Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

He’s the biggest villain in “The White Lotus” season 2

If you have a pulse and HBO Max, you are probably still buzzing about the ending of the second season of “The White Lotus.” (Stop here if you haven’t seen it and don’t want to be spoiled.) 

Mike White’s HBO drama focuses on extremely wealthy families who are even richer in drama. Some pain comes attached to old money, and some in trying to find footing in the midst of new fortunes. A host of interlocking dramas plays out against the backdrop of the fictional White Lotus resorts, the most beautiful, exclusive vacation franchise in the world.

So far, the series has started with the discovery of a dead body at the end of the week, then rewinds to guest arrivals and plays out from there. With each episode, viewers debate who will die in the end and who will be revealed as the killer — along with who the real enemy is. Thanks to the heightened egos and neuroses the wealthy guests bring to the property, the real villain isn’t necessarily the same character as the one who ends a life.

In season one, the real villain was clearly Tanya (Jennifer Coolidge), a disconnected, goofy heiress who travels to Hawaii to bury her mother’s ashes while on her luxury vacation. While there, Tanya meets an extremely talented wellness specialist named Belinda (Natasha Rothwell), whom she manipulates, uses and gaslights throughout the season. Belinda works hard to heal a broken Tanya, who is so impressed by Belinda’s techniques she promises the two of them will open a clinic for women. This business wouldn’t have much of an impact on Tanya’s day-to-day — she’s worth $500 million — but it would reset Belinda’s life trajectory and create generational wealth for her family.

And then Tanya falls in love with a guy named Greg (Jon Gries) and decides to kick Belinda to the curb, leaving her in tears, with a broken heart, a small wad of cash and a head still full of dreams. Tanya was the obvious supervillain in season 1. It wasn’t a stretch to imagine her having a tough time in season 2, as the only storyline the show brought back for its second locale in Sicily. And if you imagined karma giving Tanya a square kick in the ass with a steel-toe boot, you were right. 

Her husband Greg, who we are led to assume is secretly gay, lures her to Sicily and then leaves her alone for his maybe-lover Quentin (Tom Hollander) and his louche entourage to befriend, manipulate and then murdered on a farewell yacht party — all so, as we are led to presume, Greg can inherit her fortune, which their prenup would not allow in the case of divorce, and share it with Quentin. The murder plot fails, and in a glorious act of resistance, Tanya retrieves her would-be killer’s pistol and goes on a John Wick-style murdering spree. After pumping the conspirators full of holes, Tanya attempts to escape by jumping off the boat in the awkward way that only Tanya could and ends up breaking her neck and drowning. Here we clearly see that Greg and his likely lover Quentin are the obvious villains. Tanya, as the previous season’s villain, doesn’t get a happy ending. However, this season also featured a quieter supervillain named Albie Di Grasso.

Albie (Adam DiMarco) — a Los Angeles native and Stanford graduate who works as an unpaid intern in a company that does urban planning and can still afford to vacation at one of the most exclusive, wealthiest resorts in the world (asshole) — is vacationing with his father Dominic (Michael Imperioli) and grandfather Bert (F. Murray Abraham). 

The trio has traveled to Sicily in an attempt to connect with their ancestors from the old country. Albie’s mom and sister have stayed back because of years of pent-up anger created by Dominic, a sex addict with a history of infidelities. Albie shares in their anger; however, he still takes the trip. And ladies and gentlemen, that was my first red flag. I didn’t declare him the enemy at that moment, but if you are upset with your dad for continuously crushing your mom’s and sister’s feelings, in addition to your own, then why take the free trip to Italy? Well, not a free trip; it was paid for with daddy’s money. 

In the first episode of season 2, we hear Albie’s mom (Laura Dern’s voice) chewing out Dominic over the phone, chastising him about how he conducted himself throughout their years of marriage. At one point we hear her scream, “Albie is a sweet sensitive young man and I honestly don’t know where he got it from.” If I could have called his mom on the other end, I would’ve told her he’s not that sweet. 

We see this at dinner when the three generations of men are talking about sex and the idea of Albie’s father and grandfather desiring physical touch grosses him out. How can one be so woke, as Albie continuously reminds us he is, and yet ageist? 

“Girls are always complaining that guys aren’t nice.”

“No girl should ever be exposed to an old guy’s junk,” Albie told his grandfather at dinner, as if feelings and self-esteem and self-perception are emotions that belong only to the young. He would continue to address his father and grandfather in the same condescending manner throughout the seven episodes, telling them they only like films like “The Godfather” because they were sucked into patriarchy, how badly they needed to change and how all of their ideas were stupid and dated, leaving no room for nuance. (As if a liberated woman couldn’t be a Coppola fan.) Albie came off like a walking, talking, living, breathing Twitter thread. 

Albie took a softer approach in his dealings with Portia, a semi-villain played by Haley Lu Richardson. Portia is Tanya’s assistant, and she deserves 20,000 free vacations to The White Lotus just for having to deal with Tanya on a daily basis. The two kids meet because Greg didn’t want to see Portia around — ostensibly out of fear she would ruin their romantic vacation, but in actuality, he didn’t want an unnecessary witness to the murder plot he was trying to orchestrate. So Portia had free time in beautiful Sicily, time in which she could have explored historic streets, meet the Italian guy of her dreams and ultimately carve out a small piece of enjoyment in her terrible existence. And she did — for a while — once she aggressively dodged Albie’s harsh criticism. 

In one of their early conversations, Portia tells Albie she is sick of Netflix, sick of Instagram, and she just wants to break away from the discourse. She pours her heart out, telling him that she would date a caveman if it meant having the opportunity to live in the moment. 

Albie replies in classic Albie smugness, “You can do better than a caveman.”

She was just telling the guy about the life she dreams of living, and what relationships, love and fun mean to her, but he couldn’t listen. Portia didn’t ask him to respond with a thinkpiece. She wanted him to respond by snapping his iPhone in two, possibly prompting her to do the same, and then grabbing her by the hand, pulling her deep into his world and, consensually, jamming his tongue down her throat. But Albie spends that moment — the only moment where the two of them could have clicked — telling her how women are supposed to think and feel and want to be treated.

Portia hangs around for another day or so, traveling with the Di Grasso family on a “Godfather”-themed sightseeing tour — another stage for Albie to display the reasons why he is the perfect nice guy and that everyone else at the table has zero redeeming qualities.

When Portia receives an even more unhinged than usual call from Tanya and is forced to leave the three men in the middle of their trip and return to work, Albie, not knowing the facts or how demanding of a boss Tanya could be, jumps knee-deep into conclusions that she must have left because of the older men’s patriarchal “Godfather”-loving ways.

When Portia finds a new man, a bad boy named Jack (Leo Woodall) who claims to be Quentin’s nephew, we can practically see Albie stewing over one of their earlier exchanges. “Girls are always complaining that guys aren’t nice,” he had told Portia. “But then, if they find a nice guy they’re not always interested.”

Not even thinking about holding himself accountable for being a judgmental, poor listener, Albie switches his interest to Lucia, a local girl and sex worker played by Simona Tabasco. Do Albie and Lucia really have a spark, or is she just that good at making him believe they do? When Albie finds out what every other cast member — including his father — already knows, he’s fine with paying her price, but he also assumes she’s “poor and a victim of a fucked up system.” Because no woman as sweet, as funny, as intelligent, as delicate, and as kind as Lucia really wants to be a sex worker, in Albie’s mind —he never comes out and says so, but his actions scream it. After witnessing a harsh exchange between Lucia and a guy she says is her pimp, Albie’s brain concocts a plan to “save” her from sex work that involves his dad forking over 50,000 euros. 

Dominic, who has been around the block a few times — and who even had a night with Lucia and her friend Mia (Beatrice Grannò) earlier in the week — tells his son this is a terrible idea, that it doesn’t make any sense. Albie dangles the one thing in front of Dominic that would make him comply: his wife and daughter. Albie basically sells out the feelings of his mom and sister by promising to deliver a good report on his dad, just so Dominic will open his wallet nice and wide for Lucia. He does this after lecturing his dad about purchasing forgiveness gifts for his mom and sister: “You can’t just buy people.” 

Dominic obliges because he’s damaged and wants to find his way toward some type of healing. He is desperate to reunite with his family, and Albie knows that and uses his father to obtain his goal. And when Lucia disappears, triumphantly, with the cash, Albie doesn’t tell his dad that he was right, nor does he celebrate Lucia’s new freedom and economic empowerment. Instead, he takes the opportunity to make it about himself again when reunited with Portia at the airport at the end of the week. “She played me,” he says, clearly in an effort to get some sympathy loving when they return home to California.

Had Albie listed to Portia from the beginning and treated her a bit like a caveman, she might have stayed with him that week rather than letting herself get pulled into Quentin’s scam via Jack, who was able to easily separate Portia from Tanya during the crucial execution phase of their plot. Had Albie been tagging along instead, asking a lot of questions and getting in the way, suddenly Quentin’s murder plot gets three times as expensive. Would it still have been worth it? Could Albie have actually saved a woman’s life just by listening to her assistant? And yet he ends the week feeling like a victim himself. 

In line to check in for their flight home, we see three generations of Di Grasso men turn and stare at a beautiful young woman as she walks by. Albie, so desperate to be different at the start of the week, mirrors his father and grandfather perfectly — a villain origin story born, we’re supposed to think, of heartbreak. But some of us weren’t fooled by his earlier performance. Albie was a villain all along. 

The case of the two Grace Elliotts: A medical billing mystery

Earlier this year, Grace Elizabeth Elliott got a mysterious hospital bill for medical care she had never received.

She soon discovered how far a clerical error can reach — even across a continent — and how frustrating it can be to fix.

During a college break in 2013, Elliott, then 22, began to feel faint and feverish while visiting her parents in Venice, Florida, about an hour south of Tampa. Her mother, a nurse, drove her to a facility that locals knew simply as Venice Hospital.

In the emergency department, Elliott was diagnosed with a kidney infection and held overnight before being discharged with a prescription for antibiotics, a common treatment for the illness.

“My hospital bill was about $100, which I remember because that was a lot of money for me as an undergrad,” said Elliott, now 31.

She recovered and eventually moved to California to teach preschool. Venice Regional Medical Center was bought by Community Health Systems, based in Franklin, Tennessee, in 2014 and eventually renamed ShorePoint Health Venice.

The kidney infection and overnight stay in the ER would have been little more than a memory for Elliott.

Then another bill came.

The Patients: Grace E. Elliott, 31, a preschool teacher living with her husband in San Francisco, and Grace A. Elliott, 81, a retiree in Venice, Florida.

Medical Services: For Grace E., an emergency department visit and overnight stay, plus antibiotics to treat a kidney infection in 2013. For Grace A., a shoulder replacement and rehabilitation services in 2021.

Service Provider: Venice Regional Medical Center, later renamed ShorePoint Health Venice.

Total Bill: $1,170, the patient’s responsibility for shoulder replacement services, after adjustments and payments of $13,210.21 by a health plan with no connection to Elliott. The initial charges were $123,854.14.

What Gives: This is a case of mistaken identity, a billing mystery that started at a hospital registration desk and didn’t end until months after the file had been handed over to a collection agency.

Early this year, Grace E. Elliott’s mother opened a bill from ShorePoint Health Venice that was addressed to her daughter and sought more than $1,000 for recent hospital services, Elliott said. She “immediately knew something was wrong.”

Months of sleuthing eventually revealed that the bill was meant for Grace Ann Elliott, a much older woman who underwent a shoulder replacement procedure and rehabilitation services at the Venice hospital last year.

Experts said that accessing the wrong patient’s file because of a name mix-up is a common error — but one for which safeguards, like checking a patient’s photo identification, usually exist.

The hospital had treated at least two Grace Elliotts. When Grace A. Elliott showed up for her shoulder replacement, a hospital employee pulled up Grace E. Elliott’s account by mistake.

“This is the kind of thing that can definitely happen,” said Shannon Hartsfield, a Florida attorney who specializes in health care privacy violations. (Hartsfield does not represent anyone involved in this case.) “All kinds of human errors happen. A worker can pull up the names, click the wrong button, and then not check [the current patient’s] date of birth to confirm.”

It was a seemingly obvious error: The younger Elliott was billed for a procedure she didn’t have by a hospital she had not visited in years. But it took her nearly a year of hours-long phone calls to undo the damage.

At first, worried that she had been the victim of identity theft, Grace E. Elliott contacted ShorePoint Health Venice and was bounced from one department to another. At one point, a billing employee disclosed to Elliott the birthdate the hospital had on file for the patient who had the shoulder replacement — it was not hers. Elliott then sent the hospital a copy of her ID.

It took weeks for an administrator at ShorePoint’s corporate office in Florida to admit the hospital’s error and promise to correct it.

In August, though, Grace E. Elliott received a notice that the corporate office had sold the debt to a collection agency called Medical Data Systems. Even though the hospital had acknowledged its error, the agency was coming after Grace E. Elliott for the balance due for Grace A. Elliott’s shoulder surgery.

“I thought, ‘Well, I’ll just work with them directly,'” Grace E. Elliott said.

Her appeal was denied. Medical Data Systems said in its denial letter that it had contacted the hospital and confirmed the name and address on file. The agency also included a copy of Grace A. Elliott’s expired driver license to Grace E. — along with several pages of the older woman’s medical information — in support of its conclusion.

“A collection agency, as a business associate of a hospital, has an obligation to ensure that the wrong patient’s information is not shared,” Hartsfield said.

In an email to KHN, Cheryl Spanier, a vice president of the collection agency, wrote that “MDS follows all state and federal rules and regulations.” Spanier declined to comment on Elliott’s case, saying she needed the written consent of both the health system and the patient to do so.

Elliott’s second appeal was also denied. She was told to contact the hospital to clear up the issue. But because the health system had long since sold the debt, Elliott said, she got no traction in trying to get ShorePoint Health Venice to help her. The hospital closed in September.

Resolution: In mid-November, shortly after a reporter contacted ShorePoint Health, which operates other hospitals and facilities in Florida, Grace E. Elliott received a call from Stanley Padfield, the Venice hospital’s outgoing privacy officer and director of health information management. “He said, ‘It’s taken care of,'” Elliott said, adding that she was relieved but skeptical. “I’ve heard that over and over.”

Elliott said Padfield told her that she had become listed as Grace A. Elliott’s guarantor, meaning she was legally responsible for the debt of a woman she had never met.

Elliott soon received a letter from Padfield stating that ShorePoint Health had removed her information from Grace A. Elliott’s account and confirmed that she had not been reported to any credit agencies. The letter said her information had been removed from the collection agency’s database and acknowledged that the hospital’s fix initially “was not appropriately communicated” to collections.

Padfield said the error started with a “registration clerk,” who he said had “received additional privacy education as a result of this incident.”

Devyn Brazelton, marketing coordinator for ShorePoint Health, told KHN the hospital believes the error was “an isolated incident.”

Using the date of birth provided by a hospital worker, Elliott was able to contact Grace A. Elliott and explain the mix-up.

“I’m a little upset right now,” Grace A. Elliott told KHN on the day she learned about the billing error and disclosure of her medical information.

The Takeaway: Grace E. Elliott said that when she asked Padfield, the Venice hospital’s outgoing privacy officer, whether she could have done something to fight such an obvious case of mistaken identity, he replied, “Probably not.”

This, experts said, is the dark secret of identity issues: Once a mistake has been entered into a database, it can be remarkably difficult to fix. And such incorrect information can live for generations.

For patients, that means it’s crucial to review the information on patient portals — the online medical profiles many providers use to manage things like scheduling appointments, organizing medical records, and answering patient questions.

One downside of electronic medical records is that errors spread easily and repeat frequently. It is important to challenge and correct errors in medical records early and forcefully, with every bit of documentation available. That is true whether the problem is an incorrect name, a medication no longer (or never) taken, or an inaccurate diagnosis.

The process of amending a record can be “very involved,” Hartsfield said. “But with patients able now to see more and more of their medical records, they are going to want those amendments, and health systems and their related entities need to get prepared for that.”

Grace A. Elliott told KHN that she had received a call from ShorePoint Health in the previous few months indicating that she owed money for her shoulder replacement.

She asked for a copy of the bill, she told KHN. Months after she asked, it still hadn’t arrived.


Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KHN and NPR that dissects and explains medical bills. Do you have an interesting medical bill you want to share with us? Tell us about it!

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

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

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

 

Zelenskyy visit exposes a GOP rift — between actual fascists and everyone else

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is widely popular, both in the U.S. and around the world. You’d have to be the most churlish asshole alive not to feel moved by his resolve to protect his nation’s sovereignty against the egomanaical supervillain impulses of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been waging an unprovoked war against Ukraine for nearly a year. Zelenskyy’s Wednesday night speech before a joint session of Congress wasn’t just moving. It was also persuasive on the brass tacks arguments. Military aid to Ukraine is “not charity,” he argued, but “an investment in global security and democracy.” 

As Fred Kaplan at Slate argued, the speech “was a resounding success” that circumvented Republicans who previously had made noises about cutting aid to Ukraine. The Senate approved $44.9 billion in military, humanitarian and economic aid to Ukraine on Thursday afternoon, as part of a $1.7 trillion government spending bill that passed 68-29, and is expected to pass the House as well. 

Zelenskyy’s argument that Ukraine’s victory is necessary to protect global democracy is hard to argue against. Especially in recent years, Putin has not hidden his contempt for Western-style democracy or desire to see it collapse around the globe. Even with all the caveats and nuances one could possibly inject into this, the “bad guys” and “good guys” are crystal clear in this scenario. 

Except, that is, to some Republicans in Congress and a number right-wing pundits. That world is not just anti-Zelenskyy, but imbued with such vicious sentiments that even the most jaded political watchers were shocked. This isn’t just about arguments over whether aid to Ukraine is being well spent, or about whether Ukraine is strategically crucial to U.S. interests. This was about full-on vitriol, to the point where even Republicans who are open to cutting aid to Ukraine were made uncomfortable. 


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


There’s one major reason things got so ugly so fast. The debate over Ukraine, at least among Republicans, is a stand-in for the largely unspoken but very real debate that’s roiling the party: Do they still believe in democracy? A faction in the GOP has decided that they don’t, and now supports authoritarianism, or the F-word. Many other Republicans feel uneasy about this direction, but don’t seem able to stand up to the fascist faction.

If that sounds hyperbolic, you should hear some of the things the fascist faction had to say about Zelenskyy, who may have his flaws, but has captured the world’s attention with his undoubted sincerity in fighting to save his embattled country from Russian conquest and occupation.

Right after Zelenskyy’s speech to Congress, Tucker Carlson of Fox News described him as a “Ukrainian strip club manager” and falsely said that Ukraine had been the aggressor, portraying Putin as the victim of a Ukrainian plot to “topple the Russian government.” He also echoed the antisemitic talking points the Russian government has deployed against Zelenskyy, who is Jewish, by accusing him of waging “ongoing war against Christianity.” (The decree in question targets groups for pro-Russian sentiment, not for religious belief. That may well be a legitimate free speech issue, but it’s not a religious freedom issue.) 

Jesse Watters of Fox News also rolled out the Russia-as-victim line, saying that Zelenskyy was “charming, but he’s a killer” motivated by “vengeance.”

Turning Points USA founder Charlie Kirk called Zelenskyy an “uppity foreigner” and an “international welfare queen.” Over the weekend, his group had a conference where the keynote speaker on Sunday, defeated Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, bragged that she was “a proud election-denying deplorable.” Donald Trump Jr., unoriginal thinker to the end, also used the “international welfare queen” slur. 

Most Americans support Ukraine, with 65% agreeing that the U.S. should send arms to Ukraine and 75% supporting sanctions against Russia, even as those have driven up oil prices around the world. This onslaught of pro-Putin propaganda on the right has softened conservative support for Ukraine, but even so 55% of Republican voters are in favor of military aid. 


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


This tension between America’s overwhelming pro-Ukraine sentiment and the far right’s caustic hatred was reflected in the behavior of congressional Republicans at Zelenskyy’s speech Wednesday night. Most Republicans, even those who have expressed doubt about more funding, at least showed moral support for Zelenskyy, standing to applaud his speech and telling reporters they believe in his cause.

But a few notable Republican members made a big show out of spurning Zelenskyy, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who called him the “shadow president,” eyebrow-raising talk from a woman who has repeatedly dabbled in antisemitic conspiracy theories. Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Lauren Boebert of Colorado made a big show both of refusing a security screening and of staring at their phones instead of listening to Zelenskyy’s speech. Sen Josh Hawley of Missouri, like Greene, refused even to show up. 

It’s not surprising that the Republicans who opposed Zelenskyy happen to be among the biggest apologists for the Jan. 6 insurrection and the Trump movement’s other assaults on democracy. Whatever hand-waving excuses are being employed, it’s obvious that their loathing for Ukraine and its president is ideological, rooted in the same distaste for democracy that led Putin to invade  in the first place. That also helps explain why they don’t seem worried about taking an unpopular stand against an embattled nation the whole world has embraced. Opposing democracy, after all, is about the desire to enact and enforce your political will, regardless of public opinion.

Most Republican politicians didn’t act like jerks while Zelenskyy was speaking, but they’re making noises about how he needs “accountability” and “scrutiny” if he wants more money. Or, in the case of the presumptive House speaker, Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, they say that Ukraine doesn’t deserve a “blank check,” which, of course, it has never been offered. Those objections may sound reasonable at first, but they fall apart if you actually devote some thought to them. Since when have any Republicans supported constraints on military spending? Every single GOP member who suddenly wants to talk about fiscal responsibility wanted to continue the pointless, expensive and unwinnable war in Afghanistan. 

No, the “skepticism” about Ukraine isn’t about money or military strategy. All this is in line with McCarthy’s vote to overturn the 2020 election, his efforts to sabotage the Jan. 6 committee and his promise to fund “investigations” into how the Capitol insurrectionists wound up in prison. There are clearly real tensions between the Republicans who actively want to dismantle democracy and those who are less eager to blow up America’s entire political system. Still, the way this Ukraine debate is playing out makes clear that the fascists have the upper hand. Under more normal political circumstances, support for Ukraine would be a no-brainer for Republicans: They can position themselves as “pro-democracy” while doing little or nothing to support it at home, plus directing all that military spending into the pockets of some of their biggest donors. The current reluctance is entirely about a desire to placate the fascist faction. McCarthy and other GOP leaders know all too well those people can destroy them, and in many cases are begging for an excuse to do so. 

One could quibble over whether supporting Ukraine and believing in democracy are the same thing, although Putin’s behavior tends to override any effort at nuanced debate. But within Republican ranks, there’s no doubt that the issue of Ukraine’s independence and self-determination has become is a proxy for the party’s internal debate over American democracy. Even the most stalwart authoritarians in the GOP know better than to come right out and say they’re against democracy and it’s time to do away with it. So they gaslight the nation instead, clumsily repackaging Donald Trump’s desire to be installed as a dictator as a narrative about a “stolen” or “rigged” election, and concerted efforts to undermine democracy as measures to ensure “election security.” Rooting against Ukraine is a way to advance the anti-democracy agenda, without quite openly embracing it.

Ironically, all the Republican game-playing on Ukraine only ends up reinforcing the argument Zelenskyy made in his speech on Wednesday: Protecting his country against Russian tyranny is ultimately about protecting democracy. Whatever criticisms could be made of his leadership or his imperfect nation, Zelenskyy’s biggest opponents in Congress hate him because they hate democracy. 

Why Trump will lose in 2024: He’s committed the cardinal sin of reality TV — he’s boring

We’ve all been there. We dive into a much-anticipated first season of a new series and find ourselves intrigued and entertained. Then it’s season two, which fumbles a bit, but remains watchable. By season three it is utterly boring, maybe even cringey, and before we get through all of the episodes we’ve jumped ahead to something else.

This is what is happening to the Trump show. Weeks after the twice-impeached former president announced his decision to run again in 2024, hardly anyone is watching, and those that do are disappointed.

It is such a sea change to consider Trump as a boring has-been, offering nothing more than reruns of himself, but that is exactly what is happening. He may have had an iron grip on the political right and the mainstream media back in 2016, but now that grip has turned into nothing more than a pathetic, tiny-handed, attention-seeking wave.

Wait, you may be thinking. Didn’t the Jan. 6 committee just announce four criminal referrals against Trump to the Justice Department? That’s a pretty big story, right?

The answer is yes, it is a big story for our democracy and possibly a big story for Trump’s future as a free man, but it actually isn’t much of a plot shift in the story of Trump. He has literally spent his entire political career (and business career too) running from the law and facing ongoing threats of prosecution. Does the name Mueller ring a bell? Just Security runs a litigation tracker for Trump, covering what they describe as “a bevy of lawsuits and investigations.” Ever since he launched his 2016 campaign (and well before), Trump has pretty much constantly been under legal pressure. So for him to come under fire for breaking the law isn’t some startling new development. It is his constant status quo.

News coverage of the criminal referrals has been predictable as well, with Fox News claiming that the decision is nothing more than political theater.

The point is that Trump may still top the headlines on any given day, but the way he does it has changed. Now he is alternately a loser, a criminal, a joke or a has-been. What he isn’t is politically powerful. Those days are over. Even Ann Coulter has remarked that after three losing election cycles, “he is so done.”

Consider the following facts:

  1. Trump-backed candidates largely tanked in the 2022 midterms, leading a number of high-ranking Republicans to blame Trump;
  2. Most of those losing candidates quickly conceded, a move that upends Trump’s claim that the only way the MAGA right loses is when elections are rigged;
  3. Rupert Murdoch, long a lapdog to Trumpian antics, announced that his conservative media empire was over Trump and would no longer be offering constant free media for the “has been”;
  4. When Trump announced his decision to run in 2024, cameras actually looked awaysomething they never did during his 2016 campaign, even when all they were showing was an empty podium. This time around MSNBC didn’t air the speech at all, while both Fox News and CNN cut away;
  5. Even Trump supporters present at the 2024 announcement were so bored by Trump’s “low energy” speech that they wanted out of the room, but security wouldn’t let them go;
  6. Since he announced his candidacy, Trump has continued to lose support, dropping in the latest polling of potential Republican voters to 23 points behind Florida Gov. Ron DeSantisA CNN poll revealed that 62 percent of Republicans wanted their party to nominate someone else in 2024.

The critical development to note is that Trump is more than just a loser, which he has been since he started his political career. He lost the popular vote in 2016. He lost the election in 2020. His hand-picked candidates almost all lost in 2022. But now Trump is a boring loser and that’s why his political career shows all signs of being like a third-season Netflix series on the slippery slope to cancellation.

If you’ve missed seeing these signs, that’s because folks have overlooked the fact that Trump was and always will be a media-created president.  I don’t just mean he’s a politician who gets media attention. I mean that he’s nothing more than a TV actor playing a president in a reality series.


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


Think about it. From Day One the main reason Trump catapulted upward in the 2016 race was because he knew how to manipulate his media coverage, control the narrative and mesmerize his audience. In those early days it totally worked.

Building off years on one of the most well-known and successful reality TV franchises, “The Apprentice,” which Trump hosted on NBC from 2004 to 2015, he translated those skills into a media spectacle campaign. He knew from experience that the key was to keep the audience watching. Reality TV reviewer Andy Dehnart explains: “Part of what makes reality TV so compelling is its unpredictability, and not really knowing what will happen when cameras start rolling.”

Trump isn’t just a loser, which is bad enough. He’s a boring loser, which is why his political career resembles a third-season Netflix series heading for cancellation.

As Trump was spewing outrageous comments and completely transforming the traditional political campaign script, he was amassing supporters (that is, viewers) who found his style fresh and exciting. While few media commentators initially understood how Trump’s combination of unpredictability and entertainment was attracting support, John Oliver and Michael Moore both recognized that those qualities made him a formidable candidate early on. It’s worth reflecting on the fact that it was entertainers who understood the special ingredient in Trump’s 2016 campaign.

But if Trump was able to effectively mount a reality TV campaign that got him elected in real life back in 2016, he forgot that in order to have another successful season, you have to follow the rules of good television. In the case of a series, you have to find a way to keep it fresh without being totally gonzo. Instead, he’s made both mistakes: He is both boring and unconvincingly over-the-top.

Today Trump is literally breaking every rule required to keep a show going into multiple seasons.

1.   His drama is manufactured and unconvincing.

When Trump first ran, his schtick was fresh, even if it was repulsive. Trump created an interesting persona who embodied both an unconventional politician and an unpredictable swashbuckler.

But now, after hearing him ramble on about the same things endlessly, the story seems forced. There are various parts of the Trump story that lack convincing drama, but the most obvious one is his ongoing insistence that the 2020 election was stolen. While it started off strong, that story is getting boring and losing viewers every day. Every poll tracking support for the “Big Lie” shows a marked drop in adherents. For example, not long after the election as many as 70 percent of Republicans thought Joe Biden’s win in 2020 was illegitimate. Today that number is much closer to 30 percent.

Think of this in reality TV terms: If you lose more than half of your viewers, you’d expect to be canceled.

2.   The hero isn’t changing

When Trump ran in 2016, he ran as an outsider. In TV terms that means the protagonist has a core challenge, a fight to win. But then he won.

For a hero who overcomes their central challenge to remain interesting, they need to face a brand new one in season two. While his election-denial narrative arguably sustained Trump’s character through the second season — at least for his core fans — it has gone totally stale now. Moreover, in order for a hero to remain interesting, his or her character has to develop. Trump’s stagnated, toxic baby-man identity has undergone no development of any kind. Eventually that type of character is just not worth watching.

Even worse, Trump designed a TV identity that is incongruous. Is he a winner or a victim? An insider or an outsider? A seasoned success or an upstart? The hero or the villain? Trump, himself doesn’t seem clear on any of that. Either way, these types of inconsistencies eventually destroy the watchability of a hero character.

To top it off, even venues that used to take him seriously think he is nothing more than a joke. After his 2024 announcement, the Murdoch-owned New York Post buried a story on Trump’s announcement and teased it on its front page with the headline “Florida Man Makes Announcement.” 

3.   His first season was so high-concept that it left no room for development.

As Dehnart explains, one of the challenges of reality TV is that what hooks the audience at first can be hard to maintain. “The struggle comes when a high-concept premise collides with the need to expand a series into something that can repeat itself over and over.”

Trump was a high-concept reality TV candidate from the start, more limited-series material than fodder for endless seasons.

Dating back to his birtherism phase when he regularly pulled media stunts designed to discredit Barack Obama and elevate his brand, everything Trump did was big. But that’s the problem. You can’t keep that sort of momentum or grand spectacle going indefinitely.

This is why, finally, news media ratings started dropping with the past midterm cycle. Only 22.2 million viewers watched primetime media coverage of the 2022 midterm elections, down 32 percent from 2018 midterm viewership.

Even with a full slate of Trump-supported colorful characters in the race, people just didn’t care enough to watch the show.  They tuned out, even when a number of critical races still hadn’t even been called.

4.   The story lacks an interesting conflict.

Dehnart explains that reality TV depends on unpredictability and the sense that the conflict isn’t manufactured. He further points out that “trying to prevent a boring season” may well lead “to a boring season.”

That may help explain what went wrong with Trump’s 2024 announcement. It was designed to keep viewers tuned in, but it was too staged, too contrived and too forced. Sarah Matthews, a former Trump White House spokesperson, tweeted during the event, “This is one of the most low-energy, uninspiring speeches I’ve ever heard from Trump.”

Matthews, though, was also watching the audience and seeing that they were totally glazed over. “Even the crowd seems bored,” she went on. “Not exactly what you want when announcing a presidential run.” If the select group brought in to witness you announce a campaign is rolling their eyes, checking their phones and heading for the door, you have a problem.

For the story to be compelling it needs a good conflict. But there isn’t anything interesting here. It’s all been said and it isn’t going anywhere. And while Thomas E. Patterson suggests that Trump “is still newsworthy,” the conflict at the center of his story has just become repetitive and pathetic.

Trump’s stagnant, toxic baby-man character has shown no development of any kind. Eventually, that kind of character just isn’t worth watching anymore.

In fact, instead of Trump being able to control the story, media coverage is now making his downfall the story.  Even National Review, house organ of conservative politics, underscored that the spectacle of Trump had grown passé. In an editorial titled “No,” the editors emphasized that the repetitive, predictable and grotesque story of Trump no longer held any fascination. “To paraphrase Voltaire after he attended an orgy,” they wrote, “once was an experiment, twice would be perverse.” The editorial described Trump as “bruised,” and encouraged readers (and by implication, Republican voters) to move on to another show.

5.   He is desperate for attention.

Trump’s 2024 announcement felt like what happens when your awkward date texts you that they want to see you again before you even make it home. His candidates had lost, he was amassing legal troubles and he was losing the support of political leaders. Rather than backing off, taking stock and regrouping, he cried out for attention.

When he didn’t get the attention he wanted, he got even more desperate, performing the equivalent of blowing up the phones of his supporters to see if he could generate a response.

He started with a signature move that has worked many times before, suggesting on Truth Social that he would soon make a “MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT.”

But the next day that went badly off the rails, as Trump explained that his major announcement was the release of a set of collectible digital trading cards featuring poorly designed cartoonish images of himself. “My official Donald Trump Digital Trading Card collection is here!” Trump wrote. “These limited edition cards feature amazing ART of my Life & Career!” As Chauncey DeVega reports, the Trump NFTs, which feature Trump’s face on the bodies of figures like astronauts, fighter pilots and cowboys, are “worthless crap.” Even better, they cost $99 a piece and are in no way a “limited edition.” 

Underscoring my claim that the story of Trump is now the story of a needy, desperate loser who refuses to move on, scores of social media users, including many of his own supporters, responded to the “major announcement” by blasting him for an obvious attention-seeking scam. One tweet asked, “How pathetic do you have to be to sell nfts of yourself photoshopped into various professions that you could never even dream of having?”

And there’s the rub. Unlike when Trump hosted a reality show on NBC, there’s no network president to cancel him. His media coverage will wane, his followers will dwindle and his story will get even more predictable and boring. The worse it gets, the more frantic he will be for attention. It’s going to make for some pretty ugly TV, that with every boring and pathetic new episode will draw fewer and fewer viewers.

Climbing trees helped our ancestors evolve to walk on two legs rather than four, study suggests

When a toddler takes its first steps, it’s a formative experience for both parent and child. Walking upright is an inherent part of being human. And for centuries, scientists have been asking how primates, including us, evolved this ability,

It’s a much bigger question than it seems. Most animals, including most mammals, are quadrupeds (or greater — many arthropods and insects have six or more legs). We, and a few other primates, are bipedal — meaning we walk on two feet rather than four. Understanding why we took on this trait can tell us more about how humans evolved, including our brain development. Because bipedalism allows for greater conservation of energy, not to mention freeing up our arms to carry tools, some anthropologists believe this behavior contributed to our brain size.

One of the prevailing theories on how humans evolved bipedalism has to do with climate change. Only this time we’re not talking about anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change. Between 2.5 and 10 million years ago, the plains of Africa, the continent where humans first originated, were most likely forests.

But something happened that turned these jungles into vast grassy woodlands, or the African savanna we know today. One intriguing theory is that millions of years ago, an exploding star light-years away pummeled Earth with cosmic radiation in the form of X-rays, gamma rays and ultraviolet rays. This would have stirred up intense lightning storms that caused massive wildfires. Over and over, as the forests thinned out, it drove our evolution. The benefits of bipedalism were twofold: the ability to move more quickly between trees (where it’s more safe) and increased capacity to see over tall grasses, to avoid predators.

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to test this theory, because all of this happened so long ago. But a new paper in the journal Science Advances argues this theory might be wrong, based on observations of chimpanzee behavior. Instead, humans most likely learned to walk upright while still in the trees.

Researchers from the University College London, University of Kent, and Duke University spent hours studying the behavior of wild eastern chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) in the Issa Valley of western Tanzania, a country on the East Coast of Africa. This region is considered a “savanna-mosaic” because the landscape is a patchwork of dry, open land with few trees and occasional clumps of dense forest. This habitat is considered very similar to the ecosystems our earliest human ancestors came about.

Chimps exhibited bipedalism less than one percent of the time. But more than 80 percent of these occurrences took place in the trees. This suggests that bipedal behavior could have been more likely to evolve in forests.

“We naturally assumed that because Issa has fewer trees than typical tropical forests, where most chimpanzees live, we would see individuals more often on the ground than in the trees,” Dr. Alex Piel, one of the study authors and an associate professor at UCL’s department of anthropology, said in a statement. “Moreover, because so many of the traditional drivers of bipedalism (such as carrying objects or seeing over tall grass, for example) are associated with being on the ground, we thought we’d naturally see more bipedalism here as well. However, this is not what we found.”

“Our study suggests that the retreat of forests in the late Miocene-Pliocene era around five million years ago and the more open savanna habitats were in fact not a catalyst for the evolution of bipedalism,” Piel added. “Instead, trees probably remained essential to its evolution – with the search for food-producing trees a likely a driver of this trait.”

Over 15 months, the researchers cataloged more than 13,700 instances of 13 adult chimpanzees (seven males and six females) moving around, as well as whether they were moving through trees or on the ground. Then, they compared this to instances of bipedalism. Typically, chimpanzees walk around on all fours, a behavior called “knuckle walking.” But chimps also practice bipedalism, just not as often.


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


In this study, the chimps exhibited bipedalism less than one percent of the time. But more than 80 percent of these occurrences took place in the trees. This suggests that bipedal behavior could have been more likely to evolve in forests than savanna.

“Unfortunately, the traditional idea of fewer trees equals more terrestriality (land dwelling) just isn’t borne out with the Issa data,” Dr. Fiona Stewart, another study author and research fellow at UCL, said in the same statement. “What we need to focus on now is how and why these chimpanzees spend so much time in the trees — and that is what we’ll focus on next on our way to piecing together this complex evolutionary puzzle.”

Of course, chimpanzees are not humans. We did not evolve from them and they did not evolve from us. However, we did share a common ancestor many millions of years ago, and we are still pretty similar genetically. But at some point, our evolutionary trees branched off. So perhaps the conclusions we can draw from this data are limited. Nonetheless, when it comes to bipedalism, this research suggests we should reconsider where this important trait originated.

Porn, piracy, fraud: What lurks inside Google’s black box ad empire

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

 

In late 2021, the right-wing site Conservative Beaver published a story falsely claiming the FBI had arrested Pfizer’s CEO for fraud.

It wasn’t Conservative Beaver’s first brush with fabricated news. The site had falsely claimed Barack Obama was arrested for espionage, Pope Francis was arrested for possession of child pornography and “human trafficking,” and the Pfizer CEO’s wife died after being compelled to take a COVID-19 vaccine. As Conservative Beaver pumped out these and other lies, Google placed ads on the site and split the revenue with its then-anonymous owner.

Its owner was eventually identified as a Canadian man, Mark Slapinski, after Pfizer threatened to sue him for defamation, and Google removed ads from the site in November of last year due to public pressure. Soon, Conservative Beaver went offline.

But today, roughly a year later, Slapinski is still making money from Google ads.

He runs the conservative political site Toronto 99 and uses the same Google publisher account he had for Conservative Beaver to collect ad revenue. Google simply allowed Slapinski to start a new site and keep earning money. It’s the equivalent of taking away an unsafe driver’s car instead of their license.

In the nearly half-trillion-dollar digital ad industry, Google sets the rules of the road. More than any other company, Google determines the online ads we see, what they cost and who gets paid for them. It runs the biggest search ad business and provides the industry’s leading tools for buying, selling and displaying ads.

And if you have a website and want to earn money from digital ads, you can join the Display Network, where Google places ads on what it has publicly said are more than 2 million websites and an untold number of mobile apps. It’s the modern equivalent of a national network of billboards on nearly every highway being controlled by a single company — and reportedly generated $31 billion in revenue for Google last year.

But if you’re Slapinski, Google’s Display Network has another benefit besides its market share: its secrecy. Google is the only major ad platform that hides the vast majority of its ad-selling partners. This means Google does not disclose all the websites and apps where it places ads or the people and companies behind them. The company conceals this information even after helping establish and publicly supporting an industry transparency standard for disclosing such sellers, which its competitors have largely adopted.

In response to questions, Slapinski denied running Conservative Beaver. “That’s fake news!” he wrote in a Facebook message, despite the large body of evidence he was behind the site. He acknowledged operating Toronto 99, but declined to explain why that site uses the same Google publisher account as Conservative Beaver. He did not respond to questions about Google ads and said he does not publish disinformation.

“I don’t publish fake news,” he said. “I follow strict editorial standards.”

Google’s embrace of publisher confidentiality means roughly 1 million publishers can remain anonymous to companies and individuals who buy ads on its network to reach customers. This opens the door to a range of abuses and schemes that steal potentially billions of dollars a year and put lives and livelihoods at risk due to dangerous disinformation, fraud and scams.

Google’s ad business helps fund dangerous disinformation that puts public health and democracy at risk around the world, earns money from millions of gun ads while publicly claiming to block them, and allowed a sanctioned Russian ad tech company to harvest data on potentially millions of people, including possibly those in Ukraine, putting their security and privacy at risk.

It all makes the Display Network one of the world’s most lucrative black boxes. Ads are placed where they shouldn’t be. Money flows to someone other than the intended website or app owner. Publishers of banned sites can easily keep collecting ads and revenue from unsuspecting brands. But because of Google’s allegedly monopolistic dominance of the digital ad industry, companies ranging from mom and pop shops to the biggest brands in the world keep shoveling money into it, hoping for the best.

Google spokesperson Michael Aciman said the company uses a combination of human oversight, automation and self-serve tools to protect ad buyers and said publisher confidentiality is not associated with abuse or low quality.

“We want to see more publishers embrace greater transparency, and we conduct regular outreach to our partners to explain the benefits of opting out of confidentiality,” he said. “We do see a lag in consent among small-scale publishers, which may be because they are unaware of this option, or because their account includes personal information and they have legitimate privacy concerns.”

Aciman said the vast majority of ad revenue from Google’s systems goes to publishers who do not keep their information confidential.

ProPublica spent months trying to crack open Google’s black box ad business. We wrote thousands of lines of code to scan more than 7 million website domains looking for Google ad activity, sourced and analyzed data on millions more domains from half a dozen data partners, and spoke to some of the most knowledgeable experts about Google’s display ad business.

In the end, we matched 70% of the accounts in Google’s ad sellers list to one or more domains or apps, more than any dataset ProPublica is aware of. But we couldn’t find all of Google’s publisher partners. What we did find was a system so large, secretive and bafflingly complex that it proved impossible to uncover everyone Google works with and where it’s sending advertisers’ money.

Alongside reputable publishers and popular games and online tools, we uncovered scores of previously unreported peddlers of pirated content, porn and fake audiences that take advantage of Google’s lax oversight to rake in revenue.

In one example, a Bulgarian company helped scores of piracy sites with close to 1 billion monthly visitors earn money from Google ads. Most alarming, Google knew from its own data that these sites were engaging in mass copyright theft, yet it allowed the sites to receive ads and money from major brands such as Nike and HSBC Bank right up until we contacted Google.

As for what else lurks in the black box, only Google knows.

Most Google Sellers Are Confidential

Each time someone visits Toronto 99, the site sends digital requests to Google asking it to place ads on the page. Each of those requests contains this series of numbers and letters: pub-5958167306013620.

It’s a unique ID that identifies Slapinksi’s Google publisher account, much like how your Social Security number identifies you to the government. Google issued Slapinski the account ID when it accepted him as a publisher in the Google Display Network, greenlighting sites he launched to receive ads. The same ID was used by Conservative Beaver.

Google has issued millions of account IDs in the more than 200 countries where its Display Network is active. Anyone operating a website or app in those countries can apply to join.

Once a publisher has an ID, they can add it to new sites and apps that they operate, as Slapinski apparently did. Google also allows publishers to register for more than one ID. The result is an ad network with millions of constantly shifting publishers, sites, apps and IDs.

To help ad buyers navigate this murky ecosystem, ad networks are supposed to disclose a list of the publisher accounts they work with. For Google, this list — which is called a sellers.json file or sellers list — should contain all the websites and apps Google has authorized to earn money in its Display Network, from big publishers like The New York Times to small bloggers. When done correctly, the list should allow advertisers to match Slapinski and the ID pub-5958167306013620 to Toronto 99 and block the site if they wish.

Google itself helped create this concept three years ago and publicly champions it and related standards, saying they “provide advertisers with a greater visibility into the overall supply chain, which can help them inform future buying decisions.”

But among the roughly 1.3 million IDs in Google’s sellers list, over 75% are marked “confidential” and contain only the ID, including Slapinki’s. It’s the default setting in Google’s system. ProPublica’s Google ID was also marked confidential but is being changed to disclose the organization name and affiliated domains.

As of this fall, only 23% of Google’s records listed a person or company name, and just 11% also included the domain of their organization. Google’s competitors almost always publicly list all account IDs alongside such information as the name of a person or company connected to it and the associated domain or domains.

On their own, a list of these IDs provides no useful information — it’s like wiping the names from your phone’s contact list, leaving just the numbers.

The upshot is that the largest ad network in the world won’t reveal the identities of the vast majority of its publisher partners. The risks go beyond a lone disinformation peddler like Slapinski. Legislators, including Sen. Mark Warner, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have warned that the opaque and fraud-ridden digital ad ecosystem led by Google poses a national security risk. Each layer of confidentiality further obscures where money and consumer data flows in the digital ad industry, undermining trust and exacerbating risks.

“The lack of transparency and regulation in the digital advertising space is an issue that I have been concerned about for many years,” Warner said in a statement to ProPublica. “Unfortunately, the industry hasn’t improved its practices since I first raised concerns back in 2017, as advertisers consistently appear to lack meaningful control over the types of content that is seen alongside their ads and are oftentimes completely unaware of where their advertisements are being displayed.”

Last year, Warner and a bipartisan group of senators expressed alarm that Google and other companies share data about Americans with undisclosed foreign partners as part of the ad buying and selling process, and that billions of dollars flow through Google to unknown parties around the world.

After the U.S. sanctioned several Russian websites following the invasion of Ukraine, ad tech researcher Krzysztof Franaszek showed that two months later, Google continued to allow many of them to earn money from ads. He also revealed the company placed ads on other sanctioned Russian, Iranian and Syrian sites for years. Critically, nearly 90% of the sanctioned sites earning money from Google ads contained no identifying information in Google’s master ad sellers list, according to Franaszek. Like Slapinski, their accounts were confidential, listing nothing more than a Google account ID.

Aciman said Google works to comply with all relevant sanctions and emphasized that publisher confidentiality should not be seen as nefarious.

“By no means does confidentiality indicate that a publisher is engaging in fraud or other nefarious activity,” he said. “The vast majority of our publishers, including those who are listed as confidential in their sellers.json, are well intentioned, policy compliant, and contribute to the overall vibrancy of our network.”

But industry experts and critics say there’s no way to prove that without Google meeting the same standard as its competitors.

“Google has manufactured a uniquely explosive situation: sending billions of ad dollars everyday to unknown individuals around the world. It is effectively one of the largest dark money transfers in the world — and it’s funded by all our ad campaigns,” wrote Nandini Jammi and Claire Atkin of the Check My Ads Institute, an ad industry watchdog, in a recent article.

They called upon Google to release a full deanonymized sellers file.

Google’s actions thus far suggest major changes are unlikely to happen quickly. The company waited a year after other ad networks began publishing their sellers files to release its own, overwhelmingly anonymous version in 2020. Following pushback, the company offered excuses, including having to update help center documentation, conduct training and contact all the account owners. The company also said there could be privacy and security risks to requiring all of its publisher partners to disclose the individual or company associated with an ID. It said things would improve.

Two years later, Google has increased the total number of fully public entries in its sellers file from 5% to 11% — still by far the worst in the industry. Google’s file also carries a notice not seen in its competitors’: “This file is a beta and is unverified.”

Google declined to comment on the notice. Aciman said publisher transparency is a “critical” part of the ad ecosystem, and pointed to a Google Help Center article that encourages publishers to make their information transparent.

“Google has a unique publisher base and we want to ensure we’re balancing both industry transparency and publisher confidentiality and choice,” he said.

But as of today, new publishers signing up with Google’s ad network are still confidential by default.

So we attempted to do what Google would not: connect the company’s list of more than 1 million account IDs to the actual sites and apps where ads appear. We were able to match almost 900,000, or 70%, of the accounts in Google’s file to one or more domains or apps and found over 5 million sites that are or were associated with Google publisher accounts. But over 380,000 account IDs remain ghosts, perhaps never used by the entity that registered them or used in a way our data couldn’t capture, perhaps active on a mobile app or site outside of the roughly 300 million available to us in our data and that of our partners.

Some accounts were associated with hundreds of sites, some moved from site to site like a game of whack-a-mole, some were seen on sites before or after being publicly listed in Google’s sellers file. And thousands of accounts are added and removed to the file every week, rendering a given week’s list of publishing partners almost immediately obsolete. This effectively prevents ad buyers from having a basic understanding of the sites and apps where their ads could appear, and who they fund as a result.

Google’s reasons for not disclosing its publisher partners are “rubbish,” according to Ruben Schreurs, the chief product officer of Ebiquity, a media research company that has worked with such brands as L’Oréal, Sony, Nestlé, and Audi. He said it’s in Google’s business interest to keep ad buyers in the dark, because the Display Network is filled with sites and apps most advertisers would not want to do business with.

“They have so many obviously nefarious or even sanctioned partners that use Google’s technology,” Schreurs said.

Porn and “Crap”

Our effort to deanonymize Google’s vast network of publishers revealed a bewildering array of sites and apps. There are news and sports sites in many languages, food blogs, utility sites such as spell-checkers and percentage calculators, and gaming sites. There are sources of disinformation, such as OANN and many others around the world, and the fetish site WikiFeet, which features photos of women’s feet, often without their permission.

In spite of a policy banning sexually explicit content, we found Google placing ads on adult sites like Sexlexikon.net, iSexyChat and Female Prison Pals. On the last of these, Google showed ads to us when we visited pages with photos of female inmates in the United States accompanied by their responses to a questionnaire with prompts such as their favorite sexual position and the age at which they lost their virginity.

Since Google doesn’t release a list of the sites and apps where it places ads, ad buyers ranging from major brands like Nike to small local businesses can’t exclude all of the unsuitable publishers in Google’s network. They can preemptively block problematic sites and apps they know about, but then they must await reports from Google about where their ads were placed.

Even then, Google keeps customers partially in the dark. In most campaigns, the company conceals a percentage of ad placements. This means Google does not reveal all the sites and apps that received the ads and associated revenue. Call it the black hole in Google’s black box.

In an example revealed by watchdog group Check My Ads in May, 10% of all the ads in a million-dollar campaign run via Google were listed as “anonymous” in the report generated for the advertiser. Roughly $100,000 worth of ads were placed on sites and apps, but Google wouldn’t say which ones. (The campaign data was shared with Check My Ads on the condition it not name the brand that ran the ads.)

Schreurs analyzed $1 billion worth of ads placed for his company’s clients and found that 3.6%, or $36 million worth, went to unknown websites and apps. Google isn’t the only company that conceals a percentage of advertiser placements and spending. But the company combines the practice with other methods of obfuscation, like its largely anonymized sellers file, that thwart transparency and accountability.

Google also doesn’t allow ad buyers to block by account ID. Even if buyers know that pub-5958167306013620 is the publisher account for the owner of Conservative Beaver, they can’t direct Google to block their ads from appearing on sites or apps using that ID.

Aciman said the company is currently beta-testing a tool that allows ad buyers to block by seller ID.

“This would enable buyers to block confidential sellers by adding those sellers to their blocklist,” he said. “The tool is expected to launch for general availability in 2023. This would go beyond our existing tools that provide advertisers with robust controls that lets them decide where their ads appear.”

Schreurs said Google has a financial interest in concealing which sites and apps it works with. The company earns money by taking a cut of each ad placement — the higher the volume, the more Google makes. To maintain that volume, the company needs to work with low-quality and risky publishers, he said.

“We all know that most of Google’s inventory is crap,” he said.

Aciman disputed the quality concerns and said that most of the money flowing through Google’s ad system does not go to confidential publishers. In late 2020, a Google executive said more than 90% of revenue goes to the small percentage of partners that are publicly identified in its sellers file. Aciman said the percentage is even higher now.

If that’s true, it begs the question of why Google risks working with so many sites and apps. But the concerns about Google’s ad network go beyond the hidden identities of its publishers and sites.

Attack of the Manga Pirates

Last year, a marketer working for a Fortune 500 company launched a multimillion-dollar ad campaign.

The goal was to reach business owners in the U.S. by placing digital ads on websites and apps in Google’s Display Network. Using Google’s DV360 ad buying tool, the marketer entered details about their desired audience, uploaded a list of risky or otherwise inappropriate sites and apps to block from receiving ads and launched the campaign. The marketer said they were not authorized to share campaign data publicly, and did so on the condition that their name and that of the Fortune 500 company not be disclosed.

Over the next few months, Google placed more than 1.3 trillion of the company’s ads on over 150,000 different websites and apps. The biggest recipient of ads — more than 49 million — was a website called PapayAds. The company was registered in Bulgaria less than two years ago and lists one employee, CEO Andrea De Donatis, on LinkedIn. Its site is a single page that says it helps publishers increase their ad revenue. PapayAds has just one ad slot on its page, which is presented as a demo for prospective clients to see what banner ads look like. One of its customer testimonials comes from someone using a pseudonym.

That’s not the only time De Donatis used fake or misleading names. PapayAds is among the small percentage of Google partners that list both the name or names of people associated with the company and its domain in Google’s sellers file. At least two of PapayAds’ sellers accounts list the name of De Donatis. But the rest are registered to his girlfriend, his brother and a set of dubious names that Google and De Donatis confirmed are also not associated with the company. One account is in the name of Luca Brasi, the famed character in the first Godfather film.

It seems impossible that 49 million ads were legitimately placed and viewed on PapayAds’ site over the span of several months. In an interview with ProPublica, even De Donatis expressed skepticism. “I don’t have an explanation for this,” he said, adding that he does not recall receiving payment for such a large volume of ads.

Google declined to comment on the campaign, rendering the 50 million ads it charged a Fortune 500 company for one of many mysteries of its black box.

But the story of Google’s relationship with PapayAds goes deeper. It also includes a possibly related scheme involving online piracy, fraudulent advertising and fake online traffic. And even after discovering at least part of the operation, Google didn’t take steps to remove PapayAds or the many piracy sites it works with from the Display Network.

Here’s how the scheme worked. First, PapayAds signed up website publishers to help them earn money from ads. At least 679 websites list PapayAds as their Google Ads partner, based on our findings and data from Well-Known, a site that tracks advertising systems. This means these sites publicly declare that they use PapayAds account IDs to help receive ads and money from Google.

Nearly all of the of PapayAds client sites we examined specialize in publishing pirated versions of Japanese comics, known as manga, or Korean comics, known as manhwa. Others feature pirated Japanese animated films and shows, or pornographic manga known as hentai. Google and other ad networks ban ads from appearing on copyright infringing content. Google also bans ads from appearing on pages containing hentai.

This past summer, PapayAds used code that misled Google and ad buyers into thinking Google ads were being placed on PapayAds’ site when they in fact appeared on manga piracy sites, according to Pixalate, a digital ad fraud protection and privacy compliance company that examined PapayAds at our request.

De Donatis described this as a “test” he attempted with some manga sites, and said his company did not realize it broke Google’s rules. PapayAds is merely providing a service to clients approved by Google, he said.

“I’m just providing some IT technology,” De Donatis said. “I don’t think I did anything bad.” (His first language is Italian, but he spoke English during two phone interviews.)

Pixalate also found the operation included an element of deception to maximize profit: bots. It found that some of the web traffic on PapayAds and its manga piracy partners was automated. Bots artificially inflate the number of ads viewed on a website, thereby increasing revenue.

“I can tell you that we never used bot traffic or fake traffic,” De Donatis said.

Pixalate’s findings did not attribute the automated traffic to a particular entity. It’s possible the bot activity was connected to PapayAds’ clients or another entity.

Google detected the improper activity over the summer and withheld the associated ad revenue earned by PapayAds clients from their August and September payments, according to De Donatis. According to Google policy, that money should have been refunded to advertisers.

De Donatis didn’t say how much was withheld, but described it as a large amount relative to his and his partners’ typical earnings. (He claimed on his LinkedIn profile that PapayAds generates $400,000 in revenue per month, but removed that information after speaking with ProPublica.)

Google declined to comment on the withheld revenue and overall scheme. Speaking generally, Aciman said the company is “engaged in a comprehensive effort to detect and stop invalid traffic, which is powered by a combination of technology, operations teams, and policy.”

But what did Google do after detecting what by industry definition is an ad fraud scheme involving a set of manga piracy sites filled with stolen content? It kept placing ads on them, and kept working with PapayAds up until being contacted by ProPublica.

This occurred in spite of the fact that Google has at least two years of data showing that many manga sites working with PapayAds are serial copyright infringers.

We selected a sample of 50 manga sites from the list of more than 650 sites that publicly said they work with PapayAds to receive Google ads. Data from Google’s transparency report shows that since 2020 Google has removed 1.9 million of these manga sites’ URLs from search results due to copyright infringing content. Yet 34 of the 50 sites appeared in the Fortune 500 company ad buy under their own domains, and the full list of 50 continued to receive Google ads until very recently.

Google could see in its own data that these sites were engaging in mass piracy, and that they were working with PapayAds to receive ads and revenue. But it did not take action to kick them, or PapayAds, out of its ad system.

The 50 sites in our sample collectively received close to 750 million visits in September, according to analytics company Similarweb, and were able to make money from that traffic thanks in part to Google. We were shown ads placed by Google for major brands including Nike, Sephora and HSBC Bank when visiting manga piracy sites. The brands did not respond to requests for comment.

Jalal Nasir, the CEO of Pixalate, expressed concern that Google is directly placing ads on such obvious piracy sites.

“I’m a little surprised that Google with their big team is not able to detect this stuff happening,” he said.

Nasir also said it’s a huge red flag that PapayAds does not have a privacy policy, a requirement for any Google partner and a necessity for compliance with data protection laws. “Do they have proper due diligence in place?” he said of Google.

After speaking with ProPublica, De Donatis added a privacy policy to his site. He said he’s not responsible for the content of the sites that use his platform, and noted that nearly all of the manga sites were approved by Google to receive ads before signing on with him.

“Like 90% of them already have Google ads when they come to us,” he said.

Google also failed to take action against PapayAds and the raft of manga sites it works with after being warned about them almost two months ago. Rocky Moss, the co-founder of fraud detection company DeepSee.io, identified PapayAds as a major player helping piracy sites earn money. On Oct. 25, he emailed his contact at Google to draw their attention to the company.

“Just wanted to flag a particularly egregious pirate traffic seller,” he wrote. Moss attached an image of a concerning ad he’d seen placed on Reaper Scans, a manga piracy site working with PapayAds for which Google has received and acted on thousands of copyright infringement reports.

The advertiser in question? Google.

Moss said the tech giant’s inaction is disappointing but not surprising.

“There are good people working at Google who want to do the right thing. They just can’t get the approval to solve the problem,” he said.

After we contacted Google with our findings, the company removed all of PapayAds’ seller accounts.

“We are in the process of reviewing the specific sites shared with us by ProPublica and have already removed ads from several and have terminated the accounts associated with PapayAds,” Aciman said. “We will continue to take action as we detect any additional policy violating content.”

Nasir and Moss expressed dismay that Google failed to stop PapayAds and the piracy sites sooner. They said there are likely an untold number of companies like PapayAds operating in the Display Network.

“It’s probably a drop in the ocean of what’s happening out there,” Nasir said.

“Shadow diplomats” have posed a threat for decades — but governments looked the other way

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

The deal to pay off the treasurer of Detroit was forged in a booth at a strip club named Bouzouki.

“You’re basically paying all these other guys. … You should be paying me,” the city’s treasurer told local business owner Robert Shumake that day in 2007 during a conversation that Shumake would later recount to federal prosecutors.

Shumake, a self-described community organizer and philanthropist, agreed to make payments to several officials who ran the city’s pension funds. The money was used, among other things, to cover gambling expenses, airline tickets and a day cruise to the Bahamas.

In return, Shumake received a lucrative reward: Detroit steered millions of pension dollars to his investment company and paid him $1.2 million in fees. Prosecutors would later say it was “the worst possible deal for the pension systems.”

A series of city officials and businessmen were convicted in the sweeping scandal, but Shumake struck a deal in exchange for his testimony in 2011 and avoided prosecution.

Soon after, he landed another fortunate break. The southern African country of Botswana nominated him as an honorary consul in the United States, a diplomatic position that came with legal protections, travel benefits and political connections unavailable to most Americans.

The State Department approved the appointment, granting Shumake entry into the privileged world of international diplomacy. Honorary consuls, though not as prominent as ambassadors and other career diplomats, have for centuries worked from their home countries to represent foreign nations.

The department did not respond to questions about what steps, if any, it took to review Shumake’s background. Had officials done even a cursory internet search, they would have discovered that Shumake’s real estate broker’s license was suspended in 2002 and that he settled a bank fraud case in 2008, agreeing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Shumake was among at least 500 current and former honorary consuls in the United States and around the world who have been implicated in criminal investigations or other controversies — including scores named to their posts despite past convictions or other red flags, ProPublica and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists disclosed in a series of stories this year.

Reports of exploitation, scandal and criminal behavior by the little-known volunteer diplomats have surfaced for years. But the vast majority of governments have failed to strengthen oversight or press to reform the international law that protects thousands of honorary consuls worldwide, a new review found.

All told, the “Shadow Diplomats” investigation identified criminal or controversial consuls connected to at least 168 governments, including Russia, which has leveraged the system to install dozens of pro-Kremlin advocates on foreign soil as a soft-power strategy.

In the wake of the reporting, Paraguay, Finland, Brazil and other countries announced investigations of consuls and the system that empowers them. In some cases, government officials acknowledged not knowing how many consuls they had appointed or whether any had been convicted of crimes.

Experts in international diplomacy and national security say that more governments must demand change, examine nominees before they are approved and track their activities once they become consuls.

ProPublica and ICIJ identified more than 150 current and former consuls accused or convicted of tax evasion, fraud, bribery, corruption or money laundering. Nearly 60 were tied to drug or weapons offenses, at least 20 others to violent crimes and 10 to environmental abuses. Thirty honorary consuls have been sanctioned by the United States and other governments; nine have been linked to terrorist groups by law enforcement and governments. Once accused, dozens of consuls have invoked their status to avoid prosecution, police inquiries or fines.

“No one is checking them out,” said Bob Jarvis, an international law and constitutional law professor at Florida’s Nova Southeastern University who first examined the honorary consul system in the 1980s. “What are we doing? Who are these people?”

The United States does not appoint its own honorary consuls overseas but has for decades allowed foreign countries to appoint U.S. citizens as consuls in America. An estimated 1,100 were in place this year.

The State Department, responsible for approving consul nominations, noted years ago that the United States was “not in a position” to conduct background checks or analyze the qualifications or suitability of nominees on U.S. soil and instead entrusted foreign countries to review credentials.

Unlike some other countries, the United States has no code of conduct for honorary consuls. The State Department previously fought an effort by Congress to review whether diplomatic pouches, protected from searches under international law, had been used to move contraband. The department at the time said the measure would impact U.S. diplomats overseas.

In 2020, the department reached out to foreign embassies with a simple request: an updated list of their honorary consuls in the United States. The last time the department inquired was five years earlier, records show.

“You’re looking at a pretty large universe, so to engage in a detailed review for every nominee would be rather difficult,” Lawrence Dunham, former assistant chief of protocol at the State Department, said in an interview.

The State Department did not respond to specific questions about its oversight of consuls. In a statement, Cliff Seagroves, principal deputy director of the Office of Foreign Missions, said the department works to “protect the U.S. public from abuse of diplomatic privileges and immunities. This oversight includes the accreditation of honorary consuls and their performance of official duties in the United States. The Department has zero tolerance for evidence of inappropriate activity by any member of a foreign mission, including honorary consuls.”

The department did not respond to questions about the appointment of Shumake.

Shumake did not respond to questions about his activities before becoming consul. He has previously said he cooperated with the government in the pension case; Detroit’s former treasurer was sentenced in 2015 to 11 years in prison.

Shumake has also said he never sought to misrepresent his professional background. He has denied wrongdoing in the bank fraud probe.

Outside the United States, a small number of governments faced with scandals have adopted more stringent protocols for appointing and accepting honorary consuls.

Three years ago, the Canadian government launched a review after Syrian refugees in Montreal discovered newly approved honorary consul Waseem Ramli in a red Hummer fitted with an image of the Syrian flag and a picture of President Bashar al-Assad, whose regime has killed tens of thousands of civilians through airstrikes and chemical weapons.

“To us, that is not the Syrian flag. It represents horrors for us. It represents evil,” said Farouq Habib, a Syrian father of two who was granted asylum in Canada. “It was shocking for me to see it on the streets of Canada. How can Canada adopt someone … without any due diligence or vetting? It undermines the credibility of the system itself.”

The Canadian government dismissed Ramli before his term began and reported that consuls appointed by 15 countries warranted closer scrutiny.

Ramli could not be reached for comment. At the time of his nomination, he said he would represent Syrians regardless of their political views.

“I need some [information] on what happened to let this one pass,” a Canadian official wrote at the time, according to emails released by the government. “Where did we ‘fail?'”

“The Honor System”

The honorary consul system was created with great promise centuries ago, when governments began to promote their cultural and economic interests in foreign countries by appointing prominent private citizens to serve as liaisons from their home countries. Under international law, when a foreign government nominates a consul, local governments must in turn approve the appointment.

Many consuls are diligent advocates, forging country-to-country alliances in the arts, industry, science and academia while drawing far less attention than ambassadors and other career diplomats.

But the perks of diplomacy have long attracted some dubious appointees. Honorary consuls receive legal immunity in matters involving their work. Their correspondence cannot be seized, and their offices and consular bags are protected from searches. Their status provides access to leaders of politics and industry.

In the United States, an honorary consul for Malaysia tried to use his diplomatic status to get out of a $10 traffic ticket in Portland, Oregon, taking a lawsuit to the state’s Court of Appeals in 1979 before he lost, court records show.

In Los Angeles in the 1990s, honorary consul Latchezar “Lucky” Christov conspired with lawyers, a firefighter, a police officer and a rabbi, among others, to help move tens of millions of dollars for a Colombian drug cartel.

To avoid unwanted attention, Christov planned to pick up drug money in a car with a diplomatic license plate, records show. He also held cash in his office on Wilshire Boulevard, where the sign over the door read: Consul Bulgaria.

Christov, whose exploits were later described in a report to Congress, pleaded guilty to laundering drug money. He died in 2015.

In 2005, an honorary consul representing the Czech Republic in Michigan and Ohio tried to avoid paying property taxes on a 16,000-square-foot home near Detroit with a six-car garage and elevator. He argued the property had been transferred to the Czech government.

“Does the embassy pay property taxes? Of course not! Does the consulate in New York pay property taxes? Of course not!” Thomas Prose was quoted as saying at the time. Local officials denied a tax exemption, and Prose resigned as honorary consul. Prose could not be reached for comment; he previously said he paid the taxes “out of goodwill.”

One of the more high-profile honorary consuls in the United States was Jill Kelley, who gained notoriety in 2012 for triggering an FBI investigation that ultimately exposed an extramarital affair between then-CIA Director David H. Petraeus and his biographer.

During the media coverage, Kelley reportedly called 911 to complain about trespassers. “I’m an honorary consul general … so they should not be able to cross my property,” she said.

Kelley, appointed consul by South Korea, lost her consul post that year. At the time, a New York businessman said she had sought millions of dollars to help him win a gas contract in South Korea.

“It’s not suitable to the status of honorary consul that (she) sought to be involved in commercial projects and peddle influence,” South Korea’s deputy foreign minister told the Seoul-based news agency Yonhap.

Kelley denied wrongdoing, telling ProPublica and ICIJ that she did not monetize her role as honorary consul. “I never made a dollar or capitalized from my work,” she said.

In response to questions, Kelley shared a copy of a 2013 civil lawsuit that she and her husband filed against the U.S. government, alleging their privacy was violated by the disclosure of “personal, private and confidential information” during the Petraeus scandal. The loss of her consulship deprived Kelley of “years of significant public service, social and financial opportunities,” according to the lawsuit, which she later dropped. Kelley declined to elaborate.

In recent years, more than 100 countries, including Russia, Guatemala, Liberia and Malta, have had consuls in the United States, State Department records show. France had the most: 53 as of March.

The State Department has several requirements, including that a consul is 21 or older, a U.S. citizen or permanent resident and holds no government position with duties that could conflict with the post.

A State Department memo to foreign embassies in 2003 noted that the U.S. government “trusts” foreign countries to completely review the credentials of nominees. Once consuls are in place, the memo said, they would remain accountable to the governments they represent.

“It’s on the honor system,” Dunham said.

He added that the United States can always refuse to accept honorary consul nominees or, later, remove them from their posts.

Efforts to strengthen oversight of diplomatic privilege over the years have been sporadic. In the 1980s, the State Department enacted a one-year moratorium on the appointments of new honorary consuls in response to concerns from Congress about the number of people in the U.S. with diplomatic protection.

Around the same time, a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers sought to review whether diplomats were exploiting protections that allowed them to receive bags, boxes and containers in the United States without inspection. Under international law, diplomatic pouches are protected from scrutiny, even by X-ray.

The measure would have required the government to adopt safeguards to ensure bags were not used to smuggle drugs, explosives, weapons or any other materials used to advance terrorism.

“We are concerned that terrorists could, and we have every reason to believe, have shipped under the protection of diplomatic immunity pouches carrying such items as small armed weapons and explosives to be used against law enforcement officers,” Dennis Martin, then-president of the American Federation of Police, testified at a congressional hearing.

The State Department opposed the measure, arguing that the United States was the largest sender of diplomatic pouches. “The beneficiary of diplomatic immunity fundamentally is the United States government because our personnel abroad could not function without it,” the department’s head of protocol said.

The measure died in Congress.

Last year, the department requested that states stop issuing special license plates to honorary consuls, saying they “may imply privileges and immunities to which honorary consular officers are not entitled.”

Some states, however, are still issuing the plates, including Oregon, Arizona and Georgia, ProPublica and ICIJ found. Texas has issued or renewed more than 3,900 plates to honorary consuls since 1994, records show.

One financial crime expert pointed to another vulnerability.

Some foreign governments have chosen to classify honorary consuls as “politically exposed persons” who present a higher risk of financial crime and are more closely scrutinized by financial institutions.

The United States has not done so, leaving that determination to financial institutions.

“An honorary consul can be used much like a gatekeeper,” said Sarah Beth Felix, a former banking compliance executive. “It’s a great way to run dirty money because honorary consuls are typically not tagged as higher risk in a monitoring system and they get the benefit of not being subjected to law enforcement searches.”

The Treasury Department said that U.S. regulations do not define politically exposed persons. “Whether honorary consuls are PEPs depends on the facts and circumstances surrounding the consul’s appointment and role,” said Jayna Desai, spokesperson for the department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

Worldwide Warning Signs

For years, government investigations around the world have chronicled lawlessness and abuse among consuls that appear to eclipse incidents in the United States.

Twenty-five years ago, Bolivia announced a review of the honorary consul system there after high-profile scandals, including one in which the country’s consul in Haiti was dismissed after police reportedly found an arsenal of weapons inside the consul’s home, including rifles, pistols and a grenade launcher. Authorities suspected that the consul was linked to paramilitary groups fighting against the Haitian government, local media reported.

“It is well worth reviewing completely this outdated custom of honorary consuls,” local newspaper La Razón wrote after the arrest in an editorial titled “The Chronic Problem of Honorary Consuls.”

“It is a thousand times preferable not to have anyone to represent us in a nation than to go through undignified situations,” the newspaper wrote.

In 2003, Hungary overhauled its system after a stockbroker wanted for fraud and embezzlement fled the country in an honorary consul’s Mercedes. The stockbroker also held an ID card from another honorary consulate, according to media reports.

After the incident, the Hungarian government announced a review of the honorary consul system and stopped issuing identity cards to employees of honorary consulates. The stockbroker was convicted and jailed for five years; the consuls were not charged.

In 2007, Liberia dismissed nearly all of its consuls overseas after reports from Europe, Asia and the Middle East of drug smugglers and money launderers holding honorary consul passports, according to a U.S. State Department cable at the time.

In 2019, Canada became one of the largest governments to review the system, initiating the probe after reports about Ramli, nominated by Syria, surfaced in Montreal.

“I cried at the time. How come this person was appointed?” said Muzna Dureid, a Syrian refugee. “Even in Canada, we don’t feel safe.”

The government investigation found that “time constraints and lack of information management expertise” limited an initial review of Ramli, who went on to say in an interview with Maclean’s magazine that a prominent Syrian volunteer rescue group was a “terrorist organization.”

Canada introduced a new process to examine and appoint honorary consuls, adding a code of conduct.

A Family of Consuls

Despite the findings by governments, most countries have not called for widespread reforms. That includes Spain, where authorities are currently investigating three honorary consuls accused of helping to launder money for Simón Montero Jodorovich, an accused drug dealer.

In a 2,000-page report, police wrote in 2019 that the consuls representing Mali, Croatia and Albania allegedly called Jodorovich “big boss.”

Honorary consuls, the police reported, work without pay for the countries they represent. “What is obtained,” police wrote, “is compensation in terms of prestige, privileges and social relations, not to mention the coveted diplomatic bag … that crosses borders without any control.”

The consuls, who have not been criminally charged, have denied wrongdoing. An attorney for Jodorovich said his client is innocent and “has never manipulated any consul,” adding that Jodorovich’s relationship with them was transactional.

In Central America, the government of Honduras has previously reviewed its honorary consuls overseas, but consuls within the country have received less attention.

The powerful Kafie family has counted eight honorary consuls among its members, representing an eclectic group of countries that include Finland, Latvia and Panama.

In 2015, Schucry Kafie, a prominent businessman who has served for years as honorary consul for Jordan, was arrested in a Honduran corruption scandal, accused with others of overcharging the government for medical supplies.

Others implicated in the scandal were detained, but Kafie was released by a judge, who noted that his status as consul required him to sometimes leave the country, court records show.

The charges against Kafie were ultimately dismissed.

In a written statement, Kafie said that the government’s case was politically motivated and that the company did not overcharge for equipment. He added that the court allowed him to leave the country for health reasons and not because of his job as honorary consul.

In Panama, the Kafie family has a power plant that has for years drawn complaints from nearby residents, who say they fear it emits toxic gas.

Martin Ibáñez, 66, said his skin itches and his eyes burn from the smoke. He has written to the Panamanian government and others, hoping someone will determine whether the plant is operating safely.

“It’s like they dropped an atomic bomb,” he said this year. “I will die one of these days, but I want to go down fighting.”

Kafie said the plant did not cause health problems.

“Harm and Abuse”

In 2020, the United Nations Institute for Training and Research offered a course for honorary consuls that explored diplomatic law and ethics.

“Without a strong governance and reporting process, honorary consuls can become isolated and remote and their activities can be contrary to the interests of the sending state,” the institute noted at the time.

The course was offered only once. An institute official told ProPublica and ICIJ that there were not enough participants.

Diplomatic law experts said governments should require training and also make public the names and locations of honorary consuls. Of more than 180 countries that appoint and receive honorary consuls, only 42 publish up-to-date information, including names of consuls. Dozens of countries report no information at all, ProPublica and ICIJ found. Governments could also introduce an honorary consul code of conduct, evaluate the records of those currently holding the posts and start investigating new nominees, experts said.

“The harm and abuse,” said Jarvis, the law professor from Florida, “far outweighs whatever benefit the system is providing.”

In Michigan, Shumake’s honorary consul post for Botswana ended in 2015. He had also been appointed honorary consul by the government of Tanzania; that post ended in 2015 as well.

While consul, he won a contract to build a rail line in Tanzania in a deal that opponents criticized as improper and opaque. Shumake defended the project; the rail line was never built.

The Botswana Ministry of Foreign Affairs told ProPublica and ICIJ that Shumake’s tenure was terminated after the U.S. State Department disclosed that he had been accused of misconduct. The ministry did not elaborate. The government of Tanzania did not respond to requests for comment.

One year after the consul posts ended, U.S. authorities seized more than $250,000 in cash at the Charlotte Douglas International Airport in North Carolina from one of Shumake’s associates. The money was stashed in a carry-on bag, which later tested positive for traces of cocaine, according to documents from a subsequent civil forfeiture case.

The courier referred authorities to Shumake, who said he had raised the money to support communities in Africa and the Caribbean and that as “an ambassador” of an international commission, he had diplomatic immunity in transporting it, according to court documents. Authorities seized the cash.

Shumake declined to respond to detailed questions from ProPublica and ICIJ, but he said the U.S. returned the money. Court records show the government agreed to return half the money to the international commission.

In an unrelated case in 2017, Shumake pleaded guilty to misdemeanor violations in a Michigan court after his mortgage auditing company was accused of improperly taking fees from distressed homeowners.

“You preyed on people at their lowest possible moment,” a county judge told Shumake at his sentencing hearing.

Last year, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleged that Shumake and others had set up a fraudulent crowdfunding scheme that promised investors profits from the cannabis industry. The SEC filed a lawsuit, which is ongoing. Shumake has denied wrongdoing.

In May, seven years after his honorary consul positions ended, he posted a video online titled “Robert Shumake Holds the Titles of Honorary Consul.” The video includes an image of two men shaking hands — while exchanging wads of cash.

“There’s just not enough”: A water war is brewing over the dwindling Colorado River

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

On a crisp day this fall I drove southeast from Grand Junction, Colorado, into the Uncompahgre Valley, a rich basin of row crops and hayfields. A snow line hung like a bowl cut around the upper cliffs of the Grand Mesa, while in the valley some farmers were taking their last deliveries of water, sowing winter wheat and onions. I turned south at the farm town of Delta onto Route 348, a shoulder-less two-lane road lined with irrigation ditches and dent corn still hanging crisp on their browned stalks. The road crossed the Uncompahgre River, and it was thin, nearly dry.

The Uncompahgre Valley, stretching 34 miles from Delta through the town of Montrose, is, and always has been, an arid place. Most of the water comes from the Gunnison River, a major tributary of the Colorado, which courses out of the peaks of the Elk Range through the cavernous and sun-starved depths of the Black Canyon, one rocky and inaccessible valley to the east. In 1903, the federal government backed a plan hatched by Uncompahgre farmers to breach the ridge with an enormous tunnel and then in the 1960s to build one of Colorado’s largest reservoirs above the Black Canyon called Blue Mesa. Now that tunnel feeds a neural system of water: 782 miles worth of successively smaller canals and then dirt ditches, laterals and drains that turn 83,000 Western Colorado acres into farmland. Today, the farm association in this valley is one of the largest single users of Colorado River water outside of California.

I came to this place because the Colorado River system is in a state of collapse. It is a collapse hastened by climate change but also a crisis of management. In 1922, the seven states in the river basin signed a compact splitting the Colorado equally between its upper and lower halves; later, they promised additional water to Mexico, too. Near the middle, they put Lake Powell, a reserve for the northern states, and Lake Mead, a storage node for the south. Over time, as an overheating environment has collided with overuse, the lower half — primarily Arizona and California — has taken its water as if everything were normal, straining both the logic and the legal interpretations of the compact. They have also drawn extra releases from Lake Powell, effectively borrowing straight out of whatever meager reserves the Upper Basin has managed to save there.

This much has become a matter of great, vitriolic dispute. What is undeniable is that the river flows as a much-diminished version of its historical might. When the original compact gave each half the rights to 7.5 million acre-feet of water, the river is estimated to have flowed with as much as 18 million acre-feet each year. Over the 20th century, it averaged closer to 15. Over the past two decades, the flow has dropped to a little more than 12. In recent years, it has trickled at times with as little as 8.5. All the while the Lower Basin deliveries have remained roughly the same. And those reservoirs? They are fast becoming obsolete. Now the states must finally face the consequential question of which regions will make their sacrifice first. There are few places that reveal how difficult it will be to arrive at an answer than the Western Slope of Colorado.

In Montrose, I found the manager of the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association, Steve Pope, in his office atop the squeaky stairs of the same Foursquare that the group had built at the turn of the last century. Pope, bald, with a trimmed white beard, sat amid stacks of plat maps and paper diagrams of the canals, surrounded by LCD screens with spreadsheets marking volumes of water and their destinations. On the wall, a historic map showed the farms, wedged between the Uncompahgre River and where it joins the Gunnison in Delta, before descending to their confluence with the Colorado in Grand Junction. “I’m sorry for the mess,” he said, plowing loose papers aside.

What Pope wanted to impress upon me most despite the enormousness of the infrastructure all around the valley was that in the Upper Basin of the Colorado River system, there are no mammoth dams that can simply be opened to meter out a steady release of water. Here, only natural precipitation and temperature dictate how much is available. Conservation isn’t a management decision, he said. It was forced upon them by the hydrological conditions of the moment. The average amount of water flowing in the system has dropped by nearly 20%. The snowpack melts and evaporates faster than it used to, and the rainfall is unpredictable. In fact, the Colorado River District, an influential water conservancy for the western part of the state, had described its negotiating position with the Lower Basin states by claiming Colorado has already conserved about 28% of its water by making do with the recent conditions brought by drought.

You get what you get, Pope tells me, and for 15 of the past 20 years, unlike the farmers in California and Arizona, the people in this valley have gotten less than what they are due. “We don’t have that luxury of just making a phone call and having water show up,” he said, not veiling his contempt for the Lower Basin states’ reliance on lakes Mead and Powell. “We’ve not been insulated from this climate change by having a big reservoir above our heads.”

He didn’t have to point further back than the previous winter. In 2021, the rain and snow fell heavily across the Rocky Mountains and the plateau of the Grand Mesa, almost as if it were normal times. Precipitation was 80% of average — not bad in the midst of an epochal drought. But little made it into the Colorado River. Instead, soils parched by the lack of rain and rising temperatures soaked up every ounce of moisture. By the time water reached the rivers around Montrose and then the gauges above Lake Powell, the flow was less than 30% of normal. The Upper Basin states used just 3.5 million acre-feet last year, less than half their legal right under the 1922 compact. The Lower Basin states took nearly their full amount, 7 million acre-feet.

All of this matters now not just because the river, an unwieldy network of human-controlled plumbing, is approaching a threshold where it could become inoperable, but because much of the recent legal basis for the system is about to dissolve. In 2026, the Interim Guidelines the states rely on, a Drought Contingency Plan and agreements with Mexico will all expire. At the very least, this will require new agreements. It also demands a new way of thinking that matches the reality of the heating climate and the scale of human need. But before that can happen, the states will need to restore something that has become even more scarce than the water: trust.

The northern states see California and Arizona reveling in profligate use, made possible by the anachronistic rules of the compact that effectively promise them water when others have none. It’s enabled by the mechanistic controls at the Hoover Dam, which releases the same steady flow no matter how little snow falls across the Rocky Mountains. California flood-irrigates alfalfa crops destined for cattle markets in the Middle East, while Arizona takes water it does not need and pumps it underground to build up its own reserves. In 2018, an Arizona water agency admitted it was gaming the timing of its orders to avoid rations from the river (though it characterized the moves as smart use of the rules). In 2021, in a sign of the growing wariness, at least one Colorado water official alleged California was repeating the scheme. California water officials say this is a misunderstanding. Yet to this day, because California holds the most senior legal rights on the river, the state has avoided having a single gallon of reductions imposed on it.

By this spring, Lake Powell shrank to 24% of its capacity, its lowest levels since the reservoir filled in the 1960s. Cathedral-like sandstone canyons were resurrected, and sunlight reached the silt-clogged floors for the first time in generations. The Glen Canyon Dam itself towered more than 150 feet above the waterline. The water was just a few dozen feet above the last intake pipe that feeds the hydropower generators. If it dropped much lower, the system would no longer be able to produce the power it distributes across six states. After that, it would approach the point where no water at all could flow into the Grand Canyon and further downstream. All the savings that the Upper Basin states had banked there were as good as gone.

In Western Colorado, meanwhile, people have been suffering. South of the Uncompahgre Valley, the Ute Mountain Ute tribe subsists off agriculture, but over the past 12 months it has seen its water deliveries cut by 90%; the tribe laid off half of its farmworkers. McPhee Reservoir, near the town of Cortez, has teetered on failure, and other communities in Southwestern Colorado that also depend on it have been rationed to 10% of their normal water.

Across the Upper Basin, the small reservoirs that provide the region’s only buffer against bad years are also emptying out. Flaming Gorge, on the Wyoming-Utah border, is the largest, and it is 68% full. The second largest, Navajo Reservoir in New Mexico, is at 50% of its capacity. Blue Mesa Reservoir, on the Gunnison, is just 34% full. Each represents savings accounts that have been slowly pilfered to supplement Lake Powell as it declines, preserving the federal government’s ability to generate power there and obscuring the scope of the losses. Last summer, facing the latest emergency at the Glen Canyon Dam, the Department of Interior ordered huge releases from Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa and other Upper Basin reservoirs. At Blue Mesa, the water levels dropped 8 feet in a matter of days, and boaters there were given a little more than a week to get their equipment off the water. Soon after, the reservoir’s marinas, which are vital to that part of Colorado’s summer economy, closed. They did not reopen in 2022.

As the Blue Mesa Reservoir was being emptied last fall, Steve Pope kept the Gunnison Tunnel open at its full capacity, diverting as much water as he possibly could. He says this was legal, well within his water rights and normal practice, and the state’s chief engineer agrees. Pope’s water is accounted for out of another reservoir higher in the system. But in the twin takings, it’s hard not to see the bare-knuckled competition between urgent needs. Over the past few years, as water has become scarcer and conservation more important, Uncompahgre Valley water diversions from the Gunnison River have remained steady and at times even increased. The growing season has gotten longer and the alternative sources, including the Uncompahgre River, less reliable. And Pope leans more than ever on the Gunnison to maintain his 3,500 shareholders’ supply. “Oh, we are taking it,” he told me, “and there’s still just not enough.”

 

On June 14, Camille Touten, the commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Interior division that runs Western water infrastructure, testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and delivered a stunning ultimatum: Western states had 60 days to figure out how to conserve as much as 4 million acre-feet of “additional” water from the Colorado River or the federal government would, acting unilaterally, do it for them. The West’s system of water rights, which guarantees the greatest amount of water to the settlers who arrived in the West and claimed it first, has been a sacrosanct pillar of law and states’ rights both — and so her statement came as a shock.

Would the department impose restrictions “without regard to river priority?” Mark Kelly,, the Democratic senator from Arizona, asked her.

“Yes,” Touten responded.

For Colorado, this was tantamount to a declaration of war. “The feds have no ability to restrict our state decree and privately owned ditches,” the general manager of the Colorado River District, Andy Mueller, told me. “They can’t go after that.” Mueller watches over much of the state.Pope faces different stakes. His system depends on the tunnel, a federal project, and his water rights are technically leased from the Bureau of Reclamation, too. Touten’s threat raised the possibility that she could shut the Uncompahgre Valley’s water off. Even if it was legal, the demands seemed fundamentally unfair to Pope. “The first steps need to come in the Lower Basin,” he insisted.

Each state retreated to its corners, where they remain. The 60-day deadline came and went, with no commitments toward any specific reductions in water use and no consequences. The Bureau of Reclamation has since set a new deadline: Jan. 31. Touten, who has publicly said little since her testimony to Congress, declined to be interviewed for this story. In October, California finally offered a plan to surrender roughly 9% of the water it used, albeit with expensive conditions. Some Colorado officials dismissed the gesture as a non-starter. Ever since, Colorado has become more defiant, enacting policies that seem aimed at defending the water the state already has — perhaps even its right to use more.

For one, Colorado has long had to contend with the inefficiencies that come with a “use it or lose it” culture. State water law threatens to confiscate water rights that don’t get utilized, so landowners have long maximized the water they put on their fields just to prove up their long-term standing in the system. This same reflexive instinct is now evident among policymakers and water managers across the state, as they seek to establish the baseline for where negotiated cuts might begin. Would cuts be imposed by the federal government based on Pope’s full allocation of water or on the lesser amount with which he’s been forced to make do? Would the proportion be adjusted down in a year with no snow? “We don’t have a starting point,” he told me. And so the higher the use now, the more affordable the conservation later.

Colorado and other Upper Basin states have also long hid behind the complexity of accurately accounting for their water among infinite tributaries and interconnected soils. The state’s ranchers like to say their water is recycled five times over, because water poured over fields in one place invariably seeps underground down to the next. In the Uncompahgre Valley, it can take months for the land at its tail to dry out after ditches that flood the head of the valley are turned off. The measure of what’s been consumed and what has transpired from plants or been absorbed by soils is frustratingly elusive. That, too, leaves the final number open to argument and interpretation.

All the while, the Upper Basin states are all attempting to store more water within their boundaries. Colorado has at least 10 new dams and reservoirs either being built or planned. Across the Upper Basin, an additional 15 projects are being considered, including Utah’s audacious $2.4 billion plan to run a new pipeline from Lake Powell, which would allow it to transport something closer to its full legal right to Colorado River water to its growing southern cities. Some of these projects are aimed at securing existing water and making its timing more predictable. But they are also part of the Upper Colorado River Commission’s vision to expand the Upper Basin states’ Colorado River usage to 5.4 million acre-feet a year by 2060.

It is fair to say few people in the state are trying hard to send more of their water downstream. In our conversation, Mueller would not offer any specific conservation savings Colorado might make. The state’s chief engineer and director of its Division of Water Resources, Kevin Rein, who oversees water rights, made a similar sentiment clear to the Colorado River District board last July. “There’s nothing telling me that I should encourage people to conserve,” Rein said. “It’s a public resource. It’s a property right. It’s part of our economy.”

In November, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis proposed the creation of a new state task force that would help him capture every drop of water it can before it crosses the state line. It would direct money and staff to make Colorado’s water governance more sophisticated, defensive and influential.

I called Polis’ chief water confidante, Rebecca Mitchell, who is also the director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the state’s representative on the Upper Colorado River Commission. If the mood was set by the idea that California was taking too much from the river, Mitchell thought that it had shifted now to a more personal grievance — they are taking from us.

Last month, Mitchell flew to California for a tour of its large irrigation districts. She stood beside a wide canal brimming with more water than ever flows through the Uncompahgre River, and the executive of the farming company beside her explained that he uses whatever he wants because he holds the highest priority rights to the water. She thought about the Ute Mountain Ute communities and the ranchers of Cortez: “It was like: ‘Wouldn’t we love to be able to count on something? Wouldn’t we love to be feel so entitled that no matter what, we get what we get?'” she told me.

What if Touten followed through, curtailing Colorado’s water? I asked. Mitchell’s voice steadied, and then she essentially leveled a threat. “We would be very responsive. I’m not saying that in a positive way,” she said. “I think everybody that’s about to go through pain wants others to feel pain also.”

 

Here’s the terrible truth: There is no such thing as a return to normal on the Colorado River, or to anything that resembles the volumes of water its users are accustomed to taking from it. With each degree Celsius of warming to come, modelers estimate that the river’s flow will decrease further, by an additional 9%. At current rates of global warming, the basin is likely to sustain at least an additional 18% drop in its water supplies over the next several decades, if not far more. Pain, as Mitchell puts it, is inevitable.

The thing about 4 million acre-feet of cuts is that it’s merely the amount already gone, an adjustment that should have been made 20 years ago. Colorado’s argument makes sense on paper and perhaps through the lens of fairness. But the motivation behind the decades of delay was to protect against the very argument that is unfolding now — that the reductions should be split equally, and that they may one day be imposed against the Upper Basin’s will. It was to preserve the northern states’ inalienable birthright to growth, the promise made to them 100 years ago. At some point, though, circumstances change, and a century-old promise, unfulfilled, might no longer be worth much at all. Meanwhile, the politics of holding out are colliding with climate change in a terrifying crash, because while the parties fight, the supply continues to dwindle.

Recently, Brad Udall, a leading and longtime analyst of the Colorado River and now a senior water and climate scientist at Colorado State University, teamed with colleagues to game out what they thought it would take to bring the river and the twin reservoirs of Mead and Powell into balance. Their findings, published in July in the journal Science, show that stability could be within reach but will require sacrifice.

If the Upper Basin states limited their claim to 4 million acre-feet, or 53% of their due under the original compact, and the Lower Basin states and Mexico increased their maximum emergency cuts by an additional 45%, the two big reservoirs will stay at roughly their current levels for the next several decades. If the basins could commit to massive reductions below even 2021 levels for the Upper Basin and to more than doubling the most ambitious conservation goals for the south, the reservoirs could once again begin to grow, providing the emergency buffer and the promise of economic stability for 40 million Americans that was originally intended. Still, by 2060, they would only be approximately 45% full.

Any of the scenarios involve cuts that would slice to the bone. Plus, there’s still the enormous challenge of how to incorporate Native tribes, which also hold huge water rights but continue to be largely left out of negotiations. What to do next? Israel provides one compelling example. After decades of fighting over the meager trickles of the Jordan River and the oversubscription of a pipeline from the Sea of Galilee, Israel went back to the drawing board on its irrigated crops. It made drip irrigation standard, built desalination plants to supply water for its industry and cities, and reused that water again and again; today, 86% of the country’s municipal wastewater is recycled, and Israel and its farmers have an adequate supply. That would cost a lot across the scale and reach of a region like the Western United States. But to save the infrastructure and culture that produces 80% of this country’s winter vegetables and is a hub of the nation’s food system for 333 million people? It might be worth it.

A different course was charted by Australia, which recoiled against a devastating millennium drought that ended 13 years ago. It jettisoned its coveted system of water rights, breaking free of history and prior appropriation similar to the system of first-come-first-served the American West relies on. That left it with a large pool of free water and political room to invent a new method of allocating it that better matched the needs in a modern, more populous and more urban Australia and better matched the reality of the environment.

In America, too, prior appropriation, as legally and culturally revered as it is, may have become more cumbersome and obstructive than it needs to be. Western water rights, according to Newsha Ajami, a leading expert at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the former director of the urban water policy program at Stanford University, were set up by people measuring with sticks and buckets, long before anyone had ever even considered climate change. Today, they largely serve powerful legacy interests and, because they must be used to be maintained, tend to dissuade conservation. “It’s kind of very archaic,” she said. “The water rights system would be the first thing I would just dismantle or revisit in a very different way.”

This is probably not going to happen, Ajami said. “It could be seen as political suicide.” But that doesn’t make it the wrong solution. In fact, what’s best for the Colorado, for the Western United States, for the whole country might be a combination of what Israel and Australia mapped out. Deploy the full extent of the technology that is available to eliminate waste and maximize efficiency. Prioritize which crops and uses are “beneficial” in a way that attaches the true value of the resource to the societal benefit produced from using it. Grow California and Arizona’s crops in the wintertime but not in the summer heat. And rewrite the system of water allocation as equitably as possible so that it ensures the modern population of the West has the resources it needs while the nation’s growers produce what they can.

What would that look like in Colorado? It might turn the system upside down. Lawsuits could fly. The biggest, wealthiest ranches with the oldest water rights stand to lose a lot. The Lower and Upper Basin states, though, could all divide the water in the river proportionately, each taking a percentage of what flowed. The users would, if not benefit, at least equally and predictably share the misery. Pope’s irrigation district and the smallholder farmers who depend on it would likely get something closer to what they need and, combined with new irrigation equipment subsidized by the government, could produce what they want. It wouldn’t be pretty. But something there would survive.

The alternative is worse. The water goes away or gets bought up or both. The land of Western Colorado dries up, and the economies around it shrivel. Montrose, with little left to offer, boards up its windows, consolidates its schools as people move away, and the few who remain have less. Until one day, there is nothing left at all.

Casserole magic: Molly Yeh’s cozy “totdish” is a midwestern classic with a modern twist

I was late to the casserole party. I grew up in a very small, and frankly, antisocial household. I think I was in college before I even had lasagna.

Though the pleasures of baked, bubbling things were supposedly an acquired taste, I took to them right away. There’s no better reason to make it a casserole night than when it’s cold outside, and you want to gather loved ones close for something cozy (preferably involving tater tots).

In Molly Yeh’s second cookbook, “Home Is Where the Eggs Are,” the “Girl Meets Farm” star takes the midwestern classic hotdish and offers a variety of relaxed, modern interpretations for hungry families. It goes without saying that her already famous tater tot version makes a prominent appearance. Tater tots are, after all, the only thing better than French fries.

Traditional hotdish typically involves canned soup along with meat, a vegetable and some form of starch. Yeh’s version stays true to its convenience food roots but relies on a speedy homemade sauce. To adjust for my family’s preferred tastes, I’ve made a few small tweaks (substituting ground turkey for ground beef and edamame for frozen green beans) and skipped making a roux.

In an effort to get everything in the oven even faster, I also make the sauce while the meat cooks. I may not be midwestern, but somehow, hotdish makes me feel nostalgic and incredibly American.


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


As an added bonus, it’s easy to transport this hotdish to a potluck. You can freeze it ahead to break out when you don’t know what to make for dinner, or throw it together in a flash for a fuss-free evening. Whichever journey you choose, when you’re rushing around in an end-of-the-year frenzy of things to do and places to be, tater tot hotdish is a sanity saver.

Here’s the best endorsement I can offer this delicacy: I recently made it one evening after I’d been to the doctor for a bunch of blood draws, and I swear it brought me back to life. Topped with a very vigorous shake of chipotle Tabasco, “totdish” is like medicine, and followed with a chocolate mousse chaser, it’s definitely an antidepressant.

* * *

Inspired by “Home Is Where the Eggs Are: Farmhouse Food for the People You Love” by Molly Yeh

Tater Tot Hotdish, aka “Totdish”
Serves
 4-6
Prep Time
 10 minutes
Cook Time
 30 minutes

Ingredients

  • 1 tablespoon olive oil (See Cook’s Notes)
  • 1 yellow onion, thinly sliced
  • 2 pounds ground turkey
  • 1 cup frozen edamame
  • 1/4 cup (1/2 stick) butter
  • 1 cup chicken broth and 1 cup pale ale (or 2 cups chicken broth)
  • 1/2 cup heavy cream
  • 1 teaspoon fresh thyme (See Cook’s Notes)
  • 1 bag (32 ounces) tater tots
  • Salt and pepper, to taste
  • Optional: 4-5 slices Swiss cheese

 

Directions

  1. Preheat the oven to 450 degrees.
  2. Heat a large pan over medium heat and add the oil. Add the onion and cook, stirring every so often, until it softens, about 5 minutes.
  3. Add the meat and salt and pepper, continuing to stir now and then to brown. Add the edamame.
  4. While the meat is cooking, heat the butter in a saucepan. Add the broth (and ale, if using) and then the cream, stirring to heat through and thicken a little.
  5. When the meat is browned, evenly pour it into a 9×13 baking pan. Top with the broth mixture. (If you’re going for it, top with the Swiss cheese.)
  6. Top the mixture with the tater tots, evenly laid out in the pan.
  7. Bake for 30 minutes or so, until the tots are crisp and golden. Let cool a few minutes before serving.

Cook’s Notes

You can customize this all sorts of ways, adding in your own favorite proteins and veggies.

If you don’t have any fresh thyme handy, substitute 1/2 teaspoon dried thyme. You can also swap the vegetable oil for olive oil.

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. While our editorial team independently selected these products, Salon has affiliate partnerships, so making a purchase through our links may earn us a commission.

A holiday baking celebration: Salon Food’s favorite cookies to enjoy right now

For as long as I can remember, my church has held a "cookie walk" on the Sunday before Christmas. Basically, whoever wants to participate can bake up a batch of their family's favorite holiday cookies, then stand in a small auditorium at a plastic folding table to proudly offer up their creations.

For a paltry $5, my mom, brother and I gain access to the auditorium, where we stroll from table to table. We use our gloved hands to grab a cookie here and a cookie there, filling the tins or plastic baggies we have in tow to the brim with the homemade wares of our fellow parishioners. 

Chitchatting with the churchgoers hawking their products, strategizing with my family as we navigate the room and adding to the bounty of baked goods to schlep home are all sources of warm, wonderful holiday memories. It's hard not to want to bring each and every cookie home to enjoy during the most wonderful time of the year.

These cherished moments, however, pale in comparison to our own holiday cookie tradition. Continued on in the lore of my mom's family, we bake sheet tray upon sheet tray of festively colored and decorated butter cookies, which range from green wreaths with sprinkles to white snowflakes with colored sugars. (In perusing the internet, it seems as though most deem this type of cookie a "butter spritz cookie.")

We make double or triple batches, using our largest bowls and wooden spoons to ensure we have a surplus of cookies that last through the end of the season. They're the primary component of our Christmas Day dessert, as well as a "favor" of sorts that we sometimes send to relatives. For as long as I can remember, the towering amount of cookie tins on the dining room table has been a permanent holiday fixture. My dad was an especially big fan of these cookies, and he would often pile an excessive amount in his hands to munch on as he watched TV.

We use the old-school "cookie guns," sometimes called cookie presses, which allow for what feels like assembly line-style efficiency and productivity. This typically involves one person mixing the dough, a second filling the "gun," another pressing the cookies, someone decorating them and someone else supervising the oven.


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


In about an hour, we're able to churn out scores of cookies, which we later pack in nostalgic holiday tins complete with a piece of bread to help slow the cookies from hardening as January creeps closer. (We're not exactly sure of the science of how this works, but a single slice of white, whole wheat or potato bread inside of the closed tin results in much softer, more tender, less stale cookies.)

Incredibly simple and deeply comforting, these cookies are emblematic of the holidays, as well as practically perfect in every way. Crisp yet soft, immensely craveable and perfectly sized, I'd liken them to Pringles or popcorn because it's pretty much impossible to have only one.

Their aroma, bite-size shape, soft chew and festive colors permeate all of my holiday memories. (I don't believe I was munching on them at three months old, but I've enjoyed these cookies for 99.9% of my Christmases.) My mom's parents were German and Slovak, and while we know this is some sort of classic European butter cookie, we're not entirely certain where the recipe originated. Mom's entire immediate family is put to work during the holiday cookie-baking process, with Nana tallying up the precise number of cookies made and comparing the total to previous years.

I'd liken them to Pringles or popcorn because it's pretty much impossible to have only one.

The one nonnegotiable component of this process? We always play Hanson's 1997 magnum opus "Snowed In." (Trust me, Hanson should be known for much more than just "MMMBop.") In many instances, I let the album loop, ensuring that our holiday soundtrack continues to play in tune with the sights and smells of seemingly endless cookie baking.

Often made by my aunts, the rest of our selection may include chocolate chip cookies, nut balls, pecan clusters, pizzelle, decorated sugar cookies, anise- or lemon-flavored rounded cookies with brightly colored icing, as well as those crescent moon-shaped cookies often decorated with a heaping amount of powdered sugar. An assortment of these cookies, my family's butter cookies and our haul from the church cookie walk sustains us throughout the entire season — and then some.

In honor of these traditions, I decided to host a "virtual cookie walk" with Salon Food, allowing our team to share their favorite holiday cookies, as well as what makes them so special. (You can thank me later for that Hanson recommendation!)

01
Italian Wedding Cookies
Italian Wedding CookiesItalian Wedding Cookies (Getty Images/Photo by Cathy Scola)Image_placeholder
"I somehow manage to find myself eating buckets of Italian wedding cookies each holiday season," says nights and weekends editor Kelly McClure.
 
Also called anginetti, these treats (which are similar to the butter cookies mentioned above) are often flavored with almond or anise and sometimes include sprinkles or nonpareils. Airy and light, with a flavor that is both buttery and nutty, you may not be able to stop at just one. (Be prepared to clean up all of the powdered sugar that accumulates on your fingers from eating multiple!)
02
Peanut Butter Cookies
Peanut Butter CookiesPeanut Butter Cookies (Getty Images/Alyona-Kos)Image_placeholder
"I'm ride or die for peanut butter cookies, at the holidays and every other time of the year," says senior writer Mary Elizabeth Williams. "And my favorite is a flourless, 3-ingredient version that somehow hits the sweet spot between nostalgia and novelty. They are the most 'peanuty' peanut butter cookies you can possibly make, which means they are the best peanut butter cookies you will ever eat."
 
No matter the type — whether chocolate chip cookies with peanut butter, chocolate-dipped peanut butter cookies or peanut butter blossom cookies — PB nuts have a slew of options to choose from during the holidays.
03
Rum Balls
Coconut covered rum ballsCoconut Covered Rum Balls (Getty Images/AzmanL)Image_placeholder
"Do rum balls count?" senior politics writer Amanda Marcotte asks me. Rum balls are dense, rich treats that almost act as a mix between a truffle and a cookie. They're often spruced up with cocoa, nuts and — of course! — quite a bit of rum, often spiced. Some recipes even include vanilla wafer cookies.
 
Rum balls make really neat gifts, as they're easy to wrap individually in decorative paper cups. Bonus: Many home cooks love the fact that they're a decisively no-bake option, yet still manage to feel quite festive.
04
Linzer Tarts
Linzer tart cookiesLinzer Tart Cookies (Getty Images/Norman Posselt)Image_placeholder
Chief revenue officer Justin Wohl is a big fan of Linzer tarts during the festive season. A shortbread pie or cookie hailing from Austria, these crumbly, delicious treats are usually slathered in a just-sweet-enough spread of jam, jelly or preserves.
 
Sometimes "sandwiched" with another cookie on top (with a hole for the jam to peek through), they're also often dusted in powdered sugar. Many opt for raspberry for the jam, but apricot or peach are always welcome.
05
Cranberry Date Bars
Cranberry Cookie BarCranberry Cookie Bar (Getty Images/manyakotic)Image_placeholder
Deputy food editor Ashlie Stevens asks "can cranberry date bars count as a Christmas cookie? If so, those are mine! My grandmother used to make a gorgeous version with a buttery crust and royal icing, and I adored them. They are similar to the cranberry bliss bars at Starbucks, but are a little warmer thanks to the addition of spices like nutmeg and star anise."
06
German Lebkuchen Cookies
Lebkuchen; German heart cookiesLebkuchen, German Heart Cookies (Getty Images/Nikada)Image_placeholder
Editor in chief Erin Keane has a particular fondness for these cookies — but not for the reason you may expect.
 
"I kind of hate the way they taste, but I just had friends over to bake and decorate those lebkuchen hearts you find at German Christmas markets," Keane says. "Nothing looks quite as much like Christmas to me as a jumble of those hearts strung up on ribbon, waiting to be given away. I don't know who eats them, but I do know they can hang around the house for a couple of weeks to contribute to festive decor."

2024 entries: 

Kelly McClure, Nights and Weekends Editor:

"Sometimes a trash cookie is the best bet and I've been obsessed with those super sugary and festively decorated sugar cookies in the Walmart bakery section. Basic? Maybe. But this holiday season required maximum comfort wherever I could find it and these did the trick. I think I'm on my sixth container this season and on my last shopping trip I took it up a notch to get Dolly Parton's version, which comes in this festive kit which I'll be making on Christmas Eve for me and the dog. I don't plan to share though. All for me."

Jillian Kestenbaum, Social Media Producer:

"In my humble opinion, a holiday celebration is not complete without a box of Italian rainbow cookies (shout-out to Uncle Giuseppe’s for selling the best supermarket on-the-go option for tri-state dwellers). Is there anything better than a little cube of almond-y sponge cake layers, apricot and raspberry jam, and a thin, decadent layer of chocolate on top? No. And I will not be taking any questions at this time.

For those who enjoy, ahem, a liquid dessert to cap a long Christmas night, may I suggest a classic Irish coffee? No need to dust off the Baileys in the back of your pantry that’s probably expired — you can make one quickly and easily with four ingredients: hot coffee, Irish whiskey (Jameson is a staple for a reason), sugar, and whipped cream. You can even impress your guests by making it from scratch — but let's be honest, the can is just fine. Turn on TBS’s 24-hour marathon of “A Christmas Story” and enjoy!"

Nardos Haile, Staff Writer, Culture:

"Every holiday, like clockwork, I make peanut butter blossom cookies. Maybe I love making them because it makes me smile seeing my two brothers suck up dozens of cookies like unstoppable vacuums in a matter of days. (Nobody else eats these cookies but them).

But I also really enjoy how peanut butter blossoms consistently turn out great and I don’t have to anxiously wonder if it will perfectly come together or flop disastrously like everything else I bake. You can never go wrong with these classic treats!"

Mary Elizabeth Williams, Senior Writer:

"For some, the holidays begin when Santa arrives at the Thanksgiving parade. For others, it's the first strains of Mariah belting "All I want for Christmas is yoooooooooo." For my friends and me, it's when we start texting about the Gramercy gingerbread. Claudia Fleming's masterpiece is dense, spicy, and so moist it WILL defy your best efforts to keep it from falling apart when you take it out of the bundt pan. It is objectively the most delicious dessert in the world, and I say this as a person who literally cannot go 24 hours without eating chocolate. This year, our oven has been on the fritz and I truly don't know how or if I can pull of this already challenging dessert. But I can take comfort that even a so-so result will still be the best thing I'll eat all December."

Natalie Chandler, Money Editor:

"The town I grew up in was mostly southern Baptist, which meant no drinking. But nobody complained about the rum-soaked fruitcake at Christmas! Also, neighbors and friends always brought over the hoiday tins full of homemade fudge, "divinity," and pralines."

You can share your favorite holiday cookies and the photos, recipes and stories behind them by clicking here to email us. Happy holidays!

Cozy up to “Glass Onion,” the droll “Knives Out” sequel that delivers all the murder mystery goods

After the success of his 2019 whodunit “Knives Out,” writer/director Rian Johnson has now created another tricky mystery for his detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) and arguably, this one is better than the last. 

Set during the pandemic, the story begins with Senator Claire Debella (Kathryn Hahn), model turned sweatpants tycoon Birdie Jay (Kate Hudson), influencer Duke Cody (Dave Bautista) and scientist Lionel Toussaint (Leslie Odom Jr.) all receiving a package from their billionaire friend, Miles Bron (Edward Norton). It’s a puzzle box that involves playing games just to open it — Duke’s mom (the fabulous Jackie Hoffman) gets a few laughs for her unwanted contribution — and it contains an invitation. Miles wants his friends, known as the “disruptors,” to join him on a Greek Island for a murder mystery weekend. 

The box is also received by Andi Brand (Janelle Monáe), Miles’ former business partner who recently lost a lawsuit because Claire, Birdie, Duke and Lionel all sided with Miles in court. Benoit Blanc gets a box as well, because who wouldn’t want the world’s most famous detective to be on hand for a murder mystery game where the players must identify the motive, means and opportunity of the killer? Besides, in one of the film’s many witty sight gags, Blanc is depressed and won’t leave his bathtub, because he is so bored. In fact, he is losing the internet murder mystery games he plays online with Angela Lansbury, Stephen Sondheim, Natasha Lyonne and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (Johnson is tipping his at hat to Sondheim’s film, “The Last of Sheila,” an influence on “Glass Onion,” and acknowledging Lyonne’s passion for constructing and solving crossword puzzles, when she recommends Benoit try his hand at some.) Other fun cameos include Yo-Yo Ma and Serena Williams, while Ricky Jay, Jeremy Renner and Jared Leto are all name-checked. And yes, all these fun facts are deliberate misdirection so as to emphasize Johnson’s bona fides and not to spoil the real fun and games. 

“Glass Onion” starts to unpeel its central mystery once everyone arrives on Bron’s island. There are drinks by the pool and dinner before the mystery game of Bron’s (fake) death begins. This gives Benoit motive, means and opportunity to get to learn more about the eclectic guests and their relationships and allegiances. Viewers, too, should be paying close attention as there are clues dropped as conversations are overheard and coupling ups are seen. And, as one person suggests, the truth is like a glass onion — it looks complex, but it is crystal clear. 

It would be criminal to reveal who dies, but there is an “acute and violent” death that was done with intention. And just as this happens, the lights go out, allowing Johnson, ever the game player, to indulge in a stylish kind of hide and seek. And as bodies pile up — there is also a shooting — and the plot thickens, “Glass Onion” folds in on itself, flashing back to some events and retelling them from a different perspective. This gimmick allows for viewers to understand more about the suspects, er, characters, and track Benoit’s efforts to deduce who killed whom. 

Glass Onion: A Knives Out MysteryJanelle Monáe as Andi and Kathryn Hahn as Claire in “Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery” (John Wilson/NETFLIX)

Johnson certainly delights in creating puzzling distractions, but even if his film is as deep as a layer of onion skin, it is immensely engaging. “Glass Onion” gently mocks its characters, which what makes it so enjoyable. As the uber-rich Miles Bron, Edward Norton plays the charming know-it-all who certainly has a smugness about him. (His art collection, on display in many scenes, includes all kinds of fun pieces, with one famous work in particular at the center of it all.) Kate Hudson’s Birdie Jay is not too bright, and an exchange she has about her sweatpants sweatshop is highly amusing. Dave Bautista also has a fun turn as the gun-toting Duke – he is “packing” even in his speedo. More mysterious are Leslie Odom Jr.’s clever scientist and Kathryn Hahn’s liberal Senator. It is pretty clear that some, if not all, of these folks are up to no good, but Bron’s speech about these disruptors who break the system is as shrewd.

But then there is Janelle Monáe’s Andi, the outlier. She “shouldn’t” be on the island because of the bad blood between her and Miles (and the others), and she maintains a frosty demeanor, that is suitably chilling. But around the film’s midpoint, her backstory is explained, and it is, well, a game-changer. 


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


If viewers think too much about it, this carefully constructed puzzle falls apart like a Jenga tower, but Johnson deliberately, effortlessly carries viewers along so they don’t think, even when Benoit gives a full speech about the need for critical thinking. It is misdirection, indeed, but one has to admire his ingenuity.

Moreover, viewers will appreciate Daniel Craig’s delicious performance as Benoit Blanc. With his Southern drawl and dandy clothes, he is a pleasure to watch. His scenes with Janelle Monáe, who is fantastic as Andi, are why “Glass Onion” is so entertaining. 

Observe and detect: this whodunit is highly satisfying.

“Glass Onion” streams Dec. 23 on Netflix.

 

“Openly gay” Republican hid divorce from woman days before launching campaign: report

A newly elected Republican congressman’s biography continues to fall apart under scrutiny.

The New York Times revealed earlier this week that George Santos had apparently invented his academic and professional backstory, while subsequent reports called into question whether he was actually Jewish, and now The Daily Beast found new discrepancies in his biography.

The 34-year-old Santos, who became the first openly gay non-incumbent Republican elected to Congress, was married to a woman he divorced in September 2019, which he has not discussed publicly.

Less than two weeks after that divorce was finalized, Santos filed the official paperwork launching his first campaign, an unsuccessful run in 2020, and his next campaign biography, in 2022, mentions his husband, but he hasn’t publicly acknowledged the previous marriage, although he claims to have been openly gay for the past decade.

“I am openly gay, have never had an issue with my sexual identity in the past decade, and I can tell you and assure you, I will always be an advocate for LGBTQ folks,” Santos told USA Today in October, after announcing his support for Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay Bill.”

This week’s reporting found the colleges Santos claimed to have attended have no record of him, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs could not confirm he ever worked there, as he claimed, the IRS has no record of his nonprofit animal rescue, he faces possible legal trouble in Brazil, his business ventures appear to be shady, and even his address has been questioned.

“You don’t want to discuss the evidence”: Ari Melber brutally fact-checks Trump’s impeachment lawyer

MSNBC’s Ari Melber offered a blistering assessment of former President Donald Trump’s impeachment lawyer’s distortion of hard facts. During a two-part segment on Tuesday’s edition of “The Beat with Ari Melber,” the MSNBC host recalled recent remarks made by Trump lawyer David Shoen.

“Trump’s insurrection impeachment lawyer David Shoen insisted that Trump opposed that violence, that Trump’s words were merely encouraging those armed fans to engage in peaceful and civic action, not storming the Capitol violently,” Melber noted.

The segment then shifted to a clip of Shoen laying out his argument in Trump’s defense. “President Trump did not incite the horrific, terrible riots of January 6,” Shoen said. “The violence and looting goes against the law and order message he conveyed to every citizen of the United States throughout his presidency, including on January 6. You knew what the President really meant. He meant that the crowd should demand action from members of Congress and support primary challenges to those who don’t do what he considered to be right.”

Melber quickly pushed back with hard facts refuting Shoen’s claims. “Did then President Trump’s request boil down to supporting only primary challenges?” Melber asked as he added, “That is not what those now convicted Trump fans believed.”

He continued, “They were chanting, the president sent them. It’s not what the militias believed. It’s not what top Trump aides believed, as they wrote down and admitted plots to overturn the lawful election result, not just support primary candidates in the future. And apparently, it is not what Trump believed.”

Melber went on to recall what transpired in the aftermath. “After that trial… After that remark was made, Donald Trump went on to vow pardons for the criminal trespassers and violent criminals, a lawless endorsement of their actual crimes on his apparent behalf. He said if he wins again, he would issue those pardons in the future.”

“So whatever one thought or claimed, then, this is the kind of defense that did not age well, especially against the over 150 pages of new evidence released Monday, with more of this January 6 report slated to come out tomorrow,” Melber said. “If Trump aides or Trump himself face indictments on this evidence, they’ll need a lot more than talk of primary challenges or that he always supported law and order as his fans battered police, and then he vowed to pardon them after they did.”

The second installment of the segment features Melber’s one-on-one discussion with Shoen. Melber didn’t mince words when he lambasted Shoen for his refusal to actually listen to the facts and discuss real evidence.

“When you keep attacking Process and the committee, you seem like you don’t want to discuss the evidence,” Melber said, adding, “And that makes you look a little bit like some of these were calculator witnesses where nobody wants to discuss what happened. It’s all in the open. I’ll take a listen. You brought up the big lie. Let’s get into that. Rudy Giuliani admitted under oath he did participate with this committee, and he admitted under oath, we’re going to get into this tonight that the Dominion machines didn’t steal anything, even though he said the opposite. Bill Barr Are, who I think you know is a Republican lawyer and somewhat good standing in the party, said it was all BS.”

Watch the videos below or at this link.

How to be a helpful host to your friends with food allergies this holiday season

The molasses cookies were delicious, soft and chewy. But afterward, my lips started to feel strange, tight and stinging. They were swollen, I realized, my mouth itchy and burning. I was allergic to one of the ingredients.

It’s cookie baking time, time for big holiday gatherings, usually focused on the food — gatherings I sometimes dread. Don’t I like food? Yes, I adore it, especially consuming it and not having to cook it. Unfortunately, I also have developed allergies and sensitivities to multiple foods, including wheat, rhubarb and some common wheat substitutes like rice and buckwheat. I fear this makes me a downer, the one sitting awkwardly and hungrily at the table while everyone else enjoys dishes I can only stare at longingly.

But I’m not alone. Around 32 million people have food allergies in the United States. Some of the most common foods to cause allergic reactions include milk, wheat, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, sesame, soy, fish and shellfish. While we might associate food allergies with childhood, something a child could “grow out of,” nearly 11% of American adults have them. It’s even more common to have intolerances to certain foods, which is less serious than the immune system reaction of an allergy, but still an uncomfortable physical response.

And here’s something important to note: allergies can change at any time, including food allergies and sensitivities. My allergies really accelerated after pregnancy, which is not uncommon, due to hormone shifts. What if you have a friend or relative on your guest list this holiday season who has food allergies or intolerances? Don’t count them out. Consider some of these tips and reminders so that everyone can eat — or at least be — together.

Believe the person with food allergies 

Do I want to eat Christmas cookies? Yes, a million times yes. Can I do so without getting ill? No. Respect what someone tells you about what they can consume. We’re not doing it on purpose. We’re not doing it to make you uncomfortable. One of the things I hate about my food allergies and sensitivities is that it draws unwanted attention. I just want to eat off the regular menu or have what everyone else is having. But my body, through no fault of my own, reacts otherwise. Just like an allergy to ragweed or dogs, we can’t control it.

Is it an allergy, is it an intolerance or sensitivity — or is it just a preference? It really shouldn’t matter. If someone says they can’t or would prefer not to eat something, you should never pressure them. Even if you worked hard on it. Even if you think they’ll love it. I would love your strawberry rhubarb pie, personally. But it would also send me into anaphylaxis.

Ask, don’t presume

I have to find foods that are wheat-free for myself, but I can still eat a lot of foods that contain other common allergens, including milk. Unfortunately, sometimes packaged foods take a one size fits all approach when it comes to allergens: cookies that are grain, sugar, and dairy free, for example.

Just because we’re allergic to one thing doesn’t mean we’re allergic to all things.

Allergies are not one and the same. If you have someone with food allergies or intolerances coming to your holiday meal, the first step is to ask exactly what works for them and what doesn’t. Just because we’re allergic to one thing doesn’t mean we’re allergic to all things. A well-meaning friend kept ordering vegan food for me when in reality I just need wheat-free stuff. I’m not vegan. Give me the butter, please!

Offer options

Maybe it’s tradition in your family to have Christmas cookies, but if you have a guest who can’t eat those cookies, provide them with some other choices so they’re not the only ones who can’t partake. Some fancy chocolate or sorbet or after dinner drinks would be just as nice. Do you always have to have fruit cake? Why not offer a cheese plate too? The best thing about traditions is that they’re changing and growing all the time. What’s more important, to do what you’ve always done or to include everyone as much as possible? You can make new traditions to make sure your food-allergic loved ones aren’t always left out.

Don’t be offended

I really cannot express how much it pains me to not be able to eat pie. Or bread pudding, my favorite dessert of all time. I also feel doubly bad because I often have to turn food down. I worry that I risk offending someone who doesn’t understand I simply cannot physically eat some things, no matter how delicious they look or how hard a person worked on them. This is especially complicated since some people express love through cooking. 

My child was born with a dairy allergy. When he was toddler, we went to a bakery to pick up a cake for a relative, and the kind woman behind the counter asked if she could give him a free cookie. I apologized but said he was allergic to butter. Her eyes filled with tears. And she slipped extra cookies into our box, which was very well-intended, but again, we couldn’t eat them.

It’s not about you. It’s about your guest or loved one trying to keep themselves healthy and safe. 

Your food-allergic friend may bring some of their own food to your gathering. They may eat before coming over. That doesn’t mean you’re not an excellent cook or that they don’t trust you. It just means they know what works for them, and they want to make it easier, to take pressure off the host and to avoid getting sick. It’s not a reflection on your work as the chef. However disappointed you may feel that someone can’t eat something you made, we feel more disappointed. It’s not about you. It’s about your guest or loved one trying to keep themselves healthy and safe. 


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


Consider social options not focused around food 

I have a good friend with severe food allergies. Food is central to many social gatherings, but it doesn’t have to be. My friend and I take long walks and hikes together. When we do eat together, I let her choose the restaurant or we bring our own food and eat at home. 

Food brings people together, but when you have food allergies or intolerances, it can make you feel apart from other people too. Listen to your loved ones and believe what they tell you about what is and is not possible for them. This holiday season and beyond, that’s always the most loving thing you can do.

 

“Unprecedented”: Judge rips Trump lawyers over “frivolous” lawsuit in brutal footnote

A federal judge in Florida on Wednesday denied former President Donald Trump’s request to block the New York attorney general’s office from placing the Trump business empire under court supervision.

U.S. District Court Donald Middlebrooks ruled that the attorney general’s office “raises four reasons – all of which are likely correct – why Plaintiff has no substantial likelihood of success on the merits.”

The judge warned against continuing the case against New York Attorney General Letitia James and turned down Trump’s attempt to get emergency relief to stop James from seeking materials from his private trust.

“This litigation has all the telltale signs of being both vexatious and frivolous,” Middlebrooks wrote in a footnote to his eight-page order.

After a three-year investigation, James filed a lawsuit against the Trump Organization in September, alleging years of financial fraud in real estate, tax and insurance transactions.

“Time and time again, the courts have ruled that Donald Trump cannot evade the law for personal gain,” James said after the judge approved her request for an independent monitor. “Today’s decision will ensure that Donald Trump and his companies cannot continue the extensive fraud that we uncovered and will require the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee compliance at the Trump Organization. No number of lawsuits, delay tactics, or threats will stop our pursuit of justice.”

Businesses engaged in repeated illegal behavior can face a variety of sanctions under New York law, which would make it nearly impossible for Trump’s firms to do business in the state, Politico reported

A Manhattan judge agreed to James’ request for a court-appointed monitor to oversee the Trump businesses, but Trump is appealing that ruling. 

Middlebrooks said an injunction would interfere with the monitor doing her work and also get in the way of James’ evidence-gathering efforts in the fraud case, which heads to trial in October 2023. 


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


The judge highlighted the need for oversight, noting that Trump’s company was just convicted in a related criminal tax case.

“The Trump Organization has already been found guilty by a New-York jury of several counts of tax fraud,” the judge wrote. “To now impede a civil enforcement action by the New York Attorney General would be unprecedented and contrary to the interests of the people of New York.”

Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, sued James in Florida to try to block her access to the trust records. He argued that James is trying to gain access to his revocable trust and making details of his estate planning public.

But Middlebrooks said that concern was “quintessentially speculative” since the state indicated in email exchanges with Trump’s attorneys that it would receive documents with redactions of estate-planning portions.

He added that the Florida suit lacked merit for a variety of reasons, including that James isn’t located in Florida. 

James is gathering evidence to prove her claim that Trump, his three oldest children and his company were involved in a decade-long fraud scheme manipulating the value of his assets to deceive banks and insurers. 

The judge in her case appointed a monitor to oversee parts of Trump’s business during the litigation to prevent “further fraud or illegality.”

Best of 2022 | The parasites inside my mother were both real and spiritual

I was born five pounds heavy, five weeks ahead of my due date. According to my parents, I was immediately placed in an incubator like a chicken egg. I was continually losing the few pounds of weight that I had, which terrified them. It seemed I hadn’t been quite ready to enter the world. Dad often held me in one hand, my hairless head resting in his roomy palm. Mom had to tape little plastic tubes to her nipples when trying to breastfeed, shrinking herself for my weak lips. 

A couple of weeks after giving birth to me, Dad heard Mom scream from behind the closed bathroom door. She kept screaming. He found her sobbing, pointing at the toilet. I bet he gasped when he saw it and that his reaction made Mom cry harder. Using two big serving spoons, he fished out of the toilet a giant roundworm parasite. It was a few feet long. They put it in a quart-size zip lock bag so they could bring it to the doctor.

Did you hear about the missionary wife with the massive parasite?

The nurses and the doctor made Mom feel like a freakshow. Did you hear about the missionary wife with the massive parasite? They apologized for their unprofessional reactions, but their remorse was immediately negated as they, again, emphasized that this was the largest worm they had ever seen in real life and in textbooks. They informed her that due to its — once again — extremely large size, they could infer two things: it had been growing in her for at least a year and that it could not be the only one. They gave her a medication to kill its brethren that were likely multiplying at that very moment, swimming in her intestine as she sat shamefully in the sterile American office. 

Mom became petrified of using the bathroom, of encountering more roundworms in their porcelain grave as the medication killed them. But she had to do what she had to do. She never saw another parasite. She found out a couple of months later from my uncle who is a doctor that the medication also dissolves the worms. Her doctor had somehow forgotten to mention that; he was likely too distracted, gawking at her ziplocked giant.

Maybe they grew rapidly because her suffering was spiritualized away. 

When Mom was pregnant with me, she was not only eating for two — she was eating for hundreds. I often think about how my embryo-self and the parasites grew in parallel inside of her. Almost like inmates, only a thin wall kept us apart as we fought for space and nutrients. Maybe the giant roundworm who made itself known had left its family to find me. I imagine it said to me in a raspy slithering voice: Hey kid, there’s not room enough for the both of us. I imagine that I agreed. Chucking up deuces to my rowdy neighbors, I fought to get out ahead of schedule. I imagine that when Mom tenderly wrapped her arm around her swelling belly, whispering prayers over my kidney-bean-shaped body, the parasites thought she loved them. Maybe that’s what spurred their impressive size and numbers. Maybe they grew unchecked because we were living in a country that did not sanitize the way Americans are used to. Or maybe they grew rapidly because her suffering was spiritualized away. 

* * *

My parents had been concerned that they wouldn’t make it back to the States in time for Mom to give birth to me. They once again packed up their lives and embarked on the 24+ hour trip from Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan to Portland, Oregon, USA. With my two older sisters (6 and 4 years old) and many suitcases, my family had conquered the first of many legs: a small plane had flown them to Istanbul, Turkey. But when they checked in for their next flight, the Turkish Airline’s clerk looked with raised eyebrows at Mom’s rotund belly which was emphasized by her petite frame. The clerk shook her head. Dad had already offered the handwritten note from the missionary doctor who had checked Mom’s vitals on the couch in our living room; she had been alarmed to find Mom’s blood pressure extremely high. The doctor said if my family wasn’t already planning to leave in a few days, she would have called the U.S. embassy to get Mom medically evacuated. 

Dad led the way in most situations that took place outside of our home, but not this time. This time Mom stepped in front of him, handing him the water bottle and Winnie the Pooh backpack she was undoubtedly holding. “I am getting on that plane.” Mom’s eyebrows had raised to meet the clerk’s, her voice was steady and low. The clerk suggested they leave the airport and go to the hospital a couple of miles away to get an official note from a Turkish doctor approving her for travel. They only had four hours until their next flight (the 18-hour flight that would bring them back to America). There was no way.

“Let me speak to your manager,” Mom countered, her voice’s volume slowly rising to meet her blood pressure. The clerk shook her head again, eyes darting at the attention their conversation was starting to draw. “I am getting on that plane! Where is your manager!” Mom yelled, slamming her hand on the counter. 


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


I wish more than anything I could have seen this next part with my own eyes, but I’m sure I was cheering her on; her cortisol and adrenaline spinning me in circles. She stepped up on the luggage scale with her hands on her hips, the conveyor belt was stationary at the time. She threatened to come behind the counter. Clerks from surrounding kiosks came rushing over, anxiously trying to get her to step off. Did you hear about the pregnant American lady who threatened Turkish Airlines? She refused to budge until the manager arrived. I imagine that Dad had taken a few steps back with my sisters, watching with pride and shock as Mom transcended. The manager came and made her sign six different forms to agree that they would not be liable if anything were to happen to her or the baby’s health while they were flying 40,000 miles above land. Mom stepped down, signing her and my life away. My family finally got on the plane. I was born six weeks after we arrived, and Mom was healthy (aside from the roundworms). 

* * *

On late Saturday mornings during my childhood, I could always find Mom in the back corner of my parents’ room. Sitting in her armchair with her feet tucked under her, she wrote in her journal with a tall mug of steaming coffee beside her. I sat at her feet on the faded carpet, my back against the bed. After interrupting her “quiet time” repeatedly, I waited and watched. I watched Mom’s tilted head sway softly along with her right hand as it moved back and forth, watched the floating specks in the sunlight and imagined them to be fairies dancing just for me, watched her turn filled page after filled page, watched the shadow of grapevine leaves fall through the window to twitch across my folded body and slowly encircle her chair, watched her lips barely move as she re-read what she wrote.

I know now that her many journals were filled with lists and lists of bitter beseeching prayer requests.

If I squeeze that memory tightly with my adult hands, it starts to crumble; fairies twirling in sunlight become illuminated dust. Of course, my parents sheltered my sisters and me from the hardships of growing up in Kyrgyzstan. But I know now that they also hid how her mental illnesses were exacerbated by the environment we lived in and by the pressures of evangelism. I know now that her many journals were filled with lists and lists of bitter beseeching prayer requests, her barely moving lips re-reading angry pleas.

She had to pray for God to lead us back to America because she could not lead us back herself. Dad would not lead us back unless it was God’s idea first. Or at least that was the message they received from the American church. This message was reinforced when she commiserated with her friends who were also missionary wives. They prayed with heavy bowed heads for their children’s safety and for each other’s sanity since they didn’t want to pray for themselves out loud. She told me recently that Ephesians 6:12 was the backbone of the evangelical pressures she endured (in addition to the salt of the Earth and carry your cross tropes). “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” How could she complain about earthly inconveniences like parasites and high blood pressure when there were demons to be fought and unsaved souls to reclaim? 

My mother lived overseas in a state of high anxiety for 16 years, all while raising four daughters. She dreaded the unexpected health problem that could have been easily treated if only we lived in the country we were from. She worried over her isolation and otherness, surrounded either by seven-foot brick walls and children or by people she could not easily communicate with. It’s one thing for her to acknowledge her privilege as a mostly-white-passing, middle-class, highly educated, American woman. It’s another thing entirely for her to be told that her longing to leave was a discredit to her faith: longing to have consistent access to healthcare and education for her family, longing to live somewhere she belonged. 

As I sift through the remaining sand from the crumbled memory, I see now that there actually was a bigger problem than hundreds of roundworms living inside my pregnant mother. Evangelism, a spiritual leech. Even after we permanently moved back to America, the metaphorical parasite clung on. Our home was an extension of Mom’s womb, a vessel in which she carried and protected her growing children. We swam together in spiritualized gaslighting, grasping for a life that ought to be enough.

Expert: Leaked memo suggests Sinema violated ethics rule by making aides perform “personal tasks”

According to a 37-page memo obtained by the Daily Beast, new staffers going to work for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., are expected to attend to a multitude of personal tasks for the first-term senator — and that is raising the eyebrows of some government watchdogs.

The Beast report from Sam Brodey explains that staffers need to be mindful of her personal time, which includes training for “her extensive schedule of training and competing in marathons and Ironman events” with a cautionary note that she has “time-consuming commitments outside of this job.”

The memo reportedly states that aides need to check in with her if she needs groceries, should have a “room temperature bottle of water” at hand if she needs one and should be prepared to schedule weekly one-hour massages.

According to Brodey, “Sinema rarely does interviews or comments publicly about how she approaches the day-to-day work of being a senator. The scheduling memo offers a rare glimpse into how one of the Senate’s most inscrutable—and most scrutinized—members approaches her job and runs her office,” adding that the memo instructs staffers, “Do not schedule anything, ever, outside of ‘regular’ work hours without first getting Kyrsten’s permission. She will very, very rarely agree to work outside the regular hours, so only ask if it’s a big deal.”

The report adds, “The document also makes clear that much of Sinema’s time outside of ‘regular hours’ consists of exercising and training for athletic competition. ‘She wakes up very early to work out, and sleep is very important to her,’ it says. The memo also specifies that on weekends, she ‘needs a later start to accommodate her training schedule,’ which entails scheduling no work obligations earlier than 1 p.m.”

“Unsurprisingly, some staffers found these instructions—and Sinema’s zeal in ensuring they were followed to the letter—to not only be onerous but detrimental to the overall staff’s mission to serve constituents, craft policy, and communicate that work to Arizona,” with one former staffer complaining, “When I look back, it’s unbelievable the amount of time staffers spent just to accommodate her.”

As for the personal tasks, such as being available to let workmen into her apartment, ethics experts claim she is right up to the line — or slightly over it — with her demands of aides.

Noting that the Senate handbook clearly states, “staff are compensated for the purpose of assisting Senators in their official legislative and representational duties, and not for the purpose of performing personal or other non-official activities for themselves or on behalf of others,” Brodey writes, “Craig Holman, a congressional ethics expert with the nonprofit group Public Citizen, said Sinema’s apparent demands that staffers conduct personal tasks amount to a clear violation of Senate ethics rules, and would typically warrant a formal reprimand by the Senate Ethics Committee.”

Asked for comment a spokesperson for the Arizona senator told the Beast, “the alleged information—sourced from anonymous quotes and a purported document I can’t verify—is not in line with official guidance from Sen. Sinema’s office and does not represent official policies of Sen. Sinema’s office.”

You can read more here.

2022 will be remembered as the year pandemic dragged on — while everyone pretended it was over

The COVID-19 pandemic marked a chilling, new chapter in American history, as its repercussions extended beyond public health and into the realms of politics and culture. In addition to the death toll (at the time of this writing, over 1 million in this country and nearly 6.7 million worldwide), the pandemic has created mass psychological trauma, fueled reactionary movements and even contributed to then-President Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election

Now — more than two years after the pandemic reached America’s shores, and almost three since COVID-19 was first discovered in China — the world is undoubtedly ready to move on. And 2022 was supposed to be the year that happened: three COVID vaccines were approved. Hundreds of millions were vaccinated. It seemed like herd immunity, high vaccination rates, and new bivalent vaccines might together be enough to stave off SARS-CoV-2. 

But it wasn’t. Indeed, as COVID-19 rates spike again this winter, 2022 will perhaps be remembered as the year that the public acted like the pandemic was over when it wasn’t. President Joe Biden came down with COVID-19 in July, and suffered a “rebound” in August after the virus should have exited his system. 

Public health experts agree that the world struggled to keep up with the virus, which has proven itself wily and adaptive to human efforts to stamp it out. 

“Reliable data are always difficult to come by in low income countries, because they have few facilities in low income, especially rural areas; and reporting is spotty at best.”

According to Dr. Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association, one of the main COVID-19 developments from 2022 was that the SARS-CoV-2 virus kept mutating. There was a happy ending, though, as humanity’s COVID-19 vaccines — despite being rendered somewhat less effective by subsequent mutations — were nevertheless durable enough to continue protecting people from severe illnesses.

“The virus has maintained its persistence in human populations. It continues to mutate in ways that maintain its infectivity just enough to maintain its viability,” Georges wrote to Salon. Yet Georges attested to the vaccine’s durability: “despite mutations, diagnostic tests and antivirals are still effective,” he added.

Dr. Alfred Sommer, dean emeritus and professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, elaborated on the importance of the evolution of COVID-19 in 2022. Sommer homed in on one strain in particular — the BA.1 or Omicron strain.

“Probably the most important impact on [the COVID-19] disease was the evolution of the virus,” Sommer wrote to Salon. “The present strains of Omicron are definitely more infectious than the earlier ones, but also less deadly. This is the natural history of most new viral outbreaks — assuming the initial strains don’t wipe out the population (killing infected patients is not good for either the patient, or the virus, as it reduces its ability to spread).”

“We were not successful. COVID-19 has not been contained as I speak in early December 2022.”

The good news is that it is easy to show that developed nations were able to keep omicron at bay. The bad news is that, when it comes to poorer countries, it is difficult for experts to really assess if things have gotten better in 2022.

“Reliable data are always difficult to come-by in low income countries, because they have few facilities in low income, especially rural areas; and reporting is spotty at best,” Sommer told Salon. “But nearly everywhere, serious cases seem to be far fewer than during the early phase of the pandemic.”

This is attributable to the vaccines — and their success was certainly not a given. Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California–San Francisco, wrote to Salon about how the vaccines managed to pull it off.

“The most important development was the creation and validation of multiple effective COVID-19 vaccines to fight the virus,” Gandhi told Salon by email. “In fact, the prognosis for COVID-19 in 2022 is much improved as a result of immunity than in 2020 and 2021.”


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


For one thing, “vaccines outfitted with the ‘wild-type’ spike held their own against severe disease and hospitalization against the more immune evasiveness of Omicron and its subvariants.” The spike protein refers to the little spikes that protrude from the exterior of the coronavirus in illustrations; these spikes are technically a type of protein that is crucial to the virus’ ability to infect its host’s cells. 

Gandhi noted that “the protection from severe disease from prior infection or vaccination is a result of cellular immunity,” or an immune response in which the immune system does not use antibodies. Because scientists expect neutralizing antibodies will become less effective in protecting people over time, even with updated vaccines, it is valuable to know that T-cells and other parts of the immune system can pick up the slack.

T-cells, as Gandhi explained, are a type of white blood cell that are generated in response to a pathogen — or, a harmless “fake” pathogen like a vaccine. A study published in Cell “showed that the Pfizer vaccine-induced T-cells respond to the omicron variant,” Gandhi said; in other words, “the T-cells generated by the vaccine continue to bind and help kill the omicron variant, despite its heavily mutated spike protein.” 

One positive development in 2022 was that because of widespread vaccination and booster shots, deaths among the elderly and immunocompromised went down.  “The high rates of boosting in South Korea among the country’s elderly during the BA.1 [omicron] surge provided important protection against hospitalizations and deaths,” Gandhi noted.

In an additional vindication for vaccines, research repeatedly found that people who had been vaccinated had stronger protection against COVID-19 than those who were not — and that people who had been both vaccinated and infected (including “breakthrough infections”) had the strongest protection of all.

“In fact, the prognosis for COVID-19 in 2022 is much improved as a result of immunity than in 2020 and 2021.”

If nothing else, the year 2022 demonstrated that vaccines and other science-based public health policies are successful at containing the pandemic even as the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to mutate. Yet 2022 was also a reminder that the pandemic is still real, and it is a bad idea to assume that it is over.

Dr. William Haseltine, a pioneer in fighting HIV/AIDS and chair and president of the global health think tank Access Health International, pushed back on the idea that humanity’s response to the virus had been “successful.”

“We were not successful,” Haseltine argued. “COVID-19 has not been contained as I speak in early December 2022. The pandemic is on the upswing around the world, most notably China, but also throughout Europe and United States and other countries.”

He also pointed out that vaccinations, even when repeated frequently, “do a poor job at preventing infection, because of the fundamental nature of the virus and because of what we can at present do with our current technologies with vaccines;” although he noted that they “seem to protect, at least for some time, from serious disease and death.”

“There is a remarkable reduction in serious disease and death in those who keep up to date, meaning every four to six months on their vaccines,” Haseltine added. “The best vaccines for that are the mRNA vaccines, and I believe will be better vaccines coming along shortly.”

Benjamin echoed Haseltine’s words of warning.

“Excess deaths continues to grow globally overall,” Benjamin wrote to Salon. “The lack of adequate vaccination worldwide is a continued problem.”

Sean Hannity admits under oath he “didn’t believe” Trump election lies — but aired them anyway

When the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren handed down its unanimous decision in New York Times v. Sullivan back in 1964, it established a tough standard that plaintiffs have to meet in defamation lawsuits. Plaintiffs, according to the Warren Court, have to prove “actual malice.” And that is what Dominion Voting Systems is trying to prove in the defamation lawsuits it filed against Fox News, Newsmax TV, One America News (OAN) and others in response to the false claims they promoted about the 2020 presidential election.

After Donald Trump lost the 2020 election to now-President Joe Biden by more than 7 million votes, many far-right MAGA Republicans at Fox News, Newsmax and OAN promoted the false claim that Dominion’s voting equipment was used to help Democrats steal the election — a conspiracy theory that has been repeatedly debunked. Fox News, in response to Dominion’s defamation lawsuit, has maintained that its hosts weren’t saying the claims about Dominion were true, and that they were just asking questions.

Dominion, meanwhile, is trying to show, in its $1.6 billion lawsuit, that hosts at Fox News acted with actual malice and promoted claims they knew were nonsense. And on Wednesday, December 21, attorneys for Dominion pointed to Fox News host Sean Hannity as an example of someone who knew that the Big Lie was a lie but promoted the claims of Trump attorney Sidney Powell anyway. Powell, who is also facing a defamation lawsuit from Dominion, falsely accused Dominion of helping Democrats steal the election from Trump. Another MAGA Republican who made that false claim and is being sued by Dominion is MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. Dominion has sued former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani as well.

Reporting for the New York Times on December 21, journalist Jeremy Peters explains, “On November 30, 2020, Sean Hannity hosted Sidney Powell on his prime-time Fox News program. As she had in many other interviews around that time — on Fox and elsewhere in right-wing media — Ms. Powell, a former federal prosecutor, spun wild conspiracy theories about what she said was ‘corruption all across the country, in countless districts,’ in a plot to steal reelection from the president, Donald J. Trump. At the center of this imagined plot were machines from Dominion Voting Systems, which Ms. Powell claimed ran an algorithm that switched votes for Mr. Trump to votes for Joseph R. Biden Jr. Dominion machines, she insisted, were being used ‘to trash large batches of votes.'”

But when Hannity gave a deposition two years later on Wednesday, December 21, 2022 and was under oath, he admitted, “I did not believe it for one second.”

According to Peters, “The hearing was called to address several issues that need to be resolved before the case heads for a jury trial, which the judge has scheduled to begin in April. Mr. Hannity’s disclosure — along with others that emerged from court on Wednesday about what Fox News executives and hosts really believed as their network became one of the loudest megaphones for lies about the 2020 election — is among the strongest evidence yet to emerge publicly that some Fox employees knew that what they were broadcasting was false.”

Under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard established by the Warren Court 58 years ago, defamation is very difficult to prove. An honest mistake doesn’t fit the definition of defamation — the plaintiff has to show actual malice. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin filed a defamation lawsuit against the Times and lost because Palin and her attorneys couldn’t prove actual malice.

“The high legal standard of proof in defamation cases makes it difficult for a company like Dominion to prevail against a media organization like Fox News,” Peters notes. “Dominion has to persuade a jury that people at Fox were, in effect, saying one thing in private while telling their audience exactly the opposite. And that requires showing a jury convincing evidence that speaks to the state of mind of those who were making the decisions at the network. In Delaware Superior Court on Wednesday, Dominion’s lawyers argued that they had obtained ample evidence to make that case.”

Peters adds, “One lawyer for Dominion said that ‘not a single Fox witness’ so far had produced anything supporting the various false claims about the company that were uttered repeatedly on the network. And in some cases, other high-profile hosts and senior executives echoed Mr. Hannity’s doubts about what Mr. Trump and his allies like Ms. Powell were saying, according to the Dominion lawyer, Stephen Shackelford. This included Meade Cooper, who oversees prime-time programming for Fox News, and the prime-time star Tucker Carlson, Mr. Shackelford said.”

Citing Cooper and Carlson as examples, Shackleford told the court, “Many of the highest-ranking Fox people have admitted under oath that they never believed the Dominion lies.”

New report suggests Republican election winner busted as a fraud may “not even be Jewish”

Incoming Rep.-elect George Santos, R-N.Y. has been plagued by scandal in recent days after a New York Times report found that he fabricated his entire academic and professional resume.

Now a new report from independent Jewish publication Forward has added yet another scandal to Santos’ plate, as he appears to not even be Jewish.

During his campaign for Congress, Santos claimed to be the grandson of Ukrainian Jews who fled persecution in World War II and settled in Brazil.

However, Forward did extensive research on Santos’ family history and could find no evidence at all that his grandparents were Jews — and it also found that they settled in Brazil long before World War II broke out.

“But the website myheritage.com lists Santos’ maternal grandparents as having both been born in Brazil before the Nazis rose to power — his grandfather, Paulo Horta Devolder, in 1918, and his grandmother, Rosalina Caruso Horta Devolder, in Rio, in 1927,” the publication reports. “An online obituary for Santos’ mother, Fatima Aziza Caruso Horta Devolder, who died in 2016, says she was born in Niterói, a suburb of Rio de Janeiro, on Dec. 22, 1962, to Paul and Rosalina Devolder.”

In addition to this, the publication has found no evidence that Santos’ mother at all identifies as Jewish.

“Fatima’s own Facebook page, which has photos of her with Santos and tags his page, has no mentions of the words ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewish,’ nor the terms Yom Kippur, Shabbat or Israel in English or Portuguese,” the publication explains. “But four of the seven pages she “liked” were for Catholic groups, and… she regularly shared posts with Catholic themes and images of Jesus, including one eight months before her death from a Brazilian Christian group, Tarde com Maria (Afternoons with Maria), that says in Portuguese: ‘The cross of Christ for some is a symbol of defeat, for us it is a symbol of salvation.'”

Read the full report at this link.

The official who investigates suspicious deaths in your town may be a doctor — or not

When a group of physicians gathered in Washington state for an annual meeting, one made a startling revelation: If you ever want to know when, how — and where — to kill someone, I can tell you, and you’ll get away with it. No problem.

That’s because the expertise and availability of coroners, who determine cause of death in criminal and unexplained cases, vary widely across Washington, as they do in many other parts of the country.

“A coroner doesn’t have to ever have taken a science class in their life,” said Nancy Belcher, chief executive officer of the King County Medical Society, the group that met that day.

Her colleague’s startling comment launched her on a four-year journey to improve the state’s archaic death investigation system, she said. “These are the people that go in, look at a homicide scene or death, and say whether there needs to be an autopsy. They’re the ultimate decision-maker,” Belcher added.

Each state has its own laws governing the investigation of violent and unexplained deaths, and most delegate the task to cities, counties, and regional districts. The job can be held by an elected coroner as young as 18 or a highly trained physician appointed as medical examiner. Some death investigators work for elected sheriffs who try to avoid controversy or owe political favors. Others own funeral homes and direct bodies to their private businesses.

Overall, it’s a disjointed and chronically underfunded system — with more than 2,000 offices across the country that determine the cause of death in about 600,000 cases a year.

“There are some really egregious conflicts of interest that can arise with coroners,” said Justin Feldman, a visiting professor at Harvard University’s FXB Center for Health and Human Rights.

Belcher’s crusade succeeded in changing some aspects of Washington’s coroner system when state lawmakers approved a new law last year, but efforts to reform death investigations in California, Georgia, and Illinois have recently failed.

Rulings on causes of death are often not cut-and-dried and can be controversial, especially in police-involved deaths such as the 2020 killing of George Floyd. In that case, Minnesota’s Hennepin County medical examiner ruled Floyd’s death a homicide but indicated a heart condition and the presence of fentanyl in his system may have been factors. Pathologists hired by Floyd’s family said he died from lack of oxygen when a police officer kneeled on his neck and back.

In a recent California case, the Sacramento County coroner’s office ruled that Lori McClintock, the wife of congressman Tom McClintock, died from dehydration and gastroenteritis in December 2021 after ingesting white mulberry leaf, a plant not considered toxic to humans. The ruling triggered questions by scientists, doctors, and pathologists about the decision to link the plant to her cause of death. When asked to explain how he made the connection, Dr. Jason Tovar, the chief forensic pathologist who reports to the coroner, said he reviewed literature about the plant online using WebMD and Verywell Health.

The various titles used by death investigators don’t distinguish the discrepancies in their credentials. Some communities rely on coroners, who may be elected or appointed to their offices, and may — or may not — have medical training. Medical examiners, on the other hand, are typically doctors who have completed residencies in forensic pathology.

In 2009, the National Research Council recommended that states replace coroners with medical examiners, describing a system “in need of significant improvement.”

Massachusetts was the first state to replace coroners with medical examiners statewide in 1877. As of 2019, 22 states and the District of Columbia had only medical examiners, 14 states had only coroners, and 14 had a mix, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The movement to convert the rest of the country’s death investigators from coroners to medical examiners is waning, a casualty of coroners’ political might in their communities and the additional costs needed to pay for medical examiners’ expertise.

The push is now to better train coroners and give them greater independence from other government agencies.

“When you try to remove them, you run into a political wall,” said Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen, a former medical examiner for the city of Milwaukee and the author of “Death Investigation in America: Coroners, Medical Examiners, and the Pursuit of Medical Certainty.”

“You can’t kill them, so you have to help train them,” he added.

There wouldn’t be enough medical examiners to meet demand anyway, in part because of the time and expense it takes to become trained after medical school, said Dr. Kathryn Pinneri, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners. She estimates there are about 750 full-time pathologists nationwide and about 80 job openings. About 40 forensic pathologists are certified in an average year, she said.

“There’s a huge shortage,” Pinneri said. “People talk about abolishing the coroner system, but it’s really not feasible. I think we need to train coroners. That’s what will improve the system.”

Her association has called for coroners and medical examiners to function independently, without ties to other government or law enforcement agencies. A 2011 survey by the group found that 82% of the forensic pathologists who responded had faced pressure from politicians or the deceased person’s relatives to change the reported cause or manner of death in a case.

Dr. Bennet Omalu, a former chief forensic pathologist in California, resigned five years ago over what he described as interference by the San Joaquin County sheriff to protect law enforcement officers.

“California has the most backward system in death investigation, is the most backward in forensic science and in forensic medicine,” Omalu testified before the state Senate Governance and Finance Committee in 2018.

San Joaquin County has since separated its coroner duties from the sheriff’s office.

The Golden State is one of three states that allow sheriffs to also serve as coroners, and all but 10 of California’s 58 counties combine the offices. Legislative efforts to separate them have failed at least twice, most recently this year.

AB 1608, spearheaded by state Assembly member Mike Gipson (D-Carson), cleared that chamber but failed to get enough votes in the Senate.

“We thought we had a modest proposal. That it was a first step,” said Robert Collins, who advocated for the bill and whose 30-year-old stepson, Angelo Quinto, died after being restrained by Antioch police in December 2020.

The Contra Costa County coroner’s office, part of the sheriff’s department, blamed Quinto’s death on “excited delirium,” a controversial finding sometimes used to explain deaths in police custody. The finding has been rejected by the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization.

Lawmakers “didn’t want their names behind something that will get the sheriffs against them,” Collins said. “Just having that opposition is enough to scare a lot of politicians.”

The influential California State Sheriffs’ Association and the California State Coroners Association opposed the bill, describing the “massive costs” to set up stand-alone coroner offices.

Many Illinois counties also said they would shoulder a financial burden under similar legislation introduced last year by state Rep. Maurice West, a Democrat. His more sweeping bill would have replaced coroners with medical examiners.

Rural counties, in particular, complained about their tight budgets and killed his bill before it got a committee hearing, he said.

“When something like this affects rural areas, if they push back a little bit, we just stop,” West said.

Proponents of overhauling the system in Washington state — where in small, rural counties, the local prosecutor doubles as the coroner — faced similar hurdles.

The King County Medical Society, which wrote the legislation to divorce the two, said the system created a conflict of interest. But small counties worried they didn’t have the money to hire a coroner.

So, lawmakers struck a deal with the counties to allow them to pool their resources and hire shared contract coroners in exchange for ending the dual role for prosecutors by 2025. The bill, HB 1326, signed last year by Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, also requires more rigorous training for coroners and medical examiners.

“We had some hostile people that we talked to that really just felt that we were gunning for them, and we absolutely were not,” Belcher said. “We were just trying to figure out a system that I think anybody would agree needed to be overhauled.”


This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

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

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Gaetz and Boebert “blow through” Capitol security and refuse screenings — then diss Zelenskyy speech

Far-right Reps. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., and Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., refused to be screened by Capitol security before scrolling through their phones during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s speech to Congress on Wednesday, according to The Independent.

Two Capitol Police officers stopped the pair and informed them they needed to go through a metal detector before entering the chamber, according to the report. Gaetz was heard “briefly questioning the officer’s direction, before turning away.”

“Mr. Gaetz? Mr. Gaetz?!” an officer said as Gaetz and Boebert decided to “blow through” the screening and enter the chamber anyway, according to the report.

All members of the House are required to go through security screenings and security was “heightened” ahead of the Ukrainian leader’s first overseas speech since the war began, according to The Daily Beast. Metal detectors were installed after the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. Multiple Republicans have been fined for refusing to submit to screenings, including Reps. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Andrew Clyde, R-Ga.

Boebert and Gaetz, who oppose additional aid to Ukraine and called to investigate aid that was already allocated, were later seen sitting and checking their phones during a standing ovation for the Ukrainian leader.

The pair repeatedly sat through other parts of Zelenskyy’s speech that drew standing ovations.

Though Boebert and Gaetz were repeatedly captured by the cameras, other Republicans declined to stand for the Ukrainian leader, including Clyde, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio; Rep. Diana Harshbarger, R-Tenn.; Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio; and Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, according to Axios’ Andrew Solender, though they applauded parts of his speech. Other far-right lawmakers who oppose additional aid to Ukraine, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., did not even attend the speech.

Some colleagues publicly called out Boebert and Gaetz for sitting through the speech.

“I couldn’t imagine looking at myself in the mirror” if I was Gaetz or Boebert, tweeted Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill. “Smugly sat on their hands while history was made and a real hero addressed us. Imagine caring more about performance art than actual human lives.”

“Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz stand with Putin; most of America stands with Zelensky and the people of Ukraine,” tweeted Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y. “The contrast between the far right and most of America has never been more glaring.”

Meghan McCain, the daughter of the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called Boebert and Gaetz an “embarrassment.”

“Have some respect for the man who stands in front of you and get off your phones,” she tweeted.


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


Gaetz after the speech appeared to mock Zelenskyy for wearing combat gear, which he has worn since Russia invaded his country in February.

Asked by Solender if there was anything compelling in the speech, Gaetz replied, “I loved the fashion choices.”

Gaetz said in a statement that Zelenskyy “did not change my stance on suspending aid for Ukraine and investigating fraud in transfers already made.”

“President Zelenskyy should be commended for putting his country first, but American politicians who indulge his requests are unwilling to do the same for ours,” he said. “Hemorrhaging billions of taxpayer dollars for Ukraine while our country is in crisis is the definition of America last.”

Boebert posted a video to Twitter saying that she did not hear a “clear explanation of where the first $50 billion we sent to support their efforts went.” She added that she would oppose any additional aid unless there is an audit of the existing aid.

Zelenskyy’s speech came ahead of a Senate vote on a $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill to avert a government shutdown, which includes $45 billion in emergency aid for Ukraine.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who said he pushed for more aid in negotiations, called providing aid to Ukraine to defeat the Russians “the number one priority of the United States rights now according to most Republicans.”

President Joe Biden, who met with Zelenskyy at the White House earlier in the day, lamented Russia’s increased attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, which have knocked out power and gas to millions.

“Russia is using winter as a weapon: freezing people, starving people, cutting them off from one another,” Biden said. “It’s the latest example of the outrageous atrocities the Russian forces are committing against innocent Ukrainian civilians.”

Zelenskyy during his address pleaded for more assistance for his country.

“We have artillery, yes, thank you. Is it enough? Not really,” Zelenskyy said, adding that the aid is not a gift. “Your money is not charity,” he said. “It’s an investment in the global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way.”

Hundreds of US hospitals sue patients or threaten their credit, a KHN investigation finds

Despite growing evidence of the harm caused by medical debt, hundreds of U.S. hospitals maintain policies to aggressively pursue patients for unpaid bills, using tactics such as lawsuits, selling patient accounts to debt buyers, and reporting patients to credit rating agencies, a KHN investigation shows.

The collection practices are commonplace among all types of hospitals in all regions of the country, including public university systems, leading academic institutions, small community hospitals, for-profit chains, and nonprofit Catholic systems.

Individual hospital systems have come under scrutiny in recent years for suing patients. But the KHN analysis shows the practice is widespread, suggesting most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients.

And although industry officials say they are careful about how they target patients for unpaid bills, few institutions have renounced what federal rules call “extraordinary collection actions,” even as medical debt forces millions of Americans to cut back on food and other essentials, drain retirement savings, and make other difficult sacrifices.

At the same time, a majority of hospitals scrutinized by KHN effectively shroud their collection activities, publicly posting incomplete or in many cases no information about what can happen to patients if they can’t pay.

These are among the findings of an examination of billing and financial aid at a diverse sample of 528 hospitals across the country. Over the past year, KHN investigated each of these hospitals, reviewing thousands of pages of policies and other documents. The reporting also included thousands of telephone and email inquiries and interviews to obtain and clarify how hospitals handle patients with unpaid bills.

Some hospitals did not respond to multiple requests for information. But KHN was able to gather details about most. From them, a picture emerges of a minefield for patients where a trip to the hospital can not only produce jaw-dropping bills but also expose patients to legal risks that jeopardize their livelihood. Among the findings:  

  • More than two-thirds sue patients or take other legal action against them, such as garnishing wages or placing liens on property;
  • A similar share of the hospitals report patients with outstanding bills to credit rating agencies, putting patients’ credit scores and their ability to rent an apartment, buy a car, or get a job at risk;
  • A quarter sell patients’ debts to debt collectors, who in turn can pursue patients for years for unpaid bills;
  • About 1 in 5 deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt;
  • Nearly 40% of all hospitals researched make no information available on their websites about their collection activities, although KHN in some cases was able to obtain the information through repeated requests.

“People don’t know what’s going to happen to them. It can be terrifying,” said Tracy Douglas, a consumer attorney at Bet Tzedek Legal Services in Los Angeles. Douglas described one older woman she worked with who was afraid to seek financial assistance from a hospital because she worried the hospital would seize her home if she couldn’t pay.

Loading…

‘Taken Aback by How Callous They Have Been’

The impact of these collection practices can be devastating.

Across the U.S. health care system, medical debt is taking a fearsome toll on patients, forcing more than half of adults with health-related debt to make difficult sacrifices, including taking on extra work, changing their living situation, or delaying their education, a KFF poll conducted for this project found.

Basit Balogun was a freshman at Lafayette College in Pennsylvania when a heart attack caused by a previously undetected birth defect landed him in the hospital. Because his insurance had lapsed, Balogun, whose family is from Nigeria, was hit with bills amounting to tens of thousands of dollars.

When he couldn’t pay, the hospital reported him to a credit agency, which he discovered only after he’d graduated and was trying to rent an apartment in New York City. “I kept getting rejected and rejected,” Balogun recalled. “I was desperate.”

Balogun, a prize-winning student, landed a job at banking giant Goldman Sachs and used his signing bonus to begin paying down the debt. Five years later, he’s still making payments. Now Balogun said he thinks twice before going to the doctor.

Nick and Elizabeth Woodruff also had their faith shaken by hospital debt collectors. Nick was sued by Our Lady of Lourdes Memorial Hospital in Binghamton, New York, where he’d received care for a dangerous foot infection. 

Despite having insurance through Nick’s work at a truck dealership, the couple were buried in bills, forcing them to withdraw money from their retirement accounts and borrow from family. When they still couldn’t make all the payments, the hospital, a Catholic institution owned by the Ascension chain, took them to court, and in 2018 they were ordered to pay more than $9,300.

“This hospital boasts Catholic values and states they take pride in their charity work,” said Elizabeth, a social worker, “but I am taken aback by how callous they have been.”

Ascension spokesperson Nick Ragone told KHN that the chain, America’s second-largest Catholic system, “ceased taking legal action against patients for unpaid bills starting in October 2019.” But New York court records show that Lourdes continued to file legal actions against patients until at least 2021.

Hospital spokesperson Lisa Donovan subsequently told KHN this was an “administrative oversight.” “Lourdes is reviewing matters to ensure that all legal activities have been disposed/dismissed,” she said in an email.

Holes in the Charity Care System

Many hospital officials say they are obligated to collect what patients owe. “We don’t want to promote the concept that medical bills just go away, especially for those who are able to pay,” said Michael Beyer, who oversees patient accounts at Sanford Health, a South Dakota-based nonprofit with clinics and hospitals across the U.S. and abroad.

Hospital leaders also stress the industry’s commitment to helping low-income patients and others who can’t pay their bills. “Hospitals are doing a lot,” said Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association. “Is it perfect out there? No. But I think they should get credit for trying pretty hard.”

Charity care is offered at most U.S. hospitals. And nonprofit medical systems must provide financial aid as a condition of not paying taxes, a benefit that saves the industry billions of dollars annually.

At many medical centers, however, information about financial assistance is difficult or impossible to find. About 1 in 5 hospitals researched by KHN, including public university systems in five states, don’t post aid policies online.

The University of Mississippi Medical Center disclosed its policy only after KHN filed a public records request. Many hospitals prominently place a link on their homepages for patients to pay a bill, but then require people to click through multiple pages to find information about financial aid.

Visitors to the website of Opelousas General Health System in Louisiana who click on the “Patient Resources” tab can learn that the Lil’ General Café serves panini and pancakes, but they won’t find any information about getting help with medical bills.

Applying for aid can also be extremely complicated, requiring patients to produce exhaustive amounts of personal financial information, KHN found. Standards vary widely, with aid at some hospitals limited to patients with income as low as $13,590 a year. At other hospitals, people making five or six times that much can get assistance.

About two-thirds of the hospitals researched by KHN require patients to report their assets, sometimes in great detail. Centura-St. Anthony Hospital, a Catholic medical center in suburban Denver, notes in its policy that in reviewing patient assets it may count crowdfunding or social media accounts patients have set up to help pay bills. Other hospitals ask patients to report the make, model, and year of cars they have.

“The system doesn’t work,” said Jared Walker, founder of Dollar For, a nonprofit that has helped thousands of people across the country apply for financial aid. “Patients can’t find the information they need. Half the time, when they do apply for assistance, they never hear back. Basically, hospitals do what they want, and there is no accountability.”

Sent to Collections or Sued

In many cases, patients who should qualify for assistance are instead targeted by bill collectors, whether by accident or by design.

“Every week or so we get a call from someone who should have qualified for aid, but they weren’t enrolled,” said Michele Johnson, executive director of the nonprofit Tennessee Justice Center.

A 2019 KHN analysis of hospital tax filings found that nearly half of nonprofit medical systems were billing patients with incomes low enough to qualify for charity care. Earlier this year, Washington state sued hospitals belonging to the nonprofit giant Providence after uncovering that the system trained its collectors to aggressively pursue even patients who should have qualified for aid.

In 2017, the state also successfully sued CHI Franciscan, another Catholic system that authorities found wasn’t properly offering charity care. To settle that case, CHI Franciscan, now part of the mammoth CommonSpirit Health chain, provided more than $40 million in debt relief and refunds and helped patients repair their credit, according to the state attorney general’s office.

But CommonSpirit hospitals still report patients to credit rating agencies, according to the chain’s published policies.

Credit reporting, a threat that is supposed to induce patients to pay, is the most common collection tactic, KHN’s analysis and other data shows. Fewer patients are actually taken to court.

But more than two-thirds of policies obtained by KHN allow hospitals to sue patients or take other legal actions against them, such as garnishing wages or placing liens on property.

This includes half the hospitals earning top spots on the U.S. News & World Report’s annual scorecard — medical centers such as the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, and Massachusetts General Hospital.

Patients at public university medical systems in at least 23 states, including Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, can be sued. In several states, including North Carolina, Ohio, and New York, public university systems refer patients to other state agencies for legal action or withholding tax refunds.

Major nonprofit systems such as Kaiser Permanente, Trinity Health, and Northwell Health will also take legal action against patients, according to their policies or spokespeople. America’s largest for-profit hospital chains — HCA Healthcare and Tenet Healthcare — don’t post collection policies, but don’t sue patients, according to spokespeople. Other investor-owned chains, such as Community Health Systems, will take patients to court.

Hospitals with policies allowing them to sue patients tend to have only slightly higher profits than those that don’t sue, KHN found by comparing financial data that hospitals submit annually to the federal government.

The same is true of hospitals that sell patient accounts, a practice in which medical providers typically package a group of outstanding bills and sell them to a debt-buying company, usually for a small percentage of what is owed. Debt buyers then keep whatever they can collect.

Officials at many hospitals that sue say they rarely take that step. And spokespeople at several medical systems said they have effectively stopped taking patients to court even if their policies still allow it.

But in many cases, hospital policies haven’t changed, leaving patients in legal jeopardy, as was the case at the Ascension hospital in New York that continued to file lawsuits against patients.

Barring Aggressive Collections

A few hospitals have barred all aggressive collections, including two of California’s leading academic medical centers at UCLA and Stanford University. So too have the University of Vermont Medical Center and Ochsner Health, a large New Orleans-based health system.

That can make a difference for patients, data suggests. A recent analysis by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that while medical debt is widespread across the Appalachian region, one notable exception is western Pennsylvania.

Residents there have fewer past-due medical bills on their credit reports than the national average. This region is dominated by the Pittsburgh-based UPMC hospital system, which prohibits aggressive collection actions, including reporting patients to credit agencies.

In neighboring West Virginia, by contrast, the incidence of medical debt is more than 50% above the national average, the CFPB found. That state’s largest hospital system — operated by West Virginia University — not only reports patients to credit agencies but will also sue patients, garnish their wages, and place liens on property.

Elected officials in some states have begun to put limits on hospital bill collecting. In 2021, Maryland barred hospitals from placing liens on patients’ homes and protected low-income patients from wage garnishments. California recently restricted when hospitals could sell patient debt or report patients to credit bureaus. 

But these states remain the exception. And hospitals that have voluntarily given up aggressive collections are in the minority: Just 19 of the 528 hospitals researched by KHN have publicly posted policies barring “extraordinary collection actions.”

Mark Rukavina, who spent decades at the nonprofit Community Catalyst working to expand protections for patients with medical debt, said that is why federal action is needed to rein in hospitals and other medical providers everywhere.

“Nobody should be denied care because they have an outstanding medical bill,” he said. “Nobody should have a lien on their home because they got sick.”


The researchers who worked on this story were KHN writer Megan Kalata and Dr. Margaret Ferguson, Anna Back, and Amber Cole, who were students at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University.

About This Project

“Diagnosis: Debt” is a reporting partnership between KHN and NPR exploring the scale, impact, and causes of medical debt in America.

The series draws on the “KFF Health Care Debt Survey,” a poll designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at KFF in collaboration with KHN journalists and editors. The survey was conducted Feb. 25 through March 20, 2022, online and via telephone, in English and Spanish, among a nationally representative sample of 2,375 U.S. adults, including 1,292 adults with current health care debt and 382 adults who had health care debt in the past five years. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample and 3 percentage points for those with current debt. For results based on subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher.

Additional research was conducted by the Urban Institute, which analyzed credit bureau and other demographic data on poverty, race, and health status to explore where medical debt is concentrated in the U.S. and what factors are associated with high debt levels.

The JPMorgan Chase Institute analyzed records from a sampling of Chase credit card holders to look at how customers’ balances may be affected by major medical expenses.

Reporters from KHN and NPR also conducted hundreds of interviews with patients across the country; spoke with physicians, health industry leaders, consumer advocates, debt lawyers, and researchers; and reviewed scores of studies and surveys about medical debt.


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

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivers America a Christmas message: But why was he here?

I know the human mind is limited. 

Nothing in our religions or in science can adequately explain our existence, let alone explain the universe.

So I’d settle with understanding the last five days of news: That would be the updated 12 days of Christmas, that includes four DOJ referrals, three mice in the West Wing’s men’s room, two MAGA GOP congresswomen fighting with each other and one visit from Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Zelenskyy was at the top of the news Wednesday with a hastily announced visit to the White House and Congress. It all came together during the last 10 days, but at first no one was sure why it had to happen now and what it was all about.

A day before he came to Washington, Zelenskyy made an unexpected trip to Bakhmut, a city in the eastern Donetsk region of Ukraine where some of the bloodiest fighting in the war is taking place. He said it was the “hottest spot on the entire front line,” with 800 miles of active fighting. 

The visit also came a few days after Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Belarus and either did or didn’t (depending on what reporting you saw) strike a deal with President Alexander Lukashenko to provide either troops or more hardware to Putin’s flagging war effort. 

Early speculation from some was that Zelenskyy’s appearance in Washington was to counter Putin’s visit to Belarus. Others thought Zelenskyy wanted to make an appearance in Washington to underscore Ukraine’s need for ammunition and weapons as the inevitably hard and cold winter settles in.

Joe Biden said during his dual press conference with Zelenskyy on Wednesday afternoon that Putin was using the winter weather “as a weapon” to kill civilians by targeting infrastructure. For his part, Zelenskyy said he wanted to thank the American people and noted that Ukraine and the U.S. were closer allies than ever. That doesn’t mean Biden and Zelenskyy see eye to eye on everything. Biden said there were some things that Ukraine wanted (offensive weapons) that the U.S. will not give because such things would escalate the violence and widen the war. He also said he wouldn’t give weapons that would undermine NATO or our European allies. He didn’t say what those were, but again, it isn’t hard to guess that even though it’s Christmas, Biden’s not playing Santa Claus and delivering offensive weapons, even if Putin has been naughty and Zelenskyy has been nice.

It may be Christmas, but Joe Biden isn’t delivering offensive weapons in Ukraine’s stocking, even if Putin’s been naughty and Zelenskyy’s been nice.

All of this played out before Zelenskyy traveled to a joint session of Congress where he again pleaded his case. Never mind that more than one congressional member griped about staying in town this close to Christmas. Those who were there ultimately listened. Reps. Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz (call them the Putin caucus) didn’t stand and cheer with other House and Senate members, but they showed up.

Still, none of this seemed to fully explain why Zelenskyy chose Wednesday as a day to visit. Biden said it was the 300th day of the war — but do you travel halfway across the world to mark the occasion? You’ve spoken by Zoom to everyone about everything you spoke to them about in person. Was it a plea to Congress not to abandon him? Was it about a possible resolution to the war? A diplomatic maneuver? Or was there another reason?

Upon his arrival to the White House I shouted, “What do you hope to accomplish while you’re here?” No reply. Biden put his arm on Zelenskyy’s shoulder and they turned and walked inside.

Was he trying to cement our resolve? He just got a Patriot missile battery and the U.S. will train Ukrainians to man it. He just got $45 billion more from the U.S., but reports said he showed up on American soil to shore up support. “I wish you peace,” Zelenskyy said when asked what he wanted to say to the American people.

During the bilateral press conference, Biden said that all politics is “personal,” a twist on the old Tip O’Neill saying: “All politics is local.” Biden also said he looked Zelenskyy in the eye and could “see his soul” and that he trusted and believed Ukraine’s leader. What did Zelenskyy tell him? We don’t know. I certainly would like to hear what it was that touched our president so much.

At the end of the day Zelenskyy, still dressed in his war uniform, as he had been all day, heard bipartisan cheers as he spoke to Congress. He put his hand to his heart and thanked Americans for allowing him to visit. With the honesty and emotional integrity that Biden said he saw in the man, he impressed everyone with the resolve that only an embattled freedom fighter could muster.

He spoke of his “respect and gratitude” to the U.S. He thanked us for helping Ukraine and spoke of the “great privilege” he felt in speaking before Congress about his country that “against all odds and gloom and doom” is still standing. “Ukraine is alive and kicking,” he stated. That brought thunderous applause and a standing ovation.

As it turns out, the reason for Zelenskyy’s visit was as deep as this: The medium is the message. 

Merely by standing before Congress he illustrated his premise: “We defeated Russia in the minds of the world.” He said that freedom was stronger, unity was stronger, Europe was stronger and “Russian tyranny has lost control over us.”

As he stood before Congress preaching about American resolve, he united Democrats and Republicans as no president has been able to do in a generation. He compared the Ukrainian stand in Bakhmut to the 101st Airborne Division’s stand against the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge.  That got another standing ovation.

Of course some didn’t see it that way. Boebert and Gaetz, along with a few stragglers who still blame the Jan. 6 insurrection on everyone except Donald Trump — the only man who stood to benefit from it — stayed seated at key moments with smirks that gave away their privileged, ignorant nature.


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


That brings us to the other big news event this week, standing in direct juxtaposition to Zelenskyy’s appearance before Congress. On Monday, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland read out the four criminal charges that the Jan. 6 House committee was referring to the Justice Department for the potential prosecution of Donald Trump.  

“Ours is not a system of justice where foot soldiers go to jail and the masterminds and ringleaders get a free pass,” Raskin said.

Ranking member Liz Cheney, a Republican who voted with Trump 93 percent of the time during his administration, was more pointed. “This was an utter moral failure and a clear dereliction of duty,” Cheney said of Trump’s attacks on the peaceful transfer of power. “He is unfit for any office.”

Liz Cheney used the legacy of Ronald Reagan to defend democracy. Forget it: Reagan’s true legacy is Donald Trump.

The referrals include obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement and inciting, assisting or aiding and comforting an insurrection. The last, should he be charged and convicted, would at least theoretically prevent Trump from ever running for office again. Zelenskyy dodged bullets to keep his government alive. Trump tried to incite an insurrection to kill the government he ruled at the time.

Cheney also used the visage and legacy of Ronald Reagan in an effort to defend democracy and the rule of law. You could describe that as an admirable effort to convert old-line Republicans to her cause, but to me that’s where she crossed the line. Ronald Reagan’s legacy is Donald Trump. It was Reagan who courted the far right, introduced supply-side economics, engineered the destruction of the free press and crushed a union during his time in office. His cheery autocracy led to the divisiveness that gave us Newt Gingrich, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, Louie Gohmert and others. He was no friend to democracy. He was not a shining example of bipartisanship — and probably couldn’t get elected in the Republican Party as it exists today, even though he was one of its leading architects. He wasn’t qualified to shine Zelenskyy’s shoes. 

As for Liz Cheney, she may be the hero of the moment. She stood fast against Trump as he tried to shred the Constitution, but she’s no Zelenskyy either. She’s a far-right outgoing member of Congress whose only redeeming virtue is she cares about the blessings of liberty enshrined in the Constitution. That’s not nothing, of course.

*  *  *

I walked into the men’s bathroom in the West Wing on Wednesday,after Zelenskyy’s appearance at the White House, still trying to figure out if there was a hidden meaning to his appearance. 

I didn’t get it yet. I had the feeling I was missing something. 

I was also thinking about the difference between Zelenskyy, who could lose his life on any given day to a Russian missile or an Iranian drone, and Donald Trump, who essentially tried to do to American democracy what Putin and Russia are trying to do to Ukrainian independence and had been referred to the DOJ on four criminal charges just two days earlier — although it felt like a lifetime ago.

Cheney’s pronouncement about Trump’s unfitness for office echoed through my mind. Raskin’s reading of the referrals felt like a drumbeat. Did our country deserve the praise Zelenskyy had given us? By the narrowest of margins did this country persevere after Trump tried to destroy it. We were hanging by a narrow thread just two years ago. I shook my head.

Then I looked down to see three mice in the bathroom, possibly playing poker or trading Christmas presents. I had to laugh. Mice in the White House are more ubiquitous than reporters, politicians and security cameras. They’re more resilient than cockroaches and Keith Richards. They have survived Trump and their descendants will probably inhabit the building long after I retire.

My phone buzzed and I checked the news. It was the latest on the feud between Boebert and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene feud over Kevin McCarthy’s bid to be House speaker. That means absolutely nothing to me, but I’m told it is symbolic of a huge split in the Republican Party.

But the symbol I kept thinking about was Zelenskyy. As he spoke before Congress he praised the world but gave his greatest praise to the United States, saying, “So much of the world depends on you.”

In the last five days of news we’ve had four DOJ referrals, three mice in the men’s room, two battling members of Congress and one heroic visit from the soldier-president of a distant land. He reminded us of the truth: We are still the bright light shining on the hill to which others aspire — or we can be if we want to be …

So a Happy Festivus — for the rest of us.