Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

SCOTUS takeover architect Leonard Leo’s new group seeks to influence all politics and culture

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

A few months ago, Leonard Leo laid out his next audacious project.

Ever since the longtime Federalist Society leader helped create a conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court, and then received more than a billion dollars from a wealthy Chicago business owner to disburse to conservative causes, Leo’s next moves had been the subject of speculation.

Now, Leo declared in a slick but private video to potential donors, he planned to “crush liberal dominance” across American life. The country was plagued by “woke-ism” in corporations and education, “one-sided journalism” and “entertainment that’s really corrupting our youth,” said Leo amid snippets of cheery music and shots of sunsets and American flags.

Sitting tucked into a couch, with wire-rimmed glasses and hair gone to gray, Leo conveyed his inspiration and intentions: “I just said to myself, ‘Well, if this can work for law, why can’t it work for lots of other areas of American culture and American life where things are really messed up right now?'”

Leo revealed his latest battle plan in the previously unreported video for the Teneo Network, a little-known group he called “a tremendously important resource for the future of our country.”

Teneo is building what Leo called in the video “networks of conservatives that can roll back” liberal influence in Wall Street and Silicon Valley, among authors and academics, with pro athletes and Hollywood producers. A Federalist Society for everything.

Despite its linchpin role in Leo’s plans, Teneo (which is not the similarly named consulting firm associated with former officials in the Bill Clinton administration) has kept a low public profile. Its one-page website includes bland slogans — “Timeless ideas. Fresh approach” — and scant details. Its co-founder described Teneo as “private and confidential” in one presentation, and the group doesn’t disclose the vast majority of its members or its funders.

But ProPublica and Documented have obtained more than 50 hours of internal Teneo videos and hundreds of pages of documents that reveal the organization’s ambitious agenda, influential membership and burgeoning clout. We have also interviewed Teneo members and people familiar with the group’s activities. The videos, documents and interviews provide an unfiltered look at the lens through which the group views the power of the left — and how it plans to combat it.

In response to questions for this story, Leo said in a statement: “Teneo’s young membership proves that the conservative movement is poised to be even more talented, driven, and successful in the future. This is a group that knows how to build winning teams.”

The records show Teneo’s members have included a host of prominent names from the conservative vanguard, including such elected officials as U.S. Sens. J.D. Vance of Ohio and Missouri’s Josh Hawley, a co-founder of the group. Other members have included Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, now the fourth-ranking House Republican, as well as Nebraska’s attorney general and Virginia’s solicitor general. Three senior aides to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a potential 2024 presidential candidate, are members. Another is the federal judge who struck down a Biden administration mask mandate. The heads of the Republican Attorneys General Association, Republican State Leadership Committee and Turning Point USA — all key cogs in the world of national conservative politics — have been listed as Teneo members.

Conservative media figures like Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire, several pro athletes and dozens of executives and senior figures in the worlds of finance, energy and beyond have also been members.

Leo joined Teneo’s board of directors as chairman in 2021 and has since become a driving force.

Teneo co-founder Evan Baehr, a tech entrepreneur and veteran of conservative activism, said in a 2019 video for new members that Teneo had “many, many, many dozens” of members working in the Trump administration, including in the White House, State Department, Justice Department and Pentagon. “They’re everywhere.”

The goal, Baehr said in another video, was “a world in which Teneans serve in the House and the Senate, as governors — one might be elected president.”

Here’s how “the Left” works in America, according to Baehr.

“Imagine a group of four people sitting at the Harvard Club for lunch in midtown Manhattan,” he said in a 2020 Teneo video: “a billionaire hedge funder,” “a film producer,” “a Harvard professor” and “a New York Times writer.”

“The billionaire says: ‘Wouldn’t it be cool if middle school kids had free access to sex-change therapy paid for by the federal government?'” Baehr continued. “Well, the filmmaker says, ‘I’d love to do a documentary on that; it will be a major motion film.’ The Harvard professor says, ‘We can do studies on that to say that’s absolutely biologically sound and safe.’ And the New York Times person says, ‘I’ll profile people who feel trapped in the wrong gender.’ “

After a single lunch, Baehr concluded, elite liberals can “put different kinds of capital together” and “go out into the world” and “basically wreck shop.”

In a recorded video “town hall” held for incoming members, Baehr, a graduate of three Ivy League universities and a serial entrepreneur fluent in tech startup lingo, recalled the moment when he had the epiphany to create a conservative counter-effort.

It happened a decade earlier when he was eating lunch at a “fairly uninviting” Baja Fresh in Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C., with his then-boss Peter Thiel, the iconoclastic venture capitalist.

Baehr explained in the video that he had become frustrated as he kicked around right-of-center politics and activism for a few years, working on Capitol Hill, in the George W. Bush White House and for right-of-center groups including the American Enterprise Institute and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

Baehr and Thiel lamented what they saw as the fragmented state of conservative networks, with their hidebound think tanks and intellectual centers that hold sway over right-of-center politics. A rare bright spot on their side, Baehr and Thiel agreed, was the Federalist Society. Thiel had, in fact, served as president of the Stanford Federalist Society. What if there were a group similar to the Federalist Society for venture capitalists or corporate CEOs or members of the media? (Thiel did not respond to a request for comment.)

In 2008, Baehr, Hawley and others launched Teneo — Latin for “I grasp” or “I endure.” Hawley, then an associate lawyer in private practice, authored Teneo’s founding principles, according to the new member talk hosted by Baehr, and served on the group’s board. Its core beliefs align with the broader conservative establishment’s: limited government, individual liberty, free enterprise, strong national defense and civil society and belief in a “transcendent order” that is “founded in tradition, philosophy, or theology.”

For a long time, the group didn’t live up to expectations. In its first year, Teneo raised a paltry $77,000, according toits tax filing. From 2009 to 2017, the group, based first in Washington, D.C., and later in Austin, Texas, never raised more than $750,000 in a single year, tax records show. One member described in an interview Teneo’s early days as little more than a run-of-the-mill dinner club with partisan overtones: “Instead of being an organization about ideas, it was all about being a Republican.”

Enter Leo. In the early years of the Trump administration, he and the Federalist Society had remarkable influence within the new government. The Federalist Society had brought the legal doctrines of originalism and textualism — close readings of laws and the Constitution to adhere to the intent and words of the authors — into the mainstream. Leo had taken a leave of absence from the group to advise President Trump on judicial appointments, helping shepherd the appointments of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court and helping to fill more than 200 other positions in federal district and appellate courts. By the time Trump left office, he had put on the bench28% of all federal judges in America.

In the town hall video, Baehr explained how he modeled Teneo on the Federalist Society. Leo’s “secret sauce,” he said, was to identify an “inner core” group of people within the Federalist Society’s 60,000 members. Leo was “identifying them and recruiting them for either specific roles to serve as judges or to spin up and launch critical projects often which you would have no idea about.”

Soon after Leo took an interest in Teneo, the group’s finances soared. Annual revenuereached$2.3 million in 2020 and nearly $5 million in 2021, according to tax records. In 2021, the bulk of Teneo’s income — more than $3 million — came from one source: DonorsTrust, a clearinghouse for conservative, libertarian and other charitable gifts that masks the original source of the money. In 2020, the Leo-run group that received the Chicago business owner’s $1.6 billion donation gave $41 million to DonorsTrust, which had $1.5 billion in assets as of 2021.

Teneo’s other funders have included marquee conservative donors: hedge fund investor Paul Singer, Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, the Charles Koch Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the DeVos family, according to Baehr.

As the group’s finances improved, its videos became much more professionally produced, and its website underwent a dramatic upgrade from previous iterations. All of this was part of what Baehr called “Teneo 2.0,” a major leap forward for the group, driven in part by Leo’s guidance and involvement.

Baehr declined an interview request. He said in a statement: “Since Teneo began, I’ve been building hundreds of friendships among diverse leaders who have a deep love for this country and are working on innovative solutions to drive human flourishing for all. Teneo has made me a better husband, father, and leader.”

Teneo aims to help members find jobs, write books, meet spouses, secure start-up financing or nonprofit donors and learn about public service. As described in a “Community Vision” report from 2019, Teneo seeks to distinguish itself by acting as “the Silicon Valley of Conservatism — a powerful network of communities where the most influential young leaders, the biggest ideas, and the most leveraged resources come together to launch key projects that advance our shared belief that the conservative worldview drives human flourishing.”

Many of the connections happen at Teneo’s annual retreat, which brings together hundreds of members and their spouses, plus allies including politicians like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and DeSantis as well as business leaders and prominent academics. Speakers at past Teneo retreats have included luminaries spanning politics, culture, business and the law: New York Times columnist David Brooks, federal judge Trevor McFadden, Blackwater founder Erik Prince, “Woke, Inc.” author and 2024 presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, former Trump cabinet official and 2024 presidential hopeful Nikki Haley, ultrawealthy donors and activists Dick and Betsy DeVos, and Chick-fil-A board chair Dan Cathy.

But the group’s internal documents and videos also show the widening sprawl of its other activities. Teneo currently has 20 regional chapters nationwide, plus industry working groups focused, most recently, on media, corporate America, finance and law. In April, the group is hosting a “finance summit” in South Beach that its invitation says will “convene rising conservative talent from major financial institutions, funds, and family offices to connect and discuss key industry issues fundamental to the future of our country.”

Teneo members represent different facets of the conservative movement writ large. Some Teneo members were “very strong Trump defenders,” Baehr said in the 2019 town hall video, while others have opposed Trump vehemently. Baehr said there were clear divisions within the group’s members about immigration and trade policy. “Hopefully other ones, maybe Green New Deal, I hope that’s more like 99 to 1” in opposition, he said.

It’s in the town hall video that Baehr assured new members that Teneo “is private and confidential.” He said the group will never reveal the names of its members without their permission, though they are free to disclose their membership if they want to. Members must be in their 40s or younger to join.

Baehr said Teneo’s website is crafted so as not to pique the interest of Senate staffers who might look up the group if one of its members mentions Teneo during a confirmation process for a judgeship or a cabinet position. “We think a lot about that to protect your current and future leadership opportunities,” Baehr explained.

This strategy appears to have worked. A spokesperson for Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a critic of Leo’s who has spoken extensively about dark money and the courts, said the senator’s staff was “not familiar with Teneo.” During the confirmation process of Ryan Holte, a Trump appointee to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Holte was asked several written questions by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Cal., about his membership in Teneo, but Feinstein spelled the group’s name wrong each time. (Asked what the mission of the group was, Holte responded that Teneo was a “nonpartisan, and nonprofit, organization that gathers members from a variety of professional backgrounds for dinners and social activities to discuss current events.”)

A recent Teneo fundraising email laid out how the group can bring its members’ influence together in service of a cause.

To “confront” what he dubbed “woke capitalism,” Jonathan Bunch, a longtime Leo deputy and now Teneo board member, wrote that the group had brought together a coalition of Teneans “working with (or serving as) state attorneys general, state financial officers, state legislators, journalists, media executives and best-in-class public affairs professionals” to launch investigations, hold hearings, pull state investment funds and publish op-eds and news stories in response to so-called environmental, social and governance, or ESG, policies at the corporate level.

“Our members were in the rooms where it happened,” Bunch wrote.

Another project underway, Baehr explained in a 2020 presentation, was a “surreptitious and exciting” effort to map key institutions in major cities — private schools, country clubs, newspapers, Rotary and so on — and find ways to get Teneo members inside those institutions and help members connect with each other. The initiative has begun by mapping Atlanta and several cities in Texas.

For those Teneo members who run for elected office, the network offers easy access to a large pool of donors and allies. A Leo acolyte and member of Teneo’s Midwest membership committee, Will Scharf, is now running for Missouri attorney general. Campaign finance records show that dozens of Teneo members made substantial early contributions to Scharf’s campaign, including Leo, Baehr and other members of Teneo’s leadership, who last year each gave the maximum allowable donation of $2,650.

In an email, Scharf said many of his “dearest friends are members of Teneo, and it has been a privilege to be involved with such an extraordinarily talented and committed group of young conservatives.”

Leo’s own statements about Teneo suggest that his plan for the group extends well beyond achieving near-term political victories.

“When you’re fighting a battle for the heart and soul of our culture, you want to know you’re in the trenches with someone you can trust, someone you know, and someone who will have your back,” Teneo’s “Community Vision” report quotes Leo as saying. “We don’t win unless we build friendship and fellowship with other people — and that’s what you’re doing here with Teneo.”

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signs bill making it easier to violate child labor laws

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) signed a bill into law on Tuesday that would roll back child labor protections in the state as Republicans across the country wage a campaign to make it easier for employers to violate child labor laws.

The law eliminates the requirement for children under 16 to show documentation of their age in order to work. Before this, employers seeking to employ a 14- or 15-year-old child had to obtain a permit showing the child’s age.

The Republican-sponsored bill was passed by the state legislature last week. Republicans like Sanders claim that the permit system, which dates back to the early 1900s, is an unnecessary burden on employers and — in Sanders’s words — “obsolete” in modern times.

The bill signing comes just after federal officials and explosive reporting uncovered that illegal child labor is alive and well in the U.S. In February, the Department of Labor issued a $1.5 million fine to Blackstone-owned Packers Sanitation Services for illegally employing over 100 children, some as young as 13, to clean slaughterhouses in eight states, including at least 10 children in Arkansas.

Meanwhile, The New York Times recently uncovered that companies that manufacture products for household-name brands are illegally packing their factories full of immigrant children, in what the publication dubbed “a new economy of exploitation.”

Research has found that child labor laws are far from obsolete — in fact, advocates say that the opposite is true, and that laws need to be strengthened. Violations of child labor laws are on the rise; labor officials said in February that the agency has seen a 69 percent increase in illegal child employment cases since 2018.

In fiscal year 2022, the Labor Department said it found 3,800 children unlawfully employed at 835 companies investigated by the agency — but, with the maximum civil penalty for violations at just over $15,000, the penalties aren’t enough to deter companies from continuing to break the law.

Opponents of the Arkansas bill point out that the law isn’t actually about what Republicans claim — instead, it’s representative of the GOP’s willingness to open the doors to companies exploiting children and the party’s general distaste for regulatory protections.

“This is not red tape, so who is it a burden to?” Laura Kellams, Northwest Arkansas director for the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, said to the Arkansas Advocate. “It’s a burden to companies who are illegally hiring minors beyond the allowable hours and in conditions that aren’t allowed.”

Child labor laws are in place for a reason. Children are more susceptible to injuries and death at work, and exposure to toxic chemicals can be even more potent in children, whose bodies are still developing.

Regardless, Republicans are forging ahead with laws to expand the child workforce. Republicans in Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota and Wisconsin have introduced bills that would roll back protections limiting the hours and times of year that children can work, extending hours into the school year.

In Iowa, Republicans are seeking to expand the types of work that children are able to do, like working in industrial freezers, meat coolers, and industrial laundry, and exempt employers from liability if children are injured or killed on the job. It would also allow Iowa officials to grant exceptions to the types of work children are allowed to do if the work is classified as a work-based learning program, stripping children of worker compensation rights.

Tucker Carlson, Rupert Murdoch and Fox News: A network of treason, sedition and lies

Some of us still don’t get it: Rupert Murdoch, Tucker Carlson and Fox News are an existential threat to the United States.

Let us recap. Four Americans recently crossed the border  into northern Mexico for a weekend of fun and cosmetic surgery.

The four travelers from South Carolina had barely made it to the city of Matamoros, where one of them, a mother of six, planned to get a “tummy tuck,” when members of a Mexican drug cartel allegedly mistook them for Haitian drug dealers, kidnapped them and killed two of them. The abduction — a prominent story on most networks, including Fox News — was blamed on Joe Biden‘s policies toward Mexico. In response, the Mexican government told the U.S. it could handle its internal problems.

In my professional career, which includes years covering the border, I’ve never seen Mexico adequately handle its internal problems. Republicans and Fox viewers are intent on blaming Biden, even claiming that a record seizure of fentanyl on the southern U.S. border is somehow indicative of the current administration’s policy failures.

The facts make clear that this is a problem at least 40 years in the making. Fox expresses selective outrage against Biden and his policies while ignoring the outrageous behavior of others the network supports. (More on that in a moment.)

In case anyone has forgotten, Enrique “Kiki” Camarena was a DEA agent kidnapped and murdered by the Mexican drug cartels. He wasn’t a tourist. He was an agent of the U.S. government. In 1984 he provided information that led to a raid on a pot farm worth more than a billion dollars. The following February he was kidnapped by corrupt Mexican government officials and handed over to the drug dealers. He was tortured for 30 hours before being brutally murdered. He was found with a hole punched into his skull by a piece of rebar, as well as several broken ribs.

Our country has never adequately addressed the problems on the Mexican border, and both major political parties play political football with the issue. Our news networks, especially Fox, have never adequately covered the issue, further muddying the waters. It is one of the key signs of our dysfunction and division. Fox News, as one of the largest and most watched networks, shoulders a lot of responsibility for all this disinformation.

As Chris Rock pointed out in his live-streamed Netflix comedy special last week (full disclosure: I’m paid zero dollars to mention Netflix), we remain a divided nation.

I recently found a place, however, where the far right and the extreme left could come together without equivocation. It was at a theater in North Hollywood last week during a screening of “Ithaka,” the new documentary about Julian Assange’s father, and his attempts to free his son. 

Toward the end of the documentary, Joe Biden was seen speaking about democracy at his inauguration. The crowd in the theater, which included many local members of the ACLU (which hosted the event and moderated the discussion afterward with Assange’s father and brother) went wild as Biden spoke.

When I say “went wild,” I don’t mean they were cheering.


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


There were catcalls and boos, though I also heard a few shouts of “You suck!” and “You’re the worst president ever!” from the self-described progressive viewers. One old white guy, who looked like a skinny Santa Claus with a waxed mustache in a T-shirt and blue jeans, actually screamed at Biden, “Can’t you just die already?”

I blinked. For a minute I thought I was at a Trump rally or watching a Tucker Carlson special.

But that wasn’t the only place where I’ve seen the right and left converge recently. In Baltimore, Chris Rock’s live audience laughed and applauded as he attacked “woke” business culture. That got him a favorable mention on a Fox News segment — the same Fox News that many of Rock’s fans avoid. I blinked again. For a minute as I watched Fox, I thought I was watching MSNBC. Fox aired that clip, of course,  because it fit with the corporate attitude toward “woke” culture.

The divisiveness in this country is punctuated by the fact that we are too loud, too proud, too elusive and too hyperbolic — while also being massively ignorant and hypocritical.

That ought to be Fox’s new slogan: Loud, proud, hyperbolic, hypocritical and ignorant. Fox News: It’s not what you need. It is what you want.

The defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems has already exposed a lot of Fox’s hypocrisy, including Tucker Carlson’s lack of moral fiber, common sense or decency. “We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights,” Carlson texted a colleague on Jan. 4, 2021. “I truly can’t wait.” He added: “I hate him passionately.” 

Where was Carlson’s public outrage? He didn’t have any. 

Tucker Carlson privately says he hates Trump “passionately,” but he’s still trying to whitewash the Jan. 6 insurrection, and claim the Capitol Police acted as “tour guides.”

It was Carlson who whitewashed the Jan. 6 insurrection this week after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy turned over thousands of hours of video to the feckless fountain of fear and disinformation. Carlson tried to turn the insurrection into a Disney ride or a winter stroll  through the Capitol. In Rock’s  standup routine, he quipped that angry white people were trying to overturn a government run by angry white people: “Who do they want out? Us!”. 

That’s not far from the truth, and Carlson took great pride in trying to dial that back, claiming that the cops happily acted as “tour guides” for a peaceful protest on that fateful day. He did this despite whatever his private concerns about Trump may be. 

Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger pointed out in an internal memo this week — read at roll call meetings and obtained by just about every media organization on earth — that Carlson had made “outrageous and false” allegations and “cherry-picked” calmer moments to create a false narrative. “Truth and justice are on our side,” Manger wrote.

While the chief wouldn’t go on the record outside of his memo, those inside the Capitol Police I spoke with this week said it was  a “reassuring memo” that showed the chief understood reality, and that it offered “the support we need to feel like we’re appreciated doing our job.”

This whole sorry episode is an example of the way disinformation undermines reality: It makes people disheartened by sowing fear and hate and encourages the abandonment of hope while pushing a false narrative. 

That’s where Carlson has been most effective and why he must be held accountable. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell referenced that when he said that “the chief of the Capitol Police, in my view, correctly describes what most of us witnessed firsthand on Jan. 6.” 

That’s a badly needed slap in the face to Carlson, Murdoch and Fox. While McConnell wouldn’t directly criticize McCarthy, it was clear McConnell wasn’t willing to drink as much Kool Aid as either the speaker of the House or the suits at Fox. And another clear indication that the right and the left can sometimes find issues where they agree.

For those of us who witnessed the events on Jan. 6, it was also refreshing. I get tired of trying to explain to people what I saw and how that has nothing to do with politics. What I saw is merely what I saw. No one will ever convince me the violence I witnessed didn’t happen. People who peacefully tour the Capitol use the stairs. They don’t climb the walls. The question is how we deal with those like Carlson and the suits at Fox who clearly don’t care about reality, and only care about feeding the frenzy and raking in the cash.

Part of that answer came in another recently filed lawsuit against Fox Corp., the parent company of the TV network, along with its chairman, Rupert Murdoch. This suit is about Fox sharing unreleased Biden campaign ads with people close to Trump, including Jared Kushner. The suit alleges that Fox made an illegal contribution to Trump’s PAC by providing the ad material. It was filed with the FEC by Media Matters, a progressive watchdog group, which seeks the maximum fine allowable for violations of campaign contribution laws as well as “appropriate remedial action” against Fox, Murdoch and Trump’s Make America Great Again PAC.

Let’s hope these recent actions against Fox are the first signs that justice will be served to a corporation that has operated, at least since the Clinton era, as a bullshit factory (thanks to Jim Acosta for that description), churning out misinformation and made-up scandals, entirely in the pursuit of profit. Don’t take my word for it: Read the texts from Carlson, Hannity and others.

I believe Tucker Carlson is one of the most notorious traitors to the United States — not to mention common sense — since the days of Joe McCarthy.

It takes a soulless corporation headed by a soulless individual to hire soulless and heartless people who care far more about their self-interest than about facts and honesty. That’s Fox. That’s the problem. It is exacerbated by politicians like McCarthy — a whore, a cuckold and a pimp all at the same time — who spread the Fox feces with impunity and help feed it with preferential treatment.

Finally, it is precisely that kind of disinformation that leads to the political ascent of people like Donald Trump, who said at CPAC last week, “I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.”

Vengeance is mine, saith the lord, and as we learned in Matthew 7:15, you have to worry about those who appear outwardly as sheep but inwardly are ravenous wolves. Donald Trump is a false prophet. 

Fox is his mouthpiece.

When we consider progressives booing Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell choosing to side with reality and Fox giving favorable coverage to Chris Rock, however fleeting, that shows us there are places and times where even the extremes can meet.

I hesitate to call it hope; watching anyone cheer for the death of a president is hardly hopeful. But it’s still true that we still have far more in common than our differences seem to indicate.

I know people who are more concerned about a civil war or a “national divorce” than at any time in my life. 

Tucker Carlson is responsible for a great deal of this divisiveness. I believe he is one of the most notorious traitors to the United States and to common sense since “Tail Gunner Joe” McCarthy (who got that nickname by firing at unarmed coconut trees in World War II). Thinking about Tucker Carlson and the late senator from Wisconsin, I am reminded of Edward R. Murrow’s statements at the end of “See It Now” on CBS in the 1950s:

“His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind. … We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men.”

Today we must squarely face those who would sow the seeds of fear, and who seek to exploit “Selective Outrage,” to borrow the title of Rock’s special, in order to manipulate us.

For that sin, Fox News, Rupert Murdoch and Tucker Carlson should be held accountable.

“We ain’t gonna get it”: Why Bernie Sanders says his “Medicare for All” dream must wait

After railing at the injustices of U.S. health care for decades, Sen. Bernie Sanders in January became the new chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. The job gives the health care industry’s biggest Washington nemesis an unprecedented opportunity to shape health care reform in Congress. But the sort of radical changes he seeks could prove elusive. Even Sanders concedes there are limits to the powers of his position.

President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address Tuesday night showed how much of Sanders’ platform has moved into the mainstream of the Democratic Party, with Biden at times sounding like his former Democratic primary foe, lashing out at Big Pharma and its “record profits.” Biden bragged about measures taken to lower drug prices and halt surprise bills during his term thus far, and he urged Congress to pass a federal expansion of Medicaid.

Still, the radical changes Sanders seeks could prove elusive. During an interview with KHN at his Senate office recently, the independent from Vermont spoke about the prospects for lowering drug prices, expanding access to primary care, and his ultimate goal of “Medicare for All.”

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: What do you hope to achieve as chair of the HELP Committee — in terms of legislation, but also messaging and investigations?

What I ultimately would like to accomplish is not going to happen right now. We have Republicans controlling the House. And many of the views that I hold, including Medicare for All — I think if we had a vote tomorrow, we’d get 15 to 20 votes in the Senate and would not win in the House. I realize that. But I happen to believe our current health care system is dysfunctional.

We spend twice as much per capita on health care as other countries and 85 million people have no insurance or are underinsured. It is a dysfunctional system that to my mind needs to be fundamentally changed to a Medicare for All system — but we ain’t gonna get it.

Q: What can you actually accomplish?

[From] a poll a couple of months ago just among Republicans. Top concern? High cost of prescription drugs. We’re long overdue to take on, in a very bold way, the greed and outrageous behavior of the pharmaceutical industry.

Q: So many parts of the system are messed up — patents, 340B, pharmacy benefit managers, insurance issues with formularies …

Right, there are a million parts to this problem.

Q: So short of a complete overhaul, what are the parts you think you can change?

Every year the U.S. government through [the National Institutes of Health] spends tens of billions of dollars on research. The Moderna vaccine was co-developed between Moderna and NIH and received billions of dollars in assistance, guaranteed sales, and you know what’s happened in the last couple of years. The CEO of Moderna is now worth $6 billion. All their top executives are worth billions. And now they are threatening to quadruple prices. This is a company that was highly supported by taxpayers of this country. And that’s one example of many.

What is the responsibility of a drug company that receives very significant support — financial support, intellectual support for research and development — to the consumers of this country? Right now, it is zero. “Thank you very much for your support. I will charge you any price I choose.” We have to end that.

That’s the starting point.

Q: But what’s the mechanism? “March-in” rights, whereby the government could force a company to share its license for a drug that was developed with federal investment, allowing others to produce it?

That is one approach. Threatened by people in George W. Bush’s administration, by the way. March-in is one option.

Reasonable pricing is another area. I have made two trips to Canada: once as a congressman from Vermont, took a bunch of working-class women across the border to buy a breast cancer drug; once as a presidential candidate, took people from the Midwest, and we bought insulin. The price was one-tenth of the U.S. cost in both cases.

Another area is primary health care. I have worked hard with other members through the Affordable Care Act and American Rescue Plan [Act] to significantly expand community health centers. FQHCs [federally qualified health centers] provide primary care, dental care, mental health counseling, and low-cost prescription drugs. About one-third of [people in Vermont] get primary care through community health centers.

Q: I was at a meeting of FDA and patent office people, hearing from biosimilars companies, patients, etc., and a lot of what they were saying is that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office can’t do that much about patent thickets, and it’d be good if Congress did something.

That is one of the disgraceful tools that pharma utilizes to make sure we pay high prices and don’t get generics. Yes, it’s certainly something that we should be looking at.

Q: Other priorities?

The crisis in the health care workforce. We don’t have enough doctors, nurses, dentists, mental health counselors, pharmacists. The nursing crisis is enormous. We have a hospital in Burlington, moderate size by national standards, largest by far in Vermont. They told me they are going to spend $125 million on traveling nurses this year. One moderate-sized hospital! Meanwhile we have young people who want to become nurses, and we can’t educate them. We don’t have enough nurse educators. I think we get bipartisan support for that issue.

Another thing I want to look at is dental care. Not enough dentists, too expensive, whole regions don’t have them.

Q: Did you agree with President Biden’s decision to end the public health emergency in May?

[Frowns] I have some concerns. [Sanders appeared to be the only member of Congress wearing a mask during Biden’s speech on Tuesday.] It’s going to dump a lot more people into the uninsured again. 

Q: And things like vaccines would not be covered anymore.

They’d go on the market. Our friends at Pfizer and Moderna want to quadruple the prices. So if you’re hesitant now about getting vaccinated, and it’s free, what about when it costs you $125?

Q: As you say, drug prices are a big concern for everyone. But among Republicans there seems to be more inclination to push on pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, as opposed to drug companies. Is that an area where there could be legislation?

You’ve got the insurance companies, the PBMs, and pharma. Everyone wants to blame the other guy. And yet they’re all culpable. And we’re going to take a hard look at it.

Q: Is Dr. Robert Califf, the FDA commissioner, a good interlocutor for you?

A lot of work has to be done with FDA. Let’s just say I think it’s important that we take a hard look at what they’re doing. They have some responsibility for pricing. It’s part of that mission that they haven’t exercised.

Q: What about the 340B issue? Accusations that hospitals are gaming the system.

Yes, it is something. One of the first things [I did] when I was mayor of Burlington from 1981-89 was take away the tax-exempt status of the hospital. Because I did not believe they were fulfilling their responsibility to serve the poor and working families. We had a lot of discussions, and the situation improved. Right now the criteria to receive tax-exempt status is extremely nebulous. That’s an issue somewhere down the road I want to look at. If you’re not going to pay taxes, what are you, in fact, doing?

Q: Do you have particular allies in either party?

I talked today with a conservative GOP senator who will work with me on issue X, but not issue Y. It depends on the issue. If we’re going to be successful, we’re going to need bipartisan support. And there is that level of support. I’ve talked to now four out of the 10 or 11 Republicans on the committee, and I’ll talk to the rest.

Q: Do you have a policy for dealing with the lobbyists?

I don’t have lobbyists flooding through my door. These lobbyists are effective, well paid, and they help shape the culture of where you’re going. My culture is shaped by going out and talking to ordinary people. I’ve talked to too many elderly people who cut their prescription drugs in half.

I’m not worried about the lobbyists. Worry about the people who are dying because they can’t afford prescription drugs.

I don’t have to have some guy who makes seven figures a year telling me about problems of the drug companies. They have to explain to American people why they made $80 billion last year and people can’t afford medicine.

Q: Are you going to bring in pharma executives for hearings?

We’re looking at all options.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Ex-Trump lawyer admits election “misrepresentations” and “selfish motive” — gets off with a censure

Former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis was censured by a Colorado judge after admitting to multiple “misrepresentations” about the 2020 election being stolen.

Ellis, who served as former President Donald Trump’s legal advisor and accompanied fellow ex-Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani on his crusade to reverse the Republican’s election loss, was publicly censured by Judge Bryon Large, who oversees lawyer discipline cases in the state, according to Colorado Newsline.

Ellis as part of the censure agreed that she violated regulations prohibiting “reckless, knowing, or intentional misrepresentations by attorneys” and that she made a number of public statements while working for Trump “that were false,” the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel said in a statement.

Ellis has been under scrutiny by Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel Jessica Yates after the nonprofit group States United Democracy Center asked her to investigate Ellis for violating professional regulations.

In an opinion accepting a censure agreement between Ellis and Yates, Large wrote that Ellis agreed that her false claims were made “with at least a reckless state of mind” and that she “through her conduct, undermined the American public’s confidence in the presidential election, violating her duty of candor to the public.” The judge added that a “selfish motive” and “a pattern of misconduct” were aggravating factors in the case.

Yates’ complaint cited 10 misrepresentations by Ellis, including one of her interviews with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo.

“We have affidavits from witnesses, we have voter intimidation, we have the ballots that were manipulated, we have all kinds of statistics that show that this was a coordinated effort in all of these states to transfer votes either from Trump to Biden, to manipulate the ballots, to count them in secret,” Ellis falsely said in the interview.

During another interview with former Trump press secretary Sean Spicer, Ellis claimed that “we know that the election was stolen from President Trump and we can prove that.”

Ellis also admitted that she falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton did not concede the 2016 election, that Trump’s team found 500,000 illegal votes in Arizona and that Trump’s team had evidence of a “coordinated effort in all of these states to transfer votes either from Trump to Biden, to manipulate the ballots, to count them in secret.”


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


Courts repeatedly rejected lawsuits seeking to overturn Trump’s loss due to a lack of evidence of any widespread fraud or irregularities. Numerous Trump administration officials and Republican state officials have also acknowledged there is no evidence of any widespread fraud or irregularities.

“Respondent made these misrepresentations on Twitter and on various television programs, including Fox Business, MSNBC, Fox News, and Newsmax,” Large wrote in his opinion. “The parties agree that by making these misrepresentations, Respondent violated [a state attorney rule of conduct], which provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”

Yates’ office said in a statement that she is not pursuing any additional charges against Ellis.

“The public censure in this matter reinforces that even if engaged in political speech, there is a line attorneys cannot cross, particularly when they are speaking in a representative capacity,” Yates said.

As part of the censure, Ellis agreed to pay $224.

“My client remains a practicing attorney in good standing in the State of Colorado. In a very heated political climate, we have secured that correct outcome,” Ellis attorney Michael Melito told CNN.

Ellis is the latest Trump attorney involved in the post-election effort to face discipline. Giuliani had his law license temporarily suspended and is facing discipline from the D.C. bar. Attorney John Eastman, who crafted Trump’s Jan. 6 strategy, faces discipline in California. Former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, who was involved in administration discussions about aiding Trump’s effort, is fighting bar discipline proceedings against him.

Some legal experts suggested that Ellis got off easy for her violations.

“Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis repeatedly lied about the 2020 election.  She admits that.  As a result, millions believe the election was stolen,” tweeted former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti. “Her penalty?  Censure.  She keeps her followers and platform.”

Biden administration pledges $25 million to bring bison back to tribal lands

The United States government is redoubling its efforts to restore bison populations to Native American lands.

Interior Secretary Deb Haaland released an order last week establishing a six-member federal working group on American bison restoration. The group, which will be composed of representatives from five federal agencies and one tribal leader, is charged with creating a “shared stewardship plan” by the end of the year to increase bison populations on lands managed by the federal government and tribal nations.

“The American bison is inextricably intertwined with Indigenous culture, grassland ecology, and American history,” Haaland said in a statement. Her agency also announced some $25 million from President Joe Biden’s landmark climate spending bill for bison conservation. Among other projects, the money will support native plant restoration and prescribed burns — controlled fires that are lit intentionally to make landscapes more resistant to runaway wildfires.

Haaland’s order is part of a century-long effort to bring bison back from the brink of extinction. Before European colonizers arrived in North America, bison numbered in the tens of millions, but they were decimated in the 1800s by hunting and a U.S. policy of extermination designed to deprive tribes of a critical food source. One American colonel is said to have told his troops in 1867: “Kill every buffalo you can! Every buffalo dead is an Indian gone.”

Bisons’ near-extinction also degraded grassland ecosystems, contributing to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s — an environmental catastrophe in which severe dust storms swept across the southern plains and caused widespread crop failure. Conservation efforts since then have helped grow bison numbers from a low of less than 500, but their population in the wild is still only a tiny fraction of the roughly 60 million it once was. In its announcement of the new restoration plan, the Interior Department said bison remain “functionally extinct.” 

To bring more bison back, the Interior Department’s order calls for conservation based on the best available science as well as Indigenous knowledge and management techniques. It’s one of several recent actions from the Biden administration to prioritize Indigenous culture and expertise, including new consultation requirements for federal agencies whose policies could impact tribes. At a summit last fall, the Biden administration announced new guidelines for federal agencies to recognize and include Indigenous knowledge in their research and decision-making, as well as new efforts to revitalize Native languages.

The bison initiative could cause a clash with lawmakers in places like Montana, where Republicans — supported by ranchers — have opposed calls for bison restoration. Tribal members, however, have cheered the Interior Department’s efforts. “The buffalo has just as long a connection to Indigenous people as we have to it,” Troy Heinert, director of the InterTribal Buffalo Council and a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, told the Associated Press. “They are not just a number or a commodity; this is returning a relative to its rightful place.”

Environmental advocates also applauded the initiative as a climate solution: By stomping the soil with their hooves, bison help push native grasses’ seeds into the ground, breaking up the soil to make way for new growth. Their manure also serves as a natural fertilizer, fostering healthy grasslands that sequester carbon dioxide.


This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/indigenous/biden-administration-pledges-25-million-to-bring-bison-back-to-tribal-lands/.

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

Trump is already winning the “war” with Fox News

For the majority of Americans who believe in democracy and loathe both Fox News and Donald Trump, it’s been an endless delight to follow the ongoing release of internal Fox News communications, stemming from their legal battle with Dominion Voting Systems. Dominion filed another court document in their $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox on Tuesday, and somehow, it’s even funnier than the last couple. While Fox anchors acted like Trump was their messiah on-air, behind the scenes they hated him for putting them in a situation where they had to choose between backing the Big Lie or losing their viewers. 

“I hate him passionately,” Fox host Tucker Carlson wrote about Trump in a text message thread with staffers. He longed openly for President Joe Biden’s inauguration, even though he hates Biden, because at least it means “being able to ignore Trump most nights.”

“We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it,” Carlson wrote. “But come on. There really isn’t an upside to Trump.”

Similarly, Fox News’s chief executive, Rupert Murdoch, was not super happy with Trump in the two months between the election and the January 6 insurrection, when Trump was attempting to overthrow the election through the courts and state legislatures. He griped that Trump was “increasingly mad,” and longingly expressed, “In another month Trump will be becoming irrelevant.”


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


These revelations are happening at the same time the mainstream media is heavily hyping a “war” between Fox News and Trump.

“The Trump world-Fox News war gets nasty,” screamed a headline at Politico last week, which promised that there’s “a hot war between MAGA world and the longtime conservative channel.” Other outlets claim that Fox has issued a “soft ban” on Trump, denying him the regular access to the airwaves he used to consider his due. 

The possibility that this internal strife is tearing the GOP coalition apart has stoked excitement that we may finally be seeing the initial death throes of the MAGA movement.

To wit, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is heavily aligned with Trump, and at this year’s D.C. event, Fox News — which has sponsored CPAC in the past — barely had a presence. Trump loyalist Steve Bannon lambasted Murdoch from the stage, declaring, “You’ve disrespected Donald J. Trump long enough” and “we’ve deemed that you’re not going to have a network.”

For his part, Trump, annoyed at the barrage of stories showing how much the people at Fox News secretly loathe him, has been taking his own potshots on Truth Social. He complained Murdoch is “killing his case and infuriating his viewers” by admitting the Big Lie was a lie during a deposition. He’s demanded Murdoch “apologize” for saying true things under oath. He raved again at 3AM this week in outrage that Murdoch did not risk a perjury charge by lying during a deposition. 

Normal people likely witness all this bad blood and assume that Trump and Fox News are going their separate ways. Indeed, there’s been some reports that Fox News is throwing its weight behind Ron DeSantis for the 2024 presidential nomination, hoping the Florida governor can be that white whale that continues Trumpism without Trump. DeSantis is no better than Trump — in many ways, he’s worse, since he’s a lot more dedicated to things like a war on free speech — but the possibility that this internal strife is tearing the GOP coalition apart has stoked excitement that we may finally be seeing the initial death throes of the MAGA movement. 

I would tamp those hopes way, way down. Not that I doubt for a moment that the executives and hosts at Fox News really do harbor loathing of Trump. I imagine anyone whose ever spent time conversing with President Drink Bleach likely found the experience unpleasant. But regardless of the feeble gestures of revolt the network is throwing up now, we all know how this story ends. They’ll come crawling back on their bellies to bow before Trump. They always do. And honestly, if you look at Fox News programming right now, it’s clear Trump has already won this “war.” 


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


Just this week, Carlson has dedicated his disturbingly popular nightly program to his ongoing project of trying to rewrite the history of January 6. In doing so, he’s put his full weight behind the Big Lie, falsely declaring that “the 2020 election was a grave betrayal of American democracy.” Those aren’t the words of someone who is trying to force Trump to go away. Those are the words of someone who is sticking by Trump’s side during the ongoing fight against democracy. 

Trump still “is far and away getting the most mentions on Fox News.”

It’s not just Carlson’s show. As CNN data analyst Harry Enten recently detailed, Trump still “is far and away getting the most mentions on Fox News.” In fact, Trump got nearly three times as many mentions on Fox as DeSantis in the past two months. Not only does Trump get more coverage, but “he’s actually gaining,” with the number of mentions going up in recent weeks. The much-ballyhooed “soft ban” is a media myth, it appears. 

The internal dynamic at Fox News that the Dominion lawsuit exposed hasn’t changed. Regardless of their personal distaste for Trump, Fox News leaders know that their audience loves the former reality TV host. Keeping those eyes on the network requires keeping up the love for Trump and hyping Trump’s lies. Nor is there any reason to think that MAGA voters will reject Fox News after these revelations that the hosts secretly find Trump repulsive. Most Fox viewers are well aware their favorite shows are fascist agitprop instead of real news. (And they likely know that being around Trump sucks.) They were even talking online about how unsurprised they are that Carlson secretly dislikes Trump. 

What matters to Republican voters is not what their pundits actually believe, much less what is actually true. All that matters is putting on the performance. They realize the hyperbolic insults and public feuding between Trump and Fox News are just for show, like a wrestling match. At the end of the day, however, Fox News will fall in line behind Trump. He is still the leader of the GOP in all but name, and Fox News is the propaganda outlet for the Republican party. They are the media version of Trump’s ridiculous combover. No one is fooled by their lies, but it’s crucial that they stay in place and keep up the illusion. They know it and he knows it. Everyone else is just noise they’re using to fill up time and keep people excited. 

Trump is out for revenge. That should terrify everyone — even Republicans

If justice and the law in America were truly blind, former president Donald Trump would now be in prison.

Trump’s crimes are legion. But contrary to the perpetual fiction and hope-casting in which “The walls are closing in!” and “Trump is done for!” that too many members of the mainstream news media and pundit class keep telling themselves, as seen at the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) last weekend, Trump is publicly announcing that if he recaptures the White House he will command a national revenge tour that will destroy what remains of the country’s democracy and civil society.

“If you put me back in the White House, their reign is over,” Trump vowed, promising “America will be a free nation once again.”

Donald Trump’s fascist appeal is the “secret” of his success.

He continued: “In 2016 I declared I am your voice. Today I add, I am your warrior, I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.”

Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat highlights how Trump, again, incited violence against President Joe Biden:

Trump’s CPAC speech brings forth a century of rhetoric and agendas that have been used to destroy democracy, conjuring threats that are meant to build support for authoritarian action and leadership, starting with the idea of the head of state as a vengeful victim.

“What did Italy need? An avenger!… It was necessary to cauterize the virulent wounds…and eliminate evils which threatened to become chronic,” Fascist leader Benito Mussolini wrote in his autobiography, striking a similar note to Trump as he explained why he had declared dictatorship in 1925….

But why stop at America? The true Fascist avenger fixes the world. “I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled. It will be settled quickly. I will get the problem solved. I will get it solved in rapid order—it will take me no longer than one day. I know what to say to each of them. I got along well with all of them. I got along well with Putin.”

In fact, as Trump remarks, had he been in office now, as fearsome and powerful as a mountain, “Russia would have never pulled the trigger. This is the most dangerous time in the history of our country and Joe Biden is leading us into oblivion…Biden is a criminal and nothing ever seems to happen to him.”

At the Philadelphia Inquirer, William Bunch warned of Donald Trump’s Hitler-like threats and the news media’s failure to properly report on the democracy crisis:

Trump’s pledge, with its nearly century-old echoes of the very worst movements that modern humankind has produced, was the low point of a weekend of red flags and flashing sirens for American democracy, just when you thought that it couldn’t get any worse….

There are historical precedents for all of these actions and the overheated rhetoric — among history’s worst despots, genocidal maniacs, and totalitarian movements (like DeSantis’ blogger bill, which is almost identical to one that Russia strongman Vladimir Putin enacted in 2014). It’s been already way past time for the American media to start using the f-word — fascism — to describe this ideology that continues to transfix the core voting bloc in one of America’s two major political parties. But almost all of this weekend’s mainstream coverage of CPAC and related developments was too mealy-mouthed to tell the public the alarming truth.

I think way too many journalists think they can get away without naming Trump’s fascism as it parades nakedly down 5th Avenue (or that of DeSantis, for that matter) because they think Trump can’t win.

Donald Trump (like Gov. Ron DeSantis) is a political violence entrepreneur. In that role, he both channels and amplifies the fascist urges and collective sociopathy of his followers as the primary source of his power. It is a pathologically symbiotic relationship. Without this leader-follower dependdency, Trump, like other fascists and fake populist demagogues, would not be that dangerous. Yes, Trump would be a menace because of his vast sums of money and prominent public profile. But without his many tens of millions of cult-like followers, Trump would cease to be an existential threat to the country and its democracy. One should not overlook how, despite his 4-year crime spree and assault on democracy and society, Trump received more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016. And not to be overlooked because the much-discussed “red wave” did not fully materialize, the Republicans actually received more votes than the Democrats in the 2022 midterms. 

At the Atlantic, columnist Tom Nichols focused in on the moral failings of Trump’s followers:

We’ve all cataloged this kind of Trumpian weirdness many times, and I still feel pity for the fact-checkers who try to keep up with him. But I wonder if there is any point. By now it should be clear that the people listening to Trump don’t care about facts, or even about policy or politics. They enjoy the show, and they want it back on TV for another four years. And this is a problem not with Trump but with the voters.

It is long past time to admit that support for Trump, after all that we now know, is a moral failing. As I wrote in a recent book, there is such a thing as being a bad citizen in a democracy, and we should cease the pretend arguments about policy—remember, the 2020 GOP convention didn’t even bother with a platform. Instead, anyone who cares about the health of American democracy, of any party or political belief, should say clearly that to applaud Trump’s fantasies and threats at CPAC is to show an utter lack of civic character. (I might say that it is no better than applauding David Duke, but why invoke the former KKK leader when Trump has already had dinner with Nick Fuentes, a white supremacist who he seems to think is a swell guy?)

The man who bellowed and sweated his way through almost two hours of authoritarian madness is still the same man who instigated an attack on our Capitol (and on his own vice president), the man who would hand our allies to Russia if they’re behind on the vig, the man who thinks a free press is his enemy, the man who tried to wave away a pandemic as thousands and thousands of Americans died.

Stigma and judgment have a place in politics. There was a time when we forced people out of public life for offenses far less than Donald Trump’s violent and seditious corruption. We were a better country for it, and returning to that better time starts with media outlets holding elected Republicans to account for Trump’s statements—but also with each of us refusing to accept rationalizations and equivocation from even our friends and family. I said in 2016 that the Trump campaign was a test of character, and that millions of us were failing it. The stakes are even clearer and steeper now; we cannot fail this test again.

As Nichols suggested, Trumpism, like other forms of fascism and authoritarianism, is a cultural and personal failing on a societal level. The problem and crisis are much bigger than any one person or political party or “the institutions.” 

Donald Trump’s fascist appeal is the “secret” of his success. Trump’s followers support him not despite those malignant traits and evil behavior but because of them. If Trump is the 2024 Republican presidential nominee that party’s voters will flock to him. Why? They hate the Democrats and being a Republican is now core to their personhood, culture, sense of community and overall identity and self.

In an interview with CNN on Monday, former Trump White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham issued this warning about her former boss and what his speech at last weekend’s CPAC event portends:

This is going to be a revenge tour for the former president…. I wonder specifically with regard to what he said, who decides who needs the retribution? Who’s going to decide who’s been mistreated? [W]hat about all of the people who suffered or who had family members pass away from COVID. Are you going to be retribution in that? You had a hand in that.

So, I think it was, as you just said, a lot of bluster for him. But it’s what his base wants to hear. And I think it’s something that should be taken seriously. A lot of people right now I think are rolling their eyes and saying that’s just Trump being Trump. But this is important. We need to really pay attention to what he is saying and realize that we’re not getting the same Donald Trump. We’re going to get a more angry and vengeful Donald Trump if he takes office.

What Grisham told CNN is not a spoiler; it is a promise and a prediction.

The mainstream news media, the Church of the Savvy, the professional centrists and hope peddlers and happy pill sellers will not tell you that unvarnished truth. You have been warned, again. What you, the Americans, do with that knowledge will determine your and the country’s future.

For the first time, an orca was seen raising another whale species’ young

For the first time, a team of whale experts have recorded an orca caring for the offspring of another species, a long-finned pilot whale infant. With their iconic black and white markings, orcas (Orcinus orca), also known as killer whales, are an iconic sea mammal thanks to the 1993 film “Free Willy” and their controversial presence at Sea World. In contrast, long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas) are less charismatic dolphins, colored a rubbery gray with a head like a lumpy bowling ball.

Both killer whales and pilot whales have something in common in that they’re both technically dolphins, not whales, and they share some of the same ocean. But they don’t always seem to get along. Pilot whales have been observed harassing orcas, and chasing them off, though not attacking them. The killer whales have usually responded by fleeing or passively moving away.

For 21 minutes on August 12, 2021, cetologists (marine biologists that study whales and dolphins), observed three orcas interacting with a long-finned pilot whale calf. This trio of killer whales has been observed 21 times in the decade since 2012, usually munching on Atlantic herring, but always together. This indicates a stable group structure and suggests they might be related. In other words, a regular dolphin family. Scientists even gave them nicknames: the two adult female orcas are called Dragonfly and Sædís, and the lone adult male is named Zale.

Sædís, also known by the identifier SN0540, has never been known to be pregnant or have given birth. But for some reason, during this interaction almost two years ago (but only written up recently), a team of cetologists from the West Iceland Nature Research Centre were on a boat west of the Snæfellsnes Peninsula in Iceland when they noticed a pilot whale calf closely following her — a behavior never recorded before.

Sædís kept the calf close by while the other two killer whales were feeding. There were no other pilot whales in sight, and Sædís had the infant in echelon position, tucked beneath the orca’s mid-lateral flank, which is indicative of nurturing behavior. Baby dolphins can’t swim as fast as their mothers, so in this position, they are given “hydrodynamic benefits,” which allows them to keep up with the pod.

“The observation of the echelon formation between the adult female killer whale SN0540 and the pilot whale calf should be given special consideration, even though the pilot whale calf was not observed nursing,” the authors wrote. “The echelon position allows a calf to make fewer tail fluke movements than when swimming on its own and overcome physical limitations during high-speed travel, as it is closely ‘drafting’ alongside an individual, carried by the pressure wave created by the adult’s larger body.”

This behavior is pretty energy intensive, so the fact that Sædís was doing it isn’t trivial. Only lactation or breast-feeding is considered more demanding of an energy budget, which wild animals have to consider in order to best evade predators and hunt efficiently.

In other words, Sædís was spending precious energy keeping this baby pilot whale around. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like this calf was very healthy. The researchers described it as “emaciated,” or thin and weak due to lack of nutrition. There’s no evidence to suggest Sædís was able to nurse it and when the whale trio was spotted again in March 2022, the calf was gone.


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


The researchers have no idea how this relationship got started or how long it lasted. “Whether the attraction between SN0540 and the pilot whale calf was mutual or one-sided is not known, nor is the duration of the association, or how it started and ended,” they wrote.

Nonetheless, it is indicative of epimeletic behavior, meaning caring for a dead, dying or weakened individual. For example, Marie-Thérèse Mrusczok, one of the study authors and the founder and president of Orca Guardians Iceland, an independent conservation nonprofit, has previously reported an orca that carried its dying (and later, dead) calf for five consecutive days.

But doing something similar for another species is unheard of in orcas. Other dolphins have been observed taking care of young from other species. For instance, a female Indian Ocean humpback dolphin was observed, on two separate occasions, taking care of a newborn Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin and a newborn short-beaked common dolphin. This puzzling behavior prompted researchers to ask the question: was this dolphin kidnapping other dolphins?

With Sædís, no one knows for sure if this another case of one dolphin stealing the young of a different species. Or it could have been an instance of “foster care,” with the calf returned to its mother the next time the orcas met with some pilot whales. Given the poor health of the infant, it may be more likely that the baby dolphin was simply orphaned.

This incident leaves a lot of unanswered questions, but we do know orcas are highly intelligent, with the second largest brains of all marine mammals. Their family dynamics are just beginning to become clear, as a study published last month in the journal Current Biology reveals they constitute an “extreme example of extended maternal care.” Using five decades of census data, researchers studying orcas in the North Pacific reported that killer whale moms take care of their sons for years after reaching adulthood, even at the significant expense of not having more kids.

There is some parallel here between adult men who never move out of their mother’s basements, but the whole situation is another mystery of orca behavior. Why these intelligent creatures take care of less capable individuals in or outside their own species is still an enigma.

“Strongest defamation case I can remember”: Expert says filing shows “Dominion has all the receipts”

The latest legal filings in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News revealed that executives allowed hosts to air election conspiracy theories they knew were false.

Private text messages, emails, and deposition transcripts show that the network’s top hosts and executives derided the stolen election claims in private but opted to air the conspiracy theories anyway to appeal to its viewers. Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch acknowledged in a deposition that some hosts “endorsed” the false claims but he chose not to do anything about it.

“The latest filing shows that Dominion has all of the receipts,” longtime Harvard Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe told Salon. “They have a remarkable trove of explicit confessions, essentially from the talking heads themselves, the hosts, and all the way up the chain to Murdoch.”

Dominion in its filings claims that it sent more than 3,600 separate communications to Fox News with fact-checks intended to correct false information. In its lawsuit, the election technology company alleged that Fox News “recklessly disregarded the truth” and pushed pro-Trump conspiracy theories about the company because “the lies were good for Fox’s business.”

In return, Fox has accused Dominion of distortions, misinformation and misattributing quotes as part of an attempt to “smear Fox News and trample on free speech and freedom of the press.”

A spokesperson for Dominion responded that “the emails, texts, and deposition testimony speak for themselves.”

“[This] case is the strongest defamation case that I can remember seeing in really the 50 years that I’ve studied this area of law,” Tribe said. “It’s quite remarkable that the evidence is all there and that it easily meets the appropriately difficult standard that New York Times versus Sullivan established in 1964.”

Fox has so far argued that the lawsuit seeks to trample on First Amendment protections and accused Dominion of cherry-picking quotes from its top talent and executives.

While the First Amendment is going to loom over the case from beginning to end, Tribe added, “it is not going to bail out Fox.”

“The First Amendment doesn’t protect deliberate lies that cause injury to reputation, and that’s what we have here,” Tribe said. “So, the first amendment is not an absolute shield. It is a very high bar that has to be met by the plaintiff, but it is easily surmounted here.”


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


The filings also exposed the contempt that host Tucker Carlson privately has for the former president. Two days before the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Carlson texted staffers that he “can’t wait” to be “able to ignore Trump most nights.”

“I hate him passionately,” he added.

Carlson went on to criticize the Trump era.

“We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest,” he wrote. “But come on. There isn’t really an upside to Trump.”

While the filings revealed that Fox News hosts were well aware that the false claims they aired were baseless, Dominion would have to show that the network acted with “actual malice” for its lawsuit to succeed.

“Recklessness is the standard for actual malice,” Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and CNN legal analyst, told Salon.

Carlson has continued to cast serious doubts about the validity of the 2020 election results even though it’s clear that he doesn’t believe that to be the case, Eisen added, referring to text messages between Carlson and Trump’s former lawyer Sidney Powell. In a text message on November 17, 2020, Carlson told Powell “If you don’t have conclusive evidence of fraud at that scale, it’s a cruel and reckless thing to keep saying.”

Eisen also pointed out that the materials from the latest filing and Murdoch’s deposition suggest that the Fox Corp. chairman remains “utterly unremorseful” and is still allowing “wrongful conduct” to persist by letting Carlson continue to sow doubt about the 2020 election results.

“He’s admitted he has the power to stop it,” Eisen said. “So it just undercuts not only what Fox was doing then, but what Fox is continuing to do.”

When the case goes to trial, the defense is likely to focus on how much harm Dominion suffered from the false claims and the damages it is seeking, he added. Though Dominion is seeking $1.6 billion in compensatory damages, the figure could balloon to the billions of dollars if Fox is forced to pay punitive damages as well.

But Tribe believes Dominion is more concerned about accountability than money.

“I think Dominion really wants to have these liars exposed for what they are,” he said.

Tribe predicted that the verdict in the Fox News case and the recent rulings in the Sandy Hook lawsuits against InfoWars founder Alex Jones would make people whose business model relies on lying for profit think twice.

“It won’t necessarily usher in an era of truth and good feeling,” Tribe said. “That’s too much to hope for, but it is certainly going to make it much more likely that people will be more careful, and that they will certainly not engage in as much provable falsehood that they know to be false. Either that or they’re going to become much better at hiding the evidence.”

A professional baker’s guide to embracing your culinary “superpowers”

Cooks and bakers like to separate ourselves into camps, largely for ego safeguarding. For instance, when my cake inevitably comes out sunken or my pie crust doesn’t flake, I like to say, “Well, I’m more of a cook than a baker, you know. I don’t like exact measurements.” 

Of course, it’s rare that I bake at all given my insecurity about it. But I became emboldened while watching Danielle Sepsy compete and reach the finals as the sole baker in a pack of savory chefs on the recent HBO cooking competition series, “The Big Brunch.”

Sepsy, founder and chef of the Hungry Gnome bakery in New York City, is a baker with a capital B. Her wholesale and online shop churns out some 100,000 baked goods each month, including flaky rosemary honey biscuits, nutella-swirled banana bread and confoundingly fluffy cheddar chive scones. She went to culinary school, which offered a small pastry program, but taught herself to bake much earlier — at age 13, when she started her first scone business out of her parents’ home. 

“I’m a very good savory chef, but the way I like to cook and eat is much more rustic and casual,” Sepsy told me. “My roots are in Italian and American cuisine and very homey dishes and things my grandma made. My comfort zone is pastry because that’s my livelihood — as a wholesale baker making thousands of pastries a day.”


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


On screen she made no secret of her nerves when it came to tackling savory cooking on “The Big Brunch,” the eight-episode competition show on HBO Max in which she and nine other chefs competed for $300,000 to put toward making their food business dreams a reality. The show, presented in the gentler vein of “The Great British Bake-Off,” was fairly unique for featuring pastry and savory chefs competing against one another as opposed to siloing them.

“Just in that first episode, I hear the people around me saying ‘Where is the sous vide machine?’ ‘Where is the smoker?’ They’re looking for high-tech tools; meanwhile, I just need a pastry cutter or a fork. The Kitchenaid mixer is the most extravagant thing,” Sepsy said. “I started to feel so anxious and vulnerable and maybe in over my head, like, the people here are representing these super high-end dishes with fine techniques and so much finesse. That wasn’t my vibe, and I didn’t know how the judges would perceive it.” 

“I started to feel so anxious and vulnerable and maybe in over my head, like, the people here are representing these super high-end dishes with fine techniques and so much finesse. That wasn’t my vibe, and I didn’t know how the judges would perceive it.””

In fact, Sepsy didn’t hear the judges’ deliberations until she watched the first episode with the rest of us when it aired in November. So she had no idea that she’d almost won by serving up sweet (chocolate chip) and savory (cheddar chive) versions of her famous scones followed by an everything-seasoned buttermilk biscuit sandwich with baked eggs and rosemary-candied bacon. 

As judge Will Guidara, restaurateur formerly of Eleven Madison Park, told her just before gushing over her biscuit sandwich: “One of the most important things someone can do to succeed is to know their own superpowers.”

Indeed, in many ways it mirrored her own real-life work as a wholesale and ecommerce baker, far from view of the end consumer (and their reactions to her products). 

“The business is successful, so obviously somebody likes it, but I never hear it come out of people’s mouths or see their reactions,” she said. “So having that validation and seeing this caliber of individuals in front of me, someone like Will Guidara, saying to me, ‘You can bake!’ It wasn’t that I needed my ego fed; I needed that confidence.”

It took her a few more episodes, judgings and ups and (harrowing) downs to stop trying so hard to prove that she wasn’t a one-trick pony. Frequent on-camera interviews with the producers helped her process her insecurities in real time. 

“Over time, I started to accept that it was OK for me to bake and feel less insecure.”

“You get interviewed quite a bit, sometimes two to three hours a day,” she said. “You’re interviewing before you hear the challenges. The producer says, ‘How do you feel today? How about yesterday? What do you think the challenge will be?’ Then after the challenge: ‘How do you think you did?’ It’s like having hours of therapy; the producers are watching you from behind the scenes, and they’re seeing those tough moments or vulnerable times or moments of insecurity as you’re cooking and asking yourself, do I need to pivot? Over time, I started to accept that it was OK for me to bake and feel less insecure.”

Focusing on her strengths rather than fixating on her perceived shortcoming helped give her confidence to decide she’d incorporate some baked element into every dish. 

By starting from her comfort zone, she liberated herself to play more on the savory side, combining baked and cooked elements in ways that surprised even her. One of her proudest moments arrived in the fine-dining focused fifth episode, in which she dreamt up an amuse bouche comprising a mini black currant and black pepper scone with mushroom pâte topped with black currant liqueur and red wine reduction and pickled mustard seed “caviar.” 

“I had never made three-quarters of this dish in my life,” she said with a laugh. “I was truly just hoping for the best, but I I was also trusting my knowledge, instincts and my tongue. I have a knack for flavor. I was tasting along the way, and making sure that it was, yes going to amuse the mouth, but also that when it was presented, they’d know this was Danielle’s. That it still had a rustic way about it.”

Sepsy may not have won the ultimate season one prize, but the Hungry Gnome’s online sales have increased almost 5,000% since the show aired, a ringing endorsement for her baking superpower — and a reminder to the rest of us that it’s OK to focus on our own kitchen superpowers, too. 

“Those numbers tell you that the food resonated with the average person watching, too; they want to try it,” Sepsy says. “It gave me confidence knowing what I was doing was great and that it’s enough.”

“You hid money”: Teamsters president calls out millionaire senator to his face during heated hearing

Sparks flew at a congressional hearing Wednesday when International Brotherhood of Teamsters president Sean O’Brien told Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma—a multimillionaire whose family previously owned five non-union plumbing companies—that “we hold greedy CEOs like yourself accountable.”

The exchange happened during a hearing convened by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont—chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions—titled “Defending the Right of Workers to Organize Unions Free from Illegal Corporate Union-Busting.”

Watch:

Asked by O’Brien how much he made from his plumbing business, Mullin claimed, “I kept my salary down at about 50,000 a year because I invested every penny into it.”

“You hid money,” O’Brien retorted, drawing pushback from the senator.

But in 2013, then-Rep. Mullin reportedly pocketed more than $600,000 from the companies in violation of House ethics rules and federal laws limiting how much outside income members of Congress are allowed to receive.

Although Mullin transferred ownership of the companies to his family, he continued to serve as a board member and chief advertiser while raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As O’Brien pointed out on social media, Mullin saw his reported net worth surge from between $7.3 million to $29.9 million at the end of 2020 to between $31.6 million and $75.6 million after he sold his family’s plumbing companies in late 2021.

“Don’t let them distract you,” O’Brien tweeted. “Unions create jobs, make work safer, and put more money in workers’ pockets. Most importantly, everything we do is to improve the lives of our members. I wonder if some others can say the same about their constituents?”

Sanders, for his part, declared at the conclusion of Wednesday’s hearing that “there’s a class war going on whether we want to recognize it or not.”

“People on top have the money, they have the power,” said Sanders. “They’re spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try to prevent ordinary workers from coming together to fight for dignity.”

In “The Mandalorian,” I can finally find a portrait of youthful disability and acceptance

Sometime in the first episode of the new season of “The Mandalorian,” I noticed it, what I hadn’t been noticing. Mando (Pedro Pascal) parks his ship, and the trusty Mandalorian and his feisty sidekick Baby Yoda emerge and hit the town, whatever planet the town happens to be on. And when Grogu gets out of the ship, he gets in his protective floating carriage. He’ll ride in it for awhile. 

The pod of Baby Yoda is so ubiquitous, it has its own song. It’s an unmistakable image of the Disney+ show: Mando in his silver armor and face-shielding helmet and Grogu bobbling along, behind or beside with his own gleaming protective hovercraft. There are countless YouTube tutorials on how to make your own. The pod is nice-looking and beloved. It serves a practical purpose and is useful for both Grogu and Mando, who otherwise might be carrying the child. But for the millions of Americans like me who are physically disabled, Baby Yoda reminds us of something else too: that we can be disabled at any point, at any age and what our bodies can do may vary from day to day, or hour to hour. 

The far far away galaxy of “Star Wars” is no stranger to disability and to disabled characters, but as is too common in fiction, most of them are villains, like Darth Vader. Ada Hoffman writes, with Vader “‘Star Wars’ gave us one of the most memorable disabled characters ever. But it also consistently uses disability in ways that cause problems. Missing limbs and prosthetics are a shorthand for moral dissolution; disfigurement is a sign of evil.”   

The MandalorianDin Djarin (Pedro Pascal) and Grogu in “The Mandalorian” (Disney+/Lucasfilm Ltd.)In floats Baby Yoda. The Child is loved, and though the their intentions may not as yet be totally clear, Grogu has been an obvious win for audiences, long before we even knew the name Grogu (which is probably his least-loved quality, if we’re searching for something). People adore Baby Yoda and people accept, without question, without grumbling on social media, that sometimes Grogu walks and sometimes he rides in his carriage.

This is a key aspect of many disabilities that the non-disabled can find hard to accept in real life. Why can I hear some words at some times and not others, sometimes in the same environment or via the same person talking? It varies. It can have to do with how tired I am, how much of a headache I have from listening fatigue, how a person is mumbling or enunciating or if there are fans or other background noises. It can have to do with a lot of things. In the same way, a wheelchair user may walk or stand at some points or for some periods of time but not others. A body gets tired. A body, perhaps especially a disabled one, has good days and bad days.

If you’re disabled, you only get so many spoons per day, and some days, you have to use them all up to fight Count Dooku.

The important way that “The Mandalorian” uses Baby Yoda’s pod, with the exception of when it was first created and later restored, is that it’s unremarked upon. No one makes a big deal out of The Child getting in or out of it. It just is, an assistive device used sometimes, when the user needs it. In Season 3, Greef Karga (Carl Weathers) makes a bigger fuss about The Child’s name (“If you say so.”). In this way, “The Mandalorian” may be taking a page from earlier “Star Wars” lore. The original Yoda utilizes a cane, beautifully and catchily immortalized in the Bad Lip Reading song “My Stick!” 

In some scenes, in some stories, Yoda uses his stick a lot, leaning heavily on it, seeming to need it in order to walk. At other points, like in “Episode II: Attack of the Clones,” Yoda does flips, spins and mid-air kicks. An extreme example, perhaps, but not that different from my disabled friends who sometimes have the energy to go for a walk and sometimes, to use the now-familiar metaphor for chronic illness, are all out of spoons. As The Washington Post explains it, “each spoon represents a finite unit of energy . . . Spoon theory has become a shorthand for chronically ill people to explain how they’re feeling and coping day-to-day.” 

If you’re disabled, you only get so many spoons per day, and some days, you have to conserve them and use them all up to fight Count Dooku.

The MandalorianGrogu in “The Mandalorian” (Disney+/Lucasfilm Ltd.)But cane-user Yoda is also depicted as quite old when we first meet him. In Baby Yoda, I can finally see that most rarest of characters: a portrait of young disability. As a disabled person, we’re desperate for it. Most disabled characters in TV and film (who are overwhelmingly created by non-disabled writers and directors) are stereotypes, overwrought, inspirational and disposable. For all its praise, “The Last of Us,” for example, has failed to introduce a disabled character not just to kill them. 

Gaslighting is familiar to anyone with an invisible disability.

As someone born with physical disability, especially one like deafness which is so often and incorrectly only assigned to the elderly, I’ve experienced many comments of disbelief, from “you’re so young” to “you don’t look deaf.” That gaslighting is familiar to anyone with an invisible disability. And as about 1 in 5 American adults have long COVID, according to the CDC, more people will unfortunately become familiar with it.  


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


Of course, perhaps Grogu has no disability at all. Maybe Baby Yoda is just a baby who sometimes needs a stroller and sometimes can walk (some adults love to mock children for that too, not understanding that disabled children exist). Grogu is 50, which was a weird thing to find out early on in the series, but his species likely ages and matures differently. And whenever and however The Child grows, he will still be shorter than most characters, as Yoda was. 

“The Mandalorian” also deals with disability in other ways, including language. Sometimes Mando can understand Grogu and sometimes not, but the two find their ways to communicate. With a whole galaxy full of all kinds of species, respecting personhood (even if one is not precisely a humanoid type of person) and body autonomy is huge in the show. When Grogu attempts to pick up the tiny Anzellan Droidsmiths without their permission, The Child is strongly reprimanded, “No squeezie.” That’s a lesson of respect many adults still need to learn.

 

“Political agreement”: Watchdogs demand ethics probe of McCarthy’s Jan. 6 gift to Tucker Carlson

A group of watchdogs on Tuesday urged the Office of Congressional Ethics to launch an investigation into House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s decision to exclusively hand more than 40,000 hours of security video from the January 6 Capitol attack to far-right Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who is already selectively using the trove of footage to spin the insurrection as a largely peaceful event.

In their request for an investigation, Public Citizen’s Craig Holman and Lisa Gilbert and former White House ethics officials Norm Eisen and Richard Painter wrote that “the exclusive release of the Jan. 6 video footage appears to have been the result of a political agreement between McCarthy, Tucker Carlson, and others in McCarthy’s bid to become speaker.”

While McCarthy has defended the arrangement with Carlson as similar to the common practice of giving select members of the media “exclusives on certain things,” the watchdogs contended that “this is not like granting an exclusive interview; this is providing a valuable government resource exclusively to one news outlet and discriminating against others, which flies in the face of First Amendment values.”

The ethics experts went on to argue that “the speaker’s release of security footage exclusively to Tucker Carlson is pure and simple using congressional resources for partisan gamesmanship—the very type of polarizing gamesmanship that has caused such damage to the public’s perception of the integrity of Congress.”

The investigation request was submitted to the Office of Congressional Ethics—an independent body that House Republicans have worked to gut—just hours after Fox News aired Carlson’s first segment featuring the exclusively obtained footage.

Consistent with his past descriptions of the January 6 assault, Carlson used the Monday night segment to selectively present footage aimed at downplaying the attack and portraying the Trump supporters involved as individuals who “revered the Capitol”—a narrative that runs counter to publicly available evidence of violence and significant damage to the Capitol building.

Carlson signaled that segments in the coming days will feature additional security footage obtained through the deal with McCarthy.

Matt Gertz of Media Matters for America noted Monday that “there was never any plausible chance that Carlson’s team would look at the footage and decide to tell their audience that it proved they had been wrong all along.”

“He’s not an impartial finder of fact—he’s a propagandist who is in the business of telling his viewers what they want to hear,” Gertz wrote. “In this case, they want to believe that they and their political fellow travelers were the victims, so that’s what they are going to hear.”

Legal expert: Tennessee’s law limiting drag performances likely violates the First Amendment

On March 2, 2023, Tennessee became the first state to enact a law restricting drag performances.

This law is part of a larger push by Republican lawmakers in numerous states to restrict or eliminate events like drag shows and drag story hours.

These legislative efforts have been accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric – not grounded in fact – about the need to protect children from “grooming” and sexually explicit performances.

Such rhetoric reveals that those seeking to restrict drag performances sometimes don’t understand what drag is or seeks to do.

Drag is an art form in which performers play with gender norms. Drag shows often include dancing, singing, lip-synching or comedy. Some common forms of drag include cisgender male and transgender female performers dressed in stereotypically feminine ways and cigender female and transgender male performers dressed in stereotypically masculine ways.

Drag artists also participate in many other kinds of events. For example, drag queens host family-friendly story hours at local libraries where they read age-appropriate books to children.

Current Supreme Court decisions suggest that laws like the one just passed in Tennessee probably violate the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. This is, in part, because many drag performances are protected by the First Amendment, which safeguards not only spoken, written, and signed speech but also many other actions meant to convey messages.

Republican legislators appear to have written the law to try to avoid running afoul of the First Amendment by treating drag shows as if they meet the legal definition of obscenity. Speech, including expressive conduct, that meets the Supreme Court’s criteria for obscenity is not covered by First Amendment protection.

I’m a scholar who studies U.S. free speech law. Looking at the text of Tennessee’s new law, I see several ways in which this anti-drag law appears susceptible to significant First Amendment challenges.

Tennessee’s new law

The law amends what Tennessee considers “adult cabaret entertainment” and bans “male or female impersonators” from performing on public property or in any other location where the performance “could be viewed by a person who is not an adult,” when such performances are “harmful to minors” as that phrase is defined by Tennessee law.

This law thus regulates not only public spaces but also privately owned locations like bars and performance venues. A first violation is a misdemeanor. Subsequent violations are felonies.

Because the law is limited to drag performances that are “harmful to minors,” in theory, most drag shows should be unaffected.

But various Republican legislators in Tennessee have recently fought to prevent even vetted family-friendly drag shows with no lewd or sexual content from being held in public.

Given this, drag performers and other artists have reasonable grounds for suspecting that Tennessee officials may seek to interpret the new law broadly to include many kinds of drag performances and other shows that play with gender norms.

Given the popularity of drag shows, this new law could stifle a lot of expression and damage the ability of full-time drag performers to make their living.

But even if Tennessee officials interpret the new law narrowly, the law still appears likely to run afoul of the First Amendment.

Drag is protected ‘expressive conduct’

The First Amendment protects more than just written, oral or signed speech. It also protects many other actions designed to convey ideas. The legal terms for these actions are “expressive conduct” or “symbolic speech.”

Some activities courts have recognized as expressive conduct include making and displaying art and music, picketing, marching in parades, desecrating a U.S. flag, burning a draft card, dancing and other forms of live entertainment.

Drag shows typically consist of various forms of protected speech – such as telling jokes and introducing performers – and protected expressive conduct such as lip-synching and dancing. Thus, drag shows are usually covered by the First Amendment.

But Tennessee’s new law insinuates that drag performances might be part of a category of speech exempt from the First Amendment protection: legally defined obscenity. If this were so, then Tennessee’s law likely would pass constitutional muster. But the law seems to target more than merely legally obscene material.

However, Tennessee lawmakers have not provided viable examples of obscene drag performances in Tennessee. And current Supreme Court precedent makes it highly unlikely that all the expressive conduct Tennessee seeks to regulate falls into the narrow legal category of obscenity.

Defining obscenity

In considering whether something is legally obscene, the Supreme Court requires courts to consider whether (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest; (2) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct defined by the applicable state law, and (3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

In the relevant part of its criminal code, Tennessee law states that:

“Harmful to minors means that quality of any description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violence or sadomasochistic abuse when the matter or performance (a) Would be found by the average person applying contemporary community standards to appeal predominantly to the prurient, shameful or morbid interests of minors; (b) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors; and (c) Taken as whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific values for minors.”

Given the similarities between Tennessee’s description of “harmful to minors” and the Supreme Court’s definition of “obscenity,” Tennessee appears to be trying to avoid First Amendment scrutiny for its new law.

But there are some important differences between Tennessee law and the Supreme Court’s description of obscenity.

Perhaps most importantly, the Supreme Court limits obscenity to speech that lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value full stop; not just work that lacks such serious value specifically for minors.

As is widely recognized, drag is artistic and political. Drag performers use drag to push artistic boundaries and to discuss pressing political issues.

There is no First Amendment requirement to determine when or whether the value of speech applies “for minors.” Adults living in a democratic society need to be able to discuss a wide range of issues, not all of which will have value for children. Supreme Court free speech precedent recognizes this.

Thus, Tennessee probably cannot rely on a claim that it is criminalizing only legally obscene expressive conduct. Instead, it must regulate drag performances in accordance with the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

Discriminatory and overly broad

Freedom of speech, like all rights, is not absolute.

The Supreme Court has allowed states to put some limits on protected speech. For example, states may impose restrictions on the time, place and manner in which speech occurs, so long as such limitations are content-neutral.

Examples include requiring permits to hold parades on city streets and not allowing loud music between midnight and 6 a.m. on public sidewalks.

However, Tennessee’s law goes far beyond these kinds of limited regulations of protected speech in at least two ways.

First, it legislates more than mere time, place and manner restrictions. Instead, the law bars, at all times, “male or female impersonation” that it deems “harmful to children” from any public property and from many private venues, too. This is a wholesale ban on such speech in all public forums and in many private spaces. Courts will likely find this too broad.

Second, by singling out “male and female impersonators,” Tennessee’s law fails to be content-neutral. It instead discriminates on the basis of the expressive conduct’s content.

Tennessee’s new law bolsters the case that anti-drag laws are antidemocratic, discriminatory and unconstitutional.

 

Mark Satta, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Wayne State University

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

Fox News caught editing out Trump’s brag that he would have let Putin “take over” parts of Ukraine

Fox News was caught editing out former President Donald Trump’s boast that he would have negotiated an end to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by allowing the Kremlin to “take over” parts of the country.

Trump during a Monday radio interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity said that Russia “took over nothing” while he was in office but was going for the “whole enchilada” with President Joe Biden in the White House. Trump claimed that had he still been in office, Russian President Vladimir Putin “would have never done it.”

“That’s without even negotiating a deal. I could have negotiated,” he said. “At worst, I could’ve made a deal to take over something, there are certain areas that are Russian-speaking areas, frankly, but you could’ve worked a deal.”

But when Hannity aired his “exclusive” conversation with the former president on his Fox News show later that evening, Trump’s comment about letting Putin “take over” parts of Ukraine was edited out, as flagged by The Daily Beast.

“I could have negotiated,” Trump says in the clip, before the video fast-forwards to a different part of the interview in which Trump complained about China.


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


The clips aired on Fox News also excluded Trump’s conspiracy theory that “so many more people are dying than is being reported” in Ukraine while repeating that this “would have never happened” if he was still in office.

The former president has also said in an interview with the Right Side Broadcasting Network that peace “can be negotiated within 24 hours” by saying “things” that “will guarantee that this war will end immediately.”

Plastic particles could cross over from mother to unborn fetus, experts say

The price we pay for living in an industrial civilization is reading alarming news about pollutants, from PCBs to PFAS to microplastics. Microplastics, extremely small pieces of plastic debris that flake off of industrial waste and plastic consumer products, are believed to be causing adverse health effects in nearly every form of life on Earth that they touch. Yet there’s an even bigger threat to human health that is, paradoxically, smaller in size: nanoplastics. 

Researchers fed five pregnant rats nanoplastics, focusing on the potential effect of ingesting such pollutants.

As the “nano-” prefix implies, nanoplastics are very small pieces of plastic, less than 100 nanometers in size, that are released into the environment as a result of plastic disintegration. It is currently estimated that an estimated six billion metric tons of plastic waste has been deposited in the environment. While nanoplastics have been identified in our collective food chain, and some research has shown that they can affect marine life, their ability to traverse the placenta and affect the unborn not been widely studied — until now. Last month, researchers at the Rutgers School of Public Health published a study that found nanoscale plastic particles can translocate from pregnant rats to their unborn fetuses. The study has frightful implications for transmission of tiny plastic particles between mother and baby.

“These plastic materials, when they end up in environmental media, they start breaking into smaller pieces over time,” Dr. Philip Demokritou, the Henry Rutgers Chair and professor in nanoscience and environmental bioengineering at the Rutgers School of Public Health, told Salon. “After 50-60 years, they are everywhere, they are in the water you drink, even the air you breathe, because we also incinerate plastic materials. We are still assessing how they behave, how they interact with biological systems, and if they can cause adverse health effects.”

Researchers fed five pregnant rats nanoplastics, focusing on the potential effect of ingesting such pollutants. Twenty-four hours later, they used an imaging technique known as “enhanced darkfield hyperspectral microscopy” to locate the materials within the rats and see if they were able to pass through the gastrointestinal tract and the placenta and reach the unborn fetus.

Upon examination, the researchers not only found the particles in the pregnant rats’ placentas, but they were also in their livers, kidneys, hearts, lungs and brains of their fetuses.

“That’s a very critical window,” Demokritou said. “If the fetus is getting exposed, that can resolve developmental effects.”


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


While much remains unknown, Demokritou said the results of the study are “certainly cause for concern,” and that follow-up research is needed. Indeed, this is the first study confirming transmission of ingested nanoplastics to fetal tissues in a mammalian species. Though humans have yet to be studied, the findings certainly raise questions as to whether nanoplastics reach unborn human fetuses. Notably, previous research found microplastics present in human placentas.

Previous research has found tiny plastic particles present in human lungs and blood. 

According to a separate paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Nanomaterials, nanoplastics pose several ecological and toxic risks to human health. Laundry wastewater, car tires, drinking water and air inhalation are major sources of nanoplastics. Previous research has shown that nanoplastics can lead to biological cellular death — but factors such as the type of nanoplastic determine impact.

Moreover, previous research has found tiny plastic particles present in human lungs and blood. However, as a research paper from Environmental Health Perspectives highlighted: “the impacts of plastic particles are unexplored, especially with regard to early life exposures.” When it comes to maternal-fetal health, part of the problem is that it is ethically challenging to study the direct impact.

Demokritou emphasized to Salon that “not all nanoparticles are created equal,” which was reflected in the study as the researchers focused on a polystyrene material kind of nanoplastic. 

Polystyrene, Demokritou said, is the kind of plastic “used to make your takeaway plates.” Demokritou said that researchers “need to continue studying” the affects of this and other plastics on humans.

Animal studies do not always translate to humans, but researchers in this case believe that the data does suggest that humans are experiencing similar nanoplastic transmission. 

“We are pretty good at extrapolating data from animal models to humans,” Demokritou said, adding that with the evidence that microplastics have already been found in human placentas, it’s possible. “We have reason to believe that this is what’s happening in real life.” 

 

Here are all the food-themed props being sold in A24’s “Everything Everywhere All at Once” auction

A donut umbrella, a half and half carton, a chef’s uniform and a pair of hot dog finger hands are just a few wacky props that were put up for sale by A24 in its recent “Everything Everywhere All at Once” auction.

The online auction, which closed on March 2, raised $555,725 for three different charities — the Asian Mental Health Project, the Transgender Law Center and the Laundry Workers Center. The charities were chosen by the film’s directors, Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, who are collectively known as Daniels.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CpTaYD0tkfg/?next=%2Freel%2FCo-HnnmNwMt%2F

Described as an absurdist comedy-drama-adventure film, “Everything Everywhere All at Once” stars Michelle Yeoh as Evelyn Quan Wang, a Chinese American laundromat owner who finds herself battling a stern IRS inspector and a destructive rendition of her daughter (Jobu Tupaki) in several parallel universes. Although the film’s central focus isn’t food, it features several references, including a black hole-like “everything bagel” and a hibachi chef-raccoon duo (Chad and Raccacoonie) reminiscent of the classic culinary duo from Pixar’s “Ratatouille.”

Jobu’s Temple Verse Costume, which comes with her braided bagel hairpiece, sold for $9,500, while Chef Chad’s Uniform sold for $3,750. Other food-themed props were Deirdre’s Desk Cookies ($10,000), a pair of Hot Dog Hands ($55,000), Deirdre’s Hot Dog Costume ($6,000), a pair of Knitted Hot Dog Finger Gloves ($4,000), Evelyn’s Hot Dog Costume ($4,500), a Donut Umbrella ($2,650) and a Half and Half Carton ($5,000).

https://www.instagram.com/p/Co-HnnmNwMt/?next=%2Freel%2FCo-HnnmNwMt%2F

The most expensive item in the auction was Raccacoonie, which made a whopping $90,000.

Additional pricey props included Waymond’s Fanny Pack ($48,000), Jobu’s Elvis Costume ($20,000), Evelyn’s Punk Cardigan ($15,000) and the butt plug-like ‘Auditor of the Month’ Trophy ($60,000).  


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


In total, the auction touted 43 pieces of memorabilia categorized into three themed collections: Laundry and Taxes, In Another Life and Mementos from the Multiverse.

“Everything Everywhere All at Once” continues to be the most talked about film of the season after it won four SAG awards on February 26. The film also picked up 11 Oscar nominations — more than any other movie this year — and is predicted to take home the Best Picture award. 

McConnell among GOP senators calling “bulls**t” on Tucker Carlson Jan. 6 “whitewash”

After Fox News‘ Tucker Carlson falsely dismissed the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump as mostly nonviolent, numerous Republican senators including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday blasted the right-wing opinion host’s “whitewashing” of the deadly insurrection.

Carlson—who publicly promoted former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election lies while privately calling the GOP loser’s claims “absurd”—said Monday on his program that “very little about January 6 was organized or violent” and that “surveillance video from inside the Capitol shows mostly peaceful chaos.”

Recently deposed as part of Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, Carlson echoed colleagues who said under oath that they didn’t actually believe Trump’s “Big Lie” that the 2020 presidential contest was stolen by Democrats.

While some of the eight Republican senators (and 135 House members) who voted against certifying President Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory have stuck by the Big Lie, numerous others pushed back hard against Carlson’s reimagination of the worst attack on the Capitol since Puerto Rican nationalists launched an armed assault on the building in 1954.

“I think it’s bullshit,” Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told reporters Tuesday when asked what he thought of Carlson’s narrative. “When you see police officers assaulted, all of that… if you were just a tourist, you should’ve probably lined up at the visitors’ center and came in on an orderly basis.”

Also speaking Tuesday, McConnell, R-Ky., said that Fox News “made a mistake” by airing Carlson’s spurious revision of the deadly insurrection.

“With regard to the presentation on Fox News last night, I want to associate myself entirely with the opinion of the chief of the Capitol Police about what happened on January 6,” McConnell declared.

As he spoke, McConnell held up a printout of remarks from U.S. Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger, who called Carlson’s account “filled with offensive and misleading conclusions” and “conveniently cherry-picked from the calmer moments of our 41,000 hours of video.”

Asked whether he thought U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., erred in giving Carlson exclusive access to the footage—a move that prompted watchdogs on Tuesday to call for an Office of Congressional Ethics probe—McConnell said that “my concern is how it was depicted.”

“Clearly,” he added, “the chief of the Capitol Police correctly described what most of us witnessed on January 6.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined in the criticism of Carlson, saying, “We don’t want to whitewash January the 6th.”

“I think the January 6 committee had a partisan view of things, and I’d like to know more about what happened that day and the day before,” Graham added. “But I’m not interested in whitewashing the Covid lab theory, and I’m not interested in whitewashing January 6.”

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, accused Carlson of “feeding falsehoods” to his viewers.

“It’s really sad to see Tucker Carlson go off the rails like that,” the 2012 Republican presidential nominee told reporters. “The American people saw what happened on January 6. They’ve seen the people that got injured, they saw the damage to the building.”

“You can’t hide the truth by selectively picking a few minutes out of tapes and saying this is what went on,” he added. “It’s so absurd. It’s nonsense. And people saw that it was violent and destructive and should never happen again. But trying to normalize that behavior is dangerous and disgusting.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., condemned Carlson’s framing of the attack as “some rowdy peaceful protest of Boy Scouts.”

“I think that breaking through glass windows and doors to get into the United States Capitol… is a crime,” Cramer argued. “I think… when you start opening the members’ desks, when you stand up in their balcony—to somehow put that in the same category as, you know, permitted peaceful protest is just a lie.”

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., got straight to his point: “I thought it was an insurrection at that time. I still think it was an insurrection today.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., meanwhile, called on Fox to keep Carlson off the air this evening.

“To say January 6 was not violent is a lie. A lie, pure and simple,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.

“I don’t think I have ever seen a prime-time cable news anchor manipulate his viewers the way Mr. Carlson did last night,” he added. “I don’t think I’ve ever seen an anchor treat the American people and American democracy with such disdain. And he is going to come back tonight with another segment. Fox News should tell him not to.”

Fungi in flour can cause lots of ailments — but nothing like what happens in HBO’s “The Last of Us”

In the HBO series “The Last of Us,” named after the popular video game of the same name, the flour supplies of the world are contaminated with a fungus called Cordyceps. When people eat pancakes or other foods made with that flour, the fungi grow inside their bodies and turn them into zombies.

As a food scientist, I study the effect of processing on the quality and safety of fruits and vegetables, including the flour used to make pancakes. While no one is going to turn into a zombie from eating pancakes in real life, flour is often contaminated with fungi that can produce mycotoxins that make people sick. Proper processing and cooking, however, can generally keep you safe.

‘The Last of Us’ is premised on a pandemic that brings the world to an apocalyptic collapse.

How common is fungi in flour?

People have been eating bread made from wheat for approximately 14,000 years and cultivating wheat for at least 10,000 years. In 1882, “drunken bread disease” was first documented in Russia, where people reported dizziness, headache, trembling hands, confusion and vomiting after eating bread. Long before that, Chinese peasants were reporting that eating pinkish wheat – a key sign of infection with a mold called Fusarium – caused them to feel ill. Clearly, fungi have been making people sick for a long time.

Wheat, corn, rice and even fruits and vegetables can be infected with fungi as they grow in the field. In “The Last of Us,” an epidemiologist theorizes that climate change is causing the fungus to mutate so it can infect humans. The unfortunate reality is that fungi have become more of a problem in recent years as warmer temperatures encourage their growth.

A 2017 study found that over 90% of wheat and corn flour samples in Washington, D.C., contained live fungi, with Aspergillus and Fusarium the predominant types of mold in wheat flour. Fusarium grows on wheat in the field and can cause a common agricultural plant disease called fusarium head blight or scab.

Farmers use multiple techniques to reduce this devastating plant disease, including implementing crop rotation, using resistant varieties and fungicides and minimizing irrigation during flowering. After harvesting, they sort the grains to remove contaminated wheat before grinding them into flour. While sorting removes most of the contaminated wheat, small amounts of fungi can still make it into the flour.

Killing microorganisms in flour

The good news is that most fungi and other microorganisms die at 160-170 degrees Fahrenheit (71-77 degrees Celsius). Pancakes are typically cooked to an internal temperature of 190-200 F (88-93 C). Other cakes and breads are cooked to internal temperatures anywhere from 180 to 210 degrees Fahrenheit (82-99 C). So, unlike in “The Last of Us,” as long as you bake or fry your dough, you’ll have killed the fungi.

The problem comes when people eat the flour without cooking it first, such as by consuming raw cookie dough or “licking the bowl clean.” Both raw egg and raw flour can contain microorganisms that make people sick. The microorganisms that public health officials are most worried about are E. coli and Salmonella, dangerous pathogens that can cause severe illness.

Most people don’t realize that the flour they buy at the store is raw flour that still contains live microorganisms. Flour is rarely commercially treated to be safe to eat raw because consumers almost always cook flour-based foods. While consumers can also attempt to heat-treat raw flour at home, this isn’t recommended because the flour may not be spread thinly enough to kill all of the microorganisms.

Some fungi and microorganisms can create spores, which are like seeds that help them survive adverse conditions. These spores can survive cooking, drying and freezing. There are even 4,500-year-old yeast spores that have been reawakened and made into bread. These fungal spores rarely cause serious illness in people, except in those with weakened immune systems.

Chemicals can be added to food to stop fungal growth. These additives include sorbates, benzoates and propionates. However, you almost never see these additives in flour or pancake mix because fungi can’t grow in a dry powder. The fungi either grew on the wheat in the field or on the bread after it is baked. For that reason, you may see these additives in bread but not in a powdered mix.

Mycotoxins

The biggest risk from fungi is not that it will grow inside our bodies, but that it will grow on wheat or other foods and produce chemicals called mycotoxins that can cause severe health problems. When wheat is harvested and ground into flour, mycotoxins can get mixed in.

Unfortunately, while normal cooking can kill the microorganisms, it doesn’t destroy the mycotoxins. Eating mycotoxins can cause problems ranging from hallucinations to vomiting and diarrhea to cancer or death. Some of the common mycotoxins found in grain include aflatoxins, deoxynivalenol, ochratoxin A and fumonisin B.

The oldest known case of mycotoxin poisoning is recorded as a disease called ergotism. Ergotism was mentioned in the Old Testament and has been reported in Western Europe since A.D. 800. It has even been suggested that the Salem witch trials were caused by an outbreak of ergotism that led its victims to hallucinate, though many have disputed this idea. Wheat is less likely than other grains to have dangerous mycotoxins, which is why some have proposed that declining mortality in 18th-century Europe, especially in England, was due to the switch from a rye-based diet to a wheat-based diet.

Ultimately, you don’t need to worry about eating those pancakes. Farmers use many techniques to minimize fungal growth and remove moldy grain and the government keeps a close eye on mycotoxin levels during crop production and storage. Just make sure you cook your bakery products before eating and don’t eat anything that has started to mold.

Sheryl Barringer, Professor of Food Science and Technology, The Ohio State University

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

Expert: Dominion filing shows Rupert Murdoch “trying to help the Trump campaign”

Fox denied that it violated federal campaign finance laws after Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch admitted under oath that he shared information about a Biden campaign ad with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner.

A court filing submitted last week as part of Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion dollar defamation lawsuit against Fox News said that Murdoch had shared confidential information with White House adviser Jared Kushner during the 2020 presidential campaign. 

The document, which alleged that Murdoch provided Kushner “with Fox confidential information about Biden’s ads, along with debate strategy (providing Kushner a preview of Biden’s ads before they were public),” sparked criticism and complaints from watchdogs that the move may have violated Federal Election Commission rules around non-monetary campaign contributions. 

On Tuesday, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis unsealed the filing, which revealed that Murdoch admitted to Dominion’s lawyers during the deposition that he was “trying to help Mr. Kushner” by sharing information about the ad. 

Murdoch in the deposition denied that he provided Kushner with previews of ads set to air on the network but in messages included in the filing appeared to give Kushner advice on Trump’s ad strategy.

“He’s a friend of mine,” Murdoch said, referring to Kushner.

“You were trying to help the Trump campaign by giving him a preview of the Biden campaign’s ads before it was public?” the Dominion lawyer asked.

“Right,” Murdoch answered. “I guess so.”

Fox, which did not comment on the filing previously, told The Daily Beast that Murdoch did share a Biden ad with Kushner but said that it was already publicly available.

“Mr. Murdoch forwarded an already-publicly available Biden campaign ad which was available on YouTube and had even run on public airwaves,” the spokesperson told the outlet, adding that Dominion had been “caught red handed” inserting “distortions and misinformation” into its lawsuit. The spokesperson accused the company of trying to “smear” the network and said the lawsuit would “trample on free speech and freedom of the press.”

The Daily Beast said it was not able to identify which Biden ad Fox was referencing. 

Progressive watchdog groups Media Matters and End Citizens United PAC filed complaints to the FEC last week. Media Matters accused Murdoch of making “an illegal corporate in-kind contribution,” adding that his “secret conveyance of the Biden advertisement is even less like press activity than a cablecasting company sending campaign flyers in its bills — and neither can be protected by the press exemption.”


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


“Fox Corporation, through Murdoch, appears to have engaged in the exact type of campaign activity to which the Commission has repeatedly affirmed the press exemption does not apply. Therefore, Fox Corporation cannot try to exploit the press exemption to avoid the consequences of making an illegal corporate in-kind contribution,” Media Matters wrote in its filing.

“Respondent’s actions are not only an egregious violation of the Act and the Commission’s regulations, but also a nefarious attempt by people in power to operate a press entity as a political organization, in blatant disregard of the rules that govern our elections and democracy.” the complaint continued. 

Media Matters President Angelo Carusone did not seem deterred by Fox’s latest comment, however, telling The Daily Beast that the media company should plan to “save it for the FEC.”

“It’s Rupert Murdoch’s own words and acknowledgment,” Carusone told the outlet. “I would add that it’s a little weird that this is what Fox News’ PR shop is choosing to focus on tonight given the tome documenting Fox misdeeds that have been exposed.”

End Citizens United argued that Fox did not deny that Murdoch shared information about other confidential ads and said the denial did not rule out that the Fox boss may have shared other non-public details about the ad.

“The trove of documents and the legal proceedings are clear: Fox has lied about the facts from day one and lacks credibility,” Bawadden Sayed, a spokesperson for End Citizens United, told Salon. “The fact is that court documents revealed that Mr. Murdoch took confidential information about Biden’s ads and shared them with the Trump campaign in a partisan manner. They also shared information about debate strategy. This had nothing to do with legitimate press activities. It amounts to an illegal corporate contribution. “There’s more than enough evidence for the FEC to begin an investigation, and we’re confident that they’ll find reason to believe Fox and the Trump campaign broke the law.”

Brendan Fischer, deputy executive director at campaign finance watchdog Documented, told The Daily Beast that if the video was indeed public, it could undercut the complaints.

“Murdoch himself admits that he was trying to help the Trump campaign,” he said. “But if all Murdoch did was share a publicly available Biden ad, then he’s not providing much of value.”

Neoliberalism made us broke. Now it’s killing us

Remember the days of Occupy Wall Street? In September of 2011, activists descended on the Wall Street area of Manhattan to protest rising economic inequality and the controlling role that money was playing in politics. The movement spread globally. Before long the phrase “we are the 99 percent” became infamous. 

It was a motto that effectively described the neoliberal caste system. Under neoliberalism, the goal was deregulation, privatization, the cult of the free market and a focus on profit over people. During its debut decades, from the 1980s to the 2010s, neoliberalism’s most visible damage was economic and political.

Remember that the Occupy protests were a direct response to the financial crash of 2007-2008, which had been brought on by the massive deregulation of the banking industry. As banks neared insolvency, they were often bailed out, leaving the public to take the brunt of the economic collapse. 

Today, like then, we are witnessing a form of collapse caused by neoliberalism. Collapsed buildings, collapsed bridges, collapsed railways

First neoliberalism made us broke. Now it’s killing us. 

Neoliberalism didn’t just deregulate the economy and brazenly link economic influence to political power, it also deregulated safety systems, infrastructure and oversight. It didn’t just allow banks to make up their own rules; it allowed infrastructure, housing, and transportation businesses to do so as well. And over time the consequences have become more and more devastating.  

What do recent tragedies like a train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, an earthquake in Turkey/Syria and a train collision in Greece all have in common? Selfish, morally corrupt idiots who thought that it made sense to put profit over following regulations and norms designed to ensure safety. 

But it’s even bigger than that.

A lack of investment in regulatory norms and infrastructure has created other ripple effects that effectively impact everyone, even those in the 1 percent. Consider the recent testimony by the acting head of the FAA to address the software outage that halted flight departures, a near miss between an American Airlines plane and a Delta Air Lines plane on a JFK airport runway, a close call between a FedEx cargo plane and a Southwest plane in Austin, Texas, and more. In those meetings, both the FAA and members of Congress admitted that there were flaws in the safety system, yet there was no sense of accountability and certainly no public commitment to the investment and oversight needed to mitigate these risks. This is on the heels of crashes of Boeing 737 Max jets in Indonesia in 2018 and Ethiopia in 2019 killed 346 people. The jets were certified by Boeing as safe despite evidence that they knew about its dangerous automation system.

So, what is safety under neoliberalism? 

Just as the neoliberal banking system argued that regulatory oversight was unnecessary and restrictive, the same deregulatory practices have been seeping into a range of systems for decades.

The central principle of neoliberal safety systems is the idea that norms and regulations can be outsourced and handled at the level of worker “responsibilization.” But most importantly, the concept is that rules and regulations are restrictive and unnecessarily bureaucratic. Under neoliberalism, oversight is framed as confining and obstructive. Most importantly, it suggests that norms and regulations impinge on workers’ freedom to innovate and develop expertise. It frames rules as limits created by non-experts “detached from the front line.”

 If that sounds like nonsense, that’s because it is.

These collapses and crashes are not isolated stories. They form part of a larger tapestry of examples where a combination of greed, incompetence, lack of oversight, and absent accountability have all conspired to make us unsafe.

The neoliberal party line may be that deregulating safety systems allows for more workplace “freedom,” but we all know that what it really does is offer the corporate elite a better chance of extracting more profit.  

In fact, to the extent that we see any rhetoric within the neoliberal cabal about the need for implementing safety protocols, it is merely discussed in terms of reputational harm and business expense. In fact, you won’t see one neoliberal pundit argue that the main reason to ensure safety protocols is to protect human life and avoid the destruction of the planet. 

How safe is work under neoliberalism?

In 2010, there was an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that killed eleven people and seriously injured a number of others. The explosion also caused the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history with an oil spill of roughly 3 million barrels. In the aftermath, the explosion was directly tied to BP’s lax safety rules. The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board concluded there were “several inadequate or missing regulatory attributes.” The explosion caused BP stock to plummet and cost BP more than $60 billion.  

But while BP initially paid a price, in the end, they really faced no consequences.

“The U.S. still outsources drilling safety and spill cleanup to industry, which has proven far more adept at extracting oil than protecting the environment,” explains University of Michigan professor David M. Uhlmann.

BP paid reparations and went back to business as usual.


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


The BP story isn’t isolated. Workplace safety under neoliberalism has become increasingly precarious. Approximately 7 to 9 percent of the U.S. workforce sustains a work-related injury each year. And these numbers used to be worse. In 1970 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was introduced, and since it was established, the number of injuries and deaths has dropped by 60% across the workforce.

Those gains, though, have started to reverse due to the increasing deregulation of workplace safety standards brought on by neoliberal ideology. Employers, in the main, oppose worker protections and resist safety protocols that they deem confining to their business practices. According to the AFL-CIO, “Big Business and many Republicans have launched an aggressive assault on worker protections. They are attempting to shift employers’ responsibility to maintain a safe workplace to individual worker behavior, and undermine the core responsibilities of workplace safety agencies.”

This all got worse under the Trump administration, which framed workplace safety as a threat to economic prosperity. Trump campaigned on a pro-business, deregulatory agenda. One of his core promises was to cut regulations by 70 percent. The Trump team attacked “job safety rules on beryllium, mine safety examinations and injury reporting, and [cut] agency budgets and staff—and attempted to dismantle the systems for future protections.” Most importantly, under Trump OSHA was effectively gutted and its budget slashed, leaving it with approximately $4.37 to protect each worker and one compliance officer per 70,000 workers.

As tempting as it is to blame Trump for this shift, the crisis is global.

In a World Health Organization report on worker safety and health, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, stated that it was “shocking to see so many people literally being killed by their jobs.”

How safe are we?

If workers are under threat due to deregulated safety conditions, where does that leave us when we aren’t at work?

Well, if you live in a building, you might not be safe.

In June 2021, a condo building in South Florida collapsed killing 97 people. It was later discovered that in 2018 engineers had warned of cracked and degraded concrete support beams in the underground parking garage and other problems that would cost nearly $10 million to fix. But the repairs didn’t happen. A year later the Miami Herald reported that design failures, shoddy construction, 40 years of damage and neglect “lined up like dominoes to create the perfect conditions for a deadly chain reaction.” 

When we consider this on a grander scale, we can begin to process what happened in Turkey in the wake of the recent earthquake where more than 160,000 buildings collapsed. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s administration has been accused of failing to enforce building regulations. While the collapsed buildings are still being investigated, critics claim that government policies avoided enforcing building regulations, in favor of promoting a construction boom.

“Shocking to see so many people literally being killed by their jobs.

But here’s the thing: These collapses and crashes are not isolated stories. They form part of a larger tapestry of examples where a combination of greed, incompetence, lack of oversight, and absent accountability have all conspired to make us unsafe.

This brings us back to Occupy Wall Street. Then the outrage was over a financial crash – but now we have a whole other wave of crashes threatening us. Yet, in contrast with the financial crash, these crashes can seem disparate, disconnected, and distant.

 But they aren’t.

The question, then, is whether the communities that suffer from absent oversight and protection — from Palestine, Ohio to Tempi, Greece and from Surfside, Florida to Southern Turkey — will recognize their common cause. Thus far, we see isolated protests, but the type of global movement required to demand change has yet to develop. Until it does, we will find ourselves nostalgic for the days when all neoliberalism did was crash the economy rather than the planes and trains we travel in, the places where we work, and the homes where we live.

Plastic pollution is filtering up into the fish that we eat

As an agrarian civilization, almost all of what humans eat is farmed — with the notable exception of seafood. Aside from some farmed fish, most seafood we consume is still caught in the wild. Yet while it might seem that there is something more pure and traditional about consuming “wild” food as opposed to farmed food, the seafood that we eat soaks in a sea contaminated by plastic — and it turns out that a lot of that pollution may be making its way into our bodies via seafood. 

Indeed, when it comes to plastics, consumers of seafood may be eating so much of the pernicious pollution that they are regularly chowing down on the equivalents of soda bottles and credit cards. Yet you will never hear a literal “crunch,” and the reason for this is simple, unsettling and disgusting: The plastic in your seafood is “microplastic,” a term for any plastic particle that is less than 5 mm in length.

“According to the UN, there are over 50 trillion microplastics in the ocean.”

Though you can neither feel or taste it (usually), the odds are high that it is in your seafood. The most recent example of this came from a 2022 study in the scientific journal Marine Pollution Bulletin. It found that three out of four commercial fish species from Australia and New Zealand contained microplastics in their edible flesh. On average there were 2.5 microplastic particles for each fish.

Nor is this the only study to discover microplastics in the seafood we eat.

“The presence of microplastics in commercial seafood is well-documented on a global scale for finfish as well as shellfish like mussels, clams, oysters, and shrimp,” Dr. Britta Baechler, Associate Director of Ocean Plastics Research at Ocean Conservancy, told Salon by email. Baechler cited a recent review study that found that 60% of fish examined globally contained microplastics; it also found that carnivorous fish tend to contain more microplastics than omnivores. “This is particularly notable considering that many commercially important fish species are carnivorous,” Baechler added.

Baechler explained that animals which eat through filter-feeding, including bivalves such as oysters and claims, are vulnerable to contaminants in large part because they pump massive quantities of water through their bodies every day. That is how filter-feeders extract their food.

“Microfibers – threadlike plastics frequently shed from clothing and textiles – are the most common form of microplastics ingested by marine fish, crustaceans, and bivalves in most studies to date,” Baechler told Salon.

John Hocevar, a marine biologist and director of Greenpeace’s oceans campaign, emphasized the pervasiveness of microplastics when explaining how they contaminate seafood. Because microplastics are prevalent in soil, they get sucked into plants through their roots. They enter the water itself, while the smallest particles can become airborne. When they rain back down, they enter the oceans.

According to the UN, there are over 50 trillion microplastics in the ocean,” more than the number of stars in the Milky Way, Hocevar proclaimed. “Due to the sheer quantity of microplastics in the ocean, it would be difficult to find any marine animal without plastic particles in its gut or tissues.” 

Of the seafood most likely to contain microplastics, Hocevar listed bivalves like oysters as well as those which have high concentrations of sediment, like sea cucumbers. But animals higher on the trophic pyramid — meaning those that are larger and carnivorous, typically — are also a risk. 


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


“Current law allows plastics producers and shippers to discharge trillions of small pre-production plastic pellets directly into waters with little to no repercussions.”

“Microplastics and the chemicals associated with them are also likely to bioaccumulate in top level predators such as tuna and sharks,” Hocevar explained. “A 2022 study found hundreds of microplastics in a single can of tuna.”

If these statistics on microplastics in seafood seem piecemeal — a little bit of data on one region here, some figures on a can of tuna over there — that is because the fishing industry is de-regulated to the point of chaos. It is virtually impossible to obtain a comprehensive picture of the scope of plastic contamination in seafood — or, for that matter, to even accurately assess which types of commonly eaten foods are most contaminated. The individual quirks involved in how we prepare our seafood dishes further complicate potential assessments.

“It’s impossible to say which species have more microplastics because it depends so much on where and how they are harvested, as well as what you are eating,” Baechler told Salon. “Typically, people eat a whole oyster, not a whole fish, for example.”

Despite the extensive documentation on microplastics in seafood, Baechler says there are still gaps in knowledge. “For example, there haven’t been any studies on microplastic concentrations in Alaska pollock, which is one of the biggest U.S. fisheries by weight, nor are there any studies on microplastics in commercially fished U.S. shrimp, which is another major U.S. fishery,” Baechler says.

“Microplastics, especially pre-production pellets, are getting away scot-free because they have not been specifically classified or labeled as a pollutant.”

The law isn’t doing much better than science at catching up with the problem. Dr. Anja Brandon, Associate Director of U.S. Plastics Policy at Ocean Conservancy, has a PhD in environmental engineering and co-authored both state and federal legislation regulating plastics in recent years (including the federal Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2021 and California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act). Brandon acknowledged to Salon that even though “we have laws on the books that are meant to regulate pollution from these types of manufacturing facilities,” the tragic reality is that “microplastics, especially pre-production pellets (sometimes called ‘nurdles’), are getting away scot-free because they have not been specifically classified or labeled as a pollutant.”

Bluntly put, “current law allows plastics producers and shippers to discharge trillions of small pre-production plastic pellets directly into waters with little to no repercussions.”

While there are no repercussions for the polluters, the same likely will not be the case for the people who eat the plastic-filled seafood. As Baechler noted with alarm, one recent study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology found that children ingest roughly 550 microplastics every day — and adults ingest roughly 880 per day — just by breathing and eating eight common foods and beverages including fish, mollusks, water (tap and bottled) and milk.

“Whether or not microplastics impact human health is a relatively new field of study, but what we know so far is troubling,” Baechler wrote to Salon. “Plastics and microplastics contain many harmful additives and tend to collect additional contaminants from their surroundings.” Baechler noted that microplastic ingestation has been correlated with irritable bowel syndrome, while plastic-associated chemicals such as BPA “show correlations with chronic illnesses such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.”

“A recent paper showed microplastics impact human cell function in a lab setting, and suggested that at current exposure levels, humans may already be experiencing toxic effects from microplastics including allergic responses, cell damage and cell death,” Baechler added.

“I hate him passionately”: New lawsuit texts show Tucker Carlson admit Trump era was a “disaster”

Fox News host Tucker Carlson said he hates former President Donald Trump “passionately” and trashed his election lies even as he aired them on his show, according to a new court filing in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion lawsuit against the network.

Text messages included in the filing show Carlson excited to put the Trump era behind him two days before the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

“We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can’t wait,” Carlson wrote to staffers.

“I want nothing more,” one of the people in the text thread replied.

“I hate him passionately,” Carlson wrote.

Carlson then lamented Trump’s four years in office.

“We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest,” he wrote. “But come on. There really isn’t an upside to Trump.”

A previous Dominion filing showed Carlson express concern after the 2020 election about angering Trump and potentially sending his viewers to the more far-right outlet Newsmax.

“He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong,” Carlson wrote, calling Trump a “demonic force, a destroyer.”

Carlson also texted hosts Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity to complain about the TrumpWorld conspiracy theories after the election, according to Tuesday’s filing.

“The whole thing seems insane to me,” he wrote. “And Sidney Powell won’t release the evidence. Which I hate.”

Carlson added that Powell was “making everyone paranoid and crazy, including me.”

Dominion’s lawsuit alleges that Fox News knowingly aired false claims about election fraud and has released a trove of internal communications showing prominent Fox News hosts acknowledge that the conspiracy theories they aired were false. One filing included Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch’s acknowledgment that certain hosts “endorsed” the false claims.

Fox has denied any wrongdoing and a spokesperson on Tuesday accused Dominion of “using more distortions and misinformation in their PR campaign to smear FOX News and trample on free speech and freedom of the press.”

“We already know they will say and do anything to try to win this case, but to twist and even misattribute quotes to the highest levels of our company is truly beyond the pale,” the spokesperson said.

The filing comes as Carlson faces backlash for his Jan. 6 revisionist history after he got access to thousands of hours of Jan. 6 footage from House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. Carlson aired clips on his show this week, describing Trump supporters who invaded the Capitol as “orderly and meek” and angry because they “believed that the election they had just voted in had been unfairly conducted, and they were right.”

A growing number of Republican senators who were in the Capitol that day rejected Carlson’s spin.

“I was here. I was down there, and I saw maybe a few tourists, a few people who got caught up in things. But when you see police barricades breached, when you see police officers assaulted, all of that,” Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told reporters, calling Carlson’s version of events “bullshit.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called it a “mistake” for Fox to air a version of events “that’s completely at variance with what our chief law enforcement official here at the Capitol thinks.”


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


Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger said in an internal memo obtained by CNN that Carlson’s segment was “filled with offensive and misleading conclusions” and that Carlson’s team never reached out to the department “to provide accurate context.”

“The program conveniently cherry-picked from the calmer moments of our 41,000 hours of video. The commentary fails to provide context about the chaos and violence that happened before or during these less tense moments,” Manger said.

Former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann predicted that Carlson’s Jan. 6 spin could play right into Dominion’s hands in what he described as “what could be a life-or-death civil suit.”

“It’s not just $1.6 billion, there’s also the potential for punitive damages,” he told MSNBC. “The evidence we’ve seen so far suggests that is a lively possibility… They have Tucker Carlson, who may well be a witness in that trial, say things that are misleading and phony… I was thinking [Dominion’s] lawyers must be licking their chops at what was being said because it reminded me of Donald Trump, where he says things that are just going to make his legal case that much worse.”