a strategy that has already tripled gas prices for American consumers. What this legislation reveals is that McCarthy go to nearly any lengths to allow his extreme-right members sacrifice the public interest to the interests of fossil-fuel producers.

The substance of this bill, to be fair, is entirely consistent with the stance Republicans are taking in every other arena of energy regulation: increase reliance on coal and oil, the most expensive fuels; slow down the production of cheaper energy sources, particularly wind and solar electricity; increase the freedom of fossil fuel producers to set exorbitant prices; allow wasteful and unnecessary investment in pipelines and other forms of oil and gas infrastructure which will soon become useless relics. 

This disconnect is rooted in an economic reality that is especially awkward for Republicans. Renewable energy, no matter how much it was belittled by Donald Trump and how much big GOP donors despise it, is already less expensive than coal, oil and gas. Not just a little bit less expensive — a lot. At this point, there’s only one coal-fired power plant in the entire nation that remains is economically competitive with renewables. Solar and wind power now offer the cheapest electricity in history.  The cost of owning and operating an electric car is now significantly less than a gasoline or diesel competitor. New electrified homes, built to emit zero pollution, are cheaper than inefficient, polluting gas-dependent models. 

Trump, along with Fox News and the Koch donor network, has successfully convinced Republicans that they must ignore these realities. In response, a new generation of GOP leaders has assembled an astonishing and bizarre array of arguments for why more expensive energy and power are somehow good for America — or at least for conservatives.

Perhaps their most bizarre argument is that renewable energy, however cheap it may be, is some kind of communist plot. Since China has so far outdone the U.S. at making solar panels and batteries, the Heartland Institute — and Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin — have apparently concluded that increasing American production of solar panels and electric vehicles is a Communist Party plot. By this logic, the U.S. response to Sputnik should have been, “Leave the Moon to the Russians.”

Economic reality is awkward for Republicans: Renewable energy, no matter how much it gets belittled by Donald Trump, is already cheaper than coal, oil or gas. A lot cheaper.

Other Republicans argue we should cling to the fossil fuel economy because our parents had no other choice. North Dakota produces both expensive coal power and cheap wind power. Officials in Minnesota decided they would no longer import North Dakota coal power — it wanted the cheap wind. Instead of responding to their state’s major electricity customer, North Dakota Republicans passed county ordinances prohibiting new wind development, and sued Minnesota to make it take dirtier, pricier power from old coal plants.

Republicans in Ohio even think that corrupt bargains which raise utility bills should be honored — if they help the failing coal industry. A couple of older coal plants in the Buckeye State have been uncompetitive for years, so their owners conspired to bribe the speaker of the Ohio state House to force customers to buy their overpriced power so the plants could be kept running. He took the bribe, got caught and was recently convicted. But Ohio Republicans still insist that the state’s energy consumers should still have to take this bribery-protected power — and pay full price for it. The logic appears to be that conservatives must honor their contracts, even if they result from a criminal conspiracy.

Then we move south to the Sunshine State. Florida’s monopoly utilities, relying on nuclear and gas, cannot compete with cheap rooftop solar power generated by customers. So they went to the legislature and got a law requiring utility customers to pay them for electricity customers didn’t use — with the net effect being that the less competitive the utilities were, the more they could charge consumers. So much for the spirit of capitalism! This sailed through the Republican-dominated legislature, but was too much for Gov. Ron DeSantis and his presidential ambitions. who vetoed it. (Since only 3% of Floridians favored this bill, a veto was not one of DeSantis’ more difficult political choices.)  


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


Finally, and most revealingly, consider Texas, which decided almost 20 years ago that since West Texas had  enormous wind power potential, it would build a new grid to carry that electricity to its urban areas. That worked well: Building that transmission made Texas wind compellingly cheap. At the same time, however, Texas was also building gas plants to replace its older coal-burning facilities. The state ended up with heavy reliance on wind power (and more recently solar power) in drier, sunnier West Texas, and a gas reliant power system in humid East Texas.

When the export market for liquefied natural gas exploded, Texas gas became expensive, rising in price from $3 per thousand cubic feet to $8 in just six months. Moreover, power from gas turned out to be not just expensive, but unreliable. In both summer heat waves and winter polar vortexes, Texas gas plants broke down when the state needed them most — costing consumers billions of dollars they are still paying off. 

The state decided it needed more generation, which was logical enough. But politicians (that is, Republicans) decided that power had to come from burning gas, however expensive and unreliable that is. Instead of building more cheap wind and solar facilities (since the supply of wind and sun is effectively limitless), which are proven to handle heat and cold, Texas Republicans deliberately excluded renewable energy from their expansion plans. Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick specifically promised to keep wind and solar out of this round, and other fossil-fuel Republicans were even more emphatic. State Sen. Bryan Hughes proclaimed. “If there is a proposal for a new economic development program … if it has wind and solar, I’m not just gonna vote no. I’m gonna do everything I can to kill it. I can tell you that will not pass the Texas Senate with wind and solar in it.”   

The result of this nonsense is that counties in east Texas already being bled dry by gas prices will see their rates go even higher, while counties in west Texas will be on the hook for the bill from the next power collapse during a winter snowstorm. Republicans from Texas to Washington will sing the praises of “cheap power” while ramping up the rates consumers actually pay as fast as he can. 

This approach — drive up energy prices by clinging to dirtier and less reliable fuels — is the heart not just of Kevin McCarthy’s ludicrous HR1, but of national GOP energy strategy. They want to choke off the technologies that are winning the energy-affordability race — because they use fuel that is literally free. Then they plan to weaken reliability and health standards to soften the economic blow, and do everything possible to displace outrage towards liberals when this combination of dangerous, uncompetitive fuels and weak safety standards have devastating effects on communities like East Palestine, Ohio.

Kevin McCarthy shouldn’t get away with it, any more than Greg Abbott should. Cleaner, cheaper energy is right in front of us — the numbers don’t lie.

Ex-military officer: DOD budget shows vast power of the military-industrial-congressional complex

In April 1953, newly elected President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a retired five-star Army general who had led the landings on D-Day in France in June 1944, gave his most powerful speech. It would become known as his “Cross of Iron” address. In it, Ike warned of the cost humanity would pay if Cold War competition led to a world dominated by wars and weaponry that couldn’t be reined in. In the immediate aftermath of the death of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, Ike extended an olive branch to the new leaders of that empire. He sought, he said, to put America and the world on a “highway to peace.” It was, of course, never to be, as this country’s emergent military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC) chose instead to build a militarized (and highly profitable) highway to hell.

Eight years later, in his famous farewell address, a frustrated and alarmed president called out “the military-industrial complex,” prophetically warning of its anti-democratic nature and the disastrous rise of misplaced power that it represented. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry, fully engaged in corralling, containing, and constraining it, he concluded, could save democracy and bolster peaceful methods and goals. 

The MICC’s response was, of course, to ignore his warning, while waging a savage war on communism in the name of containing it. In the process, atrocious conflicts would be launched in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia as the contagion of war spread. Threatened with the possibility of peace in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, the MICC bided its time with operations in Iraq (Desert Storm), Bosnia, and elsewhere, along with the expansion of NATO, until it could launch an unconstrained Global War on Terror in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.  Those “good times” (filled with lost wars) lasted until 2021 and the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Not to be deterred by the fizzling of the nightmarish war on terror, the MICC seized on a “new cold war” with China and Russia, which only surged when, in 2022, Vladimir Putin so disastrously invaded Ukraine (as the U.S. had once invaded Afghanistan and Iraq). Yet again, Americans were told that they faced implacable foes that could only be met with overwhelming military power and, of course, the funding that went with it — again in the name of deterrence and containment. 

In a way, in 1953 and later in 1961, Ike, too, had been urging Americans to launch a war of containment, only against an internal foe: what he then labeled for the first time “the military-industrial complex.” For various reasons, we failed to heed his warnings. As a result, over the last 70 years, it has grown to dominate the federal government as well as American culture in a myriad of ways. Leaving aside funding where it’s beyond dominant, try moviesTV showsvideo gameseducationsports, you name it. Today, the MICC is remarkably uncontained. Ike’s words weren’t enough and, sadly, his actions too often conflicted with his vision (as in the CIA’s involvement in a coup in Iran in 1953). So, his worst nightmare did indeed come to pass. In 2023, along with much of the world, America does indeed hang from a cross of iron, hovering closer to the brink of nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Updating Ike’s Cross of Iron Speech for Today

Perhaps the most quoted passage in that 1953 speech addressed the true cost of militarism, with Ike putting it in homespun, easily grasped, terms. He started by saying, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” (An aside: Can you imagine Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or any other recent president challenging Pentagon spending and militarism so brazenly?)

Ike then added:

“This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.”

He concluded with a harrowing image: “This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

Ike’s cost breakdown of guns versus butter, weapons versus civilian goods, got me thinking recently: What would it look like if he could give that speech today? Are we getting more bang for the military megabucks we spend, or less?  How much are Americans sacrificing to their wasteful and wanton god of war?

Let’s take a closer look. A conservative cost estimate for one of the Air Force’s new “heavy” strategic nuclear bombers, the B-21 Raider, is $750 million. A conservative estimate for a single new fighter plane, in this case the F-35 Lightning II, is $100 million. A single Navy destroyer, a Zumwalt-class ship, will be anywhere from $4 to $8 billion, but let’s just stick with the lower figure. Using those weapons, and some quick Internet sleuthing, here’s how Ike’s passage might read if he stood before us now:

“The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick-veneer and reinforced concrete school in 75 cities.  It is five electric power plants, each serving a town with 60,000 inhabitants. It is five fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 150 miles of pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with more than 12 million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 64,000 people.”

(Quick and dirty figures for the calculations above: $10 million per elementary school; $150 million per power plant [$5,000/kilowatt for 30,000 homes]; $150 million per hospital; $5 million per new mile of road; $8 per bushel of wheat; $250,000 per home for four people.)

Grim stats indeed! Admittedly, those are just ballpark figures, but taken together they show that the tradeoff between guns and butter — bombers and jet fighters on the one hand, schools and hospitals on the other — is considerably worse now than in Ike’s day. Yet Congress doesn’t seem to care, as Pentagon budgets continue to soar irrespective of huge cost overruns and failed audits (five in a row!), not to speak of failed wars.

Without irony, today’s MICC speaks of “investing” in weapons, yet, unlike Ike in 1953, today’s generals, the CEOs of the major weapons-making corporations, and members of Congress never bring up the lost opportunity costs of such “investments.” Imagine the better schools and hospitals this country could have today, the improved public transportation, more affordable housing, even bushels of wheat, for the cost of those prodigal weapons and the complex that goes with them. And perish the thought of acknowledging in any significant way how so many of those “investments” have failed spectacularly, including the Zumwalt-class destroyers and the Navy’s Freedom-class littoral combat ships that came to be known in the Pentagon as “little crappy ships.”

Speaking of wasteful warships, Ike was hardly the first person to notice how much they cost or what can be sacrificed in building them. In his prescient book The War in the Air, first published in 1907, H.G. Wells, the famed author who had envisioned an alien invasion of Earth in The War of the Worlds, denounced his own epoch’s obsession with ironclad battleships in a passage that eerily anticipated Ike’s powerful critique:

The cost of those battleships, Wells wrote, must be measured by:

“The lives of countless men… spent in their service, the splendid genius and patience of thousands of engineers and inventors, wealth and material beyond estimating; to their account we must put stunted and starved lives on land, millions of children sent to toil unduly, innumerable opportunities of fine living undeveloped and lost. Money had to be found for them at any cost—that was the law of a nation’s existence during that strange time.  Surely they were the weirdest, most destructive and wasteful megatheria in the whole history of mechanical invention.”

Little could he imagine our own era’s “wasteful megatheria.” These days, substitute nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles, strategic bombers, aircraft carriers, and similar “modern” weapons for the ironclads of his era and the sentiment rings at least as true as it did then. (Interestingly, all those highly touted ironclads did nothing to avert the disaster of World War I and had little impact on its murderous course or ponderous duration.)

Returning to 1953, Eisenhower didn’t mince words about what the world faced if the iron cross mentality won out: at worst, nuclear war; at best, “a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system, or the Soviet system, or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.”

Ike’s worst-case scenario grows ever more likely today. Recently, Russia suspended the START treaty, the final nuclear deal still in operation, that oversaw reductions in strategic nuclear weapons.  Instead of reductions, Russia, China, and the United States are now pursuing staggering “modernization” programs for their nuclear arsenals, an effort that may cost the American taxpayer nearly $2 trillion over the coming decades (though even such a huge sum matters little if most of us are dead from nuclear war).

In any case, the United States in 2023 clearly reflects Ike’s “cross of iron” scenario. It’s a country that’s become thoroughly militarized and so is slowly wasting away, marked increasingly by feardeprivation, and unhappiness.

It’s Never Too Late to Change Course

Only Americans, Ike once said, can truly hurt America.  Meaning, to put the matter in a more positive context, only we can truly help save America. A vital first step is to put the word “peace” back in our national vocabulary.

“The peace we seek,” Ike explained 70 years ago, “founded upon a decent trust and cooperative effort among nations, can be fortified, not by weapons of war but by wheat and by cotton, by milk and by wool, by meat and timber and rice. These are words that translate into every language on earth. These are the needs that challenge this world in arms.”

The real needs of humanity haven’t changed since Ike’s time. Whether in 1953 or 2023, more guns won’t serve the cause of peace. They won’t provide succor. They’ll only stunt and starve us, to echo the words of H.G. Wells, while imperiling the lives and futures of our children.

This is no way of life at all, as Ike certainly would have noted, were he alive today.

Which is why the federal budget proposal released by President Biden for 2024 was both so painfully predictable and so immensely disappointing. Calamitously so. Biden’s proposal once again boosts spending on weaponry and war in a Pentagon budget now pegged at $886 billion. It will include yet more spending on nuclear weapons and envisions only further perpetual tensions with “near-peer” rivals China and Russia.

This past year, Congress added $45 billion more to that budget than even the president and the Pentagon requested, putting this country’s 2023 Pentagon budget at $858 billion. Clearly, a trillion-dollar Pentagon budget is in our collective future, perhaps as early as 2027. Perish the thought of how high it could soar, should the U.S. find itself in a shooting war with China or Russia (as the recent Russian downing of a U.S. drone in the Black Sea brought to mind).  And if that war were to go nuclear…

The Pentagon’s soaring war budget broadcast a clear and shocking message to the world. In America’s creed, blessed are the warmakers and those martyrs crucified on its cross of iron.

This was hardly the message Ike sought to convey to the world 70 years ago this April. Yet it’s the message the MICC conveys with its grossly inflated military budgets and endless saber-rattling.

Yet one thing remains true today: it’s never too late to change course, to order an “about-face.” Sadly, lacking the wisdom of Dwight D. Eisenhower, such an order won’t come from Joe Biden or Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis or any other major candidate for president in 2024. It would have to come from us, collectively. It’s time to wise up, America. Together, it’s time to find an exit ramp from the highway to hell that we’ve been on since 1953 and look for the on-ramp to Ike’s highway to peace.

And once we’re on it, let’s push the pedal to the metal and never look back.

As NYC pays out millions in police misconduct settlements, lawmakers ask why they keep happening

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

Nearly two decades ago, the New York Police Department drew national headlines for its violent response to protests outside the 2004 Republican National Convention. Officers wrapped demonstrators in orange mesh netting and shipped them off to a dirty Manhattan pier, where they were fingerprinted and held, some for more than 24 hours.

The protesters sued, and after years of tense litigation, the city settled what the New York Civil Liberties Union then called the “largest protest settlement in history” — an $18 million payout to resolve claims that the police had violated the civil rights of about 1,800 people.

“While no amount of money can undo the damage inflicted by the NYPD’s actions during the Convention, we hope and expect that this enormous settlement will help assure that what happened in 2004 will not happen again,” Christopher Dunn, lead counsel in the NYCLU cases, said at the time.

But in June 2020, just six years after that settlement, history repeated. Facing mass demonstrations, this time in the wake of the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd, the NYPD again became the focus of intense media scrutiny for its bellicose approach to protests, perhaps most notably for boxing in, or “kettling,” about 300 protesters in the Bronx before violently arresting them. Those protesters also sued, and earlier this month their lawyers announced yet another “historic” settlement, in which each protester would get $21,500. The total payout could cost taxpayers between $4 million and $6 million.

Now, the durability of that narrative is prompting some lawmakers to question not just the NYPD’s actions but whether the city effectively enables expensive payouts by aggressively defending against charges of police misconduct instead of leveraging its legal might to pressure the NYPD to change its behaviors and practices. Indeed, while the city charter requires the Law Department to represent “the city and every agency thereof,” it also says the department should “maintain, defend and establish” the interests of “the people.”

In the Floyd and RNC cases, city lawyers fought tooth and nail in court against misconduct charges, employing a litigation strategy that challenged disclosures and claims at every turn — an approach that critics say can prolong cases and actually drive up costs.

“It’s a bad practice,” said Councilmember Gale Brewer, a Manhattan Democrat, who plans on questioning Law Department officials when they appear before the City Council’s Committee on Governmental Operations for a budget hearing on March 22.

“The public may not care about the person getting arrested or the cops, but they do care about the money,” she said of settlements to civil rights lawsuits. “It’s millions and millions of dollars. And there’s always a push — ‘How can you push those settlements to be less?’ Well, that doesn’t answer the question: Why do they keep happening?”

It is a line of inquiry backed by the Council’s speaker, Adrienne Adams, whose spokesperson said in a statement that “city attorneys can play a constructive role in preventing future violations of constitutional rights, and they should.”

“It is a disservice to our city and its taxpayers when an agency tasked with protecting them not only violates their rights, but also passes on the cost back to them,” said Mandela Jones, the spokesperson for the Queens Democrat. “It’s equally bad when that agency is enabled to continue engaging in this problematic conduct that repeats this cycle.”

Spokespeople for the mayor’s office, the NYPD and the Law Department did not respond to requests for comment about the hearing. The NYPD said in a statement earlier this month that the department had “re-envisioned” much of its training and policies around “large-scale demonstrations” after the Floyd protests based on the recommendations of “three outside agencies who carefully investigated that period.” The Law Department has previously told ProPublica it takes its ethical responsibilities seriously and litigates each case with an open mind. “While we work to vigorously protect the interests of the city in every case, we are always mindful that opposing parties are also citizens who should be treated with respect and whose claims should be evaluated fairly,” a department spokesperson said last year.

The public scrutiny follows a December report from ProPublica and New York Magazine that examined the city’s Special Federal Litigation Division, the little-known unit within the Law Department that exclusively handles federal civil rights lawsuits alleging abuses by police officers, jail guards and prosecutors. Former attorneys described a culture within Special Fed that prizes winning, even if it means drawing out cases with merit and negotiating them down to the smallest possible payout. The hard-line approach has sometimes drawn rebukes from the bench. Last year, for example, in the Floyd protest case, a judge dressed down a senior Special Fed lawyer for failing to obey court orders. The city has also been sanctioned multiple times for not turning over records in a timely manner. (That lawyer has since been fired, though she denied any wrongdoing.)

Many within the Law Department see themselves as guardians of the city’s treasury, and argue that aggressively defending police cases weeds out frivolous claims, preventing undeserving plaintiffs from obtaining public monies that could otherwise fund city services. But plaintiffs’ attorneys and advocates for police reform counter that Special Fed actually wastes money and public trust by aggressively, and sometimes expensively, defending cases involving clear police misconduct. The NYPD has previously said that any allegation it has “undue influence” over Special Fed and its defense of officers is “outrageous and inaccurate.”

The purpose of damages in federal civil-rights litigation is “to incentivize the government to change policy so it doesn’t face the same exposure for similar kinds of violations in the future,” said Gideon Oliver, a civil rights attorney who represents protesters. “It doesn’t work if the city and the Law Department view cutting those checks as just the cost of doing business.”

Settlements and payouts for police misconduct cases totaled $121 million last year, up from about $85 million the year before, according to an analysis of city data by the Legal Aid Society, the city’s primary provider of indigent legal services. (The sharp increase was largely attributable to six payouts of $10 million or more stemming from decades-old wrongful conviction cases.) A Washington Post analysis of settlement data last year showed that, between 2010 and 2020, more than 5,000 NYPD officers were named in two or more claims, accounting for 45% of New York City taxpayer dollars spent on misconduct cases.

Meanwhile, the full price tag for lawsuits related to the Floyd protests will likely grow well beyond this month’s multimillion-dollar settlement. As of last July, 565 claims had been filed over the NYPD’s policing of the demonstrations, according to records maintained by the city’s chief financial officer, with 220 of them having cumulatively settled, many pre-litigation, for nearly $7 million. A consolidation of lawsuits that seeks widespread reform of how the police handle protests is also still active in Manhattan federal court.

An effort in the early years of then-Mayor Bill de Blasio’s first term sought to change the culture within the Law Department, pushing attorneys to think of their primary client as the broader public, not just the named officer in any given lawsuit. But that effort largely withered as the mayor’s relationship with the NYPD and its unions deteriorated. Brewer, citing the story by ProPublica and New York Magazine, said the role of the Law Department and how it represents the city should be subject to public debate. Lawyers for protesters agreed.

“The Council has an important opportunity when it’s approving its budget to demand that the city take a different approach to widespread NYPD legal violations,” said the NYCLU’s Dunn, who is also working on Floyd protest litigation. “When they’re there asking for large sums of public funds, the City Council should be demanding the Law Department be more responsible in the way it’s addressing litigation like this.”

California’s drought is not over: Just follow the power and money

More than a dozen atmospheric rivers in succession prompted people to think: The California drought is over! The levees are breaking, hundreds of people are being displaced by the raging waters, rainfall is breaking records, and story after story suggest we are headed out of the decade-long drought that has devastated agriculture and wiped out the state’s water reserves. Whew. Dodged a bullet.

One part of that story is true. By mid-March, two-thirds of the state was officially out of drought.

But it’s temporary. The deluge shifted the focus, like the diversion in a magic trick.

Welcome to the simultaneous cataclysms of climate extremes: Drought leads to deluge. But deluge doesn’t get us out of the drought: The two are inextricably entwined, as further illustrated in this recent paper in Nature Water, which reports on the growing intensity of both droughts and floods.

You don’t have to look at the latest paper to understand that we’re now in a cycle of drought-deluge-drought-deluge.

The fact is, California is running out of water. We would need several successive years of deluges like the ones this year to make a serious dent in the impacts, over the past decade or so, of successive droughts, which have depleted the aquifers while the state has retained its attachment to the concrete-lined aqueduct and reservoir system that prevents soil absorption of all this excess water.

For journalists and everyone else, watch how those with power, money and a direct stake in the water system act. They’ve been staking out positions like animals around a watering hole — which, come to think of it, we all are. And they’re not acting like the drought is over; they’re maneuvering around a watering hole that’s shrinking.

One could, for example, look at water like a speculator, someone playing the odds in California water rights derivatives — a thriving trade now on the NASDAQ. These amount to bets on the price of water, which is largely shaped by supply. Speculators make money either way: By watching where the price and the money go, you can get a sense of where the water supply is headed. When supplies are tight, the price goes up; when supplies are abundant, it goes down. Water on the market works like, well, capitalism. Speculators can make money by correctly anticipating which way the supply is moving. And journalists can find a story either way, because the price signals where the real money thinks things are going.

A deluge is like going short on water, betting that the price will fall; too much supply, communities flood, reservoirs replenish (for a while). And a drought is like going long, betting on the rising price; not enough supply, communities and farmers buy emergency water. Both are at play. Watch the river flow; follow the money.

Here’s one way to do that: The NASDAQ-Veles California Water Index (NQH2O) tracks the average price of available surface and groundwater for sale in California. Over the last year, the lowest price was $775/acre-foot back in April of 2022, when there was a deluge of rain, a welcome, and temporary, respite from the drought. (An acre-foot is the amount of water it takes to fill an acre-sized field with a foot of water.) Then the price hit a high of $1,300 per acre-foot in September, a peak drought month also marked by horrific wildfires. Now, as of mid-March, after more than a dozen successive atmospheric rivers, the price has not plunged; it’s bobbing at about $986/acre-foot, which suggests that investors are not taking this flow of water from the heavens for granted. It’s a price that suggests: Things will tighten again.

Another way to look at it is through the eyes of industrial-scale farmers in the Central Valley. While most of us have been looking up to see what new deluges are headed our way from the rivers above our heads, farmers in the Central Valley, home to California’s multibillion dollar agriculture industry, have been looking down, at the underground aquifer that has long saved them from water oblivion. Not anymore: They’re facing serious cutbacks in the amount of water that can be sucked out of an exhausted underground aquifer they’ve been drawing on without limit for decades. The storms have done little to recharge the aquifer that at times provides as much as 40% of the water supply in the Valley.

One thing to watch for: How will the crop patterns shift in the Central Valley? The cultivation of almonds, the thirstiest of all food crops, expanded by 78% between 2010 and 2022; at least half of those dozen years were in periods of extreme drought. Almost 70% of those almonds are exported, according to the USDA — which amounts to exports of California water, to Europe, Japan, China and the Middle East, the primary almond export markets.

Back during the drought of 2014, then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGWMA), which requires, for the first time in California’s history, each of the dozens of water districts in the Central Valley to submit annual plans for reducing their groundwater access to levels ensuring sustainability by 2040. That means the amount of water withdrawn from the aquifer is equal to the amount that’s returned to it, mostly through absorption in the soil. In early March, the state Department of Water Resources rejected six of the districts’ groundwater reduction plans, which had been sculpted to benefit large landowners and did not take account of the rate of depletion.

Those reports are supposed to be publicly available, and will reveal how the districts themselves — often dominated by large landowners — are proposing to position themselves for water access, sometimes, as the state determined in those six cases, at the expense of smaller farmers and farmworker communities, many of whose wells went dry during the last drought. Will those wells refill after the deluge?

For anyone willing to wade through hours of hearings and documents from administrative courthouses and land records in obscure corners of the state, one can glean the perspective of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which manages the water flow for some 18 million people in Los Angeles and surrounding communities. The MWD is in a pretty continuous panic about where L.A. will be getting its water in the coming years. In February, the MWD held a retreat for its board members to address the threats climate change presents to Southern California’s water supply.

“[F]rom increased heat to stronger storms to decreased snowpack, to changes in precipitation patterns … the time is now to start incorporating climate change into resource and financial planning,” declared one of the MWD officials in a recording of the meeting. “Heat, drought, wildfires, sea level rise, you name it, there’s a lot of things coming at the agency.” No one, over a nearly five-hour meeting, mentioned how the deluge — we were then on our ninth round of atmospheric rivers — was going to be the savior for Southern California’s water issues.

Every one of those factors is fertile ground for stories. Would California, for example, continue to be the one holdout on negotiating cuts to its water allocation from the Colorado River in talks with the six other states (Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming) that rely on the Colorado if the deluges solved the state’s long-term water needs? Meanwhile, Lake Mead, a key reservoir in that system, and a key source for water in L.A., is at about 30% capacity and by next year could drop below 1,000 feet, the water level at which it becomes dysfunctional as a reservoir or power source for turbines, according to NOAA. That estimate was made in mid-February, which was about midway through our atmospheric river epidemic. There are few indications that Lake Mead will once again be a vital participant in supplying L.A. with water.

Water World

What’s really going on can be understood with two lessons about water. Lesson No. 1: There’s a fixed amount of water on Earth and circulating in our atmosphere. If rain is falling here, it’s not falling somewhere else. And if it’s falling here now, at these accelerating and unprecedentedly intense rates, scientists are clear that there’s a very good chance it won’t be falling here again for a while either. 

Lesson No. 2: What goes up, as they say, must come down. But there’s another part of that equation when it comes to water: What comes down must go back up. California’s average annual temperature has risen at least 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the early ’70s and is on track to rise about 2 degrees more by 2040. The years 2000-21 represented the driest 22-year period in 1,200 years, according to a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The hotter it gets, the more water evaporates. All that moisture rises into a hotter atmosphere that can hold more of it. So when the rain comes, it doesn’t just dapple us with light sprinkles, it drops the heavier load of moisture that has been accumulating for a longer time. And then it takes a longer time to return to us as rain — thus, drought.

Water, who gets it and who doesn’t, is the story of our time. Like an atmospheric river, those stories will just keep on coming.

Leaked video: DeSantis pitches retribution to rising “private and confidential” right-wing group

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

Florida governor Ron DeSantis has frequently railed against “Big Tech.” He has accused Google, Facebook and Twitter of silencing conservative voices.

But in private, DeSantis has gone even further.

In previously unreported comments made in 2021, DeSantis said technology companies like Google “should be broken up” by the U.S. government.

DeSantis, widely considered a presidential hopeful, made the remarks at an invite-only retreat for the Teneo Network, a “private and confidential” group for elite conservatives. ProPublica and Documented obtained video of the event.

“They’re just too big, they have too much power,” DeSantis said. “I think they’re exercising a more negative influence on our society than the trusts that got broken up at the early 20th century.” He added that large tech companies “are ruining our country. They’re a very negative influence. And so I think you need to be strong about it.”

DeSantis’ call to break up large tech companies occurred at the Teneo Network’s annual retreat in 2021. As ProPublica and Documented recently reported, the Teneo Network aims to “crush liberal dominance” across many areas of American society, according to its chairman Leonard Leo, the influential legal activist and longtime leader of the Federalist Society.

DeSantis’ office did not respond to requests seeking comment. Teneo declined to comment.

In recent years, “Big Tech” has emerged as a favored target for Republican lawmakers and activists, even as prominent conservatives have amassed huge followings on Twitter, Facebook and other platforms. Pointing to such high-profile examples as Donald Trump’s suspension from Facebook and Twitter’s decision to briefly block a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, Republicans claim that U.S. tech companies have systematically suppressed conservative viewpoints and interfered with elections in ways that have helped Democrats.

A 2021 study issued by New York University researchers concluded those assertions were baseless. “The claim of anti-conservative animus on the part of social media companies is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it,” the researchers for the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights wrote.

Liberal lawmakers and policy experts have also called for stronger antitrust enforcement of major tech companies. During the 2020 presidential race, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., campaigned on a platform of breaking up Amazon, Facebook and Google, saying they had “too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy.” In 2021, Democrats in Congress introduced legislation to split up tech firms, but the bills never became law.

Matt Stoller, an antitrust expert who works at the American Economic Liberties Project, said it’s hard to tell if DeSantis’ private comments indicate genuine concern about corporate concentration of power or just anger at large firms perceived to be hostile to conservatives.

“There’s a war on the right about antitrust,” Stoller said. “I’m skeptical but open-minded that DeSantis wants to do something serious about economic power.”

Stoller added that he was more intrigued by DeSantis’ decision to call for breaking up tech at an event so closely associated with Leonard Leo. “If Leo buys that argument,” Stoller said, “then it means that a lot of federal judges might tip in that direction, too.”

A spokesperson for Leo declined to comment.

Teneo’s retreats are invite-only affairs limited to its members, their spouses and special guests. ProPublica and Documented obtained a video of DeSantis’ remarks about big tech, which took place during a longer conversation between DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur who is now running for president as a Republican.

As governor, DeSantis has repeatedly singled out tech and social-media companies, saying their actions “may be one of the most pervasive threats to American self-government in the 21st century.” Legislation he signed in May 2021 not only seeks to give Floridians the ability to sue tech companies and win monetary damages, it also empowers the state’s attorney general to bring cases against tech companies under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. (Tech companies are challenging the law, and its fate remains unclear.)

In February of this year, DeSantis introduced a plan to create what he called a Digital Bill of Rights for Florida citizens. The proposal, billed as a way to protect privacy and eliminate “unfair censorship,” would ban TikTok on state government devices and block local and state employees “from coordinating with Big Tech companies to censor protected speech.”

But unlike some of his fellow conservatives, DeSantis’ barbed public remarks about big tech have stopped short of urging the U.S. government to break up those tech companies. In his new book, “The Courage to Be Free,” he makes only a passing reference to “enforcing antitrust laws” against “large corporations that are wielding what is effectively public power.”

In his remarks at the Teneo Network retreat, DeSantis described tech companies as “monopolies” that “have more power over our lives than the monopolies of the early 20th century ever had. And it’s not even close.” He listed tech companies’ extensive data collection practices and their ability to shape “core political speech” as evidence of big tech’s monopolistic powers.

He went on to say that tech platforms “enforce their terms unevenly,” adding that “if you have a conservative viewpoint, you’re much more likely to get censored, you’re much more likely to get deplatformed.”

And in response to critics who might say it’s not the role of government at any level to insert itself into the workings of a private business, DeSantis offered a sharp rebuttal. “Protecting the rights of folks to participate in political speech, I think, is an absolutely appropriate role of government,” he said. “And I think that we should do all that we can.”

When pressed by Ramaswamy onstage about using government power to shrink big tech companies, DeSantis stood by his position. “Those big companies are basically an arm of the ruling regime,” he said. “Yeah, that should be something that should be done.” And when asked if he feared that breaking up U.S. companies would strengthen China’s position in global markets, DeSantis appeared unbothered, saying that he believed antitrust action was still the correct course.

“These tech companies are ruining our country,” he said. “They’re a very negative influence. You need to be strong about it. And so that would not be the biggest concern I would have. My concern would be not having massive concentrations of power that are capable of silencing dissent, enforcing an orthodoxy and obviously interfering in elections, which we saw they did in 2020.”

Do you have information about Leonard Leo or the Teneo Network that we should know? Reporter Andy Kroll can be reached via email at andy.kroll@propublica.org or via Signal at 202-215-6203.

Experts: Republicans’ “punitive” attacks on SNAP could strip food aid from over 10 million people

An analysis released Monday estimates that more than 10 million people across the United States—including 4 million children—would be at risk of losing food benefits if the GOP’s proposed attacks on federal nutrition assistance become law.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) analysis focuses specifically on legislation introduced last week by Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., who wants certain recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to face even more strict work requirements than they do under current law.

“Adults aged 18 through 49 without children in their homes can receive benefits for only three months out of every three years, unless they can document they are working or participate in a qualifying work program at least 20 hours a week or prove they are unable to work,” note CBPP’s Katie Bergh and Dottie Rosenbaum.

If passed, Johnson’s bill would raise the age ceiling for the strict work requirements from 49 to 65, a move that Bergh and Rosenbaum argue would endanger food benefits for both the adults specifically targeted by the law and those in their households.

Adults between the ages of 18 and 65 and without disabilities would be subject to the work requirements and benefit time limits “unless they have a child under age 7 in their home,” CBPP points out.

Research has demonstrated repeatedly that work requirements do virtually nothing to boost employment, undercutting the GOP’s stated rationale for attempting to expand them year after year.

Johnson’s legislation would also limit states’ ability to temporarily waive SNAP benefit time limits for able-bodied adults, a freedom that has been used to ensure people have consistent access to benefits during economic downturns.

“A total of more than 10 million people, about 1 in 4 SNAP participants, including about 4 million children, live in households that would be at risk of losing food assistance under the Johnson bill, based on our preliminary estimates,” Bergh and Rosenbaum write.

People who would face the loss of benefits, according to CBPP, include “some 3 million adults up to age 65, primarily parents or grandparents, who live in households with school-age children.” Those millions of children “would see their household’s food assistance fall if their parents or other adults in the family aren’t able to meet” the Johnson measure’s work requirements, the analysis notes.

Additionally, the Johnson bill—which currently has 24 Republican co-sponsors—would potentially strip food benefits from “about 2 million older adults aged 50 to 64 who do not have children in their homes” as well as adults who happen to live in areas with higher levels of unemployment, making it more difficult to find and hold a job.

While Bergh and Rosenbaum stress that “not everyone newly subject to these requirements would lose benefits,” a “very significant number are likely to be impacted because they are out of work, the state failed to screen them for an exemption they should have qualified for, or they were unable to navigate the verification system to prove they are working.”

“This is a punitive and ineffective approach,” Bergh and Rosenbaum argue. “SNAP is successful at reducing poverty and food insecurity and should be both protected this year from cuts and be strengthened in some areas so that it does more to combat food insecurity and hunger.”

Johnson’s bill was introduced after pandemic-related SNAP enhancements were allowed to expire earlier this month, hitting millions of people with steep benefit cuts—in some cases hundreds of dollars per month—as food prices remain elevated nationwide.

“I’m just going to have to go back to not eating very much, about a meal a day,” Teresa Calderez, a 63-year-old SNAP recipient who saw her benefits drop from $280 a month to $23, told NPR in a recent interview. “Unfortunately, I have known hunger. And it’s not a good feeling.”

The South Dakota Republican’s proposal isn’t the only one the House GOP is considering ahead of upcoming negotiations over the farm bill and the debt ceiling.

As CBPP notes:

Budget plans put forward by the Republican Study Committee and by Trump-era Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought would also take food assistance away through harmful work requirements while, respectively, instituting a strict block grant (often used to promote large, unspecified cuts) and radically restructuring SNAP by capping program spending.

In addition, the extensive cuts that House Republicans passed in their 2018 farm bill and similar measures the Trump Administration pursued by regulation could offer clues to what may be ahead in the farm bill debate. In 2018, we detailed how such provisions would hurt older people, workers, children, women, people with disabilities, and veterans. The House-passed bill would have caused more than 1 million households with more than 2 million people to lose benefits altogether or have them reduced. Those provisions were soundly rejected on a bipartisan basis in the Senate.

Facing criticism for failing to keep pandemic-related SNAP expansions alive, Democrats in the House and Senate have pledged to oppose any food assistance cuts going forward.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said during a hearing last week that Congress “must ensure that the farm bill continues to support the nutrition programs that serve as a lifeline to millions of people and families across this country.”

“The SNAP program provides food assistance for more than 41 million Americans, including children, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities,” said Stabenow. “Spending on nutrition programs does not rob resources from other farm bill programs, just as crop insurance doesn’t rob resources from other programs when disaster strikes and spending goes up.”

“But threats we are hearing from some in the House in favor of reckless and indiscriminate mandatory budget cuts will result in cuts to all farm bill programs,” the senator added. “We cannot go backward at a time when our farmers and families need us most.”

Senators had questions for the maker of a rent-setting algorithm. The answers were “alarming”

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

After a ProPublica investigation last year, a group of senators demanded answers from a real estate tech company that helps landlords set rents across the country.

The investigation revealed how some of the nation’s biggest landlords share proprietary information with RealPage, a Texas company whose software uses the data to recommend rent prices for available units. Legal experts say the arrangement may facilitate cartel-like behavior among landlords, who could use the software to coordinate pricing.

Now, RealPage has responded to questions from Democratic Sens.Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Tina Smith and Ed Markey. The company’s answers, the lawmakers said, revealed “alarming” new details.

In a letter to the Department of Justice, the senators said RealPage did not provide all the information they had asked for last November, but the answers the company did give raise concerns that its YieldStar software may play a role in driving rent inflation in some of the country’s biggest markets.

“YieldStar has been most prevalent in some of the regions most heavily targeted by corporate buyers and with the highest rent increases,” the senators wrote.

The legislators said that publicly available information shows the software is used in pricing more than 4 million units, representing about 8% of all rental units nationwide. RealPage has so many clients it has access to “transactional apartment data from the rent rolls of 13+ million units,” according to the company’s website.

“Given YieldStar’s market share, even the widespread use of its anonymized and aggregated proprietary rental data by the country’s largest landlords could result in de-facto price-setting by those companies, driving up prices and hurting renters,” the senators’ letter said.

The senators wrote that “the DOJ should act to protect American families and closely review rent-setting algorithms like YieldStar to determine if they are having anti-competitive effects on local housing markets that have seen increased institutional investor activity.”

In a response to questions from ProPublica about the lawmakers’ letter, a RealPage spokesperson said that the firm “appreciates the opportunity to work with the senators’ offices.” The company is “always willing to engage policy stakeholders to ensure an informed and comprehensive understanding of the benefits we contribute to the rental ecosystem,” the spokesperson said.

After ProPublica’s story ran, more than two dozen federal lawsuits were filed by renters alleging antitrust violations by RealPage and more than 40 landlords in multiple states. When the first complaint was filed, a RealPage representative told ProPublica that the company “strongly denies the allegations and will vigorously defend against the lawsuit.” She declined to comment further, saying the company does not comment on pending litigation.

In November, sources confirmed that the DOJ’s antitrust division had opened an investigation. At the time, RealPage did not respond to a request for comment .

In its 14-page response to the senators, RealPage said recent news stories, including ProPublica’s, “do not accurately describe how these products work, in particular with regard to the role that data about other properties plays in generating rent price recommendations for RealPage’s customers and the effect that the use of these products has had on rents and apartment occupancy rates.” The company said a shortage of supply in rental housing is responsible for driving rents higher, not its software. The letter was redacted in places to protect confidential business information.

The company said that the purpose of YieldStar is not to raise rents at every opportunity, but to “manage revenues” so they are in line with the owner’s needs and management strategy. Data “does not support the assertion that YieldStar uniformly pushes rents higher,” the company said, and the software will often recommend reducing rents to minimize vacancies.

ProPublica’s story did not assert that the software always pushes rents higher. But our data analysis found that five of RealPage’s largest clients controlled more apartments in cities where rents rose rapidly and fewer apartments in metro areas where rents increased more slowly. All five property managers used RealPage’s pricing software in at least some of their buildings, and together they control thousands of apartments in metro areas where rents for a typical two-bedroom apartment rose 30% or more between 2014 and 2019.

RealPage clients may gravitate toward high-rent-growth markets simply because the companies expect those areas to offer more opportunities to make money. But RealPage says pricing suggested by its software helps landlords beat their market.

In its letter to senators, RealPage said the software itself “never” recommends removing apartments from a landlord’s inventory — a move that reduces the supply of housing and could make it easier to command higher rents — though property managers can do so if a unit needs repairs or renovations, for example.

The company said that increased use of its software has not reduced the number of apartments available for rent overall. The company said the metro areas where YieldStar has the highest penetration “have not seen inflated vacancy rates.”

“While it is difficult to differentiate the impact of revenue management tools like YieldStar from other market forces that affect occupancy rates, the fact that apartment providers now have commercial revenue management products available to them has not resulted in a national increase in vacancy rates,” the company said. RealPage said vacancy rates have dropped over the decade — a trend that housing experts say is part of a crisis in housing availability and cost.

But we found examples where company officials had urged property managers to consider whether they could make more money from rentals by raising prices and not rushing to fill all vacant units.

RealPage’s former CEO, Steve Winn, boasted on an earnings call in 2017 that one large property company found it could make greater profits by operating at a lower occupancy rate that “would have made management uncomfortable before.”

“Initially, it was very hard for executives to accept that they could operate at 94% or 96% and achieve a higher NOI by increasing rents,” Winn said on the call, referring to net operating income. The company “began utilizing RealPage to operate at 95%, while seeing revenue increases of 3% to 4%.”

A RealPage blog in 2018 also warned student housing landlords that if they weren’t using revenue management software, they could be “leaving money on the table” by being too quick to decrease rents.

“Many of the beds renting earlier in the season were arbitrarily set at a lower tier price — and may have been rentable at a higher price,” the blog said. “Worse, in fear of empty beds, some properties offer concessions or discounts for early rental decisions when they might have been able to fill all the beds at a top tier price.”

Another page on RealPage’s website said: “By focusing on the right information — not just occupancy — capabilities like revenue management empower operators to assure that pricing is right and there’s no money left on the table.”

The company also told the senators that the final decision on what to charge rests with the property manager. “YieldStar customers are under no obligation — contractually or otherwise — to follow the pricing recommendations generated by YieldStar software,” the company said.

But former RealPage employees told ProPublica that landlords follow as much as 90% of the software’s suggestions.

The letter said that news reports “badly distort and overstate the role that non-public data about other properties plays.” RealPage said its software prioritizes a landlord’s internal rent data over external factors such as what competitors charge.

But it acknowledged that it draws information from “executed leases,” which are typically not public.

Even with RealPage’s explanation, Warren and the other senators expressed concerns about the use of such data.

“Notably, RealPage provided important information about the extent to which the company facilitates information sharing by and among large institutional landlords — a particular concern given the market share of the product,” the senators’ letter to the DOJ said.

The company said its software helps landlords offer prospective renters more options for the length and cost of a lease. It said that the algorithm removes human biases that can result in violations of laws barring discrimination in housing.

The letter said revenue management software is not unique to RealPage, or even to the housing market.

But ProPublica found that the company became the dominant provider of such services for apartment rentals in 2017, when it bought its biggest competitor.

Trump claims his phone got hacked by the “radical left” after prayer call goes off the rails

A recent online prayer session led by a conservative Christian group went haywire before former President Donald Trump ultimately blamed the technical difficulties on the “radical left.”

“The Pastors For Trump National Prayer Call”, held on Monday, invited several prominent members of the GOP to partake in the session, including Trump, longtime Trump-ally Roger Stone, and Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Insider reported that the prayer call had been organized on Trump’s behalf as the former president faces impending indictment charges for his role in hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. 

Not long after Trump hopped on the call, pastor and session host Jackson Lahmeyer began the discussion by asking Trump for a prayer request. Trump’s audio briefly disconnected for several minutes before Trump was able to rejoin. 

“Okay, I guess we have some phone miscommunication. And I think what happened was that the radical left was working on the phone. There is no question about it,” Trump asserted. 

Lahmeyer told The Daily Beast that the faulty phone call was likely due to “trolls.”

“Everything froze on our end,” Lahmeyer said. “I think the system got overloaded with the number of viewers.” 

Trump spokesman Steven Cheung told the outlet that millions of Americans “are praying for President Trump because he is the only one standing in the way of radical, liberal prosecutors abusing their power from targeting citizens they disagree with.”


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


During the call, Stone argued that a “routine campaign finance violation” was being used to position Trump at the center of a “weaponized judicial process.”

Flynn, who pleaded guilty to the FBI in 2017 for lying about communication with Russia, stated that Trump was saving America from going down a “godless path.”

Supreme Court hears Navajo demands for Colorado River water rights

In 1849 and 1868, the Navajo Nation signed two treaties with the United States. The treaties created a reservation that would serve as a “permanent home” for the Navajo so long as the tribe allowed settlers to live on most of its traditional territory, which include much of what is currently New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado. The treaties also established that the government would provide the Navajo with “seeds and agricultural implements” to raise crops on the reservation. 

After 20 years of litigation, representatives for the Navajo Nation appeared before the Supreme Court on Monday to argue that those treaties require the federal government to provide water to their reservation, likely from the much-contested Colorado River. On the opposing side were lawyers for the Biden administration and a group of western states, who argued that a decision in favor of the Navajo Nation would upend the legal landscape around the Colorado River at a time when states are already scrambling to cope with drought. The outcome of the case could determine the future of water access on the Navajo reservation.

“If the Supreme Court agrees with the Biden administration that there’s no judicially enforceable obligation to do anything with water, that would be a seriously consequential and very damaging decision,” said Jay Weiner, water counsel for the Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation.

The two-hour argument session in Arizona v. Navajo Nation hinged on several questions that appeared to divide the nine-member court down the middle, leaving the scope and direction of the justices’ final decisions unclear. If the Navajo win, they will have a narrow but workable path to secure a significant water settlement on the Colorado River, but if they lose, their litigation over the river will come to an end, forcing them to look elsewhere for a solution to decades of water access problems.

The Navajo reservation straddles New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah, and a large part of the territory, which is roughly the size of West Virginia, borders the Colorado River. But the Navajo Nation doesn’t have rights to take water from the river. The tribe can pump groundwater and take some water from the river’s tributaries, but it lacks the infrastructure to provide water to its citizens, and as a result, many parts of the reservation face serious water access issues. Many tribal citizens rely on deliveries of bottled water for basic health needs and use, on average, seven gallons of water per day – around one-twentieth of the daily amount that residents of neighboring Arizona use.

“For the better part of a century and a half, development in the west has historically and systemically underfunded and disregarded tribal nations,” Weiner said. “Billions of dollars for infrastructure projects of all kinds have gone to off-reservation communities at the expense of marginalized tribes. “

The question before the Supreme Court on Monday was whether the United States’s treaties with the Navajo Nation requires it to find more water for the tribe. The Court ruled in a landmark 1908 case called Winters that when the government creates an Indian reservation, it accepts an obligation to deliver water to that reservation for agricultural use. The Navajo argue that the government has failed to meet that obligation. While the tribe has limited access to water from a few Colorado River tributaries, much of the reservation borders the Colorado River’s main stem, and the tribe argues that it should have rights to use that water.

At least four justices seemed to find the Navajo Nation’s argument persuasive. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who often sides with his three liberal colleagues on Indigenous issues, pressed the government’s lawyer, Frederick Liu on the question of the government’s obligations.

“Clearly there is a duty to provide some water to this tribe under the treaty right now,” he said to Liu. “What am I missing?” The court’s three liberal justices echoed Gorsuch’s line of reasoning about the treaty, as did conservative Amy Coney Barrett, indicating a potential majority in the Navajo’s favor.

The problem for the Navajo Nation is that if the United States meets the obligations of Winters, the delivery of water to Navajo citizens would clash with other realms of water law. Since the Supreme Court already allocated all the water in the lower Colorado River decades ago, fulfilling the Navajo Nation’s treaty rights might require it to take water away from one or more of the seven states that use the river.

In an amicus brief filed ahead of the arguments, a group of irrigators and farming organizations from across the West argued that such a move would destabilize the western water system, writing that giving the Navajo water “would necessarily come at the expense of existing allocation holders” which “would have severe negative consequences for Arizona,” which has junior rights to the river. Justice Alito, part of the Court’s six-member conservative bloc, parroted that argument in his questioning.

“What would be the impact on access to water by people who don’t live on reservations?” he asked Liu. The other conservative justices pressed the lawyer for the Navajo Nation, Shay Dvoretzky, about what forms of relief the nation was seeking, and whether the U.S. would have an obligation to construct pipelines or other infrastructure to satisfy the tribe’s Winters rights.

Weiner said there are a wide range of potential verdicts: five votes in support of the Navajo nation could reflect a “robust and profound” reaffirmation of tribal water rights, or it could look like a narrower affirmation of the tribe’s treaty rights with limited implications for the Navajo Nation and Indian Country more broadly. This wouldn’t give the Navajo any new water rights, but would only mean that the tribe could continue to litigate for their water rights in a lower court, where the Biden administration and western states will be sure to keep fighting back. Even if that litigation ends up being successful, obtaining water will require drawn-out settlement negotiations with states like Arizona, plus the construction of significant new infrastructure, likely on a decades-long timeline.

If a majority of justices side with the Biden administration and the states, Weiner says the question in the case will be how much damage the court could to tribal rights. The “least damaging” decision against the Navajo would put an end to the Nation’s decades-long campaign for water rights from the Colorado River main stem; it would still be possible for the Nation to develop new infrastructure to pump groundwater, for instance, but its fight to secure new water rights would be over for the foreseeable future. A broader decision against the Navajo could have implications for future Winters litigation.

“It’s a very significant case because it really has the potential to affect not just the Navajo Nation and not just water rights, but really the entire body of law that affects how and whether tribes can hold the United States to account for treaty-based promises,” Weiner said. 


This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/indigenous/supreme-court-navajo-nation-colorado-river-water-rights-gorsuch/.

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

“Baseless”: Legal experts say Trump’s bid to avoid Georgia indictment is “completely without merit”

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump filed a motion in Georgia court on Monday seeking to suppress the release of a report of a special purpose grand jury that investigated efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election. 

The motion filed in Atlanta also seeks to “preclude the use of any evidence derived” from the special grand jury’s investigation, and it requests that the office of Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, be disqualified from the case.

“Given the scrutiny and the gravity of the investigation and those individuals involved – namely, the movant President Donald J. Trump, this process should have been handled correctly, fairly, and with deference to the law and the highest ethical standards,” Trump lawyer Drew Findling wrote. “Instead, the [special grand jury] involved a constant lack of clarity as to the law, inconsistent applications of basic constitutional protections for individuals brought before it, and a prosecutor’s office that was found to have an actual conflict yet continued to pursue the investigation.”

Willis spent the last year leading a “special purpose grand jury” to look into election interference by Trump and his allies. 

For at least eight months, the special grand jury heard testimony from 75 witnesses, including some of Trump’s closest aides and advisers. In January, Willis told a judge that charging decisions in the case are “imminent.”

Even as Trump’s lawyers have tried to quash the release of the report and criticized the special purpose grand jury, calling it “confusing, flawed, and at-times, blatantly unconstitutional,” their latest filing will not impact the ongoing investigation, legal experts say.

“The motion is completely without merit,” Clark Cunningham, a professor of law and ethics at Georgia State University, told Salon. “At this point, the former president cannot show that he has been harmed in any way by the actions of the special grand jury, by the actions of any individual member of the grand jury, the district attorney, or Judge McBurney. He will have to renew these arguments only after he has been indicted, if he is.” 

Trump’s lawyers in their filing argued that the Georgia law that allows for special grand juries is “unconstitutionally vague,” and doesn’t specify whether a grand jury is handling a criminal or civil matter.

Findling also argued that the entire process was defective and should be thrown out. He said comments made by special grand jurors to media, as well as by the presiding judge in the case, Robert McBurney, tainted any future criminal proceedings. 

Trump’s legal team also criticized the grand jury’s forewoman, who went on a media tour last month, in which she said multiple people were recommended for indictment.

“The foreperson’s public comments in and of themselves likewise violate notions of fundamental fairness and due process and taint any future grand jury pool,” his lawyers wrote in the legal filing.


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


While the Fulton D.A.’s office could be “reasonably critiqued” for engaging too much with the media or wading into ordinary politics, the idea that an actual conflict of interest exists that would require recusal is “baseless,” assistant law professor at Georgia State University Anthony Michael Kreis told Salon.

“It seems that the rule Trump’s legal team is advocating for is any Democratic prosecutor who wants to hold the former president to account is inherently biased to the point of requiring removal,” Kreis said. “It is a similar pattern to what we’re seeing now with the Manhattan case where there is a political strategy to tar the reputation and motivations of prosecutors ahead of potential indictments.”

He added that his legal team’s motion to quash isn’t necessarily to win but to “gum up the process in appeals, which the Trump team could plausibly accomplish here,” but it may also ironically push the prosecutors to expedite the process on their end.

Over the weekend, Trump claimed in a social media post that he would be arrested on Tuesday as part of an investigation by the Manhattan district attorney into a hush money payment he made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. 

A special counsel for the Justice Department is also investigating Trump’s handling of sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago and his efforts to overturn the election results and his conduct related to the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

In Georgia, Willis and her team are said to be closely examining Trump’s phone calls and the role he played in assembling an alternate slate of electors.

Willis appears to be building a case that could target multiple defendants with charges of conspiracy to commit election fraud, or charges related to racketeering, according to The New York Times.

“There is little doubt in my mind that Donald Trump will face charges for conspiring to commit election fraud in Georgia,” Kreis said. “The bigger question is when, whether the DA will attempt to use racketeering statute, and who else might be swept into a broad conspiracy charge.”

Welcome to Utah, where pipeline protests could now get you at least five years in prison

In Utah, protests that hinder the functioning of fossil fuel infrastructure could now lead to at least five years in prison. The new rules make Utah the 19th state in the country to pass legislation with stiffer penalties for protesting at so-called critical infrastructure sites, which include oil and gas facilities, power plants, and railroads. The new laws proliferated in the aftermath of the Standing Rock protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2017.

Utah’s legislature passed two separate bills containing stricter penalties for tampering with or damaging critical infrastructure earlier this month. House Bill 370 makes intentionally “inhibiting or impeding the operation of a critical infrastructure facility” a first degree felony, which is punishable by five years to life in prison. A separate bill allows law enforcement to charge a person who “interferes with or interrupts critical infrastructure” with a third degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. Both bills were signed into law by the governor last week. 

Of the two bills, First Amendment and criminal justice advocates are particularly concerned about HB 370 due to its breadth, the severity of penalties, and its potential to curb environmental protests. The bill contains a long list of facilities that are considered critical infrastructure including grain mills, trucking terminals, and transmission facilities used by federally licensed radio or television stations. It applies both to facilities that are operational and those under construction. 

Since the bill doesn’t define activities that may be considered “inhibiting or impeding” operations at a facility, environmental protesters may inadvertently find themselves in the crosshairs of the legislation, according to environmental and civil liberties advocates. Protesters engaging in direct action often chain themselves to equipment, block roadways, or otherwise disrupt operations at fossil fuel construction sites. Under the new legislation, such activities could result in a first degree felony charge.

“This bill could be used to prohibit pipeline protests like we saw with the Dakota [Access] Pipeline project,” said Mark Moffat, an attorney with the Utah Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, referring to the 2017 protests at Standing Rock in North Dakota. “It elevates what would be basically a form of vandalism or criminal mischief under the laws of the state of Utah to a first-degree felony.”

A first-degree felony is typically reserved for violent crimes like murder and sexual assault. Moffat said that the state’s sentencing guidelines are indeterminate, which means the amount of time someone spends in prison is at the discretion of the Board of Pardons.

“When you increase these to first degree felonies, you increase the likelihood of incarceration,” said Moffat. “In my experience, those people are going to go to prison as opposed to receiving a term of probation,” he said.  

Similar bills are pending in at least five other states, including Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Idaho, and North Carolina. These bills include various misdemeanor and felony charges for trespassing, disrupting, or otherwise interfering with operations at critical infrastructure facilities. 

In the last five years, 19 states (including Utah) have passed legislation that criminalize protest activity. In many states, attention-grabbing protests at pipeline construction sites, such as those over the Dakota Access Pipeline and Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline, prompted lawmakers to pass tougher penalties for trespassing, damaging equipment, and interfering with operations. The penalties ranged from a few thousand dollars in fines to several years behind bars. Many of these bills also bore a striking resemblance to model legislation developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a membership organization for state lawmakers and industry representatives best known for drafting model legislation that’s later enacted by conservative states.

However, the stated justification for the Utah legislation does not seem to be past fossil fuel protests. Instead, proponents of the bill repeatedly referred to the recent spate of attacks on electrical substations in the U.S.

“Why is the bill needed? Because we’re seeing increased attempts by individuals across the country to damage critical infrastructure,” said Utah state Representative Carl Albrecht, a Republican and one of the sponsors of the bill.

In recent months, at least nine substations in North Carolina, Washington, and Oregon have been attacked, causing power outages for thousands. An analysis of federal records by the news organization Politico found that attacks on electrical equipment are at an all-time high since 2012, with more than 100 incidents in the first eight months of last year. Most recently, the FBI foiled plans by a neo-Nazi group to take down the electric grid in Baltimore, Maryland. 

The Utah bill received broad support from several utilities in the state, including Dominion Energy, Deseret Power, and Rocky Mountain Power, which own and operate pipelines, power plants, substations, and transmission lines that are considered “critical infrastructure” by the bill. Jonathan Whitesides, a spokesperson for Rocky Mountain Power, said that the company has dealt with copper theft and vandalism at its electrical substations in recent months. The resulting power outage affected more than 3,500 customers

“As an electric utility we have a commitment to provide safe and reliable power to customers, and having increased penalties for criminal activity is one piece of a comprehensive approach for electric reliability,” he said. 

Whatever the initial motivation, the bills in Utah and other states can still be used against peaceful protesters, said Elly Page, an attorney with International Center for Not for-Profit Law, a group that has been tracking anti-protest legislation around the country.

“It’s still concerning because they’re fairly broadly drafted,” she said. “Many of these bills carry very severe penalties that are likely to make people think twice before engaging in protected First Amendment activities and raising their voice around infrastructure projects that affect our communities and that affect our planet.”


This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/protest/utah-critical-infrastructure-law-felony/.

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

Eating certain foods may do the same thing as Ozempic and related drugs — without the side-effects

You’ve probably heard about the medication Ozempic, used to manage type 2 diabetes and as a weight loss drug.

Ozempic (and the similar drug Wegovy) has had more than its fair share of headlines and controversies. A global supply shortage, tweets about using it from Elon Musk, approval for adolescent weight loss in the United States . . . Oscars host Jimmy Kimmel even joked about it on film’s night of nights last week.

But how much do we really need drugs like Ozempic? Can we use food as medicine to replace them?

How does Ozempic work?

The active ingredient in Ozempic is semaglutide, which works by inducing satiety. This feeling of being satisfied or “full”, suppresses appetite. This is why it works for weight loss.

Semaglutide also helps the pancreas produce insulin, which is how it helps manage type 2 diabetes. Our body needs insulin to move the glucose (or blood sugar) we get from food inside cells, so we can use it as energy.

Semaglutide works by mimicking the role of a natural hormone, called GLP-1 (glucagon like peptide-1) normally produced in response to detecting nutrients when we eat. GLP-1 is part of the signaling pathway that tells your body you have eaten and prepare it to use the energy that comes from your food.

Can food do that?

The nutrients that trigger GLP-1 secretion are macronutrients — simple sugars (monosaccharides), peptides and amino acids (from proteins) and short chain fatty acids (from fats and also produced by good gut bacteria). There are lots of these macronutrients in energy-dense foods, which tend to be foods high in fat or sugars with a low water content. There is evidence that by choosing foods high in these nutrients, GLP-1 levels can be increased.

This means a healthy diet, high in GLP-1 stimulating nutrients can increase GLP-1 levels. This could be foods with good fats, like avocado or nuts or lean protein sources like eggs. And foods high in fermentable fiber, like vegetables and whole grains, feed our gut bacteria, which then produce short chain fatty acids able to trigger GLP-1 secretion.

This is why high fat, high fiber and high protein diets can all help you feel fuller for longer. It’s also why diet change is part of both weight and type 2 diabetes management.

Not so fast . . . 

However, it’s not necessarily that simple for everyone. This system also means that when we diet and restrict energy intake, we get more hungry. And for some people that “set point” for weight and hunger might be different.

Some studies have shown GLP-1 levels, particularly after meals, are lower in people with obesity. This could be from reduced production of GLP-1 or increased breakdown. The receptors that detect it might also be less sensitive or there might be fewer receptors. This could be because of differences in the genes that code for GLP-1, the receptors or parts of the pathways that regulate production. These genetic differences are things we can’t change.

So, are injections the easier fix?

While diet and drugs can both work, both have their challenges.

Medications like Ozempic can have side effects including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and issues in other organs. Plus, when you stop taking it, the feelings of suppressed appetite will start to go away and people will start to feel hungry at their old levels. If you’ve lost lots of weight quickly, you may feel even hungrier than before.

Dietary changes have much fewer risks in terms of side effects, but the responses will take more time and effort.

In our busy modern society, costs, times, skills, accessibility and other pressures can also be barriers to healthy eating, feeling full and insulin levels.

Dietary and medication solutions often put the focus on the individual making changes to improve health outcomes, but systemic changes, that reduce the pressures and barriers that make healthy eating hard (like shortening work weeks or raising the minimum wage) are much more likely to make a difference.

It’s also important to remember weight is only one part of the health equation. If you suppress your appetite but maintain a diet high in ultra-processed foods low in micronutrients, you could lose weight but not increase your actual nourishment. So support to improve dietary choices is needed, regardless of medication use or weight loss, for true health improvements.

The bottom line

The old quote “Let food be thy medicine” is catchy and often based on science, especially when drugs are deliberately chosen or designed to mimic hormones and compounds already naturally occurring in the body. Changing diet is a way to modify our health and our biological responses. But these effects occur on a background of our personal biology and our unique life circumstances.

For some people, medication will be a tool to improve weight and insulin-related outcomes. For others, food alone is a reasonable pathway to success.

While the science is for populations, health care is individual and decisions around food and/or medicine should be made with the considered advice of health care professionals. GPs and dietitians can work with your individual situation and needs.


Emma Beckett, Senior Lecturer (Food Science and Human Nutrition), School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle

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

The best cheesesteaks aren’t in Philly

Philadelphia does not have the best cheesesteak, but people won’t say it. 

The City of Brotherly Love and cheesesteaks go together like cereal and milk. The tradition goes back to the Olivieri brothers, Pat and Harry. They ran a hot dog stand close to South Philadelphia’s Italian Market. 

Hungry to increase revenue, the two entrepreneurs started experimenting with brand new sandwiches in the 1930s, where the idea of grilled beef and onions on the toasted roll was born. Legend has it that the cheese concept wasn’t introduced into the 40s and the rest of this sub-history. I’m not sure when adding Cheese Wiz, which is the spam of cheese, came into the mix. Still, I speak for many when I say abolish it, trash it, throw it away, forget about it; we don’t need you anymore.

As a loyal sub connoisseur, I  acknowledge the innovation of the Oliveri brothers. Still, we have become too comfortable accepting Philly as the end-all-be-all for cheesesteaks, mainly because no one ever challenges it. If I rank cities solely based on cheesesteaks, Philly is not in my top-two. 

“Try the chicken steak,” Mr. Kim from the corner said to me and my friend DI back in Baltimore the 90s. “Come on, try.” 

The store was closed. DI and I were 10 and innocent and ashy. The two of us were practicing crossovers and in-and-out dribbles under the streetlight. Mr. Kim typically wasn’t into handing out free food — so something was up, but our young, always starving preteen bodies left little room for investigation. 

“Hurry!” Kim said, waving us into the store, and latching the door. 

We knew Mr. Kim; he unofficially helped raise us. Everyone called his wife Ma Ma. As little kids, we’d hit his store up for Now, Laters and penny candy and to buy soap, Lotto tickets for grandma, and chicken boxes and mozzarella sticks for the dudes who hustled on the corner across the street from the carryout. 

Mr. Kim, and his wife, had everything you would need to run a household inside the store from Ajax to pancake mix — with the more expensive and easily sellable items like soap and shampoo all secured behind the bulletproof glass. His cook station was behind the glass as well. 

“What do you take on your sub?” Mr. Kim asked. 

“Everything!” DI yelled. 

“Everything?” I asked, “Yo, it’s gonna be so spicy and nasty.”

“Nah my muva let me bite her sub, she always gets everything, and it’s good.” 


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


DI was right — it wasn’t only good, but it was the best sub I ever had in my life and set the criteria for what a great cheesesteak or chicken cheesesteak should be. In Baltimore, “add everything” means a toasted roll, enough steak to fall off of that toasted roll, lettuce, tomato, mayonnaise, fried onions, and instead of big awkward peppers, you get “hots,” a vinegary spread of chopped peppers. And provolone cheese. Not cheddar, not Swiss, damn sure not American, but provolone. 

Mr. Kim was up to something all right — because after trying that chicken cheesesteak, DI and I flooded the neighborhood as unpaid, unofficial sales reps telling the other kids that they have not lived a life unless they tried a chicken cheese steak from the corner store. They followed in our footsteps. 

“Chicken cheesesteak?” People questioned, “Really? I like steak!”

“The steak is still good, but chicken cheesesteaks are their own thing!” We shot back over and over again. 

Decades later, I’m still in love with the sub — the aroma still makes me drool, and I still get doe-eyed at the sight of the meat being scooped off the grill and placed onto the bread. 

In honor of the great American sandwich, I will rank some of the best spots I visited multiple times on the East Coast and hope you get a chance to enjoy them: 

4) New York

The Big Apple is making this list because their version, which is often called a chopped cheese, is delicious — mainly because you can grab one from almost any bodega around 3:00 or 4:00 a.m.  just in time to soak up the liquor, put you to sleep and have you energized and ready for that 9:00 a.m. Zoom call. 

3) Philly 

Many pedestrians will try to point you to Geno’s or Pats in South Philly. Pedestrians are typically wrong — the best place to get a cheesesteak in Philly is Max’s in North Philly. There is no debate and nothing to talk about. This place is unique, one-of-a-kind, and never missed. Think I’m lying? Then roll up to this place on a Friday night in the spring, and I bet you that line will be hanging out the door because real Philadelphians know that Max’s runs that town. And please, Jesus, tell them to hold the Cheese Wiz. 

2) Washington, D.C.  

Yum’s on 14th in The District deserves a medal from the president — I’m not sure why Joe Biden doesn’t hold his press conferences in front of that spot, because if he did his approval ratings would shortly go up. The Chinese food at Yum’s is A1 — but the steaks are God-level. Too often, I’m in DC on fancy business at fancy restaurants. Still, when I get to sneak away and eat something salty and greasy that I know I shouldn’t be eating, I slide to Yums, cop a cheesesteak, make sure they drench it in Mumbo because that’s a DC thing and proceed to enjoy dinner for one in my car. 

1) Baltimore  

Baltimore, Maryland, has the best cheesesteaks in America for one reason and one reason only: many residents risk their lives for them. 

“D, where are you were going?” It’s something that has been asked of me around 2:00 AM on too many occasions. Causing me to pause, puff out my chest, look the person who asked the question in the eye, and say, “I’m headed to Jimmy’s.” 

“But D, someone was just shot on that block!” 

I zip my coat, grit my teeth, position my eyebrow like Dwayne Johnson when playing “The Rock,” and respond, “If something happens to me, make sure you tell my story.” 

Okay, so it never really happened like that. Still, I had made that trip plenty of times against my better judgment and a better assessment of others — but damn, those steaks are good. And it’s not just Jimmy’s on Huffman–– there is also Dino’s on Orleans Street, JJ’s on Monument Street, Mama Mia’s or Broadway, and Café 1908 on Preston

All of these places are not in dangerous neighborhoods. However, many people found themselves in trouble creeping out of Jimmy’s at 2:00 in the morning.

The sandwiches made at these establishments are golden. Many may think I’m giving Baltimore the number-one slot because it’s my hometown. However, that couldn’t be farther from the truth; the honest answer lies in greasiness. Baltimore cheesesteaks, chicken cheesesteaks, or fish buns are not greasy. The bag isn’t soaked in oil when the cashier passes it to you don’t need a roll of paper towels to dry your arms, forearms, neck, and chin after taking a few bites. A lack of grease allows you to hear the crunch of the letters and taste the tomato. It allows you to see how well the chef seasoned the meat and feel the texture of those fried onions — a lack of grease will enable you to experience the sandwich. Baltimore does that. 

Appropriate grease distribution is what makes Baltimore the best.