Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Trump border czar claims AOC could “be in trouble” for informing immigrants of their rights

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., fired back at a Trump administration official who suggested she should face legal trouble for educating constituents.

In an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on Thursday, border czar Tom Homan said he asked the deputy attorney general to investigate the congresswoman for promoting a webinar that informed immigrants of their rights when dealing with government agents.

“At what level is that impediment? Is that impediment? I’m not an attorney, I’m not a prosecutor,” Homan said. “What are we going to do about it?”

Homan suggested that the Department of Justice could step in to hold her legally accountable.

“Maybe AOC is going to be in trouble now,” Homan said. “I need the AG to opine on that.”

Ocasio-Cortez responded by making fun of Homan in a post on Bluesky.

“‘MaYbe shE’s goiNg to be in TroUble nOw,’” the lawmaker said, mocking the architect of Trump’s family separation policy. “Maybe he can learn to read. The Constitution would be a good place to start.”

The congresswoman wasn’t present on the “Know Your Rights” webinar presented by attorneys from the Immigrant Defense Project, but it streamed live on her office’s Facebook page. 

Among the discussed topics was advice for undocumented immigrants: Officers with Immigration and Customs Enforcement need a judicial warrant to enter your home; you have a right to remain silent; and you have the right to document their actions so long as you don’t interfere.

Homan’s suggestion that informing constituents of their liberties is a form of “impediment” or obstruction, even if it does not lead to federal charges, signals that the Trump administration is willing to threaten its opponents with prosecutions over policy disagreements.

One large Milky Way galaxy or many galaxies?

A hundred years ago, astronomer Edwin Hubble dramatically expanded the size of the known universe. At a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in January 1925, a paper read by one of his colleagues on his behalf reported that the Andromeda nebula, also called M31, was nearly a million light years away – too remote to be a part of the Milky Way.

Hubble’s work opened the door to the study of the universe beyond our galaxy. In the century since Hubble’s pioneering work, astronomers like me have learned that the universe is vast and contains trillions of galaxies.

Nature of the nebulae

In 1610, astronomer Galileo Galilei used the newly invented telescope to show that the Milky Way was composed of a huge number of faint stars. For the next 300 years, astronomers assumed that the Milky Way was the entire universe.

As astronomers scanned the night sky with larger telescopes, they were intrigued by fuzzy patches of light called nebulae. Toward the end of the 18th century, astronomer William Herschel used star counts to map out the Milky Way. He cataloged a thousand new nebulae and clusters of stars. He believed that the nebulae were objects within the Milky Way.

Charles Messier also produced a catalog of over 100 prominent nebulae in 1781. Messier was interested in comets, so his list was a set of fuzzy objects that might be mistaken for comets. He intended for comet hunters to avoid them since they did not move across the sky.

As more data piled up, 19th century astronomers started to see that the nebulae were a mixed bag. Some were gaseous, star-forming regions, such as the Orion nebula, or M42 – the 42nd object in Messier’s catalog – while others were star clusters such as the Pleiades, or M45.

A third category – nebulae with spiral structure – particularly intrigued astronomers. The Andromeda nebula, M31, was a prominent example. It’s visible to the naked eye from a dark site.

The Andromeda galaxy, then known as the Andromeda nebula, is a bright spot in the sky that intrigued early astronomers.

Astronomers as far back as the mid-18th century had speculated that some nebulae might be remote systems of stars or “island universes,” but there was no data to support this hypothesis. Island universes referred to the idea that there could be enormous stellar systems outside the Milky Way – but astronomers now just call these systems galaxies.

In 1920, astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis held a Great Debate. Shapley argued that the spiral nebulae were small and in the Milky Way, while Curtis took a more radical position that they were independent galaxies, extremely large and distant.

At the time, the debate was inconclusive. Astronomers now know that galaxies are isolated systems of stars, much smaller than the space between them.

Hubble makes his mark

Edwin Hubble was young and ambitious. At the of age 30, he arrived at Mount Wilson Observatory in Southern California just in time to use the new Hooker 100-inch telescope, at the time the largest in the world.

He began taking photographic plates of the spiral nebulae. These glass plates recorded images of the night sky using a light-sensitive emulsion covering their surface. The telescope’s size let it make images of very faint objects, and its high-quality mirror allowed it to distinguish individual stars in some of the nebulae.

Estimating distances in astronomy is challenging. Think of how hard it is to estimate the distance of someone pointing a flashlight at you on a dark night. Galaxies come in a very wide range of sizes and masses. Measuring a galaxy’s brightness or apparent size is not a good guide to its distance.

Hubble leveraged a discovery made by Henrietta Swan Leavitt 10 years earlier. She worked at the Harvard College Observatory as a “human computer,” laboriously measuring the positions and brightness of thousands of stars on photographic plates.

She was particularly interested in Cepheid variables, which are stars whose brightness pulses regularly, so they get brighter and dimmer with a particular period. She found a relationship between their variation period, or pulse, and their intrinsic brightness or luminosity.

Once you measure a Cepheid’s period, you can calculate its distance from how bright it appears using the inverse square law. The more distant the star is, the fainter it appears.

Hubble worked hard, taking images of spiral nebulae every clear night and looking for the telltale variations of Cepheid variables. By the end of 1924, he had found 12 Cepheids in M31. He calculated M31’s distance as a prodigious 900,000 light years away, though he underestimated its true distance – about 2.5 million light years – by not realizing there were two different types of Cepheid variables.

His measurements marked the end of the Great Debate about the Milky Way’s size and the nature of the nebulae. Hubble wrote about his discovery to Harlow Shapley, who had argued that the Milky Way encompassed the entire universe.

“Here is the letter that destroyed my universe,” Shapley remarked.

Always eager for publicity, Hubble leaked his discovery to The New York Times five weeks before a colleague presented his paper at the astronomers’ annual meeting in Washington, D.C.

An expanding universe of galaxies

But Hubble wasn’t done. His second major discovery also transformed astronomers’ understanding of the universe. As he dispersed the light from dozens of galaxies into a spectrum, which recorded the amount of light at each wavelength, he noticed that the light was always shifted to longer or redder wavelengths.

Light from the galaxy passes through a prism or reflects off a diffraction grating in a telescope, which captures the intensity of light from blue to red.

Astronomers call a shift to longer wavelengths a redshift.

It seemed that these redshifted galaxies were all moving away from the Milky Way.

Hubble’s results suggested the farther away a galaxy was, the faster it was moving away from Earth. Hubble got the lion’s share of the credit for this discovery, but Lowell Observatory astronomer Vesto Slipher, who noticed the same phenomenon but didn’t publish his data, also anticipated that result.

Hubble referred to galaxies having recession velocities, or speeds of moving away from the Earth, but he never figured out that they were moving away from Earth because the universe is getting bigger.

Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre made that connection by realizing that the theory of general relativity described an expanding universe. He recognized that space expanding in between the galaxies could cause the redshifts, making it seem like they were moving farther away from each other and from Earth.

Lemaitre was the first to argue that the expansion must have begun during the big bang.

The Hubble telescope, which looks like a metal cylinder, floating in space.

Edwin Hubble is the namesake for NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope, which has spent decades observing faraway galaxies. NASA via AP

NASA named its flagship space observatory after Hubble, and it has been used to study galaxies for 35 years. Astronomers routinely observe galaxies that are thousands of times fainter and more distant than galaxies observed in the 1920s. The James Webb Space Telescope has pushed the envelope even farther.

The current record holder is a galaxy a staggering 34 billion light years away, seen just 200 million years after the big bang, when the universe was 20 times smaller than it is now. Edwin Hubble would be amazed to see such progress.The Conversation

Chris Impey, University Distinguished Professor of Astronomy, University of Arizona

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

“What the Lord established”: Elon Musk is camouflaging a Christian nationalist takeover

Elon Musk does not read to most people as a religious man. The tech billionaire who is attempting to take over the entire federal government through his "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) was once even regarded as an atheist. In 2013, Musk scoffed at the idea "that there's some superconsciousness watching over our every movement." He argued that evolutionary theory was better than a supernatural explanation for making sense of our world. As he ransacks the federal government, trying to push out federal employees and lay waste to the ability of regulatory agencies to do their work, the last thing most people will assume motivates him is Christian fervor.

Over the summer, Musk told Jordan Peterson during an interview that while he's not "a particularly religious person," he would say, "I’m probably a cultural Christian."

For Musk personally, it probably doesn't. But his efforts to evacuate the federal government of the every day, non-political employees nonetheless serve a Christian nationalist agenda, which Musk is no doubt aware of. The secular-seeming brand of DOGE serves a useful propagandistic purpose by concealing how much Musk is following the Project 2025 playbook developed by Christian nationalists for the explicit purpose of remaking America in the fundamentalist image. Musk is the obnoxious, trolling face of the operation, but he works hand-in-glove with the Project 2025 author who called for an "army" of people with a "Biblical worldview" to replace the existing federal workforce. The explicit plan is to replace federal workers who Musk forces out with people who pass "ideological purity tests," largely based on their eagerness to make America something very much like a theocracy. 

While Musk is snagging most headlines with his loud-mouthed antics, his partner in the federal purge operation is Russ Vought, a self-described Christian nationalist who Trump appointed to head the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Vought has developed the justification for ignoring the clear language of the Constitution, arguing this is a "post-constitutional" moment, in which law-breaking is justified to impose his theocratic vision on the country. Having Musk cover for Vought is savvy. Polls may show people's approval of Musk sinking the more they see of him, but his clownishness and personal success probably soften people's willingness to see him as the threat he is. Vought, however, is every inch a type most Americans know well and loathe: the creepy religious fanatic. 


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


Project 2025 was clear that its primary goal was to "use government power" to "restore the American family," which is defined strictly in terms of male-dominated heterosexual couples with children. In its list of alleged threats to the "family," the playbook lists phrases like "sexual orientation," "gender equality" and "reproductive health." The document goes into elaborate detail about how federal offices can be used to implement this compulsory and narrow heterosexuality, from abortion bans to replacing reproductive health services with abstinence-only lectures to even reimagining child support programs to bully women into remarrying ex-husbands. 

The secular-seeming brand of DOGE serves a useful propagandistic purpose by concealing how much Musk is following the Project 2025 playbook developed by Christian nationalists for the explicit purpose of remaking America in the fundamentalist image.

If one looks away from Musk to Trump officials who have legal appointments, the Christian nationalist agenda that Musk is assisting becomes more obvious. Last week, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner announced the suspension of rules barring discrimination against LGBTQ people in low-income housing and even homeless shelters. The move will especially affect queer teenagers, who are often homeless after being kicked out by right-wing parents. Turner justified putting teenagers on the street by declaring, in his official statement, that this is what "the Lord established from the beginning." Project 2025 called for HUD to end "corrosive progressive ideologies across the department’s programs." Drastically reducing the existing HUD workforce so MAGA apparatchiks could control people's housing access — based no doubt on their prejudices — is outlined in this vision.

The purge at the Department of Justice (DOJ) has largely been covered as part of Donald Trump's "revenge" tour against everyone who tried to hold him accountable for alleged crimes during and after his first term in office. That is absolutely part of it, of course, but it also helps lay the groundwork for the Project 2025 goal of using DOJ powers to force the Christian right's agenda on normal people. Trump's new attorney general, Pam Bondi, has already been hinting in public that she is open to using federal prosecutors to prosecute doctors who mail abortion pills to women in states where clinics have been forcibly shut down. Louisiana is queuing up her first opportunity, by demanding the extradition of a New York-based doctor to their state, where they plan to put her on trial for providing abortion pills to a Louisiana teenager. 

If Bondi bites, as legal experts Imani Gandy and Jessica Mason Pieklo explained at Rewire News, that opens the door for a broad Christian nationalist agenda outlined in Project 2025 to terrorize people for providing birth control, sex toys, or even sex education materials. The document argues that prosecutors can revive the Comstock Act, a 19th-century law that criminalized the mailing of "obscene" materials, which were broadly defined to cover all of these items. Project 2025 does not hold back from characterizing even basic sex education in this way, defining obscenity so broadly that even providing a "how to use a condom" manual — online or in a paper pamphlet — would be enough to be charged with a crime. Flushing the DOJ of good lawyers, so that they can be replaced with far-right hacks who hate birth control and queer people, is a first step to making this theocratic vision a reality. 

If that sounds preposterous, it's worth noting that demonizing contraception and sex ed was central to Musk's illegal efforts to end USAID. He and Trump both repeatedly attacked a program in Mozambique that provided $5 million in contraceptives, though they inflated the number exponentially to make it $100 million and falsely claimed it was going to "Hamas" instead of young women in Africa. They've also suspended HIV-prevention drugs from being distributed overseas to anyone who isn't a pregnant or breastfeeding woman, who are at risk of transmitting the virus to babies. Anyone who isn't a baby is clearly considered deserving of death, because Christian fundamentalists believe you only get the virus through "sin." 

Musk's past atheism and tendency to sleep with many different women hasn't stopped him from warming to the Christian right's loathing of sexual freedom. He's started echoing Christian right propaganda that paints the birth control pill as dangerous and unnatural. His friend, fellow tech billionaire Peter Thiel, has heavily invested in publications that promote the far-right Christian view that sex is only for marriage, and within marriage, it's only for procreation. (Thiel exempts himself from following his own prescriptions, as he's married to a man.)

We need your help to stay independent

Musk isn't ready to say he believes in God, but this shift to the right on sexual health issues is part of his larger embrace of Christian nationalism. Over the summer, he told Jordan Peterson during an interview that while he's not "a particularly religious person," he would say, "I’m probably a cultural Christian." He tried to frame this as a positive thing, with vague claims to believe in "the teachings of Jesus," but as Victor Tangermann of Futurism pointed out, this is ridiculous. Pointing to Musk's "long track record" of treating other people like dirt, hoarding wealth, and stoking discord, Tangermann writes, has nothing to do with the Jesus "who deeply opposed wealth inequality and supported the poor and outcasts." As David French at the New York Times pointed out, the illegal cuts to USAID have taken money from "Christian organizations, including evangelical organizations, that serve poor and marginalized people at home and abroad."

But Musk has indeed embraced the cultural mores of Christian nationalists, whose faith is less about Jesus and more about using power to enforce their racist, sexist, and anti-queer views on the rest of Americans. Musk is obsessed with raising the birth rate and has explicitly noted, "the more religious, the less educated, and the poorer, the higher the birth rate." It's not much of a leap to see what his conclusion is: that to drive up birth rates, he needs to make ordinary people poorer, less educated, and more religious. He may not believe in God, but he certainly finds it useful to force right-wing Christianity on others as a means of control. 

Trump’s shock and awe campaign rocks the courts

Donald Trump’s shock and awe campaign has many targets. These include but are not limited to the country’s democracy, political and social institutions, the social safety net, the economy, the American people’s sense of normalcy and routine and overall physical and emotional health, the Constitution and the rule of law.

Trump and his MAGA movement agents’, allies’ and enforcers’ efforts to undermine if not destroy these targets as part of a revolutionary project to end America’s multiracial pluralistic democracy and to replace it with a form of competitive authoritarianism modeled on Viktor Orbán’s Hungary or Vladimir Putin’s Russia have been remarkably effective. The new America that is in the process of being born will be a 21st-century American apartheid and White Christofascist plutocracy and kleptocracy.   

The rule of law and the Constitution have been a particular focus of the Trump administration and its forces shock and awe campaign. To that end, the Department of Justice and the FBI and other law enforcement are being systematically purged so that they can be reshaped in service to Trumpism. The CIA and larger national security apparatus are being gutted and reshaped in the same way. Inspectors generals, career civil servants and other public servants who are tasked with upholding the law and the Constitution are being replaced with Trump loyalists. Other parts of the government and individuals who could potentially hold Donald Trump and his administration accountable to the law and the public interest are also being made to yield to Trump’s autocratic vision and system of personalist rule and corrupt power. Donald Trump’s Cabinet members are defined not by their expertise and competence, but by their loyalty to him above all other concerns or interests.

At the Atlantic, Jonathan Chait explains: “[I]t follows Trump’s understanding of how power works: The people running the system operate it for their own benefit. Smart people figure out how to get in on the corruption and get rich themselves. The people who get left out are suckers.”

Ultimately, a country where the law is defined by the personal imperatives of a given leader, who himself is above and outside of the rule of law, while simultaneously able to wield the law against their “enemies” and in service to his interests (and corrupt power more broadly), is a form of despotism. One of America’s central myths and legitimating narratives as “the greatest country on Earth” and “the world’s leading democracy” was and is that in this country no one is above the law. In a very short amount of time, Trump has exposed that myth for the lie that it is. In a darkly ironic way, Trump has performed a type of public service for those Americans and a culture who were invested in such childish fiction.  

In an attempt to make better sense of President Trump and his administration’s use of executive orders and their legality and power, how Trump is challenging (if not outright breaking) basic and long-held foundational understandings and norms about the Constitution, the rule of law and the presidency and what the courts could potentially do to rein in a president or other member of the executive branch who refuses to comply with their orders and legal rulings, I recently spoke with Douglas Keith. He is senior counsel at the Brennan Center’s Judiciary program, which works to promote fair, diverse and impartial courts. Keith is also a founding editor of State Court Report, a Brennan Center publication focused on state courts and state constitutional law.

This is the first of a two-part conversation.

How are you feeling given all the unprecedented things that have happened, and so quickly, with Trump’s return to the presidency? How are you trying to make sense of the tsunami of events?

I am determined to ensure that our democracy survives this moment and that the public is aware of the stakes and when the Trump administration’s actions go far beyond what the law allows or what any administration before them has done.

How are you applying that determination personally and professionally?

One of the most important things we can do is speak up when we see violations of the Constitution or people's rights. There might be a temptation to throw up one's hands and say all is lost or allow the administration to break norms and laws that have not previously been broken before in this country. However, one of the most important steps to preserving the Constitution is to act like we have one. We must speak out when it seems like the Constitution of the United States is being violated. It is a civic obligation and essential for the future of our democracy and country.

In an ideal situation, if American democracy was healthy, what would the courts and other institutions be doing right now?

Our three-branch system of government relies on each branch serving as a check on the other branches' power, ensuring that they don't overstep their authority and boundaries. The people who designed this system of government took for granted that these branches would jealously guard their power and not tolerate the other branches stepping into their lane.

One of the most important things that the courts do is ensure that the executive branch does not take more power than it is allowed under the Constitution. The same is true for Congress. We need to ensure that the courts are willing and able to play that role and that the other branches actually listen to the courts.

We need your help to stay independent

What I am paying close attention to right now is, are both of those things happening. Are the courts stepping in and determining that certain acts by the Trump administration are illegal or unconstitutional when they clearly are, and in turn are the other branches listening to the courts and following those rulings?

One of the key assumptions of the Framers was that the institutions, the different branches of government, would have their own interests and a type of allegiance to themselves. This allegiance would be a counterweight to whatever ideological allegiances or commitments that members of that branch of government might have. In short, the institution and branch of government should matter more than a given elected official’s or other government official’s personal politics.

One of the most problematic things that seems to be happening right now is that members of Congress seem to not be interested in defending the power or interests of Congress as an institution, what should be a co-equal branch of government with the executive branch, so long as their ideological allies are the ones who are taking the power and authority away from Congress. The Framers assumed that the branches of government would fiercely guard their own power, and that just doesn't seem to be happening.

Continuing with our civics lessons — because these concepts and values are foundational for understanding the type of political crisis we are experiencing right now as a country — what is democracy? What is the Constitution and why does it matter?

On a basic level, democracy is a system of government in which the decisions are made with public participation. There are different forms of democracy and nuances to how those systems — which are still considered democracies — are designed and function. Our American system of government is written into the Constitution, and it is the underlying and supreme body of law that is superior to any laws passed by Congress or by executive actions. The Constitution is also much harder to change and therefore less subject to the political whims of one leader or one moment. The process of amending the Constitution requires many more people and much more time than is required to change a law passed by Congress. Ultimately, the Constitution is the body of law that all our officials are ultimately accountable to.

What happens when there is a leader(s) who does not respect those foundational tenets? Who basically rejects the rule of law and the Constitution?

The Constitution and the rule of law matter because without any guardrails our leaders could do whatever they chose to, whether or not the public supported it, or it was legal or legitimate. In a democracy, a system of government that empowers the people, that is not how decisions are supposed to be made.

Donald Trump has issued dozens of executive orders and other edicts. What power and legal authority do executive orders have in the American system of law and democracy?

It depends on the executive order. Some executive orders have real teeth and legal effects. The president is the head of the executive branch. As chief executive, the president has the authority to direct any number of agencies in their work and specifically to tell them how to do their work. There are limits to what executive orders can do. For example, executive orders cannot void acts of Congress. There are executive orders that are little more than glorified press releases. The power of a given executive order ultimately depends on what authority the order claims to rest on, with that authority still very much constrained by the Constitution.

Many court cases have been filed against Trump's executive orders and other edicts. For example, judges have put a pause on his attempts to freeze federal loans, grants, and other funding because it violates Congress' exclusive "power of the purse." A judge has also put a hold on Trump's attempts to overturn the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Trump and his mouthpieces, including Vice President Vance, are signaling, if not explicitly stating that they will likely refuse to follow the court orders they disagree with. What enforcement powers do judges have if such a nightmare scenario occurs?

First, it should be clear that obeying a court order is not just a norm, it's the law. Since the Civil War, presidents have followed court orders. Presidents of both parties have understood and obeyed the bedrock principle that presidents follow court orders even those they disagree with. Trump followed this precedent as well during his first term. For example, when the courts enjoined the travel ban that he issued back in 2017 President Trump complained on Twitter, but he complied with the order. President George W. Bush asserted broad presidential powers in the war on terror, and the Supreme Court said that detainees in Guantanamo Bay could challenge their confinement, he said that he'd abide by the court's decision, even though he disagreed with it.

Going back further in time, President Truman issued an executive order to seize the country's steel mills in the middle of a war, the Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional, and he backed down. The last time we've really seen any broad refusal by elected officials to follow court orders was after Brown v. Board of Education when Southern governors refused to desegregate schools and President Eisenhower, who didn't love the Brown v. Board of Education decision by the way, nonetheless sent in federal troops to enforce the decision. When Southern governors refused to desegregate schools during Jim Crow that is now widely understood as one of the most shameful periods in our history.

This wide range of examples demonstrates how strong the assumption is that elected officials are supposed to follow court orders, even those they disagree with.

In terms of what happens if a court order is not obeyed, there are a number of tools that judges have access to for enforcement purposes. Judges have contempt power and can issue fines or even arrest individuals who refuse to comply with a court order. Judges do this all the time with people appearing before them. A given judge may be more reluctant to do that when it comes to an executive branch official, but it would not be the first time that a judge held an executive branch official in contempt. These tools have been given to judges in our system of law because there's an understanding that the parties involved are not always going to follow their orders, and judges need tools to enforce their orders.

New research continues to link marijuana with schizophrenia. Experts say it’s not so simple

A study this week reported an association between people’s medical records listing cannabis use disorder and both schizophrenia diagnoses and psychosis — but experts emphasized the data should not be used to draw causal conclusions about cannabis use and these risks. 

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the authors reported that the proportion of people with a new diagnosis of schizophrenia who had cannabis use disorder listed in their record increased after cannabis was legalized in Canada. The rates of nonspecified psychosis also increased during this time among people with this label in their record, said Dr. Daniel T. Myran, the lead author and a researcher at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

“Seven percent of people in Canada use cannabis nearly every day, and there's now more people in the United States who use cannabis every day than drink alcohol every day,” Myran told Salon in a phone interview. “I see this as a signal that this is something that could actually become a pretty important public health concern.”

Across the study period, the overall incidence of schizophrenia remained stable, and it has remained stable since the 1990s. The authors state that this “occurred because the incidence of schizophrenia increased among younger individuals while decreasing in older adults" during the study period.

Yet this is important to note considering cannabis use has significantly increased in the past decade

“If cannabis use ‘causes’ schizophrenia, it is absolutely impossible that the rate of schizophrenia would not be going up with the rates of cannabis use increasing 1,000-fold,” said Dr. Peter Grinspoon, a cannabis specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

"If cannabis use ‘causes’ schizophrenia, it is absolutely impossible that the rate of schizophrenia would not be going up with the rates of cannabis use increasing 1,000-fold."

This isn’t the first time a link has been reported between cannabis and psychosis. The two have been tangled up together since the 1930s with the release of the anti-cannabis propaganda film, “Reefer Madness,” in which children used cannabis and experienced a series of hallucinations and negative side effects.

As researchers began examining whether there was a link between cannabis use and psychosis and schizophrenia, the nuances involved in many of these experiments were lost. A 2017 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded: “There is substantial evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and the development of schizophrenia or other psychoses, with the highest risk among the most frequent users.”

But many assumed a causal relationship from studies like these, which were not designed to be able to determine causal relationships. An alternate hypothesis, for example, suggests the possibility that people who are prone to schizophrenia are using cannabis because it helps treat some of their symptoms.

Although some have pointed out that implying causation with this association is not possible with this kind of data, the former narrative has continued to be perpetuated in the media and scientific journals across decades.


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


“Debates on the science of cannabis risks have always been highly politicized, characterized by subjective takes and often cherry-picked data to support different views — whether in supporting or opposing reforms like decriminalization or legalization,” said Steve Rolles, a senior policy analyst for the Transform Drug Policy Foundation. “This problem is exemplified by the debate on cannabis and psychotic illness risks, with people able to trawl the voluminous body of research, and then amplify or ignore the findings that either support or undermine their particular position.”

High-potency cannabis with THC levels above 15% can produce psychotic states that cause paranoia and hallucinations, but this is a temporary state that does not mean people will go on to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, said Dr. Muhammad Aadil, an addiction psychiatrist at the Albert Einstein Medical School in New York. However, researchers could not measure the type of cannabis and its potency in this study.

“People are just having a bad reaction because of two reasons in my opinion,” Aadil told Salon in a phone interview. “They don’t know what they are consuming and they don’t know what its effects are going to be on their body.”

"That is not typically what you see in cannabis users."

Myran emphasized this was not a causal study and that there were several factors that could not be accounted for that could be confounding the results, like whether patients had a family history of mental health disorders.

In another study also published last week, his research group also reported an association between people who had been labeled as having a cannabis use disorder on their medical record and increased mortality. Similarly, many people might be using cannabis to self-medicate for underlying conditions that could explain some of those associations — in other words, sick people at risk of death may seek out marijuana — and some important potential confounding factors, like whether patients used tobacco, were not included.

Yet understanding the characteristics of these patients is crucial when making associations like this, especially because more people who were considered to have cannabis use disorder in the study had conditions like hypertension, asthma and cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Carl Hart, a researcher at Columbia University.

“That is not typically what you see in cannabis users,” Hart told Salon in a phone interview. “I don’t know who this population is, and it could be people who are just having problems, and who happen to smoke cannabis, too.”

In both studies, people were listed as having a cannabis use disorder based on whether they visited the emergency department for care related to cannabis use. However, cannabis use disorder is a diagnosis that typically requires a more detailed evaluation by a health care provider than what might be performed in an emergency department, Hart said.

That means some patients might have been classified as having cannabis use disorder when they did not, which the authors acknowledged in the study.

“A lot of people took too big of a gummy and had anxiety and went to the hospital, and they’re calling that cannabis use disorder,” Grinspoon told Salon in a phone interview. “If you just go by hospital spreadsheets it's completely misleading.”

Research on cannabis is further behind many other areas of study because it is still federally recognized as a controlled substance. And although federal funding has increased over the years for these studies, they tend to focus more on potential harms than on cannabis’ therapeutic potential.

We need your help to stay independent

Although the Biden administration proposed moving cannabis from a Schedule I substance to Schedule III, which would remove most criminal penalties and barriers to conducting research, it has not been enacted yet. It’s unclear whether the Trump administration will continue those efforts.

Regardless of whether cannabis is legal or not, people will continue to use it, and educating them about safe use has been shown to be the most effective way to reduce harm.

“Criminalization and prohibition makes doing this much more difficult,” Rolles said. “Resources are siphoned away from proven public health measures into counterproductive enforcement, and the stigma of criminalization pushes key target populations away from the very services they could most benefit from.”

Battle Royale or “very elegant” gaslighting? McMahon ripped by Dems in confirmation hearing

Senate Republicans are steamrolling opposition to even the most controversial of President Donald Trump’s cabinet nominations, but that didn't stop Democrats from coming off the top rope for Linda McMahon.

Legislators on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee poked at the WWE co-founder and pick to lead the Department of Education under Trump in a Thursday hearing. Dems grilled the former Trump Cabinet member on her blind spots and the darkest days of the wrestling promotion she helped lead.

In a particularly tense exchange, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., asked McMahon to answer for her part in allegedly enabling the sexual abuse and exploitation of children at WWE.

“You have been named in a lawsuit which alleges that you and your husband allowed for systemic and pervasive abuse of underage children to persist in your business for years,” Baldwin said. “If confirmed, you will be responsible for overseeing the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights… I am so concerned about whether sexual assault survivors on campus can trust you to support them.”

“I have a granddaughter who is now in college. I have two grandsons who were in college,” McMahon responded.

Allegations that the WWE turned a blind eye to rampant abuse of "ring boys" — minors taken on by the wrestling promotion to work as gofers — have plagued the company for decades. While the wrestling company was fighting off the stigma of rampant steroid use in the early '90s, former ring boy Tom Cole went public with claims that announcer Mel Phillips and wrestler Terry Garvin had sexually abused and harassed him as a minor. The Cole case was settled for $55,000 and an offer of continued employment with the company. The new lawsuit also centers on misconduct by Phillips.

In another dust-up, New Hampshire Sen. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat, pushed McMahon to reconcile her purported support for popular federal education reforms with seeming her willingness to dismantle the Department of Education.

“It's almost like we're being subjected to a very elegant gaslighting here,” Hassan said. “You talked about the need to enforce protections for Jewish students on campuses, but the very department where the enforcement would take place is the Department of Education.”

McMahon came in for one more drubbing, when Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., pinned her on the question of whether Black history would be taught in schools under the Trump administration. McMahon, as sure as anyone on Earth that an uncertain ending bumps ticket sales for the next meeting, dodged the question.

“I’m not quite certain and I'd like to look into it further and get back to you on that,” McMahon said. 

Issa Rae, Low Cut Connie cancel Kennedy Center shows amid Trump takeover

Artists are taking a stand against President Donald Trump’s takeover of the Kennedy Center.

Earlier this month, Donald Trump announced he would be the next chairman of the venerable arts institution. To that end, he ousted many members of the performing arts center's board and replaced them with loyalists like Second Lady Usha Vance, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino. The Trump-approved board quickly voted the president into his new role and fired the center's long-time president, Deborah Rutter. 

The coup at the national cultural center has sparked an outcry among entertainers. Issa Rae chose to cancel an upcoming appearance at the venue in protest.

The “One of Them Days” producer thanked fans on Instagram but canceled the sold-out appearance “due to what I believe to be an infringement on the values of an institution that has faithfully celebrated artists of all backgrounds through all mediums." The “Insecure” co-creator and star’s mid-March show was pulled from the Kennedy Center website later on Thursday.

Philadelphia rock band Low Cut Connie also scrapped an event at the venue, citing Trump’s overreach.

“Upon learning that this institution that has run non-partisan for 54 years is now chaired by President Trump himself and his regime, I decided I will not perform there,” a statement posted on Instagram read. “Arts institutions are one area that should be immune from our corrosive political culture.”

Several artists affiliated with the Kennedy Center have stepped away from their roles in the wake of Trump's power play. Shonda Rhimes, the producer, director and screenwriter behind hits like “Gray’s Anatomy” and “Scandal,” stepped down from her post as the center’s treasurer this week. Musician Ben Folds revealed that he would no longer work as an adviser to the National Symphony Orchestra, a group that calls the venue home.

“He let the Republican Party go to hell”: Trump blasts McConnell after vote against RFK Jr.

President Donald Trump delivered a scathing rebuke of Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell in the Oval Office after the long-time Republican leader went against a Trump-picked Cabinet nominee on Thursday.

The former top Senate Republican was the lone GOP vote against Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s confirmation to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. A polio survivor, McConnell had previously spoken out against the anti-vax nominee. 

On Thursday, the president condemned McConnell, saying the senator "let the Republican Party go to hell."

"I feel sorry for Mitch," Trump said in the Oval Office. "He's not equipped mentally. He wasn't equipped 10 years ago, mentally, in my opinion."

Trump said that McConnell would have been the death of the GOP if Trump had not rejuvenated the party's support.

"If I didn't come along, the Republican party wouldn't even exist right now," Trump said, before saying "anybody" could do the senator's job. "He raised money… He engendered a certain amount of – I don’t even call it loyalty – he was able to get votes.”

McConnell was the driving force behind Trump’s first administration’s appointments to the federal judiciary and Supreme Court and has been an ardent defender of the president. He endorsed Trump in 2024, though the former majority leader called Trump “a despicable human being” after the 2020 election.

Trump and McConnell sparred over the president’s conduct on Jan. 6, though McConnell ultimately shielded Trump from a Senate conviction on a historic second impeachment effort. Kennedy is the third Trump nominee McConnell has voted against, following Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth.

DOJ officials resign after Trump admin demands they kill NYC Mayor Eric Adams’ corruption case

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York resigned on Thursday, in protest of a Department of Justice order to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

Danielle Sassoon wrote a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi earlier this week, saying that the order from acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove was “inconsistent with [her] ability and duty to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favor." She also accused Adams' attorneys of seeking a "quid pro quo" and indicating "Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department’s enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed.” 

Sasson is a member of the Federalist Society and formerly clerked for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In her resignation letter, obtained by the New York Times, she said “It has been my greatest honor to represent the United States and to pursue justice as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.”

Two D.C. Department of Justice officials asked to help kill the case stemming from Adams’ alleged corruption also resigned. Per the Times, Kevin O. Driscoll and John Keller quit their positions in the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section.

Bove admitted the directive to drop the five-count indictment – alleging Adams took “straw donations” to abuse public campaign matching programs and accepted bribes from the Turkish government – came “without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based.”

Adams has made strides to align himself with the Trump administration politically, meeting with Border Czar Tom Homan on Thursday and instructing city workers not to interfere with ICE raids earlier this week, per local publication The City.

Sassoon had been the acting U.S. Attorney for the district since January when the Trump administration picked her to hold the seat as Jay Clayton, Trump’s nominee for the job, sought confirmation. 

This Valentine’s Day, celebrate with a culinary unsung hero and true “taste of home”: Gravy

Valentine’s Day is this week  and here I am giving you gravy.

It is special, mind you: My husband’s favorite . . . but it is gravy nonetheless.

I make no apologies for my timing on this because what constitutes an act of love is as varied as the individuals upon which we bestow our affections, but I understand fully if you prefer to keep with traditional and stick to gifts of flowers or chocolates. I, on the other hand, know the way to my Valentine’s heart  and it does not include ornamentation, flash or anything that involves him having to put on socks and nice shoes. An unexpected big breakfast complete with his favorite “mushroom gravy” will always win his heart. 

Sidebar: There are no mushrooms in this gravy, never have been, but still after close to twenty years together and countless servings of his most adored fungi-free, savory condiment, Tom, the husband, extols the glory of my “mushroom gravy” every time he sweetly asks me to make it. 

I no longer correct him. 

It just so happens, my superhero-sauce is made without meat or dairy, therefore suitable for vegetarians and vegans. I once felt I deserved extra credit for this, for making something so good and typically off limits to the veg-folks in my life, but at this point, I am not cooking for anyone who considers themselves to be of either meatless persuasion. Yet, this is still one of my most requested to bring round to family dinners where a table full of my favorite and most discriminating carnivores never fail to rave over it. 

If you are from the South or from the country — and by that I do not mean the country, as in the USA, but the country as opposed to the city — you understand the importance of gravy, how we take it for granted, having grown up with it slathered over biscuits and grits for breakfast, topping our mashed potatoes and smothering our chicken fried steak. It is the taste of home. If you were raised elsewhere, it may be that you value it for only its lowest and most basic function: to cover a multitude of sins committed when you overcook the main course — only gravy can save a dry turkey. Worse, you may only think of it as mere decoration, just something tan or brown to fill the elongated, boat shaped serving pieces of your fall and winter holiday china.   

Whatever your relationship with it, gravy is easy to come by. You can buy it ready made in a jar, or even a box, off the grocery store shelf or use an equally accessible powdered packet as a short cut. No judgement if pre-made is your preference, but once you make homemade, which is ridiculously easy and fast, I can pretty much guarantee you will convert to scratch-made forever. 


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


A simple deglazing of the pan used to cook sausage, country ham or bacon and you are well on your way to a gravy that will be the crowning glory of a sit down breakfast. The same goes for dinner gravy made from leftover morsels of chicken, turkey, beef or game. The process is the same: Combine drippings or fat, flour, stock, water or milk (or in the case of Red Eye Gravy, coffee) and a little salt and pepper. Give it a few minutes to thicken and voila, you have gravy.   

Like grits, greens and biscuits, gravy is a Southern staple born out of necessity, of making the best out of very little.

In the case of gravy, it was the using of all the last bits — the meaty, salty, sticky leftovers scraped from an otherwise empty pan or skillet — to make something delicious to feed hungry, working people. Its humble beginnings of stretching what food was available became something beloved over time. A taste so comforting that many associate it with the love of their mother, their grandmothers or whoever was the cook during one's childhood.

The kinds of gravy you deem best and most noteworthy depend on where you grew up and the meats favored in your family, particularly those for breakfast, supper and Sunday dinner. This gravy of mine is different, of course, because it is not made from meat, but it is mighty delicious and very versatile. It has been a real standout for the last twenty-plus years that I have been making it. A gravy for everyone that is heart healthy and down-home tasting, very unique indeed. And if you happen to have vegetarians or vegans in your life, one taste and they will positively think they have died and gone to Heaven. They may possibly even fall in love with you. This is life changing stuff, I tell you.

My husband, an omnivore, thinks there is nothing finer than this very gravy on top of his favorite breakfast bowl that begins with a hefty serving of grits topped with perfectly cooked, over-medium, fried eggs. He believes he is the better grits-maker in the family, so I have happily relinquished that job to him. There is no doubt I could win any fried egg cooking competition, if there were such, so I continue to steer the ship at the egg station.

Side by side with grits and eggs as our base, we let our moods of the morning dictate what more we add to our bowls. Could be reheated, leftover collard greens and roasted vegetables, chopped avocado, diced peppers, hot sauce, green onions, a sprinkling of cheese . . . there are no limits and no rules.   

After our big breakfast, maybe a boat ride or a walk along the shoreline? Sounds like the right amount of excitement for Valentine’s Day 2025. With each passing year, my hopes and wants get simpler: A relaxing day of lightness and laughter with my husband and a lifetime of future happy days and loving companionship for myself and all my people.

I strongly suggest you jot this recipe down (or print it or save it or whatever you do to keep it on hand), because gravy IS a love language and this very recipe might be just the thing to make your Valentine’s day complete. 

We need your help to stay independent

Yields
3 cups
Prep Time
10 minutes
Cook Time
30 minutes (mostly inactive)

Ingredients

1/2 cup olive oil

1 small onion, peeled and chopped

3 to 4 large cloves garlic, peeled and minced

1/2 cup flour

2 cups broth 

1/2 teaspoon rubbed or dried sage

2 tablespoons Bragg’s Aminos (or coconut aminos or low sodium Tamari/soy sauce)

3 to 4 teaspoons nutritional yeast

Ground black pepper to taste

 

Directions

  1. Pour 2 to 4 tablespoons of oil into a saucepan over low heat, reserving the rest. Add chopped onions and cook very slowly over low heat until very soft and translucent, practically disintegrated. By the end of cooking, it is fine for there to be some browned bits. 
  2. Add minced garlic during the last two minutes of cooking.  
  3. Pour in remaining oil and heat gently.
  4. Once oil is warm, stir in flour and cook about 2 to 3 minutes until toasty, but not browned.
  5. Add broth and remaining ingredients and bring to a simmer, then reduce heat to low, stirring often until thickened. If lumpy, use a whisk to blend. 
  6. Once thickened, adjust salt and pepper to taste.     

Cook's Notes

Broth: Use a flavorful broth and if your broth is not salty, you will need to add salt. I prefer Not Chik’n bouillon cubes by Edward & Sons.

Nutritional Yeast: Popular in vegetarian and vegan cooking, it has a unique, somewhat cheesy flavor. It can be omitted but I recommend using it. It is naturally gluten-free, has loads of B vitamins and is a low-carb, high-fiber complete protein. Once only found in health food stores, it is now easy to pick up at most grocery stores and it is delicious sprinkled on homemade popcorn!

Bragg’s Liquid Aminos/ Coconut Aminos/ Low Sodium Soy Sauce: All three of these will impart a complex umami flavor and are interchangeable for this recipe, but I prefer a liquid aminos over a soy sauce. If using regular soy sauce, reduce the amount as it is higher in sodium than Bragg’s or coconut aminos.

“Prices could go up”: Trump approves country-by-country reciprocal tariff scheme

President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum on Thursday tasking advisors with setting individual tariff rates for each country that exports goods to the United States.

Trump said that he's taking an eye-for-an-eye approach to international trade, saying the U.S. will now reciprocate tariffs on any country that imposes duties on American goods.

“I’ve decided for purposes of fairness that I will charge a reciprocal tariff,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “They charge us a tax or tariff and we charge them the exact same.”

The president ran for office on a promise to make everyday goods more affordable for Americans. However, his tariffs are expected to drive costs up for U.S. consumers. The new taxes on imports could spike the sticker prices of a wide swath of goods.

“Prices could go up somewhat short term, but prices will also go down,” Trump claimed, adding that his tariffs would be a boon for American farmers.

Trump said that U.S. agriculture was getting the short end of the stick under the previous administration, telling reporters that “product is being dumped into our country and our farmers are getting hurt very bad.”

Commerce Secretary nominee Howard Lutnick and Jamieson Greer, Trump’s nominee for trade representative, were directed in the memo to advise Trump on setting unique tariff rates on a country-by-country basis. The move could create another period of economic uncertainty, similar to the president’s market-rattling plan for 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada.

Trump temporarily paused plans last week for the 25% blanket import tariffs on the country's two biggest trading partners after his planned duties triggered a stock market dip. The pause is set to expire at the start of March. On Thursday, he lambasted Canada for "being very bad to us on trade" and once again floated the idea of annexing the country.

The president’s 10% tariff on China is already in effect, a fee his administration argues is a step towards closing trade imbalances and “unfair” treatment.

“For many years, the United States has been treated unfairly by trading partners, both friend and foe,” a White House official read from a memo on the plan, per Politico. “This lack of reciprocity is one source of our country’s large and persistent annual trade deficit in goods. Closed markets abroad reduce United States exports and open markets at home result in significant imports.”

Trump’s tariff scheme has faced scrutiny from economists and conservative news outlets, who say the plan could lead to higher costs and unnecessary trade wars with important economic partners. When asked if he would launch studies into the impact tariffs have on U.S. prices on Thursday, Trump told reporters that he wasn't concerned about price increases.

"There's nothing to study," he said."It's going to go well."

R. Kelly’s 30-year sentence stands as federal appeals court rejects challenge

R. Kelly's 30-year prison sentence for sex trafficking and racketeering has been upheld by a federal appeals court in New York. On Wednesday, the court ruled that the arguments in Kelly's appeal "are without merit."

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Grammy-winning R&B artist's conviction and sentence from his 2021 trial, where he was found guilty of multiple charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering, The Associated Press reported.

In the decision, Judge Denny Chin stated that prosecutors presented "extensive evidence showing how Kelly ensnared young girls and women into his orbit, endeavored to control their lives, and secured their compliance with his personal and sexual demands through verbal and physical abuse, threats of blackmail, and humiliation."

Last year, Kelly's legal team, led by attorney Jennifer Bonjean, launched an appeal, arguing that prosecutors improperly used the racketeering statute to convict him.

However, the appeals court ruled there was "sufficient evidence to support each of Kelly's convictions, including for the state and federal violations underlying his Mann Act convictions."

The decision stated, "Enabled by a constellation of managers, assistants, and other staff for over 25 years, Kelly exploited his fame to lure girls and young women into his grasp. Evidence at trial showed that he would isolate them from friends and family, control nearly every aspect of their lives, and abuse them verbally, physically, and sexually."

While Kelly’s legal team expressed disappointment with the ruling, they said in a statement, "We believe the United States Supreme Court will be interested in reviewing this unprecedented opinion, which grants the government limitless discretion to apply the RICO statute to situations absurdly remote from the statute’s intent."

"The statute was intended to punish organized crime — not individual conduct. This decision paves the way for prosecutorial abuse of the RICO statute," Bonjean added.

In 2023, the Supreme Court also declined to hear another appeal related to Kelly's 20-year sentence for the 2022 trial, where he was found guilty of child sex abuse charges in Chicago.

 

“Ribbons of Rust” revisits The Beatles’ roots and the sounds that shaped them

In terms of legacy-making months, February has always been good to The Beatles. The band’s triumphant 1964 appearance on "The Ed Sullivan Show" will always resound in the history of popular music, to be sure. Then there’s the group’s first full-length concert at the Washington Coliseum a few days later. And these Fab Februarys have never truly ebbed, with Paul McCartney staging a series of intimate, pop-up concerts in Brooklyn this very week.

Which brings us to the latest Beatles book to hit the shelves. Robert Rodriguez and Jerry Hammack, the authors of "Ribbons of Rust: The Beatles’ Recording History in Context," are undertaking one of the most ambitious new projects in Beatles studies. In a painstaking effort to account for the band’s origins and influences, Rodriguez and Hammack contextualize the bandmates’ lives and work in terms of their historical and sociocultural moment. The book series draws its name, by the way, from the recording tape upon which the group imprinted their masterworks, those “ribbons of rust”—iron oxide bonded to polyethylene terephthalate.

The first volume in the series traces the fertile and transformative era from July 1954 through January 1963, when the Beatles were poised to conquer Great Britain with the chart-topping “Please Please Me” single. Rodriguez and Hammack are ideally situated to undertake this multivolume work. Rodriguez is the author behind one of Beatles criticism’s seminal books, "Revolver: How the Beatles Reimagined Rock ‘n’ Roll," and the host of the popular "Something about the Beatles" podcast. For his part, Hammack is the author of "The Beatles Recording Reference Manual" series. 


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


Volume One pointedly begins in 1954, when the young Beatles’ worlds were transfigured by pop explosions both near and far — Lonnie Donegan and the skiffle craze in England and the dawn of Elvis Presley, respectively. In this richly illustrated book, Rodriguez and Hammack bring the boys’ story—and the era itself—vividly to life through period ephemera that highlights the emergence of the myriad new sights and sounds impacting the future Beatles’ lives. To their great credit, the authors don’t merely confine their study to John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. They devote considerable attention to the pre-fame experiences of George Martin, the producer behind their world-breaking sound.

As Rodriguez and Hammack deftly point out, The Beatles’ story didn’t occur in a bubble, but rather, a highly particular and impactful history. "Ribbons of Rust" affords much-needed shape and context to the band’s evolving story. For my money, the mark of any music book worth its salt is measured by the number of times I find myself cuing up another tune. With "Ribbons of Rust," I am delighted to report, the music of the 1950s and early 1960s was in heavy rotation.

Consumer debt delinquency is rising

Consumer debt delinquency rose in the fourth quarter to its highest level in almost five years, suggesting financial struggles persist across the U.S. amid higher inflation and interest rates, Bloomberg reported.

Delinquent debt refers to financial obligations — such as loans or credit card payments — that have been delayed past their due dates, which may in turn affect credit scores. According to a Federal Reserve Bank of New York report, roughly 3.6% of debt was delinquent in the fourth quarter of 2024, with total household debt rising to a record $18 trillion.

Researchers from the New York Fed said auto loans are a major stressor for consumers. The rate of auto loans that transitioned into serious delinquency — defined as 90 days or more overdue — rose to 3%, the highest it’s been since 2010.

“Higher car prices combined with higher interest rates have driven monthly payments upward and have put pressure on consumers across the income and credit score spectrum,” the researchers, led by Andrew Haughwout, wrote in the report. “Used car prices have since declined from the peak, potentially leaving some borrowers underwater on those vehicles and creating potential repayment challenges.”

President Trump’s 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum could affect the industry, with automakers already worrying the cost of production will rise.

Student loan balances also grew by $9 billion last quarter, but the pause on student loan repayments during the pandemic also postponed missed payment reports to credit bureaus. That means student loan debt delinquency will likely start showing up on reports in the first quarter of 2025.

Sean “Diddy” Combs sues NBC for $100M over claims made in “Bad Boy” documentary

Sean "Diddy" Combs is suing NBCUniversal and its streaming service, Peacock, for $100 million over the documentary "Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy," alleging defamatory claims and arguing that the film "shamelessly advances conspiracy theories" against him.

Released in January, the documentary explores Combs' humble beginnings in New York City while also providing accounts of close friends and acquaintances like Al B. Sure! — also known as Albert Joseph Brown — who spoke on the record, questioning details surrounding multiple alleged crimes linked to Combs.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in New York, states that "Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy" “falsely, recklessly, and maliciously” accuses Combs of being involved in the death of Kim Porter, his ex-partner and the mother of his three children, The Washington Post reported. In the documentary, Brown recounts his last interaction with Porter before her sudden death from pneumonia in 2018, stating, “It was two, three weeks prior to her murder — am I supposed to say ‘allegedly’?”

According to the complaint, “The entire premise of the documentary assumes that Mr. Combs has committed numerous heinous crimes, including serial murder, rape of minors, and sex trafficking of minors, and attempts to crudely psychologize him."

“The documentary advances the false narrative that it cannot be a ‘coincidence’ that Ms. Porter and others in Mr. Combs’s orbit have died, in a malicious attempt to insinuate that Mr. Combs murdered them,” the suit states.

While representatives for NBCUniversal have not responded to requests to comment, in January Salon interviewed the documentary's producer, Ari Mark, who said, "[Combs]" declined [an interview] through legal . . . but we're super careful."

"Just because somebody is being accused of something, doesn't mean we have a right to unnecessarily drag people through the mud without the proper legal to tape around it," he said. "These things are always tricky, but we really do work really hard to make sure that we're being fair. It would have been nice, certainly, to be able to interview the guy."

Combs is currently in a Brooklyn jail awaiting a federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial which begins May 5. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

“Cobra Kai” may never die, but at long last, the show is over and bows out a champion

Imagine an ‘80s action movie villain growling the following line to a battered hero right before she stomps their fingers: You know, in some ways, I respect “Cobra Kai” for lasting this long.

Better series had shorter lives, some by their creators’ design. Not this one. “Cobra Kai” refused to die not out of fealty to the namesake dojo’s motto, but as a business matter. The show started on YouTube in 2018  and ended on a globally dominant streaming service. Netflix acquired “Cobra Kai” around the same time our mania for “Stranger Things” confirmed how lucrative selling reminiscence will always be. That, and the plot's simplicity, assured its longevity.

Its overall bloat still makes it a mascot for the TV industry’s prevailing ills of franchise excess and stretching out a few splendid hours of storytelling into 65 parts, but that doesn’t make loving “Cobra Kai” less defensible.

All in all, that's not a bad run for the spinoff of long-dormant intellectual property. Before "Cobra Kai," Daniel LaRusso's tormentor Johnny Lawrence starred in an Internet fantasy pitching him as the real hero of "The Karate Kid." Creators Josh Heald, Jon Hurwitz, and Hayden Schlossberg took that seriously, restoring his humanity and showcasing William Zabka’s dramatic versatility. It remains one of Netflix's most popular titles although, creatively speaking, it lost momentum ages ago.

To be more precise, it was sometime between the third season and its fourth that "Cobra Kai" morphed from a respectable action comedy into a nostalgia farm informed by the philosophy of “Itchy and Scratchy": "They fight, and fight! And fight and fight, and fight! Fight-fight-fight, fight-fight-fight…”  Before all that, it spun a compelling tale about fathers and sons, classist assumptions and confronting old wounds. Even as it stumbled, its spirit remained true to the intergenerational appeal it launched with.

If Zabka weren’t so charming, we couldn’t have bought the proposition that an ignorant wretch like Johnny could be redeemable. But the scripts tapped into the first Trump administration media fantasy of the dejected working-class white guy angst without pandering to either side of the partisan divide. Johnny would spew a few vaguely racist one-liners and get drunk on Coors Banquet, but instead of digging in, the years changed him. He wanted to be a better person and a sensei worthy of the kids he instructed. Hence, the rivalry between Ralph Macchio’s Daniel and Johnny that began 41 years ago with 1984’s “The Karate Kid” caramelized into something more than friendship.

Like another ridiculously farfetched movie franchise, “Cobra Kai” is about family – a blended brood standing against interlopers on their territory, walking a balance between the pacifist lessons and legacy of Mr. Miyagi (the late Pat Morita) and the sensible strategy of striking first and hard.

By flipping the dynamic between a wealthy, respected and formerly judgmental Daniel and Johnny, a down-on-his-luck absent father, Heald, Hurwitz and Schlossberg used their children and their friends as proxies for their rivalry before realizing how senseless their conflict became.  

Cobra KaiGianni DeCenzo as Demetri and Jacob Bertrand as Eli 'Hawk' Moskowitz in "Cobra Kai" (Curtis Bonds Baker/Netflix)

Now Johnny’s son Robby (Tanner Buchanan) and his first student Miguel Diaz (Xolo Maridueña) are both champions and soon-to-be stepbrothers. Daniel's daughter Sam (Mary Mouser) dated both, ending up with Miguel. Robby connected with Tory Nichols (Peyton List), who joined Cobra Kai just in time for it to slide to the dark side.

From the show's return to Mr. Miyagi’s birthplace in Japan to pick up Daniel’s “Karate Kid II” rival Chozen (Yuji Okumoto) to the escalating stakes of the Under-18 All-Valley Karate Tournament forced by the returns of John Kreese (Martin Kove) and his Vietnam buddy Terry Silver (Thomas Ian Griffith), there was always a reason to boomerang back to the original (and progressively more disappointing) movies.

We need your help to stay independent

Also to Mexico, and a Korean martial arts school pulled straight out of some old Shaw Brothers kung fu movie, which doesn’t make sense culturally, but consider what we’re discussing.

All roads lead to Sekai Taikai, an international karate tournament held in Barcelona and broadcast worldwide (presumably on ESPN8: The Ocho!, although I can’t be certain). The fictional Sekai Taikai is a slightly less lethal version of the kumite from “Bloodsport,” albeit with martial arts star Lewis Tam as Sensei Wolf, an entirely new and evil dojo master, instead of Jean-Claude Van Damme, who's probably less affordable.

We could go into all the ways these simplistic storylines play into MAGA concepts of foreign relations, but that’s a rant for another day. That said, it was adorably quaint to see the recent midseason cliffhanger brawl be kicked off by a surly Russian sensei that resembles Zangief from “Street Fighter.”  

Cobra KaiWilliam Zabka as Johnny Lawrence and Ralph Macchio as Daniel LaRusso in "Cobra Kai" (Curtis Bonds Baker/Netflix)

I know we’re piling on the random pop culture references here, but those are the bricks holding up this house. No vintage needle drop or edge cameo is too small, as proven by Darryl Vidal, a.k.a. the fearsome kid who somehow lost to Johnny in 1984, turning up for the show’s final round.

But even those bright lights could only sustain the narrative integrity to a point. Hence, a leap from the San Fernando Valley to the Sekai Taikai in Spain and, following an inconvenient karate riot and accompanying fatality, back to the Valley one more time.

This show doesn't score a flawless victory, mind you. Plenty of the twists leading up to the last episode are idiotic, including a few scenes relying on CGI distractingly inelegant enough to border on repulsive.

Yet for all of its meanderings, "Cobra Kai" found its way again in the end. Its overall bloat still makes it a mascot for the TV industry’s prevailing ills of franchise excess and stretching out a few splendid hours of storytelling (and a handful that weren't so great) into 65 parts, but that doesn’t make loving “Cobra Kai” less defensible. Think of how many shows you've dedicated yourself to following whose narrative arcs blow through your system like a White Castle slider and are twice as flushable, and you'll realize that describes the majority of streaming content.

And it doesn't excuse stretching this show’s last sprint into a 15-part marathon that began last summer, although it could have concluded more honorably before that.


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


But at the end of this seven-year Gathering of the Sluggalos, "Cobra Kai" lands the audience in a place of relative contentment, returning to its underdog origins. Zabka made sure we always liked Johnny, but the very last episodes ensure that we leave the series loving him. More than this, it redeems Daniel too, highlighting his transformation from a self-righteous know-it-all into a man who makes peace with some mysteries and finds balance with the man he once tolerated.

This show doesn't score a flawless victory, mind you. Plenty of the twists leading up to the last episode are idiotic, including a few scenes relying on CGI distractingly inelegant enough to border on repulsive. (Except for one, a climactic explosion rivaling the special effects of an Abrahams and Zucker movie, that incapacitated me with laughter.)

Somehow that doesn’t take away from a wrap-up that promises nothing we want is too late to be worth fighting for, as long as you have the strength to get up from the mat, change up your old stances and embrace new ideas of what winning looks like.

Would its legacy be brighter if "Cobra Kai" had ended before, say, a major character used melted Jell-O to escape from prison? Absolutely. At least it’s bowing out with a measure of grace for the good guys before we all get too old to appreciate it.

All episodes of "Cobra Kai" are streaming on Netflix.

In “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy,” the screen icon takes on a brand new bedfellow—grief

For 24 years, viewers worldwide have been smitten with the lovably neurotic, hopeless romantic Bridget Jones. She’s the everywoman, a picture of klutzy mishaps of the heart that looks more like a mirror than a photograph. Even before the first entry in the film franchise, “Bridget Jones’s Diary,” hit theaters in 2001, readers were so charmed by the character when she appeared in Helen Fielding’s column in The Independent that the satire didn’t completely connect. Yes, Bridget was too focused on marriage, men, calories and sex to be the perfect depiction of a modern woman looking toward liberation in the new millennium, and it was those outmoded obsessions that Fielding set out to lampoon. Yet the chronicling of Bridget’s lovelorn escapades still struck a chord in people trying to balance new modernity with the pull of romantic desire. When Fielding turned the column into a book, it was an instant fly-off-the-shelves hit. 

For years, Bridget longed for love to make her life perfect, playing the part of the girlfriend, the mistress and the wanton sex goddess. But now, she realizes those titles all left her woefully ill-prepared for a role she never considered—the widow.

The film series, starring Renée Zellweger in the titular role, makes Bridget’s struggle between backward ideas of feminine self-loathing and her intrepid quest for love even more palatable for the average viewer. But though they take a more standard romantic comedy approach to the character, the movies have become comfort cinema staples for countless viewers, who still see layers of themselves in Bridget’s innumerable foibles, especially as they get older. And that’s the rarity about the “Bridget Jones” films — what began as a bit of rom-com fluff transformed into an intimate record of love and loss over decades. Audiences have grown up with Bridget, aging alongside her and hitting the same benchmarks in marriage, children, death, hangovers and wrinkles. Others, like me, came to Bridget when they were far too young to be watching randy, R-rated romances, and have found themselves caught up in the same woes through the years.

Now, “Bridget Jones” is back with the fourth film in the series, “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy.” All of the franchise’s familiar players appear, but now, Bridget has moved beyond the push and pull of her two great loves, Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) and Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant). However, that doesn’t mean either man has exited her life entirely, at least not exactly. Daniel babysits Bridget and Mark’s children, Billy (Casper Knopf) and Mabel (Mila Jankovic), while Mark is now a memory held in Bridget’s heart after his tragic death in a car wreck. Now, four years into being a widow, Bridget’s mind has no space for the trivial things that once concerned her. 

But for director Michael Morris, this phase in Bridget’s life presented a unique opportunity to introduce a new flavor to the long-running series. “Helen Fielding said, almost off the cuff, ‘Mark Darcy’s dead in this one,’” Morris told Salon over Zoom a few weeks before the film’s release. “It instantly came to life for me that this is a comedy of grief.” Viewers who have matured alongside Bridget might note that the film provides different kinds of comfort than previous installments. The first three movies were perfect for soothing fans after a breakup, preferably alongside a pint of ice cream. But loss looks different for their heroine now, as it might for fans, too. In exploring how our lives are shaped by the company we keep, Morris turns the page to a beautiful new chapter for Bridget, one where community surpasses courtship, allowing Bridget Jones to stand on her own for the first time. 

To bring this era of Bridget’s story to life, Morris took on the daunting task of steering the latest “Bridget Jones” away from the wry comedy the films were founded on and toward something entirely new for the series. While “Mad About the Boy” has classic rom-com elements and all of the idiosyncrasies fans love about Bridget, the film moves further into drama than the franchise ever has. Bridget’s choices aren’t just about what she wants, they’re about what her two young children need. The woman who was once famously preoccupied with herself has all but forgotten her self-interest to make sure Mabel and Billy have the stability their childhoods require. But in fostering constancy for others, Bridget finds herself stuck in her grief. 


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


As the film settles into this new rhythm, screenwriters Abi Morgan, Dan Mazar, and Bridget’s original scribe Fielding navigate the character’s stagnancy, while Morris plays with the idea of memory and how it bleeds into one's life as they grieve. Bridget can still sense Mark’s presence all over their London flat; even when she tries to escape it for a night out, the memory of how good it felt to arrive at a party with him by her side comes flooding back. For years, Bridget longed for love to make her life perfect, playing the part of the girlfriend, the mistress and the wanton sex goddess. But now, she realizes those titles all left her woefully ill-prepared for a role she never considered—the widow.

For Morris, whose debut feature “To Leslie” took the 2023 Oscar race by storm when grassroots industry buzz made it an awards season underdog, this version of “Bridget Jones” was a natural next step. “To Leslie” saw Andrea Riseborough’s character dealing with a similar fallout, reeling from literally winning the lottery in life to having it all crash down around her. It was a movie that centered a woman’s nonlinear journey toward recovery, and this era of “Bridget Jones” sees Zellweger walking a similarly winding path toward whatever waits at the end of the road. 

Bridget Jones: Mad About The BoyDirector Michael Morris and Renée Zellweger as Bridget Jones behind the scenes in "Bridget Jones: Mad About The Boy" (Jay Maidment/Universal Pictures)“On its face, [‘Mad About the Boy’] is a very different film than ‘To Leslie,’” Morris says, laughing about jumping from what celebrities famously dubbed “a small film with a big heart” to the massive “Bridget Jones” franchise. “But actually, you scrape just a little bit under the surface and here we go with a magnetic, strong, in-every-frame woman, played by a wonderful actress who is the heart of the film. She has one way of living her life at the beginning, which isn’t necessarily the most healthy way, but that’s what she’s doing [to cope]. Over the course of the film, she’s forced to make the hardest moves she can make, sometimes against her will, to turn her life and point it forward.”

One of those difficult moves is dipping her toe back into the dating pool — and really, it wouldn’t be a “Bridget Jones” film without a few romantic misadventures. But just like Bridget has entered a stage of her life that she never prepared for after Mark’s death, she’s also caught in a state of the world that she could’ve never anticipated. Everyone’s favorite analog diarist is smack dab in the middle of a universe ruled by tech. One might imagine that Bridget, who was always getting herself into trouble with real-life flirting, would make just as many gaffes over text. But faceless communication turns out to be a godsend for a woman who can’t even bring herself to get out of her pajamas most days.

Fans of Bridget’s blunders need not worry, there are plenty of opportunities for her to embarrass herself. One such chance is a brief, real-life meeting with a handsome public parks employee named Roxster (Leo Woodall), who helps Bridget down from a tree after trying to rescue her kids as if they were helpless cats. The encounter quickly moves to Tinder, and despite Roxster being quite a few years her junior, Bridget can’t help but fall for him — especially since he’s already seen all of her unflattering angles while clinging to an old oak in the park. 

New technology does, however, present its own unique obstacles. Morris fancies Bridget’s struggle to adapt as the franchise’s latest play on its classic comedy of manners. “The films are about how we move through the world with people opposite us, and the dating tech that is now part of our life is another string in that bow,” he says. In 2025, Bridget’s got to deal with Tinder, ghosting and the perennial scramble to choose which emoji works best in a text — but without taking too long to decide, lest the message seem too overthought. For an overthinker like Bridget Jones, texting is all fun and games until it turns into a battle of love-bombing wits.

Bridget Jones: Mad About The BoyRenée Zellweger as Bridget Jones, Leo Woodall as Roxster and Director Michael Morris behind the scenes in "Bridget Jones: Mad About The Boy" (Jay Maidment/Universal Pictures )That’s a far cry from “Bridget Jones’s Diary,” a film that was released when the majority of viewers didn’t even own a cellphone. Now, most new romances are forged digitally by simply swiping right. Watching a character as universally beloved as Bridget Jones enter the minefield of online dating is jarring, yes, but the fact that we get to check in with her at all is what makes the film so uniquely exceptional.

"In this version, the world is different, and it’s more challenging. The film recognizes that, and Bridget goes through more emotionally than she ever has.” 

“I celebrate it massively,” Morris says about the franchise’s longevity. “I cannot find one single set of films that goes 24 years about the life of a woman living in a city. That’s it. Not a woman who turns into an animal, or a woman who flies. A woman living her life — that’s really experimental when you take a step back from it!” The director also credits Zellweger with the series’ endurance, calling her one of the few actors who’s also an effortless physical comedian. Indeed, it’s Zellweger’s performance that has made Bridget Jones into such an icon. She’s expressive and malleable enough for viewers to project themselves onto the character. And in “Mad About the Boy,” Zellweger gets the chance to imbue Bridget with more dramatic resonance than she’s had yet, particularly when things get thorny (and eventually, horny) with Billy’s science teacher, Mr. Wallaker (Chiwetel Ejiofor).

But after years of watching Bridget Jones crawl London in search of the perfect suitor, it turns out that she doesn’t have just one ideal mate; she’s got dozens. Her equally maladjusted parents, her close circle of blunt friends, her lovers and, most importantly, her children bring her the comfort that she has long been searching for. It’s that camaraderie that sets Morris’ film apart from the other installments, and thus, what makes it so special. “Bridget allowed people to be seen,” Morris says about the character’s impact. “That sense of being seen and therefore held by the film is really important. In this version, the world is different, and it’s more challenging. The film recognizes that, and Bridget goes through more emotionally than she ever has.” 

The movie’s emotional beats work even better than its comedic ones. The fourth “Bridget Jones” movie gets downright existential, moving past matters of the heart to contend with what we do with our love after we experience earth-shattering loss. For a mother to two young children like Bridget, that means finding simple ways to communicate something incredibly complicated.

But the “Bridget Jones” series has always been deceptively good at making the complex feel approachable, and right now — when it feels impossibly daunting to even think about looking at the news, or even getting out of bed — that affability is desperately needed. This isn’t just the levity viewers are seeking, it’s the community they require. Fielding’s column welcomed readers into Bridget’s chosen family by asking people to see themselves in Bridget’s anxieties and compulsions. They fell for her because she felt more like a friend than a character, and the final sequence of “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy” stresses that friendship and fellowship are more important than any romantic love. “It's a celebration of her biological family and her chosen family,” Morris says of his moving ending. “If we feel we’re a part of that family, maybe we’ll feel some security and uplift going forward.”

“Bridget’s gone through a lot,” he continues. “But she’s here, and she’s just where she needs to be.”

“Without essential support”: Congressional cuts could leave nearly 360,000 kids hungry

As Congress moves forward with budget reconciliation discussions, proposed cuts to safety net programs are raising concerns about their ripple effects — particularly on the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC

While WIC itself isn’t facing direct funding cuts, a new policy brief from the National WIC Association (NWA) warns that changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) could make it significantly harder for families to access WIC benefits.

At the heart of the issue is adjunctive eligibility, a streamlined process that allows families to qualify for WIC if they are already enrolled in other income-tested programs like Medicaid or SNAP. This process reduces administrative burdens, making it easier for families to access benefits quickly. However, if eligibility for Medicaid or SNAP is restricted, fewer families will qualify for WIC through this automatic pathway — forcing them to navigate additional paperwork and verification processes that WIC experts say could discourage participation.

One of the most controversial proposals under discussion is the elimination of Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) in SNAP. BBCE is a provision that allows states to expand SNAP eligibility, ensuring that families who are just above the federal income threshold can still receive benefits. The policy brief cites a 2019 USDA analysis estimating that eliminating BBCE would remove 3.1 million people from SNAP. 

Given that 11.6% of SNAP recipients are preschool-aged children, this could mean that at least 359,600 infants and young children would lose their automatic WIC eligibility.

This is not the first time BBCE has come under fire. During the first Trump administration, the rule’s future was hotly debated, with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) warning of severe consequences for working families, seniors and individuals with disabilities. 

In a statement at the time, CBPP noted that eliminating BBCE would cut off food assistance for millions of households while also preventing children from accessing free school meals. The organization also pushed back against the Trump Administration’s argument that states were approving households for SNAP under BBCE without checking their incomes or assessing their need for food assistance. 

We need your help to stay independent

“The claim is incorrect,” the statement read. “To receive SNAP, all households, including those eligible under BBCE, must apply, be interviewed and document that their monthly income and expenses, such as high housing and child care costs, leave them with too little disposable income to afford a basic, adequate diet. Indeed, the Department of Agriculture’s own data show that only about 0.2% of SNAP benefits went in 2017 to households with monthly disposable incomes — net income after deducting certain expenses like high housing and child care costs — above the poverty line. SNAP has some of the most rigorous program integrity standards and systems of any federal program.”

The statement continued: “With this rule, the Administration is seeking to implement through executive action a harsh policy that Congress rejected in the 2018 farm bill. Instead of punishing working families if they work more hours or must incur high child care costs in order to work, or penalizing seniors and people with disabilities who save a modest amount for emergencies, the President should seek to assist them with policies that help them afford the basics and save for the future.”

Now, six years later, the National WIC Association warns that for families already struggling with food insecurity, these changes could still have severe consequences. 

"This will leave pregnant women, infants, and young children without essential support that keeps them healthy — at a time when families are already struggling with rising food insecurity."

“WIC, SNAP and Medicaid work together to ensure that families have the nutrition and healthcare they need to thrive,” said Georgia Machell, President & CEO of NWA. “If Congress moves forward with cuts to Medicaid or SNAP, families will not only lose access to food and healthcare, they’ll face unnecessary barriers to WIC. This will leave pregnant women, infants, and young children without essential support that keeps them healthy — at a time when families are already struggling with rising food insecurity.”

Beyond SNAP, proposed Medicaid restrictions could also impact WIC enrollment. Nearly 80% of WIC participants also rely on Medicaid for healthcare, meaning that any additional eligibility hurdles for Medicaid could create logistical challenges for families seeking WIC benefits. Requiring families to provide additional income documentation — rather than using adjunctive eligibility — introduces delays that could prevent young children from receiving critical nutrition support during their most formative years.

As Congress finalizes its budget reconciliation package, advocates are urging lawmakers to consider the broader implications of these proposals. Limiting access to WIC, SNAP or Medicaid would not only undermine efforts to combat food insecurity, they say, but also jeopardize the long-term health and well-being of millions of families as the interconnected nature of these programs ensures that families receive the support they need to maintain health and stability, and cutting one inevitably weakens the others.

With rising food costs and growing economic uncertainty, the stakes for these policy decisions are high. While lawmakers may be focused on budget savings, NWA’s brief underscores that the cost of restricting access to essential programs isn’t just financial — it’s a matter of public health.

RFK Jr. is now America’s top health official after winning Senate confirmation to lead HHS

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the scion of the famous presidential family best known for his controversial views on vaccines, was confirmed to lead the Department of Health and Human Services Thursday by a 52-48 vote largely along party lines — with Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a polio survivor, the only Republican to vote no.

Kennedy was initially considered a tougher sell than some of President Donald Trump's other nominees due to his history of anti-vaccine activism, but in the end no other Republican broke ranks to oppose his nomination. McConnell referenced this history in a statement explaining his vote: “I’m a survivor of childhood polio. In my lifetime, I’ve watched vaccines save millions of lives from devastating diseases across America and around the world. I will not condone the re-litigation of proven cures, and neither will millions of Americans who credit their survival and quality of life to scientific miracles."

During his confirmation hearings, Democrats and some Republicans, including Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., pressed Kennedy to acknowledge the medical consensus that vaccines are safe; Kennedy declined to do so. The nominee also faced questions on his position regarding health care as a human right (he declined to answer); his claim that doctors “should not be giving Black people the same vaccine schedule that is given to white [people]” because of immune system differences (he defended his claim by citing "a series of studies"); and his role in spreading misinformation, including a campaign to discourage vaccinations in Samoa. 

Democrats and health care activists hold Kennedy at least partially responsible for a 2021 measles outbreak in Samoa that infected 57,000 people and killed dozens. Kennedy has denied any responsibility for the outbreak, but he worked with Samoan anti-vaccine activists like Edwin Tamanese, who arranged Kennedy's 2019 visit to the island.

After Trump's victory, Kennedy sought to reassure people that he "won't take away anybody's vaccines" and backtracked from earlier proposals to force states to remove fluoride from drinking water. Critics say, however, that giving him a government pulpit risks sowing confusion about vaccine safety, in particular, and that his promises to clear out or remodel federal health agencies risks damaging their ability to provide Americans with safe and adequate health care.

We need your help to stay independent

Kennedy has singled out the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, threatening to fire employees for “aggressive suppression” of raw milk, psychedelics and discredited COVID-era treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

"[Kennedy's] dangerous positions could take a sledgehammer to our nation’s medical and public health systems," wrote former CDC Acting Director Richard E. Besser for U.S. News & World Report. "Kennedy has sowed confusion and distrust on health issues, favoring pseudoscience over evidence-based science and conspiracy theories over truth. Disinformation harms all people, but the ripple effects can do the most damage in communities with the greatest health disparities."

"RFK Jr. has consistently fueled misinformation about the safety and efficacy of life-saving preventive health care, undermining years of progress in disease prevention, treatment, and public health policy," Doctors for America’s Food and Drug Administration Task Force said in a statement earlier this month. "We are particularly discouraged by the actions of our physician colleagues on the committee, who chose to vote in favor of allowing an avowed anti-science opportunist to lead the federal agency responsible for the health of our nation."

Cassidy, a former doctor who chairs the Senate health panel, had said he was "struggling" with Kennedy's nomination, but ultimately voted to confirm him after Kennedy promised to let Cassidy have input in filling key roles at HHS, keep information on vaccine safety on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website and not develop “parallel systems” on vaccine approval.

Democrats used what floor time they could grab to decry his nomination.

"It’s almost as if Mr. Kennedy’s beliefs, history, and background were tailor-made to be the exact opposite of what the job demands," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "A few weeks ago, it seemed like maybe Senate Republicans would have drawn the line on nominees like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard. But the past few days have been a stunning capitulation by Senate Republicans. At this point they’re just rubber-stamping people, no matter how fringe they are."

 

Infant deaths continue to rise as more abortion bans are put in place, studies find

The overturn of Roe v. Wade with the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision has paved the way for legislation across the country to restrict reproductive health care. A pair of new studies shows the fallout of restrictive reproductive healthcare policies: More babies were born in states that enacted abortion bans between 2021 and 2023, and infant mortality also rose in these states.

In states that enacted total or six-week abortion bans, there was a 1.7% increase in births between 2021 and 2023, corresponding to 22,000 excess births, according to a study published today in JAMA. Across the same time period, states that enacted bans also experienced a 6% increase in infant mortality, corresponding to 500 excess deaths, the same group reported in a companion study.

Both of these outcomes disproportionately impacted Black mothers and infants, with Black infant mortality 11% higher in states with bans than what would be expected had these bans not been enacted. Younger, unmarried and low-income women were most affected, particularly in southern states.

Overall, infant mortality was about four times higher among births linked to abortion bans than it was in the general population, said Dr. Suzanne O. Bell, lead author of the fertility study and researcher at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“These excess births are among populations at greater risk of poor pregnancy outcomes, including infant mortality,” Bell told Salon in a phone interview. “Thinking about these papers in conjunction, the additional births and infant deaths resulting from these abortion bans occurred in states with some of the weakest social services and worst health outcomes, potentially deepening existing disparities and placing additional burdens on already strained resources.”

"The additional births and infant deaths resulting from these abortion bans occurred in states with some of the weakest social services and worst health outcomes."

Infant mortality has been on the decline in the U.S. since 1995 when data measuring this outcome became available. In 2022, following the Dobbs decision, it increased 3% from the year prior. These studies show this trend has continued to increase in the years after the fall of Roe v. Wade. Meanwhile, the maternal mortality crisis that disproportionately affects Black women continues to worsen as well.

“Anytime we see a population-level increase in infant mortality, it is telling you that something is very wrong,” Gemmill told Salon in a phone interview. “It is telling you that we are reversing the progress that we have had and something needs to be addressed.”

After the Supreme Court rescinded the federal right to abortion in June 2022, states began enacting full or partial bans limiting abortion access after a certain number of gestational weeks. This study looked at fertility and infant mortality outcomes in 14 states that had full or six-week abortion bans, although since it has been published, more bans have been or are in the process of being enacted in Florida, Iowa, South Carolina and other states. 


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


In the study, infant mortality and excess births increased by far the most in Texas, which was responsible for 73% of excess births and 80% of excess deaths. Texas introduced an abortion ban nearly a year prior to the Dobbs decision, and was also one of the states where the most women sought abortions prior to the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, which may be what is behind this outsized impact, said Dr. Alison Gemmill, the lead author of the infant mortality study and a researcher at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Last year, the same study group found infant mortality spiked 13% after SB8, the Texas law that bans abortion was enacted in 2021. This work expands on their prior research to look at how abortion bans impact maternal and infant health nationally and across different racial groups.

One of the leading causes of infant mortality in the current study along with the Texas study was congenital anomalies. Most abortion bans have exceptions built in for congenital anomalies, allowing birthing women abortions instead of forcing them to carry the pregnancy to term only to watch the baby die. However, these have been reported to not be granted in many cases. And the fact that the rate of infants dying from congenital anomalies continues to increase suggests that these bans have had far-reaching chilling effects that prevent pregnant people from getting the care they need.

“The bottom line is that it’s very difficult to itemize all of the different ways pregnancy can go wrong in a legal setting,” Gemmill said. 

Abortion bans are largely concentrated in the South, forming maternity care deserts. As a result, many women have to spend thousands of dollars in travel expenses alone to get reproductive health care. In this study, infant mortality and increased fertility were also concentrated in Southern states, with Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama and Oklahoma having some of the highest rates. 

“One of the main hypotheses for [Texas’ outsized impact] is not just because of its size, but because the distance to travel for an abortion went up much more for people living in Texas than for some of these other states,” Gemmill said.

The resources needed to get access to care in maternity care deserts mean people who can't afford to travel out of state and unmarried women, along with women of color, have been shown to be less likely to access this care due to systematic disadvantages. These groups were already more likely to seek abortion and have higher risk pregnancies pre-Dobbs, Bell said.

“You have a part of the population that is having difficulty accessing abortion services, and these are also the same groups that have higher risk pregnancies and a higher risk of infant mortality,” Gemmill said.

"Anytime we see a population-level increase in infant mortality, it is telling you that something is very wrong."

Expanding access and funding to Medicaid, which covers 40% of births, could help some pregnant people living in states with restricted abortion access get better care, wrote Dr. Alyssa Bilinski, a researcher at the Brown University School of Public Health, in an editorial accompanying the studies.

“In addition to policy interventions targeted toward children and families, it is also imperative to provide health care professionals caring for patients in states with abortion restrictions the resources and training to address new complexities introduced by abortion restrictions,” Bilinski wrote, including providing resources that help them navigate reproductive healthcare under these bans. 

In January, Republican Representative Eric Burlison of Missouri introduced a bill that proposes a national ban on abortion, and the Trump administration has already moved to enact additional barriers for people seeking an abortion. President Donald Trump said he was “proud to be a participant” in overturning Roe v. Wade and issued a series of executive orders in his first weeks in office designed to restrict access to abortion.

Yet experts caution that restricting access to reproductive health care will continue to have long-term physical, mental and economic consequences for birthing people and their families.

“We are still seeing people who are unable to overcome barriers to abortion care imposed by these bans,” Bell said. “Disproportionately, these populations are those experiencing the greatest structural disadvantages.”

Trump dictates. Musk desiccates

Sporting a black MAGA hat and with one of his young children happily crawling up his back, co-President Elon Musk played with the White House press pool on Tuesday while Donald Trump gave him free rein in the Oval Office. Musk doubled down on cleaning up waste and cutting federal expenses — especially on regulatory agencies that have an influence on his many businesses. Trump smiled. No one in the room seemed to recognize or notice the hypocrisy.

“People are going to get what they voted for,” Musk explained. Trump sat, smiled and said Musk’s son had a high IQ. “And that’s what democracy is all about,” Musk added, admitting he may have misspoken on a few items on a few occasions. Trump smiled and signed another executive order. Later in the day, it was announced Musk had a tentative agreement to sell $400 million in armored trucks to the government. No one asked about that.

Also left mostly unasked, unanswered and unspoken was what the titular head of the government, Trump, will do after being challenged in court on several executive orders that attempt to circumvent Congress and take over the entire U.S. government. He said he would follow the courts but he also believes he has the ultimate authority.

That attitude was echoed by one of his attorneys, Alina Habba — a cheerleading inerudite dolt, who said on Fox News, while Trump played host to Musk and his son in the Oval, “There’s a separation of powers for a reason. The executive branch is the ultimate authority on federal issues.”

As Johnny Carson would say; “Wrong, Lysol breath.”

She may have a law degree and she may have passed the bar, but Habba is entirely ignorant of how the American government is supposed to work. The Constitution is the ultimate authority on federal issues and the executive branch is merely a co-equal branch of government along with the judicial and legislative branches.

At the same time, Trump, who claims he is going to be “transparent”, banned the Associated Press from attending the event in the Oval Office because it doesn’t recognize the “Gulf of America” as the new name of the Gulf of Mexico. So, as the fourth week of Donald Trump’s imperial regime unfolds, there are few things more transparent than the fact that nothing is going to deter Trump from doing what he wants. Whatever it says in the Constitution, whenever there is a dispute of facts, if Trump doesn’t agree with it there is no place for it in his world. 

Hell bent on revenge, despite saying his second administration would be otherwise, Trump has proven one thing beyond all doubt: He will listen to no one but himself as he does what he damn well pleases. And since he controls every branch of government, there is nothing anyone can do about it. If he wants to defy court orders, then he will

Most unfortunately, his dominance in our lives extends beyond politics. 

Trump’s appetite is insatiable. He’s not satisfied with politics. He’s not satisfied with art. He also wants to determine how we play sports.

“It is a great honor to be chairman of the Kennedy Center, especially with this amazing board of trustees,” Trump said Wednesday.

After declaring himself the chair earlier in the week, the board elected him to that post “unanimously” Trump declared. He decided to be the arbiter of the arts because he didn’t like “drag shows” and while he said he hadn’t been to any Kennedy Center shows, he was disgusted with what he hadn’t seen.

Trump was a frequent visitor to New York’s Studio 54 in the late 70s and early 80s and was well known for his debauchery. What exactly upsets him about the drag shows he claims he’s never seen? Who knows? But it is par for the course in an administration dominated by licentious, lying lotharios and those who wish to make money off of the backs of the voters. Remember 77 million people voted for this. 

Trump’s appetite is insatiable. He’s not satisfied with politics. He’s not satisfied with art. He also wants to determine how we play sports. While at the Super Bowl, he decried the new kickoff rules. “The worst part of the Super Bowl, by far, was watching the Kickoff where, as the ball is sailing through the air, the entire field is frozen, stiff. College Football does not do it, and won’t! Whose idea was it to ruin the Game?” the president said in a Truth Social post.

The more he grasps, the more he wants. He wants to take over Gaza. He wants Greenland. He wants Canada. He wants Mexico and the Panama Canal. 

He is aided and abetted in his tyranny by a South African racist who is not only the richest man on earth but serves as Trump’s defacto co-president and is doing to the country what he did to Twitter when he bought it; tearing it down and removing all roadblocks to Trump being able to run the country as a monarch. Further, Musk is also trying to buy an AI company so he can dictate and frame the political argument to further spread disinformation.

We need your help to stay independent

Some see much of the current talk as typical Trump distractions. “We’re not going to invade and occupy Gaza. We’re not going to invade Greenland. We’re not taking back the Panama Canal,” Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy told MSNBC last week, referring to some of the president’s more extreme foreign policy ideas. “But Donald Trump is really good at this campaign of distraction.”

I don’t think Murphy or the rest of the Democrats quite understand the situation. What you see as a distraction is merely Trump extending his reach as far as he can. He may not be upset if he doesn’t get everything that he wants, but he’ll definitely push the issue to get everything he wants. Hell, he got Tulsi Gabbard confirmed by the Senate as the Director of National Intelligence – and most Democrats thought uttering her name and the word “intelligence” in a sentence was an oxymoron. “That’s a title thick with irony,” a Capitol Hill staffer told me.

“He is the master of the art of the deal,” His prep-school cheerleading press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told us in one of her rare briefings Wednesday afternoon. 

His critics say otherwise. Joe Walsh, a former Tea Party congressman and briefly a candidate for president who ran against Trump on the Republican ticket, summed it up this way on “The Social Contract” podcast recently; “If you actually listen to Trump and Musk every day – our military sucks, the deep state controls our justice dept and the FBI, there is no independent media, the federal government is all fraudsters and bad bureaucrats, even the judiciary is corrupt. According to Trump/Trumpism, America just sucks. But yet…he got elected saying all of this. And elections have consequences.”

Yes. They do. And the Democrats who didn’t vote, those who voted for Trump and the independents who did the same have all put us in the same boat heading down a Class-5 rapids before we tumble over a deep waterfall. We have no oars to steer, no one who knows how and millions of voters still think it’s a cheap thrill ride at a waterpark.

Further evidence of that is United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, a tattooed cartoon character of a man who apparently aspired to be Jack Sparrow, but JD Vance stole the eyeliner so he had to settle for the role of Bootstrap Bill. On Wednesday, Hegseth said the U.S. will not be supporting Ukraine as stoutly as Joe Biden did. Hegseth said Ukraine’s desires for peace were unrealistic.

Trump, of course, announced Wednesday that there is a chance of peace in Ukraine and that Joe Biden is responsible for the “ridiculous war, totally unnecessary. God bless the people of Russia and Ukraine.” And he also told us there never would have been a war if he had been president in 2020. While decrying foreign interventions and cheering isolationism, Trump also said this week that he owned Gaza, would not eliminate the possibility of putting troops there, and at the same time said Putin invited him to visit Russia. 

If any of it sounds confusing it’s only because it is.


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


Wednesday his press secretary also told us how popular all of this is making Trump and how great the U.S. is now “Thanks to the great, strong leadership of President Trump.” 

Trump, so far, has seen little pushback from the press, and when we do push back, the press secretary uses the Brady Briefing Room lectern to criticize what she calls “dishonest narratives.”

When questioned about a constitutional crisis emerging from the White House, she said, “The real constitutional crisis is within the judicial branch. " She argued that the threat is actually among judges who aren’t honest arbiters of the law and are trying to thwart Trump. She added that it is “nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice” against Trump. She also told us that 77 million people elected Trump, and he thinks he has the right to do whatever he wants. Remember?

She blamed Biden for continuing inflation. “This is an indictment on the Biden administration,” she said. No one asked when Trump would be held accountable for the economy, and she never offered an answer. Her high point came when she said, “If anybody in here wants to argue that the federal government isn’t fraudulent in some capacity, then be my guest…” Unasked and unanswered was how much fraudulence Trump is guilty of.

Finally, when Kaitlin Collins from CNN pressed the administration on banning the Associated Press from the Oval Office, the press secretary said the quiet part out loud. “It is a privilege to cover this White House . . . Nobody has the right to go into the Oval Office and ask the president of the United States questions,” Leavitt said. “We reserve the right to decide who gets to go into the Oval Office.”No one followed up on Collins’ question. No one mentioned that Trump is privileged to be in the White House by the grace of 77 million American voters. But a few other reporters did congratulate the president’s press secretary for calling on them to ask meaningless and worthless questions.

Thus we now have it. Our press passes are useless and as the administration says, “We are going to hold those who lie accountable” though no one is holding them accountable. It is the Gulf of America, and that’s what it is. “It’s very important to this administration that we get that right,” we were told by the cheerleader.

The only hope at this point is the asteroid which increasingly looks like it will strike Earth in a few years; but hey most of the rich, politicians, celebrities and sports heroes have bunkers so at least they’ll survive. If it sounds like doomsday, relax. That has already passed. You’re just living in the aftermath of the political destruction.

Elon Musk is using the whistleblower playbook

As a former Justice Department lawyer and whistleblower, I recognize the bizarre and retaliatory techniques currently being wielded against public servants. The over-the-top tactics that Donald Trump and Elon Musk are using — placing people on administrative leave without due process, leaning on career civil servants to resign,  locking people out of offices, accusing them of “complete and utter incompetence” despite years of unblemished federal service — are very familiar to most federal whistleblowers. I was one of them and now defend these employees for a living.

I got into this line of work because, when I blew the whistle on America’s first high-profile terrorism prosecution after 9/11, the government unleashed the full force of the entire executive branch against me — much of it over the top. Among other things, the Justice Department placed me under criminal investigation, though I was never told the reason (leaking unclassified information to the press is not a crime, and government whistleblowers are protected by law.)  Then it got even stranger. Based on a secret report I was not allowed to see, the Justice Department referred me for discipline to the state bar associations where I was licensed to practice law. The state bars didn’t know how to respond, so they kept me (and my livelihood) in licensing limbo for years. But then the government's improvised retaliation hit warp speed when it put me on part of the “No-Fly List,” a terrorism watchlist that impeded my travel for years and had no redress mechanism. I thought things could get no worse than this Kafkaesque blackhole.

I was wrong. The government literally called the private law firm where I next worked and told them I could not be trusted. The Justice Department leaned on the firm to fire me, but they couldn’t do so under the Whistleblower Protection Act. Instead, the firm placed me on indefinite administrative leave, which was paid for a while . . . until it was not. I sought unemployment benefits, a system I had paid into as a taxpayer since I was sixteen, but then the government leaned on my former employer to contest those meager unemployment benefits, which it obediently did. This forced me to hire an employment lawyer, an added expense at a time. I had no income and was pregnant with my third child. I eventually won, but the damage was already done to me and my young family.

Eventually, the criminal case was dropped without any criminal charges filed It took the Maryland State Bar Association three years to dismiss the case against me as unfounded. In further theater of the absurd, I was elected to (and served on) the D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee from 2005 to 2007, despite the fact that the D.C. Bar charges against me were still pending at the time. The D.C. Bar charges remained a Sword of Damocles over my head for ten years before they were also dismissed.

I now represent government whistleblowers who are facing similar retaliation. It is as though Musk and his cabal at the newly created Department of Government Efficiency have picked up a whistleblower retaliator’s playbook and are using it against the entire federal civil service.

We need your help to stay independent

My government whistleblower clients have been suffering these same retaliatory tactics that are notoriously difficult to challenge in court, yet are almost impossible to live with. My clients have been unceremoniously banned from their workspaces or locked out of their email accounts; their telework arrangements have been suddenly and unpredictability changed; they have been told their well-documented disabilities are imaginary and denied reasonable accommodations (one client was disciplined because her wheelchair was deemed a “tripping hazard”); they have been subjected to micro-management of their every move (including trips to the bathroom) despite years of successful work; they have been reassigned to meaningless and degrading "paper cup-stacking" roles; they have been told not to discuss projects that were once centerpieces of their jobs; they have been given personally insulting letters of reprimand, censure, or undefined discipline; they have been subjected to baseless or pretextual investigations; they have been placed on administrative leave for undefined amounts of time in unclear pay statuses; and they have been eventually fired.

On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration can carry out, for now, the controversial “fork in road” mass buyout program. The mass “deferred resignation” offer is a blunt instrument Musk used to drastically cut the workforce of Twitter after he was forced to purchase the social media site, now named X, in 2022.

But the stigma doesn’t end when the job does. Even after an employee resigns or is forced out, often personnel files with inaccurate, negative information remain behind, which makes it impossible to get another job at the same agency, or in the government at large. Years after they were vindicated, “Insider Threat Programs" vilified lawful whistleblowers like former NSA senior executive  Thomas Drake by putting their images on “WANTED”-style posters alongside actual spies and terrorists. Even more insidious, agencies in past crackdowns have issued McCarthyesque edicts that employees must report on suspected colleagues engaged in suspicious work activity like “displaying questionable loyalty to the U.S. Government." 


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


Co-opting the insider threat model, DOGE has ordered federal workers to report on anyone resisting the sweeping and legally dubious changes. Whistleblowers have been told not to speak to colleagues, lawmakers or the press (all of which are communications protected by the First Amendment), much like federal agencies have now been instructed to shutter all internal oversight offices and halt all external communications. 

In the face of this retaliation and humiliation, whistleblower clients have struggled with anxiety, depression, ulcers, and migraines brought on by stress, and exacerbation of auto-immune and heart disease, among countless other health and personal consequences. A number have been left bankrupt and broken, unemployed and unemployable. Now thousands of civil servants and their families will be dealing with similar consequences in a culture of fear, cruelty and uncertainty. 

The improper, illegal and heavy-handed methods Trump is using — placing career employees in professional purgatory, denying them notice or an opportunity to respond, restricting access to their offices, personally denigrating them, and cutting off their recourse — from the mass firing of some 20 Inspectors General to purging career officials from the nation’s top law enforcement agency — is not new territory. History has not forgotten Senator Joseph McCarthy’s list of alleged Communists in the State Department and his use of unfair and evidence-free accusations of disloyalty and subversion in order to suppress opposition. His name now lives in ignominy as both a noun and an adjective used to describe such political witch hunts. Nor has history forgotten the “Saturday Night Massacre,” when an embattled President Nixon fired the U.S. Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General from the Justice Department, contributing to a chain of events that eventually led to his resignation. What is new is the vast scale and record speed with which it is occurring, the neutering of government watchdog agencies and oversight mechanisms, and radio silence from the controlling party in Congress. 

It is despicable when agency supervisors engage in draconian retaliation toward whistleblowers who are trying to improve government by exposing fraud, waste and abuse. It is an order of magnitude worse that the Trump administration has imposed these tactics on an entire federal workforce of dedicated career civil servants who actually care about their country.

Rare footage of lost anglerfish awes internet, raising questions about ocean conservation

The latest animal to go viral isn’t a baby hippo or newborn tapir or anything that cute really: it’s a humpback anglerfish (Melanocetus johnsonii) that was spotted in shallow waters off the coast of Spain. If you know anything about this kind of fish besides the fact that it has a lantern on its head, it’s that it doesn’t belong in brightly-lit waters — like blind cave salamanders and earthworms, it is a creature of the deep and dark.

But seeing it floundering in a glittering blue void quickly infatuated the internet. Because anglerfish need to stay in deep waters to survive (nearly 5,000 feet or 1,500 meters), it is rare for them to reach the surface unless they are sick. Indeed the anglerfish, famous for its razor sharp teeth and bioluminescent lure used to snag prey, died only a few hours after the scientists spotted it. But it was the only documented time humans have seen this fish in this part of the sea. Captured by the underwater photographer David Jara Boguñá, the fish has since found its way all over Reddit, Bluesky and YouTube, with coverage ranging from CBS News, CNN and Oceanographic Magazine.

Now the scientists — who were researching pelagic sharks at the country’s Canary Islands — are going to study the anglerfish’s body, hoping to learn more about its uncharacteristic behavior. Regardless of what they find, experts agree that the anglerfish’s plight is a sign that people should be mindful of the health of our planet’s oceans, which are heating at an unprecedented rate in human history. That begs the question: is the reason this anglerfish was a stranger in a strange land because of climate change?

“The deep open ocean is a sensitive environment and changing temperatures would essentially shift the balance of the ecosystem that anglerfishes have adapted to exploit,” Chase Brownstein, a research associate at Yale University’s Ecology and Evolutionary Biology program, told Salon. “Basically, warming oceans are bad for animals for a variety of reasons, mainly because they are used to a certain temperature range and pushing the limits of that range can put species under metabolic or physiological stress.”

Even though the anglerfish’s surfacing can raise awareness about ocean pollution, this does not mean we know for sure it did not rise for natural reasons. Ben Frable, the University of California San Diego's Senior Collection Manager of Marine Vertebrates, said that anglerfish surfacing events are not as uncommon as one might think.

"The deep ocean is impacted by climate change similar to the shallow ocean — decreasing oxygen, increasing acidity and temperature will all have profound impacts."

“Just off the bat, it is not unheard of to see mesopelagic (200-1,000 m depth) in shallow waters, especially around offshore islands like the Canaries and Hawaii,” Frable said. “Many mesopelagic organisms vertically migrate into shallower water at night to feed in the more productive shallow waters. As far as we know, anglerfish generally do not vertically migrate as adults but this fish could have come shallow for a myriad of reasons.”

With that caveat aside, Frable observed a crucial difference between this particular anglerfish and others that surface — it looks sick.

“As many folks have commented, this fish doesn't seem to be in the best shape, so it could be disoriented from entering shallow, well-lit waters or sick or dying,” Frable said. “Another type of anglerfish, the footballfishes, are known from individuals entering shallow water and being found barely alive or dead washed up on beaches.”

Rafael Banon Diaz, an ichthyologist at the Universidade De Santiago De Compostela, also told Salon that the individual fish in question is “already dead” and that although not all surfaced anglerfish are sick, “these anomalous records are normally sick specimens.”


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


On a deeper level, Frable is concerned about how factors like pollution and climate change are making the ocean less hospitable to aquatic life. Anglerfish are among the victims, though it's not clear if that's 100 percent the case with the viral fish. That's why research into the deepest, darkest depths of our planet is so important.

“The deep ocean is impacted by climate change similar to the shallow ocean — decreasing oxygen, increasing acidity and temperature will all have profound impacts,” Frable said. “However, we are still learning about the implications of this. It impacts circulation and currents, which in turn changes the distribution of food and habitable space for these fish and other organisms.”

If these trends continue, humans may someday enter a world where anglerfish do not exist at all. If that happens, scientists like Frable believe it would be a terrible loss.

We need your help to stay independent

“Anglerfishes are some of the most iconic deep-sea fish and have certainly captivated me (like many others) from an early age,” Frable said. “I have been fortunate enough to work with them in my role as Collection Manager of the Marine Vertebrate Collection here at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (UC San Diego) as this is one of the largest deep-sea fish collections.”

Brownstein thinks that, at the very least, the recent video will revive public interest in this unusual creature.

“It is very cool to see a new video of this species, though it is clear this anglerfish was on its way out,” Brownstein said. “Pelagic deep sea anglerfishes, including the Melanocetus shown in the video, are really quite an amazing group of organisms notable for their morphological diversity and their odd mode of reproduction, wherein males temporarily attach to females or fuse such that both individuals share a bloodstream!”

Musk took all their power, so Republicans remake Congress into a ministry of disinformation

A couple weeks into Elon Musk's rampage through the federal bureaucracy, we finally have an answer to whether congressional Republicans mind that he's usurped their main source of authority, the power of the purse: No, they do not care. If anything, accepting Musk's self-appointed role frees up their time from troublesome decision-making tasks, allowing them more time to go on TV and make excuses for letting a private citizen conduct what looks very much like a coup. Still, while lying to cable news hosts is a pleasurable way for congressional Republicans to spend their time, it hardly amounts to a full-time job. Senate Republicans, at least, still have Donald Trump's Cabinet appointees to rubber-stamp. But how else will Republican representatives in the lower chamber spend their days, now that they've handed their main job duties over to an unelected megalomaniac?

Readers will be unsurprised to learn that the answer is thuddingly stupid. On Tuesday, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., announced that he's forming a "Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets." That sounds very official and important, but, as with anything Comer does, it's a clown show. Reading beyond headlines, one quickly realizes the only purpose of this "task force" is to give an unjustified air of legitimacy to various conspiracy theories that have warped American minds at an increasing rate over the past few decades. The task force will allegedly reveal information on "the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK," Comer declared. They'll also pretend to unearth information about UFOs, COVID-19 conspiracy theories, whether 9/11 was an inside job, and, of course, Jeffrey Epstein's client list — no doubt sans anyone currently in GOP leadership or is, like Epstein when he was alive, a friend of Donald Trump's. 

The fake conspiracies are much simpler to understand and sexier than the ongoing plot of Musk and his "Department of Government Efficiency" to illegally burrow into the federal government.

There's no word yet on if the task force will investigate the nation's most pressing mystery: whether birds are real. But the silliness of the initiative was immediately reinforced by the announcement that the task force would be led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., whose "questions" about her life story only flew under the radar because her competitor in biography-fluffing was former congressman George Santos, who pled guilty to fraud. While taking questions during the announcement, Luna explained that she plans to interview "attending physicians" from President John F. Kennedy's deathbed, as well as members of the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination in the '60s and '70s. The problem is that they're all dead, which any fool could have guessed since Kennedy was killed 61 years ago. 


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


None of this, it should be obvious, is about getting to the bottom of any real mysteries. We can know this because both of these Republicans have previously acted in bad faith, but also because the answers to their "questions" are already out there. Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and was almost certainly acting alone, which Luna would learn if she bothered to read the Warren report.  Robert F. Kennedy was killed by Sirhan Sirhan, who is still around if you want to talk to him. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by James Earl Ray, who no doubt would be a big Trump fan if he were still alive. The 9/11 Commission spells out the terrorist conspiracy that led to those attacks. Alien sightings are mostly very drunk or very tired people experiencing hallucinations. COVID-19, like most pandemics, was due to the biological process of mutation. Birds are real and can be spotted usually within minutes of leaving the house. 

There are two reasons to keep "asking questions" that have been answered a million times: to distract from the very real conspiracy to wreck the federal government and to increase the stupefaction of the American people that led to Trump's November victory. On the first front, it's not especially complicated. Headlines about the JFK assassination or UFOs get people talking, especially if they never bother to read 15 paragraphs into a story that invariably shows there's no new information, no cover-up or conspiracy, and the truth remains banal. The fake conspiracies are much simpler to understand and sexier than the ongoing plot of Musk and his "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) to illegally burrow into the federal government. The latter involves computer nerds clicking away at keyboards, which isn't as cinematic and emotionally arresting as the Zapruder film or titillating stories about alien abductions.  

The latter is a continuation of the main MAGA propaganda strategy of the past decade: pumping an endless stream of lies and conspiracy theories into the discourse, disorienting ordinary people to the point where they can't tell fact from fiction. A lot of it doesn't even need to be overtly political. TikTok, for instance, is awash in medical disinformation, people claiming to be haunted by demons, and charlatans offering psychic readings through the computer. This contributes to a larger atmosphere where people detach from any allegiance to the reality-based world, making them more open to listening to Trump's lies and ignoring the less exciting truths offered by responsible journalists. It's a short leap from believing your astrological sign means vaccines are dangerous to yelling about how Trump's right that immigrants are kidnapping and eating pets. 

Trump gets this, which is why he pounces on every conspiracy theory and puts a MAGA spin on it, no matter how apolitical it may initially seem. In December, when there was a brief mass panic over reported drone sightings in New Jersey — which turned out to be ordinary aircraft, hobbyist drones, or even stars — Trump expressed outrage and panic over the situation. He's president now, so could order an investigation if he was actually worried. But of course, he doesn't believe any of this. He just saw an opportunity to make Americans even stupider, which benefits him, so he pounced. 

As reported by CNN and the Bulwark this week, congressional Republicans — even in bright-red districts — seem surprised by how much their own constituents are freaking out over Musk's assault on the federal government. I'm far more skeptical than these reporters that Republicans have any interest in reining Musk in, as they have resisted every opportunity to say no to DOGE so far. Instead, their goal is to get the heat off themselves, largely by sending out constituent letters full of lies like, "They do not have access to Americans’ sensitive details or information," which both court orders and reporting have shown not to be the case

For congressional Republicans who want to pretend to be doing something while also distracting their voters from this ongoing assault on our national sovereignty, a fake task force pretending to "investigate" already-answered questions is just the ticket. Offering the imprimatur of congressional authority to long-standing conspiracy theories will pump this nonsense to the top of the headlines, crowding out alarming stories about the real damage DOGE is doing. It will also raise the level of fake information out there, creating even more noise that helps Musk sell his firehose of lies as just more of the same right-wing rhetoric.

Musk even winked at this during his bizarre press conference with Trump on Tuesday. "Some of the things I say will be incorrect," he gloated when confronted with his and Trump's lie that USAID was giving free condoms to Hamas. The implication was not subtle: This is an era when truth has no more value than a lie, and Republicans should feel free to make up whatever story serves their purposes. 

Elon Musk on spreading misinformation about condoms for Hamas: "Some of the things that I say will be incorrect."

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) February 11, 2025 at 4:43 PM

It's probably fruitless to beg journalists not to be snookered by this conspiracy theory "task force." They'll put out breathless press releases claiming "new" and "shocking" information. Once someone bothers to read the documents, it will invariably be baseless speculation at best, and often outright disinformation. It's all designed to bait news outlets into favoring the sexy conspiracy theories, so they give less airtime to Musk's activities, proposed cuts to health care, or Trump's corruption for clickbait about UFOs. But even if journalists can maintain discipline in the face of this goofiness, the task force will likely succeed at its bigger goal: pumping out misleading clips for social media that feed conspiracy theories. They need Americans to stay addicted to disinformation — because if the public knew what was really going on, they'd be up in arms.