Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Costco confirms that it will no longer serve Pepsi products at its food courts

Costco announced during its annual shareholder meeting on Jan. 23 that its food court will no longer serve Pepsi products. The big-box warehouse is switching over to Coca-Cola, which was its primary beverage vendor up until 2013. 

The recent news was confirmed during a question-and-answer portion of the meeting when a shareholder asked, “Is the food court truly switching back to Coke products?”

“Yes, that is accurate,” Costco CEO Ron Vachris said, per TODAY. “This summer we will be converting our food court fountain business back over to Coca-Cola.”

After 27 years of exclusively serving Coca-Cola products, Costco began serving Pepsi across warehouses nationwide in 2013. The beverage was a staple in the retail chain’s famed $1.50 hot dog combo.

Costco has made several changes to its menu items and membership programs in recent months. However, the chain said it wouldn’t change the price of its hot dog combo, which has consistently been $1.50 since the 1980s. Last May, Costco CFO Gary Millerchip said during the chain's Q3 2024 earnings call that the combo’s longtime price will stay put.

Costco’s hot-dog-and-soda combo is “a secret weapon for the big-box warehouse club,” CNN’s Nathaniel Meyersohn wrote in 2018. The $1.50 offering is “one of the perks that helps persuade shoppers to dish out $60 or $120 for a membership every year” and is part of the chain’s “broader strategy to distinguish its warehouses,” Meyersohn added.

This unique cake combines the “warmth of gingerbread” with buttermilk and fresh blueberries

January gets its share of bad press. Between the weather and our resolutions, it is the month we feel we must get through, the month we must bear. Its days are short and either dreary and rainy, or gloomy and cold, or some other mix that you can count on to dampen your outside plans. Our beginning-of-the-year customs go hand in hand with its bleakness as we choose to make ourselves more cheerless by abstaining from things we enjoy, while pushing ourselves towards the more mundane and less exciting.

We force change upon ourselves “for our own good,” metamorphosing into harsh parents who are darn well going to reign things in after all the tomfoolery and freewheeling fun and extravagance that marked the last weeks of the previous year. Make a budget, go on a diet, get back to your work outs, clean out the pantry, organize your closet, save money, eat in and do better with your sleep hygiene. There shall be no more merriment, and in the words of Nat King Cole, it is time to straighten up and fly right.

Our third week of January threw quite the wrench in our new habits and schedules put in place since the beginning of the year. We had a blizzard: A blizzard on the Gulf Coast! A full-on snowstorm!

By the end of twenty-four hours, we had inches and inches of powdery, white snow — somewhere around 8”-10” all along the Coast from Texas to Florida. You could not tell what was a sand dune and what was a snow mound. It started around noon on Tuesday, January 21st, broke all existing records and sent this whole area into a state of childlike wonder, the likes of which you cannot imagine. People snow skiing down Bourbon Street in New Orleans, garbage can lids and plastic baby pools used as makeshift sleds, snowmen on the beach; it was something out of this world. January said, “Hey, how bout you take a break from all that newfound discipline and turn that frown upside down: no gym, no work, no school, no nothing that involves driving for three days. Go outside and play!”  

Monday evening, the night before Snowmageddon was due to hit, we had guests arriving. Three weeks prior, they had departed from their home on the Virginia coast, driven all the way to Oregon and seeing us was a stopover on their way back. Their trip had not gone as planned. They had to flee the west coast because of fires, then were met with ice in Texas. Trudging on as best they could, they felt confidant they could stay ahead of our "incoming arctic blast” with an early enough start Tuesday morning, which they did, save for some minor travel inconveniences made worse by the wintry road conditions.

I made a Blueberry Buttermilk Spice Cake that afternoon before they arrived with the idea that I would serve it as part of breakfast Tuesday morning, because it is one of those cakes that is better the second day, but the four of us managed to consume over half of it before going to bed that night.

It is a unique combination, blueberry buttermilk spice cake. I forget how different it sounds until I hear myself tell someone the name of it.


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


It has the warmth of gingerbread and the blueberries impart freshness more than flavor. Because the batter is so thick, the berries remain scattered nicely throughout the cake — no worry of them sinking to the bottom. It is not overly sweet, which makes it a great anytime-of-day cake to accompany tea or coffee in the morning or afternoon, and as evidenced by the dessert sized slices we ate after dinner Monday evening, it works for then too. 

In the rush of our friends’ hasty departure Tuesday morning, breakfast was a blur of frenzied movement. In addition to eggs, toast and copious amounts of coffee, my husband, Tom, decided to try out the suggestion made by our friends the previous evening and pan-fry slices of cake in butter. As you would guess, in no time the rest of the cake was gone.   

It has been seventy-two hours since the snow felland we are in the process of thawing out. It's supposed to be raining and in the 60s by the end of the weekend, but who knows what the rest of the month may bring. I tell you, I have nothing but respect for all of you who shovel snow and navigate icy conditions regularly. As for me, I have not moved off our property since Monday afternoon and today will be no different. All that winter-wonderland business was fun for a minute, and incredibly beautiful, but what a disrupter! Thankfully, I stocked up like a hurricane was coming on Sunday and Monday and have no need to get out. 

I think this cake will now be Snowmageddon Cake and will forever bring back memories of our unprecedented, once-in-a-lifetime snow event here along the beach. An adventure it was! 

I have now had my share of winter weather and I have had plenty, thank-you. How many more days until Spring? I am counting them down and have never been more ready.          

We need your help to stay independent

Blueberry Buttermilk Spice Cake
Yields
12 servings
Prep Time
20 minutes
Cook Time
50 minutes 

Ingredients

1 stick of butter

3 tablespoons coconut oil (or additional butter)

1 1/4 cup sugar, plus a few more pinches

2 eggs

1 1/4 cups all-purpose flour or a gluten-free baking blend

1 1/4 cups whole meal flour (or additional AP flour)

1/2 teaspoon salt

2 teaspoon ground cinnamon

1 teaspoon ground nutmeg

1/2 teaspoon ground cloves

1 1/4 teaspoon baking soda

*1/2 cup buttermilk 

2 cups fresh blueberries, washed and patted dry

 

Directions

  1. Preheat oven to 350F and have all ingredients at room temperature.

  2. Spray oil and flour your Bundt pan, tapping out excess flour, and set aside.

  3. In a small bowl mix together flour, salt, spices, and soda, and set aside.

  4. Beat butter and sugar until light and fluffy.

  5. Add eggs one at a time, beating well after each.

  6. Using a rubber spatula, stir in half the flour mixture, then half the buttermilk, then the other halves of each. It will be a sticky, thick batter. 

  7. Gently stir in blueberries, try to keep them whole.  

  8. Spoon batter into Bundt pan and top with a light sprinkling of sugar.

  9. Bake 45 to 50 minutes. 

  10. Allow to cool in pan on a rack for about 15-20 minutes, then turn out onto rack to finish cooling.


Cook's Notes

-If you are using 100% AP flour, reduce the baking soda to just 1 teaspoon.

*If you do not have buttermilk, stir 1 tsp vinegar into regular milk and allow to sit until ready to use.

FDA confirms listeria contamination in Kirkland smoked salmon, issues urgent recall

A "possible listeria contamination" in Kirkland-brand smoked salmon has been officially confirmed, prompting renewed warnings from the FDA.

As first reported by Salon in October 2024, Brooklyn-based Acme Smoked Fish recalled Kirkland Signature Smoked Salmon sold at various Costco locations due to concerns over listeria contamination. The initial recall specified a potential risk, but the FDA has now confirmed it as a Class 1 recall — the highest risk category — because of the potential for serious illness or death if consumed.

Although the product was removed from stores last fall, there is concern that some Costco shoppers may have frozen the salmon and still have it on hand. The recall pertains specifically to dual 12-ounce packages of Kirkland Signature Smoked Salmon with a best-by date of Nov. 13, 2024.

While no illnesses or deaths have been reported, the FDA urges customers to check their freezers for the affected product. Those who still have it should either dispose of it or return it to a Costco store for a refund.

According to the FDA, a Class 1 recall indicates "a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to, a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death." The recall was recently upgraded after testing confirmed the presence of listeria in the product.

Trump still can’t escape Jan. 6 — and ultimately, it will destroy him

Right now, Donald Trump has the highest approval rating he's ever had as president, and he's still just below 50%, the lowest of any president this early in his term — except for himself, right after taking office in 2017. That hasn't stopped him and his lackeys from insisting that he has an unprecedented mandate to enact a radical agenda, based on what they ludicrously call a landslide victory. In reality, he won the popular vote by 1.5 percentage points, falling just short of a majority, and his 312 electoral votes are historically unimpressive. Compare that to real landslides, such as Ronald Reagan's victory in 1984, when he won 49 states with a popular-vote margin of 18 points, and the claim becomes embarrassing. That's just how they roll.

According to the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, "45% of Americans approve of Trump's performance as president," which is down a couple of points from their Inauguration Day poll, while those who disapproved increased from 39% to 46%. When it comes to Trump's early policy moves, a majority disapproves of almost all of them. These range from the substantive to the ridiculous: Only 25% approved of renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the "Gulf of America," while 70% disapproved; pardoning the Jan. 6 defendants has 62% disapproval; and ending birthright citizenship gets thumbs-down from 59% of respondents. Trump's tariff plans also fall well short of majority support, as do his withdrawal from the Paris climate accords and his orders to end DEI and non-discrimination programs within the federal government.

The one issue in that entire poll that receives majority support is "downsizing the federal government," but it's reasonable to assume that a majority do not believe that abruptly freezing all funding for medical research, children's health programs or veterans' care with zero notice, as Trump and his Project 2025 acolytes tried to do this week, is the way to do it.

Perhaps the most striking result in that survey is the massive unpopularity of Trump's pardons for the Jan. 6 rioters. Only hardcore MAGA true believers appear to support that decision, which tells you that Trump's belief that Americans at large see the violent attack that day as justified is completely wrong-headed. (Even Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. one of Trump's most loyal supporters, thinks that was a mistake.)

Trump does not seem concerned about that. Over the weekend, Trump appeared at a rally in Las Vegas with Stewart Rhodes, the former head of the Oath Keepers, whose 18-year sentence for seditious conspiracy was just commuted. According to a recording obtained by CBS News, Rhodes said a few days after the Jan. 6 riot that "my only regret is they should have brought rifles, we should have brought rifles. We could have fixed it right then and there. I'd hang fu**ing Pelosi from the lamppost." What a guy.

Trump said all the Jan. 6 prisoners were patriots who love their country. Meanwhile, one man he just pardoned was killed by police in a shootout days after being released, another is wanted or fsoliciting a minor and another now faces trial on charges of pedophilia and possession of child pornography. It's likely they will not be the last to find themselves back behind bars, or worse, before too long. Everyone in this country and around the world saw what those people did that day, whatever Donald Trump wants to claim about it now.

Trump is so driven to "prove" that everyone should believe him, rather than their lying eyes, that he has appointed Ed Martin, an organizer of the Jan. 6 "Stop the Steal" gathering, as interim U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. At a rally the day before the Capitol attack, Martin exhorted "die-hard true Americans" to work until their "last breath" to "stop the steal." He was at the Capitol the next but says he never believed things had gotten "out of hand." After the crowd had already breached the building and was engaged in a violent battle with police, Martin tweeted: "Like Mardi Gras in DC today: love, faith and joy."

He's been a big part of the Patriot Freedom Project, advocating for the Jan. 6 defendants and holding fundraisers for them. If there is anyone with a greater conflict of interest regarding these cases, I can't imagine who that would be. Martin has already instigated one of those Trumpian "investigations of the investigation" to review what he calls the "great failures" of prosecutors in using a charge that was later thrown out by the Supreme Court, even though virtually all the lower-court judges who heard those cases had upheld it. He has disbanded the Justice Department's Jan. 6 unit and moved to dismiss all pending cases. 

We need your help to stay independent

The New York Times reports that Acting Attorney General James McHenry has "fired more than a dozen prosecutors who worked on the two criminal investigations into Donald J. Trump for the special counsel Jack Smith, saying they could not be trusted to 'faithfully implement' the president’s agenda." Career prosecutors are supposed to follow the rule of law without fear or favor, not to "faithfully implement" anyone's political agenda — but apparently those rules have changed. Trump sees the DOJ as his personal law firm, and I guess that makes sense, since he's staffing it with defense lawyers from his criminal, impeachment and civil trials.

Now we have FBI director-designate Kash Patel, who will face confirmation hearings this week as he prepares to take over leadership of federal law enforcement and do what former FBI directors James Comey and Christopher Wray refused to do: act as Trump's personal henchman.

I wrote about Patel a couple of months ago, when I was still in shock that he could possibly be confirmed for such an important law enforcement position. He's apparently driven by the same persecution complex as Trump and has developed an equal thirst for revenge. Members of the intelligence community have begged the Senate not to confirm him, as have several former Republican national security officials. Revelations seem to emerge on a daily basis about Patel's malfeasance in his positions during Trump's first term, always because he was operating as Trump's propaganda minister regardless of the actual job he held.

USA Today reported this week that Patel was one of the members of Trump's inner circle most responsible for "recasting" Jan. 6 as a patriotic protest rather than a violent insurrection. He spread lies that the FBI had instigated the riot and pushed the bogus Ray Epps conspiracy theory. He even produced that Jan. 6 "prison choir" rendition of the national anthem. It's hard to think of anyone worse or less qualified to be FBI director.


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


All of this is happening in the shadow of Trump's repeated flouting of the law, from his executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship to the unauthorized firing of almost all independent inspectors general to his refusal to fund programs authorized by Congress, which is their job, not his. His brazen lawlessness has already exceeded most people's expectations or even imagination, and he's just getting started.

The American people do not support any of this, it appears, and any they will almost certainly like it less and less as all this unfolds. Trump's twisted psychological need to believe that he won by a landslide and is therefore vindicated in his ludicrous and hateful lies about 2020 has given him a monumental case of hubris. He'll do a lot of damage before he's finished — but he will never get the popular approbation he craves, now or in the future. 

Republican plans to cut Medicaid could cost 22 million Americans their health care

The Republican Party is eyeing sweeping cuts to Medicaid, a program that the poorest Americans rely on for health care, to finance President Donald Trump’s tax cuts and plans for mass deportation. Democrats say those plans could cost some 22 million people their health care, which they argue would betray Trump's promises on the campaign trail to lower costs for working Americans.

That finding comes amid reports that Trump’s unilateral decision to freeze federal funding resulted in whole states being frozen out of the Medicaid payment system, despite claims from the White House that the program would be unaffected. The acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, Matthew Vaeth, had said the freeze was aimed at “ending ‘wokeness'"; the freeze was put on hold by a judge late Tuesday, with critics accusing the administration of abrogating Congress' constitutional power to dictate federal spending.

“This is a blatant attempt to rip away health care from millions of Americans overnight and will get people killed,” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in a post.

While more than 72 million Americans enrolled in Medicaid grapple with the uncertainty introduced by the Trump administration, congressional Republicans are eyeing more permanent and sweeping cuts to the program.

The New York Times reports that Republicans on the House Budget Committee are floating a menu of cuts to the program, including new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, limits on federal matching funds and new eligibility requirements. The GOP is also considering a variety of provisions aimed at undercutting Medicaid expansion in the states.

"There's some talk about work requirements and various aspects, but we haven't determined the final parameters of it yet," House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters earlier this month.

Even changes short of elimination could kick many people off the program. According to an analysis of proposed cuts from the Democratic National Committee, shared with Salon, proposals to curb Medicaid expansion alone — which extends coverage to Americans with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty line — could drive nearly 22 million people off the program.

We need your help to stay independent

“Trump lied to the American people for months on the campaign trail, promising to lower their costs on Day One. It’s clear from Trump’s first week in office that he’s focused on the bottom line of his billionaire backers, not working families,” Sam Cornale, executive director of the DNC, said in a statement.

In a state-by-state breakdown, the DNC analysis found that the Medicaid expansion proposals would affect over 5 million Californians and 2.3 million New Yorkers, as well as more than 900,000 people in Louisiana, Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The proposals would also put some 640,000 Arizonans, 689,000 Oregonians and 730,000 Virginians at risk of losing insurance.

“Americans all over the country rely on Medicaid for health care coverage and these cuts would devastate families, including in many communities that carried Trump this election cycle," Cornale said.

Scott Bessent, hedge fund billionaire, is Trump’s treasury secretary

Scott Bessent will lead President Donald Trump's financial agenda as treasury secretary. 

Bessent, a billionaire hedge fund manager, was confirmed in a 68 to 29 U.S. Senate vote on Monday and sworn in on Tuesday. 

A past supporter of Democrats who worked for George Soros, Bessent was an enthusiastic supporter of Trump's reelection, hosting a series of fundraisers that drew tens of millions of dollars. He is one of 13 billionaires Trump has tapped to join his administration, ABC News reported

Sixteen Democrats joined Republicans in supporting Bessent's nomination. This will be his first time overseeing a sprawling organization or working in government, The New York Times reported

Beyond developing Trump's tax policies and creating his administration's budgets, Bessent will play a key role in implementing tariffs, set to be imposed on imports from Mexico and Canada beginning Saturday. Bessent has expressed a less aggressive approach to tariffs than Trump, saying they should be implemented strategically, and over time, in order to minimize economic disruption. 

In his Senate confirmation hearing, he said "free trade must be balanced against fair trade, and clearly trade has not been fair and that has fallen on American workers."

Bessent has pledged to extend the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, enacted under Trump's first administration and set to expire this year. Bessent has pushed an ambitious plan to lower the federal budget deficit to 3%, achieve 3% GDP and produce 3 million more barrels of oil a day by the end of Trump’s second term, CNN reported. 

The Treasury Department oversees the Internal Revenue Service, which Trump has portrayed as hostile to taxpayers. Bessent has been asked to review the viability of Trump's proposed “External Revenue Service” to collect tariff revenues, The Times reported.

Bessent committed to maintaining a program that allows taxpayers to file their returns directly to the IRS for free — at least for the 2025 tax season, which began Monday, The Associated Press reported.

The federal debt limit will pose one of Bessent's biggest challenges. Former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said the Treasury Department would need to deploy “extraordinary measures” to prevent the U.S. from defaulting on its debt if lawmakers did not lift or suspend the nation’s borrowing cap, The Times reported. 

Bessent said during his confirmation hearing that the Federal Reserve, which has projected fewer rate cuts this year, should remain independent from the president’s influence and that U.S. sanctions on Russian oil should be more aggressive, The Associated Press reported. 

Born in South Carolina, Bessent graduated from Yale University in 1984 and went to work for several finance firms. From 1991 to 2000, he served as managing partner of Soros Fund Management, a hedge fund started by Democratic megadonor George Soros. Bessent played a key role in the famous "Black Wednesday" trade that earned over $1 billion by betting against the British pound, The Times reported. He is founder of the hedge fund Key Square Capital Management.

His background and potential conflicts of interest raised concerns that he would prioritize the interests of Wall Street. Democrats pointed to a review of his tax returns that showed he had collected earnings from his hedge fund in a way that allowed him to avoid paying more than $900,000 in payroll taxes, per The Times.

Bessent, who has maintained he violated no laws, is in the process of divesting many of his investments, The Times reported. 

"I'm all for aspirational goals, and like most Americans, I want a more productive economy, a lower deficit, and greater energy security," said Neale Mahoney, professor of economics at Stanford University, of Bessent's ambitious three-point plan. "At the same time, as an economist, I know that these goals will be difficult to achieve."

Stock market strategies for nervous investors

Blackjack winners employ a timeless set of strategies: Always assume the dealer’s down card is 10. Stand on hard 17, hit on a soft one (Ace + 6). Hit if you have a low hand, 12-16, and the dealer has a 7 or higher showing. There are rules on when to split and when to double down and so on. Sometimes you’ll lose, of course, even when you’re rigorous in your obedience to the formula. But the rules give you the best odds of winning. It’s math.

Similarly, the practice of investing in the stock market has its own set of tried-and-true practices. Your portfolio should reflect your age and circumstances — you’ll take more risks when you’re younger because you have time to recover in a dip, but as you get older your investment mix should be weighted in more conservative products.

You might go up and down, but historically, folks who have stayed in the market have done leagues better than those who pulled their chips and walked away. They followed the established rules, and one of the most common investing regrets is pulling out in reaction to a downturn, which, when compounded among thousands of shareholders, causes the markets to spiral even more.

But unlike blackjack, global markets are affected by all kinds of forces — climate change, politics and policies and pandemics are a few. And now that there’s a wild card in the White House in the form of Donald Trump, plus the infinite hot takes of what’s going to happen to the markets, investors might be nervous enough to pull out altogether. It’s certainly understandable, but not a solid strategy.

When words don’t count, and when they do

"Everybody's got plenty of risk tolerance when the market is going up, and as soon as it goes down, people realize, oh, they don't have such a risk tolerance, after all," said Bankrate’s chief financial analyst, Greg McBride, who advised folks to be realistic about their goals and capacity for uncertainty when setting up investment accounts to avoid making panic-driven decisions during a boom-bust cycle.

We need your help to stay independent

"Whether you're sitting down with a human money manager or you're using a managed system, you've got to truly assess what your risk tolerance is," McBride said. "Ask yourself what would you do if the market fell 10%? Would you go run and hide under your bed, or would you buy more?”

McBride maintains that if you have a solid strategy in place, you’ll be fine. Stay strapped in and you’ll coast to safety eventually.

Monica Guerra, head of U.S. policy at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, takes a more nuanced approach and looks to the political climate for clues as to what will affect markets in the short, medium and long-term. Trump likes AI, for example. "So if you're a stock picker, that would be something you would look at. It's those types of dynamics that are going to become clear, and that helps for a sweeter market," Guerra said. (Her comments came before AI stocks fell and bumped this week when investors learned of the inexpensive and less data-hungry DeepSeek AI assistant from China.)

Some investors will feel safer shifting to more fixed-income products, even though they’re facing smaller returns that more aggressive approaches would bring. U.S. Treasury bonds, for example, pay more when the interest rates are high. "They're the gold standard of safe-haven assets," Guerra said.

Guerra noted that a unified Congress means that debt-ceiling decisions are more likely to pass and bills will be paid on time — essentially keeping the country’s credit score high.

"This is not just a U.S. monetary and fiscal dynamic around interest rates, but it's also that from a global perspective, global investors are liking Treasury [bonds] because they can also get a little extra yield and the asset is still considered sound."

"Ask yourself what would you do if the market fell 10%? Would you go run and hide under your bed, or would you buy more?"

What makes it tricky is the current president makes promises that may or may not pan out depending on how he can actually wield his power. "From a market perspective, that means the first half of the year could be a little bumpy," Guerra said. "And where we do see the potential for a more positive, less bumpy, smoother ride is in the second half of the year, and that's because you're going to have more policy certainty."

"We're looking to Congress to see whether or not they can make good on Trump's policy promises. What does that mean from a market perspective?" Guerra said. She used the example of his "drill, baby, drill" rallying cry.

"On a relative basis, if you're looking at clean energy versus traditional energy, in my opinion, I think that clean energy actually is an outlier and it is likely to outperform traditional energy," she said. When Trump talks about producing more oil without a demand for it, that actually causes oil prices to fall. Nobody likes oversupply.

"People are expecting a continuation of symbolic and actual draconian policy around clean energy, but what they're not accounting for is that, for example, with the Inflation Reduction Act, 80% of that money has already been spent." She added that the concentration is in Trump-supporting red states where they’re expecting a boost to the economy and a slew of new, good jobs.

"We think that there's less of a willingness for the actual legislators to claw back that money. … Trump can say whatever he wants. Actions speak louder than words, at least from a Congressional perspective, so we don't expect significant fallback in funding," she said. One of Trump’s first executive orders was to freeze all remaining funding to the states under the Act.

Stay the course

It’s rare to find an investment professional who will tell you to cash out completely. "There wouldn't be an environment where we would do that," Guerra said.

McBride likens it to switching jockeys mid-race. "I would caution against massive overhauls based on short-term volatility," he said.

But using another vehicle to generate cash, such as a reverse mortgage that draws from the equity of your home, might make sense.

"That reverse mortgage might be a way to keep your hands off your portfolio for a few years, too," he said.

GLP-1 drugs are reshaping food spending habits, study finds

GLP-1 injections, such as semaglutide and tirzepatide products like Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro and Zepbound have led many consumers to spend significantly less money on food — both at grocery stores and fast-food drive-thrus, researchers found. 

As Stacey Leasca reports for “Food & Wine,” research from Cornell University found that households with at least one GLP-1 user are significantly reducing their grocery spending. The paper used data from Numerator, which surveyed 150,000 households about GLP-1 medications and food purchasing habits. According to the research, "adopters reduced their grocery spending by 5.5% in the first six months, while higher-income households had a 'notably larger reduction, averaging 8.6%.'"

Researchers also observed a reduction in purchases of ultra-processed foods like "snack foods, sweets and other calorie-dense items," as well as "impulse purchases." Additionally, spending on "food away from home," including fast food and coffee shops, declined. On the other hand, the study noted that nutrient-dense options such as yogurt, fresh produce and nutrition bars were least affected — aligning with the assumption that these items might remain staples for individuals using these medications.

While this raises questions about how brands should approach product development in response to shifting consumer behavior, it also reflects a broader trend. As proponents of these drugs often emphasize, a general sense of health, wellness and betterment appears to be on the rise — something worth celebrating.

“Trump is trying to collapse our economy”: War on “woke” revealed as a war on all Americans

Initially, the most striking detail in the White House Office of Management and Budget memo that has put a "pause" on huge swathes of the American economy, is how unhinged the paranoia is. The order insists that all federal grant and loan spending must be halted to combat "Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies." Ordinary people may see nothing but a local bridge being repaired, broadband internet being installed or a park getting cleaned up. Through MAGA-colored glasses, it's all a plot to turn you into transgender Marxists and probably vegans, who are worse than Satanists. 

(As of Tuesday evening, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., has temporarily blocked the funding freeze in response to a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Democracy Forward. A separate lawsuit contesting the order has also been filed in Rhode Island by attorneys general for 22 states and the District of Columbia.)

Despite claiming to stand for "hardworking American families" — who are typically considered to be a different category of human beings than woke Marxist transgender green-dealers, at least within the Fox Cinematic Universe — this new executive order from Donald Trump's White House is a loaded shotgun aimed at every American who is not a billionaire hiding out in his apocalypse bunker. Elon Musk and his DOGE buddies may believe that federal grants and loans all go to frog-gender research and DEI knitting circles, but the vast majority of that money goes for banal but necessary investments into people's everyday lives: infrastructure maintenance and building, federal loan programs for mortgages and small businesses, food assistance, student loans, disaster relief and school programs like Head Start, to name a few. Oh yeah, and federal health care programs like Medicaid and CHIP, which cover nearly a quarter of all Americans. 


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


The language of the OMB memo is confusing, no doubt by design. At this writing, it's not entirely clear yet how broad the order is meant to be or how it will be enforced (if and when it goes into effect). States are already reporting a shutdown of Medicaid, suggesting that the goal is wholesale and indiscriminate destruction. The memo itself claims it's intended to halt $3 trillion in spending. While that's an implausibly huge number, even a fraction of that sum would result in widespread economic chaos, even for folks who don't believe they benefit from federal spending.

This money, by and large, goes directly back into the national economy. Cutting off everyone from construction workers building roads to SNAP recipients means that money doesn't get spent on groceries, rent and mortgages, consumer goods of all kinds, travel and entertainment and so on. The downstream effects on the rest of the economy could, without exaggeration, be catastrophic. Even if the "pause" is intended to be temporary, as the White House claims, the economic damage will be severe. As Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said on Twitter, "In a blitzkrieg, Trump is trying to collapse our democracy — and probably our economy — and seize control."


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


The memo reads like it was written by an AI bot trained exclusively on Twitter accounts that follow Elon Musk, but there's no doubt who's behind this Dr. Strangelove effort to launch a nuclear bomb right at the heart of the American economy: Russ Vought, a Christian nationalist ghoul Trump nominated to run the OMB. Vought pretended to be a mild-mannered public servant during his confirmation hearing last week, but over the past few years, especially in his leadership of Project 2025, he has revealed himself as a terrifying ideologue fixated on a fantasy of destroying the United States in order to rebuild it as a Christian theocracy. 

Incoming budget boss Russ Vought has convinced himself that America is so far gone, that there's no way to redeem the democratic, constitutional order. It's the "we must end our civilization in order to save it" mentality.

As John Knefel at Media Matters reported in July, Vought proudly calls himself a Christian nationalist and believes the U.S. should be governed by a "biblical worldview," in which his flavor of fundamentalism is imposed by fiat on the entire nation. He has repeatedly complained that secularism has led to "multiculturalism," "critical race theory" and "transgender contagion." Over the years, he has convinced himself that America is so far gone, thanks to all these supposed evils, that there's no way to redeem the democratic, constitutional order. It's a standard "we must end our civilization in order to save it" mentality, and he's as serious as cancer about this. 

Georgetown historian Thomas Zimmer laid out Vought's worldview in an alarming essay in November, noting that Vought argues that we now live in a "post-constitutional moment," and that a Republican president — such as the one we've got now — should function like a dictator, with virtually unlimited powers uncontained by Congress or the law. This outlandish move to unilaterally halt most federal spending is in line with this view. Of course it's both illegal and unconstitutional: Congress authorized that spending, and the president has no legal right to override its authority. But in Vought's worldview, nuking the constitutional order is necessary and justified because of the "woke" emergency. Zimmer explained all this further Tuesday on Bluesky, writing: "The Right today is dominated by people like Vought who are convinced there is nothing left to conserve — that our moment requires not 'conservatism,' but a radical 'counter-revolution.'"

The Right today is dominated by people like Vought who are convinced there is nothing left to conserve – that our moment requires not “conservatism,” but a radical “counter-revolution.”   They have never been so close to power as they are now. And they are determined to abuse power ruthlessly.

[image or embed]

— Thomas Zimmer (@thomaszimmer.bsky.social) January 28, 2025 at 12:29 PM

The heavy usage of scare terms like "transgender contagion," "woke" and "Marxism" is meant to reassure ordinary Americans that someone else is being targeted by these grotesque MAGA power plays, and not them. But if you examine how terms like "Marxist" and "woke" function in these circles, it becomes clear that they're talking about a majority of Americans, including many or most Republican voters. In reading the Project 2025 policy document, which guides Trump's executive orders, it's striking that almost no one escapes condemnation as part of what is sneeringly referred to as the "Great Awokening" of America.

"Families comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society," the document declares, putting single people and queer people into the category of woke un-people. Anyone who works for the government, from sanitation workers to IRS agents, is demonized as a corrupt parasite who only wants to "serve themselves first and everyone else a distant second." (Never mind that Vought and Trump themselves receive government paychecks.) The entire public school system, "public libraries and public health agencies" and pretty much every federal agency except, presumably, the military, is described as a "power center held by the Left." 

What's most striking here is the totalizing theory detailed in Project 2025 that America is hopelessly "woke," and that most Americans have been consumed by what Vought and his ilk see as secular decadence. Project 2025 authors present a view of the nation as a diseased entity that can only be purified by fire. It's certainly ironic that someone who claims to despise bureaucracy as much as Vought has embraced the bureaucratic approach to Armageddon: simply stopping the checks. But of course, the essence of MAGA is psychological projection, in this case refracted through his frankly theocratic worldview. Democrats are begging Senate Republicans not to confirm a man who openly intends to end their constitutional powers in favor of turning Donald Trump into a dictator, with himself as the dictator's right-hand man. I will make the bold prediction right now that Senate Republicans will refuse to listen. 

World’s longest-living recipient of pig organ transplant passes 60-day milestone

An Alabama woman who is also the second person in history to receive a pig kidney transplant is currently surviving for over , according to a recent report. Towana Looney received a pig kidney transplant at NYU Langone Health in November 2024, a pioneering surgery she received after waiting for seven years.

Because she had a complex medical condition for which no suitable human donor existed, doctors hope their gene-edited pig kidneys will do the nephrotic work of effectively filtering waste from her blood.

The process of using animals as donors for human organs is known as xenotransplantation, and can often provide patients who need organs with hope at a time when there is a dire donor shortage stretching back decades. Unfortunately, xenotransplantation is a risky process because of the chance of tissue rejection. For example, a high profile pig heart transplantation from 2023 ended in tragedy: Lawrence Faucette, who received his pig heart after no suitable human donor could be found for him, survived for only a little more than a week after his initially successful surgery.

According to the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, as of September 2024 there were roughly 103,000 Americans on a waiting list for organs, with a new patient being added roughly every eight minutes. Xenotransplantation, often with genetic modification, is viewed by many scientists as a hopeful alternative to bridge that gap, particularly with pig hearts and pig kidneys. Those organs have already been tested in monkeys, with four humans receiving these experimental surgeries — two for hearts, two for kidneys.

Looney, at least, seems optimistic that the experiment for her is going to be a complete success.

“I’m superwoman,” Looney told The Associated Press. The physician who led her surgery, Dr. Robert Montgomery, added that “if you saw her on the street, you would have no idea that she’s the only person in the world walking around with a pig organ inside them that’s functioning.”

“Carte blanche to enact violence”: Expert warns that Trump’s pardons will fuel anti-LGBTQ+ extremism

President Donald Trump's first days in office have seen many Americans' freedoms rolled back at a lightning pace as he has fired off dozens of executive orders reversing Biden-era policies on everything from diversity policies to who has the right to call themselves a citizen. 

On Day 1, Trump unilaterally defined sex so as to exclude gender-expansive people and include references implicating fetal personhood, setting the stage for a national ban on abortion and emergency contraception. Meanwhile, a flurry of actions sought to restrict opportunities for people seeking refuge in the United States, as well as targeting their children by attempting to end birthright citizenship, suspending asylum and refugee resettlement, and sending troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to deter irregular crossings. He also began his presidency by pardoning some 1,500 far-right supporters serving sentences for storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. 

In a moment marked by levels of political violence unseen in decades — including two attempts on Trump's own life last year — the president's moves lay the foundation for such violence to flourish under his administration — and attacks on transgender people will be at the forefront of it, argues Imara Jones, CEO and founder of TransLash Media and host of "The Anti-Trans Hate Machine" podcast, which most recently chronicled the links between far-right paramilitary groups and anti-trans hate at the local level.

Data makes the threat clear, she said: 2023 saw the highest number of active anti-LGBTQ+ and white nationalist groups ever recorded, according to a Southern Poverty Law Center report that documented 86 anti-LGBTQ+ hate groups and 166 white nationalist chapters. The report also found that nearly 50% of white power demonstrations held in 2023 targeted LGBTQ+ people. 

Jones, a journalist who last year interviewed Proud Boy founder Gavin McInnes, spoke with Salon about how she anticipates such political violence will manifest in the latest Trump-era, how the pardons will boost anti-trans violence — and how Americans could combat extremists' push toward authoritarianism before its too late.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

We've seen Donald Trump pardon around 1,500 Jan. 6 rioters and sign an executive order federally excluding gender-expansive Americans on government forms, etc. What impact are you seeing these actions having with respect to this rise in political violence we've seen as of late, this past year in particular?

We know that we are in an era of political violence unseen since the 1970s — that's a fact. And we know from the Southern Poverty Law Center, that an increasing focus of far-right paramilitary groups is violence against trans people and LGBTQ+ writ large. In our latest investigative series in "The Anti-Trans Hate Machine," we dug deep into the obsession of paramilitary groups with trans people and enforcing the gender binary and the way in which they were using that in order to recruit and keep themselves alive during the Biden administration, and then to make common cause with local Republican politicians, to strengthen their bonds. Therefore, the release of these insurgents — many of which are highly trained both in terms of paramilitary tactics and approaches, and who served in the U.S. armed forces — radically altered the security environment in the United States and opens up to an even more heightened and dangerous period of political violence.

Enrique Tarrio, who led the Proud Boys, said … upon his release that ["success is going to be retribution"]. That means that they're coming out to settle scores, and they're coming out to target the politicians and the people that they believe should be targeted. I think among that will be members of the LGBTQ+ community and trans people. They believe that not only have they been pardoned, but they've been given a green light by this administration to do whatever they think they should do because of, for example, the nomination of Kash Patel in the FBI and even Trump saying that he's open to inviting some of them to the White House for a conversation. They believe that they now have carte blanche to enact violence and intimidation in whatever way they think is in service to their largely patriarchal vision for the country.

What kind of political violence are you anticipating over the course of these next several months, next few years, and against trans and gender-expansive folks in particular?

Well, I think that we can see a range of things. I am basing my response upon what we have already seen, with an anticipation that it will increase.

We know that, for example, there were a series of bomb threats to gender-affirming clinics and hospitals across the country. I think that we can move from actual bomb threats to actual bombs, very similar to what we saw in the anti-abortion movement. I think that we could see the targeting of both events — Pride events and marches — and demonstrations and protests by these groups. We know that, and have seen that in the past, when there have been protests for marches about people or topics that they disagree with, they show up and those have turned violent. I think that those will now be even more violent. I think that this will encourage individuals to share the ideology and follow these groups online, to act violently in themselves, such as the person who attended a massive rally in Wadsworth, Ohio and then went and tried to firebomb a church that was supportive of trans and LGBTQ+ people.

I just think that we are going to see all types of violence from physical violence and intimidation and confrontation to gun violence, individual acts of gun violence and possible bombings and more. We have to prepare ourselves for a much more turbulent and disturbing future because these groups have been given the green light.

Can you break down the link you've identified between these paramilitary groups and the anti-trans ideology that they espouse, and how that's influencing their approach to brokering connections with GOP officials at all levels of government?

Around the world, a lot of radical insurgent movements have a violent wing. The Sinn Féin had the [Irish Republican Army], for example. And in Nazi Germany, the party had the brownshirts. If you establish a social order, muscle is an essential ingredient in that.

What we see on this particular issue is that these paramilitary groups have a political vision for the United States. It ranges in how radical it is, but all want patriarchal authoritarianism in the United States. Whether it's Blood Tribe or Proud Boys or Oath Keepers or Patriot Front, they all want that. Proud Boys would say that they want patriarchal democracy but understand that authoritarianism is a part of that. Then Blood Tribe just wants straight-up Nazism. Because they have a political vision, they are looking for the people and places who share that vision and can help bring that about. One of the things that gravitated Proud Boys, for example, to Donald Trump — and he's very aware of this — is his anti-trans rhetoric. He's chosen to pull close a group of violent people as a part of his project through his anti-trans rhetoric. And anti-trans rhetoric from some of the Proud Boys that were interviewed by the Jan. 6 committee was an important affinity point, both for their membership and for their connection to Donald Trump. 

Ideology in conversation is a way that both members of paramilitary groups and radical politicians are able to find each other and begin to work together — and we see that across the country. We see that in a place like Idaho that we talk about: an LGBTQ+ event in Coeur d'Alene. A radical politician in that state gave a talk in front of a paramilitary militia type of group and encouraged them to show up at this LGBTQ+ Pride event in a demonstration of force and intimidation. And they did. So there's a way in which anti-trans ideology cuts through the noise and allows both politicians at the federal level and at the state and local level to find each other and to begin to work together. And what they're doing is shifting the tone of democracy in America.

You used the term earlier "patriarchal authoritarianism." Could you briefly lay out what that means?

All these groups — and they share this kind of conversation with members of the Trump administration like Pete Hegseth and all these other people — they have a diagnosis that America ceased to be great when it began to move away from patriarchy. And I would say white patriarchy. The Proud Boys would dispute. They'd say, "We have Black and brown members." But essentially it's white patriarchy. That's their diagnosis: The country is in decline and declined when it began to move away from a patriarchal vision — when men ruled, when women were without rights, when we didn't accommodate people who are LGBTQ+, who have disabilities, who they believe weaken the overall country. 

What they took is that we need to reassert — echoing Mark Zuckerberg — masculinity. We need to reassert masculine control in the country and masculine energy, but the way that you have to do that, given the reality, is through authoritarianism. I think that they all have a patriarchal authoritarian view. What the Proud Boys would say is that you have patriarchal authoritarianism, which reasserts the role of men, and then you can have democracy because essentially men will have more rights in the democracy. Patriot Front and Blood Tribe are not interested in democracy.

In the final episode of "The Anti-Trans Hate Machine" this past season, you attempt to lay out some potential ways to combat this rising tide in violence, naming education, law enforcement and individual deradicalization as a few options. But in the current climate — and the one that's being introduced by the new Trump administration — how would you say now we combat what seems to be this inevitable rise in policy rolling back individual rights and the potential for violence that comes with it?

That's a really good question. Well, it's much harder. I just want to say that. A part of what we were talking about is education. We know that they intend to weaponize the Civil Rights [Office] at the Education Department and talk about discrimination against white people, against cis kids, about a whole host of things.

There still is something called federalism in the United States. Schools are overwhelmingly controlled at the local level. Many states have their own version of the Justice Department and/or the FBI. Georgia has the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, for example. Other states have similar things. I don't think this could happen with Georgia, but it's just to illustrate that there are state structures that can implement some of the things that we talk about. The focus would really have to shift to the states as a possibility. But that means that the progress would be slow and uneven. And because of the very successful Republican attempts to control state legislatures, that becomes much harder.

So I think it is much, much, much harder to bring about the solutions that we outlined, which means that we're on a train that's gaining momentum. What's happened is that a lot of the possibilities for the breaks to be applied have been removed. And it's hard to see how this train, which is hurtling us towards a much more violent and turbulent nation, is easily stopped. 

Is there any room for hope with everything that's getting harder? Are there any solutions on the table?

Yes, and the hope is that people wake up. That, once it becomes clear that we are on the verge of crossing over into this era of political violence that might be unstoppable, the American people say that that's not the future that they want. That's the hope.

But people haven't woken up yet. And I don't understand, overall, why they haven't, and I don't understand why people don't understand what's happening in terms of us moving into a more authoritarian era with fascism now very much on the march.

And how might they go about [opposing this]?

Electing different people, demanding authorities take action, putting pressure on state and local politicians and state and local public safety officials and apparatus to take action, to demand that schools teach tolerance. I think that's the hope: is that the people rise up democratically and say, "This isn't what we want, and we want you to stop it. And if you don't stop it, we are going to fire you because that's what we get to do in a democracy."

Democracy — it's asleep right now in so many ways. I think that my hope is that it wakes up and awakens in the people. And if that happens, this can all go away.

“Complete chaos”: How Trump is already accelerating the reproductive rights crisis

On Friday, thousands of anti-abortion advocates gathered for the annual National March for Life event in Washington. In a pre-recorded message, President Donald Trump said he was “so proud to be a participant” in overturning Roe v. Wade, the constitutional right to abortion that was reversed by the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision. Trump also pledged that he stood “proudly for families and for life,” striking a slightly different tone than he had later on in the campaign trail.

After delivering the message, Trump signed his first set of executive orders directly aimed at abortion rights after officially becoming president. The orders were celebrated by anti-abortion advocates, with the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America calling them “a big win for babies and mothers.”

The first executive order moved to “end the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion” by enforcing the Hyde Amendment. The second revived a policy known as the “Global Gag Rule,” which states if global non-governmental organizations receive funding from the United States, they are banned from providing or offering information about abortions. Notably, the Global Gag Rule has historically been reinstated under Republican presidents since 1984.

As Salon previously reported, this move was expected as the first Trump administration made a similar move in 2017. But both executive orders come at a time when reproductive rights are in crisis across America thanks to the post-Dobbs landscape, marked by preventable deaths of infants and pregnant people while doctors flee abortion ban states, all of which is increasing what’s at stake both in the U.S. and internationally.

"The Hyde Amendment further hurts those who already struggle to access basic health care."

"Even before Roe v. Wade was overturned, the Hyde Amendment marginalized and stigmatized reproductive health care rather than acknowledging that it is essential, sometimes life-saving care,” Brittany Fonteno, president and CEO of the National Abortion Fund, told Salon. “President Trump's Executive Order to enforce the Hyde Amendment creates yet another barrier to abortion access, specifically targeting low-income women and pregnant people who rely on Medicaid access and may otherwise be unable to afford abortion care.”

Indeed, the previous consequences of the Hyde Amendment have been devastating. In a dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said in 1980 it was designed to “deprive poor and minority women of the constitutional right to choose abortion.” It also paved the way for more anti-abortion federal restrictions to take hold throughout the last few decades. Previous studies have shown that when policymakers place restrictions on Medicaid coverage of abortion, one in four low-income women seeking an abortion is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

"The Hyde Amendment further hurts those who already struggle to access basic health care,” Fonteno said. “It demonstrates yet again, that Trump and anti-abortion extremists prioritize politics over people.”


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


In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark ruling Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision, significantly changing the landscape of reproductive care access across the country. As of the end of December 2024, according to KFF’s dashboard, 12 states have completely banned abortions. Six states restrict abortion access between 6 and 12 weeks of gestation. Four restrict access between 18 and 22 weeks. In contrast, 14 states have enshrined reproductive rights, including abortion access, into their state constitutions. While it has been well-documented that restrictive policies limit abortion access for people of low socioeconomic status, the post-Dobbs landscape has only worsened this. 

“Post-Dobbs, state abortion bans have widened the already huge access gap created by the high cost of health care in our country, which is felt most acutely by low-income communities and communities of color,” Fonteno said. “Millions of women of reproductive age live in states where abortion is banned and nearly one in five must travel, often hundreds of miles, to get care.”

"He has spent his first week in office handing down anti-abortion directives gutting federal protections."

Depending on where a person needs to travel, they can easily spend up to $1,500 or $2,000 on travel expenses alone. Notably, it’s estimated that only one in three Americans can comfortably cover a $400 emergency expense, and insurance will rarely cover an abortion procedure out of state. Mini Timmarajui, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, said during Trump’s campaign, he tried to downplay his role in overturning Roe v. Wade.  

“Now he has spent his first week in office handing down anti-abortion directives gutting federal protections,” Timmaraju said. “These policies inflict harm on those who need access to reproductive health care, including abortion, in our country, and around the world.”

Indeed, the effects of these executive orders won’t only be felt in the U.S. but globally. As detailed by Guttmacher Institue, the first Trump administration’s Global Gag Rule expansions had “devastating” impacts internationally, such as decreasing access to abortion and contraceptive care. It also created a “chilling” effect among clinicians who were scared to share family-planning resources due to a fear of it affecting funding.

Previous studies on the implementation of the Global Gag Rule have found that it can affect public health initiatives in other countries, like their HIV and AIDS programs. Tarah Demant, senior director of programs at Amnesty International USA, said in a media statement that Trump’s executive order reinstating the Global Gag Rule now throws global reproductive healthcare “into complete chaos.”

We need your help to stay independent

“The consequences of President Trump’s global gag rule are not theoretical,” Demant said. “As we’ve seen before, from blocking access to needed contraception to forcing more unsafe abortions and increasing maternal death rates, this attack on human rights will cause devastating harms for people worldwide in need of reproductive health care.”

People who see these consequences on the ground say this especially harms young women who are victims of rape, incest, and child marriage. In a media statement, Rachel Milkovich, global health policy specialist at Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), also known as Doctors Without Borders, said people around the world will now have “fewer points of service for their sexual and reproductive health needs” and fewer “safe places” to talk about their medical options. In some cases, restricting access to these services can be fatal. 

“There are deadly consequences anytime access to sexual and reproductive health care is restricted,” Avril Benoît, CEO of MSF, said. “In the countries where MSF works, our staff see the lifesaving impact of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services — and we have seen patients who have died or suffered life-altering injuries because they were denied access to care.”

For the first time, H5N9 strain of bird flu detected in U.S. poultry

On Monday, the U.S. reported an outbreak of bird flu called H5N9 that is different from the H5N1 strain that is currently surging across the country. The outbreak occurred in a flock of commercial ducks in California, the epicenter of the bird flu crisis, according to a report from the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). 

"This is bad news," Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. "It suggests reassortment of circulating H5N1 viruses with viruses containing N9 NA.  Although this indicates reassortment with avian viruses, it's still bad. Reassortment makes pandemics. The last 3/4 flu pandemics (and maybe 1918 too) were reassortant viruses."

H5N9 is different from H5N1, though both are known as bird flu. Two strains of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) have been responsible for millions of cow and poultry deaths in the United States. One strain called B3.13 spreads mostly in cows and a strain called D1.1 spreads mostly in birds. Together, these strains have infected dozens of different species, including at least 67 humans, in an unprecedented spread. Earlier this month, the first reported human death in this bird flu outbreak was reported in Louisiana.

Meanwhile, health officials in the U.K. confirmed a human case of bird flu in which the person was infected with the DI.2 genotype of the virus, which is different from the ones circulating in the U.S. The circulation of various subtypes of the virus is concerning because the more the virus spreads, the higher the chances that something called viral reassortment, in which genes could swap and mutate in an organism to make the virus more infectious, could occur.

Health officials found H5N9 on a duck farm in Merced County, California, where the more common strain of the virus was also detected. Nearly 119,000 birds exposed to the virus have been killed there since Dec. 2. 

The dominant H5N1 virus in the U.S. is more common than the H5N9 type, which is relatively rare. According to a 2015 study published in the Journal of Virology, which studied the virus when it was still new to science, H5N9 forms as a reassortment of other subtypes of the virus. Unlike chickens, which can have a 100% mortality rate with H5N9 virus, ducks usually only exhibit mild clinical signs following infection, according to a 2020 study in the same journal. While this built-in immunity is good news for the ducks, it can also allow for greater chance of reassortment — when viruses share genetic material — increasing the risk of another pandemic like COVID-19.

DeepSeek is disrupting American AI leadership

In most (not all) technologies, the U.S. is perceived as the global leader in tech innovation. Places like Silicon Valley in California and Route 128 in Massachusetts host some of the world’s top companies like Apple, Nvidia and universities like Stanford and MIT.

These innovative tech companies, whether tech giants or newly formed startups, fuel the stock markets like the Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange. The historical profit and growth for American tech companies are proven. They comprise the top of the S&P 500, and the top ones are collectively known as the "Magnificent Seven."

Their valuations measured through their price to earnings ratios are quite high, but investors have learned that U.S. tech startups can have parabolic growth rates.

In the field of artificial intelligence, U.S. companies like Open AI, Google, Meta and others have historically led in terms of mindshare. A  $500 billion "Stargate" AI infrastructure investment was recently announced by Softbank CEO Masayoshi San, Open AI CEO Sam Altman and Oracle Chairman Larry Ellison and President Donald Trump.

But few days later, a brick was thrown onto the U.S. AI glass castle. DeepSeek, a Chinese AI startup, announced they had met or exceeded several of Open AI’s performance benchmarks, using fewer older processors at a cost of less than $6 million.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Since China is subject to U.S. export controls on advanced semiconductors, which includes Nvidia’s latest AI processors like the Blackwell Graphic Processing Unit, DeepSeek had to find a way to train at the same level as the U.S. but with constrained computing resources. How DeepSeek was able to acquire older Nvidia H100 processors for training despite the U.S. ban on them is still not fully understood, as well as their actual training data. But the important point is that they were able to meet or exceed some American AI performance levels using older and fewer processors.

We need your help to stay independent

The Chinese were forced to innovate because of the lack of needed state-of-the-art Nvidia GPUs, which from conventional thinking was needed to match the performance of U.S. AI. According to their conclusion in their DeepSeek published journal paper, “DeepSeek-R1 is more powerful, leveraging cold-start data alongside iterative Reinforcement Learning (RL) fine-tuning. Ultimately, DeepSeek-R1 achieves performance comparable to OpenAI-o1-1217 on a range of tasks.” 

DeepSeek also uses a smaller model as opposed to that used by U.S. AI tech giants, which require more processors. Plus, they have made DeepSeek open source, which avoids the recurring fees that their U.S. competitors charge.

Why spend $500 million when you can spend less than $6 million on an open source AI model?

This caused a sudden loss of confidence in the stock market for U.S. AI companies, especially Nvidia, whose parabolic growth depends on the assumption that tech giants, other corporates and joint projects like Stargate will buy their cutting edge GPUs for training several AI models to the point where they can reach higher levels. 

After all, if you can reach the same (or better) AI performance metrics using older GPU processors with a more efficient Chinese algorithm, why bother with higher end expensive Nvidia GPU processors? Why spend $500 million when you can spend less than $6 million on an open source AI model?

The immediate impact is that price to earning valuations for U.S. AI appear to have tempered somewhat. It also puts into question how far the U.S. lead is in AI and possibly other technologies. In a way, though, more reasonable price to earning valuations strip away the hype and may ironically attract more investors in the future.

Investors are now asking whether they should allocate more of their capital as they have done in the past to U.S. AI tech high flyers, or look elsewhere and do more diligence on innovations abroad in order not to be blindsided like they did in this case.

Jim Acosta officially signs off from CNN: “Don‘t give in to the lies. Don‘t give in to the fear”

After nearly 18 years with CNN, Jim Acosta officially signed off from the network with a message directed at viewers and a certain audience of one: “It is never a good time to bow down to a tyrant.”

Acosta, who announced his departure at the close of his Tuesday morning show, had been expected to leave the network within weeks, according to CNN’s chief media analyst Brian Stelter.

Instead, the anchor cut the cord sooner.

“People often ask me if the highlight of my career at CNN was at the White House covering Donald Trump,” Acosta observed in his final remarks. “Actually, no. That moment came . . . when I covered former President Barack Obama's trip to Cuba in 2016 and had the chance to question the dictator there, Raul Castro, about the island's political prisoners.

“As the son of a Cuban refugee. I took home this lesson: It is never a good time to bow down to a tyrant. I have always believed it's the job of the press to hold power to account. I've always tried to do that here at CNN, and I plan on doing all of that in the future.”

Acosta advised his audience, “Don‘t give in to the lies. Don‘t give in to the fear. Hold on to the truth and to hope. Even if you have to get out your phone, record that message. ‘I will not give in to the lies. I will not give in to the fear.’”

Acosta’s decampment confirms his former colleague Oliver Darcy’s Monday report in Status News that the journalist declined to go along with CNN chief executive Mark Thompson’s determination to move him from daytime to midnight.

This drastic shift was pitched as part of a broader reconfiguration of CNN's lineup, which also bumps “The Situation Room” host Wolf Blitzer out of his long-held evening berth into Acosta’s former slot where he's set to co-anchor with Pamela Brown starting in March. 

As Darcy observed in an earlier Status scoop, insiders view Thompson’s move as an appeasement offering to the returning president. Acosta regularly aggravated Trump during his first administration when he served as CNN's chief White House correspondent.

In a statement provided to Salon, a CNN spokesperson hailed Acosta’s “track record of standing up to authority, for the First Amendment and for our journalistic freedoms.

“We want to thank him for the dedication and commitment he’s brought to his reporting and wish him the very best in the future,” the statement added.

In November 2018, Acosta questioned the president’s description of a migrant caravan moving toward the Mexico-U.S. border as an "invasion." After Acosta refused to let a White House intern take away the microphone while he asked a follow-up question, the White House revoked his press pass. A judge ordered the administration to reinstate Acosta's pass after CNN filed a lawsuit joined by other news organizations, and his access was restored less than two weeks later.

On Tuesday Trump posted this response to the news on Truth Social: “Jim is a major loser who will fail no matter where he ends up.”

Acosta spared no time in establishing his next act, unveiling “The Jim Acosta Show” on Substack. He is the latest cable news personality to embrace a digital platform following a high profile exit, following in the wake of his former CNN colleague Don Lemon, former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Per a CNN spokesperson, Brown will assume Acosta’s 10 a.m. timeslot, expanding her anchor duties to two hours on weekdays until CNN’s new lineup launches this spring.

Jon Stewart slams reactions to Trump: “Every action is met with a very not-equal overreaction”

Jon Stewart is warning Democrats and other critics of Donald Trump against overusing their claims of authoritarianism after the president's first week in office, which included a slew of executive orders undoing former President Joe Biden's work and even contesting the 14th Amendment. 

During Monday's episode of "The Daily Show," Stewart returned to his weekly post to decipher the barrage of executive orders and firings that have jumpstarted the Trump administration. In response to liberal pundits insisting that the firings were a "purge," Stewart pulled out a foam axe from under his desk to reference the dystopian slasher franchise.

"The purge!" Stewart screamed, "Ah! Trump has ushered in the purge . . . Although, just in case I’m misinterpreting, what is this purge about, exactly?”

Various news clips of liberal pundits clarified that Trump had fired 17 inspector generals, whose roles are to act as governmental agency watchdogs. A CNN anchor shared that the president can remove inspector generals; however, Stewart pointed out that the only thing Trump technically failed to do was provide 30 days' notice and a detailed list of his reasons for firing the officials.

"That is what we are upset about?" Stewart said. "But this is the cycle we find ourselves in. First law of Trump-o-dynamics: Every action is met with a very not-equal overreaction, thus throwing off our ability to know when s**t is actually getting real—like last week’s pardons."

Moreover, liberal mainstream media personalities took to television to express their outrage over the pardons and executive orders, which they called "egregious," "un-American," and "an authoritarian takeover."

While Stewart acknowledged the damage Trump’s pardons and orders will do, he said, “That is his constitutional power.”

“For some reason, we have given presidents the power of a king, and then we say, ‘Well, you’re not going to get all kingly and s**t on us, right?’ To put that in constitutional terms, if I could—don’t hate the player, hate the Founding Fathers,” Stewart said. “Because I don’t know if you’ve met Donald Trump—he pushes s**t."

We need your help to stay independent

"The Daily Show" also highlighted Trump's executive order to dismantle birthright citizenship, which is the basis of the 14th Amendment and essentially grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized" in the U.S. However, Trump's order, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, attempts to deny citizenship to children born to undocumented parents or lawful permanent and temporary residents at the time of birth.

Stewart agreed that the executive action on birthright citizenship was Trump's attempt at authoritarianism because the U.S. Constitution is clear in its acceptance of all persons, regardless of race and gender. He also noted that Trump's actions were blocked by a federal judge last week. Currently, the birthright order has been halted by a temporary restraining order for at least 14 days. Vox reported it is likely the judge will follow up with a more lasting order.

"Look, we are facing a deluge of these executive actions, and certainly we must prepare for those most vulnerable to the consequences of these actions. But the ‘this is all fascist’ argument has become almost a reflex for the left,” he continued.

“I have a lot of fear that as this term goes on, things are going to get a little fascisty. And we must be vigilant. But part of vigilance is discernment,” Stewart explained.

"The question is probably not, ‘How dare he?’ The question should be, ‘What are you learning from this? How would you use this power? What is your contract with America?’ Democrats, exist outside of him," Stewart said. "Tell people what you would do with the power that Trump is wielding, and then convince us to give that power to you as soon as possible!"

Watch here:

Trump, challenging federal law, tries to fire labor board leaders who backed worker rights

President Donald Trump purged two National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) leaders known for supporting worker rights on Tuesday, signaling a sharp re-orientation of federal law enforcement towards a management-friendly approach favored by business executives and supporters like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.

Jennifer Abruzzo, former President Joe Biden's appointee as the NLRB's general counsel, was fired by email late on Monday. Gwynne Wilcox, one of two Democratic board members, received her notice on Tuesday morning, but said she would pursue "all legal avenues" to challenge it.

Federal law allows the removal of a board member only for "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office," though a U.S. appeals court ruled in 2021 that such protection does not extend to the panel's chief prosecutor, which at the time allowed Biden to fire Trump-appointed NLRB general counsel Peter Robb.

Business executives like Musk have recently argued that presidents should be able to fire board members at will. Last year, Musk's company, SpaceX, joined Amazon in leading a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the NLRB in its current form; the board enforces workers' rights to organize, demand better working conditions, and join or dissolve a union. Federal labor law bars workers from suing their employers in court, so the NLRB is typically their only recourse.

The hostile company reaction coincided with an NLRB that increasingly sided with workers and unions over management, an approach favored by the officials Trump fired. Over her three-and-a-half years as the NLRB's general counsel, Abruzzo pursued a slew of notable cases against Apple, Tesla, the New York Times and Starbucks, which still faces dozens of cases over its alleged suppression of a nationwide unionization drive.

A settlement she secured with Amazon in 2021, which required the company to allow workers to organize in its breakrooms during their time off, paved the way for employees at one of its warehouses to unionize the following year. Last November, Wilcox and a majority of the board voted to bar Amazon from holding mandatory "captive audience meetings" designed to threaten or persuade voters against forming a union. This month, Abruzzo issued a complaint against private prison company GEO Group, accusing it of using solitary confinement to punish immigrant detainees who supported labor strikes.

We need your help to stay independent

While Trump has often claimed to be supportive of labor, the removal of Abruzzo and Wilcox is a clear signal that he intends to continue the legacy of his first term, when he filled key roles at the NLRB and other agencies with pro-management lawyers who pushed changes that gave companies more power over workers. And even on the campaign trail, Trump expressed support for Musk's idea of firing striking workers en masse.

With Wilcox gone, the NLRB will have three vacancies, depriving it of the necessary quorum to rule on routine cases involving companies or unions accused of violating federal labor law. Hundreds of cases are still pending, which a Trump-appointed Republican majority could use to overturn Biden-era precedents that protected workers from unfair labor laws. Even if a court ruling put Wilcox back in her seat, a Republican majority was virtually guaranteed after former Sens. Joe Manchin, I-W.V., and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., joined the GOP in blocking the re-nomination of Lauren McFerran to serve on the board.

Nonetheless, Abruzzo said in a statement that after the landmark rulings issued by the NLRB during the Biden administration, there was "no putting that genie back in the bottle."

"If the Agency does not fully effectuate its Congressional mandate in the future as we did during my tenure, I expect that workers with assistance from their advocates will take matters into their own hands in order to get well-deserved dignity and respect in the workplace, as well as a fair share of the significant value they add to their employer’s operations," she said.

“Blatant attempt to rip away health insurance”: Medicaid system suspended nationwide, senator says

Update: A federal judge temporarily blocked Trump's freeze of federal grant funds, and the White House issued a statement shortly before publication claiming an outage: "We have confirmed no payments have been affected — they are still being processed and sent. We expect the portal will be back online shortly." After publication, at least one state reported being "unaware of any lapses in access to the federal government portal … with operations 'functioning as normal.'"

Original story continues below.

According to a clarifying memo released by Donald Trump's budget office Tuesday morning, a previous memo ordering all federal agencies to freeze federal grants and loans will not affect mandatory programs like Medicaid. At the same time as the second memo was circulating, however, officials were reporting that Medicaid portals had in fact shut down in all 50 states.

Anyone trying to log into the Payment Management Services (PMS) web portal, the online system responsible for tracking and depositing federal health department funds, will be greeted by a notice saying that, due to "Executive Orders regarding potentially unallowable grant payments, PMS is taking additional measures to process payments. Reviews of applicable programs and payments will result in delays and/or rejections of payments."

Reports of shuttered Medicaid portals began Tuesday morning, with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oreg., writing by the early afternoon that his staff "had confirmed reports that Medicaid portals are down in all 50 states following last night's federal funding freeze."

"This is a blatant attempt to rip away health insurance from millions of Americans overnight and will get people killed," he wrote in a social media post early Tuesday afternoon. "This is a blatant attempt to rip away health insurance from millions of Americans overnight and will get people killed."

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said that providers in his state are not getting paid due to the Medicaid payment system being turned off, and that "discussions (were) ongoing about whether services can continue." In Illinois, where 4 million low-income people had their health care covered in 2023 by Medicaid, state agencies reported issues to Gov. JB Pritzker's office with accessing a number of federal funding sites, including Medicaid portals. According to his office, Pritzker is communicating with federal and state officials, as well as other governors, about the matter.

“The governor has directed his senior team to assess the detrimental impacts of this unlawful action on the state’s budget and services,” Pritzker spokesperson Matt Hill told the Chicago Sun-Times.

An array of organizations and agencies that receive federal health funds, including Head Start early childhood education programs and community health centers, also reported being locked out.

The apparent shutdown of the Medicaid portal has heightened fears from nonprofit leaders and political activists that the federal freeze ordered by Trump's budget office will curtail essential aid to low-income Americans. Legal challenges are already underway, with several Democratic state attorneys general announcing Tuesday afternoon that they will sue the Trump administration over the budget memo and seek a restraining order to block its implementation.

Editor's note: Following many recent developments, this article has been updated and clarified.

 

Selena Gomez trolled by Trump allies after speaking out on deportations

Selena Gomez is feeling the wrath of Trump allies after posting an emotional video expressing empathy for recently deported migrants.

In the now-deleted clip posted to Instagram, captioned with a Mexican flag emoji, Gomez said through tears, “I just want to say that I’m so sorry. All my people are getting attacked . . . the children . . . I don’t understand. I’m so sorry. I wish I could do something, but I can’t. I don’t know what to do. I’ll try everything, I promise.”  

Gomez's tearful message was posted following ICE immigration raids ordered in cities across the country with large immigrant populations. The Washington Post reported that Trump officials have issued arrest quotas to ICE, requiring at least 1,200 to 1,500 people a day. Last week, Mexico also refused to accept a deportation flight for the first time as a response to Trump's tariff threats against the country for people crossing the U.S. and Mexico border, NBC News reported.

However, the response to Gomez's post was swift across the political aisle from online fandoms skewering the actress for alleged performativeness to conservative politicians in Trump's administration antagonizing the star. 

Trump's border and immigration czar, Tom Homan, commented on Gomez's sentiment during an appearance on Fox News, saying, "If they don't like it, then go to Congress and change the law. We're going to do this operation without apology."

Others online attempted to troll the actress with a post stating, "When I'm in a making things about myself competition and Selena Gomez is my opponent."

In a follow-up to her original post, which was also later deleted, Gomez responded to her critics, saying, "Apparently it's not OK to show empathy for people."

Another Trump figure, former Senate candidate, Sam Parker, quoted a post on X alleging that Gomez's Mexican family is undocumented and captioned it, “Deport Selena Gomez.”

Soon after Parker's post, Gomez hit back at his comment, writing, “Oh Mr. Parker, Mr. Parker. Thanks for the laugh and the threat.”

For the last several years, Gomez has become a staunch advocate for undocumented immigrants, producing a documentary "Living Undocumented" in 2019 and working with UNICEF as an ambassador.

Gleaning: The ancient practice fighting modern food waste

The three women in the painting stoop low in the field, their hands reaching for leftover stalks of wheat. Their bent figures dominate the foreground, emphasizing the physical toll of their labor. Jean-François Millet's "The Gleaners," painted in 1857, immortalized this act of necessity: gleaning, the collection of leftover crops after the harvest. Rooted in agrarian traditions, the term originates from the Old French glener and the Latin glennare, meaning "to gather." For centuries, gleaning had been a lifeline for the rural poor in England and France — a legally recognized right that allowed them to enter fields after the harvest to collect what remained. French law enshrined it as a civil right in 1554, while in England, it was an unspoken agreement that reflected the feudal system's delicate balance between the privileged and the poor. 

But by the late 18th century, this precarious equilibrium began to unravel. The forces of privatization and industrialization swept through England, as Enclosure Acts transformed common lands into private property, barring access for the poor. In 1788, the landmark court case Steel v. Houghton shattered the custom of gleaning as a right, reclassifying it as trespass. Mechanization soon followed, with threshing machines and combine harvesters leaving less behind for gleaners to collect. By the mid-19th century, gleaning had faded into memory, a relic of premodern agrarian life overtaken by the relentless march of progress.

And yet, Millet's scene depicting the work of gathering what others have left behind is playing out once again — not as a relic, but as a response to the crises of food waste and poverty. In a potato field in Cornwall, England, volunteers sift through wooden crates, separating the good from the bruised, while others cut kale, filling sacks with leaves destined for community kitchens.

"We're feeding quite a lot — about 10,000 people a week," said Holly Whitelaw, the founder of Gleaning Cornwall. "It might just be a couple of bits of vegetables, but it's something healthy." The operation, run with the help of over 400 volunteers, relies on a patchwork of coordination via the online messaging platform WhatsApp, donated storage spaces, and sheer determination. Yet, Whitelaw notes, it's far from enough: "Big funding is needed to really do this properly. The need is increasing."

At a time when 3.3 million metric tons of food are wasted annually on U.K. farms, the environmental and social costs of inaction are staggering. Rotting food releases methane, a greenhouse gas that is far more potent than carbon dioxide, and the resources used to grow that food — water, energy, and land — are wasted along with it. Tristram Stuart, the historian and activist who co-founded the Gleaning Network in 2011, of which Gleaning Cornwall is a part, envisioned the practice as a way to challenge British food waste at its source. Today, from Kent to Birmingham, gleaning groups are not just picking up produce but picking apart the unsustainable norms that allow waste to persist in the first place.

The impact of this waste goes far beyond the visible rot in fields. Globally, nearly a third of all food produced is never eaten, and in the U.K., unharvested crops contribute an estimated 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually — 11% of the country's agricultural emissions. Across the Atlantic, the problem plays out on an even larger scale. Laurie Beyranevand, the director of the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School in the U.S., highlights the strain on natural resources caused by overproduction.

"Here in the States, we've got mega farms out West using precious water resources during droughts to grow food that never makes it into the supply chain," she said. "People say, 'Oh, it'll get tilled back into the soil,' but that doesn't account for the resources wasted in the process — pesticides, labor, energy — all of it has environmental costs."

Across the U.K., gleaning has become a critical tool in the fight against food waste and poverty. Groups like the Sussex Gleaning Network organize teams to collect everything from carrots to cauliflowers, redistributing the rescued food to food banks and community projects like FareShare Sussex, which takes good-quality surplus food and provides it to people in need. The Gleaning Network as a whole has collaborated with over 60 farmers and 3,000 volunteers to save more than 500 metric tons of fruits and vegetables, ensuring that surplus produce is delivered quickly and safely to those who need it most.

For Phil Holtam, the regional programs manager of Feedback Global, an organization that pushes for a more sustainable food system, the process begins long before harvest day. "We recruit a team of volunteers and hire a van in advance," he explained. "On the day, we meet at the farm around 10 a.m., go over health and safety, and then get to work." Once the produce is picked, it's rushed to cold storage facilities to preserve its freshness. "Gleaning volunteers can pick more in a day than a kitchen can process in a week," Holtam added, underscoring the scale of both the problem and the solution. For the volunteers in the fields, the work is urgent. And for the families they serve, it's a lifeline.


Food waste starts at the very source: the farm. Up to 16% of a crop can be wasted due to factors completely out of a farmer's control. "Supermarkets reject produce for being too wonky, too small, or the wrong color," said Sussex-based Holtam. "Then there's unpredictable weather, labor shortages — it's endless." What's left in the fields — potatoes, kale, courgettes (zucchini), soft fruit — represents a staggering waste of resources and an urgent environmental crisis.

The solutions offered by gleaning are both practical and symbolic. Gleaners rescue food that would otherwise contribute to methane emissions in landfills or decompose in fields. They work with farmers to ensure that what can't be sold is turned into a resource for the community. "We've worked with everything from soft fruit to salad greens, clearing beds and keeping crops out of the compost heap," said Holtam. "It's about turning potential waste into community resources."

Yet, for all its impact, gleaning is still a stopgap measure. As Beyranevand points out, the root problem is systemic. "Farmers are forced to overgrow to meet strict supermarket contracts, only to see tons of perfectly good food rejected because it doesn't meet cosmetic standards." The solution lies, she said, in creating secondary markets for surplus produce and reducing the overproduction that forces farmers to rely on donations to move their crops.

Until that systemic shift occurs, the gleaners persist — crouching in fields, filling crates with overlooked crops, and salvaging what they can. Every potato pulled from the ground, every courgette packed into a crate, every small effort, is a quiet victory.

While the idea is simple — rescue food that would otherwise go to waste — that work takes different forms around the world. In the U.K., organizations like the Gleaning Network run structured operations, coordinating volunteers to collect surplus crops from farms and deliver them to food banks. In the U.S., gleaning is often smaller scale, led by grassroots groups and church volunteers.

"It's very much driven by philanthropy, and the groups are often disconnected," said Beyranevand, who has worked with several gleaning organizations in the country. Without a centralized system, efforts rely on personal relationships with farmers and ad hoc coordination, making the process inconsistent and resource-dependent.

Legal and cultural differences also shape these approaches. In the U.K., farmers generally welcome gleaners, while in the U.S., stricter property laws and liability concerns create barriers. "Farmers worry about what happens if someone gets injured," Beyranevand explained. Although some states have introduced protections, these laws are inconsistent, and food safety concerns add further complexity. Maryland, for example, has enacted specific laws to protect farmers from liability when they allow gleaners onto their land, providing a model for how legislation can encourage participation while addressing farmers' concerns.

Despite its promise, gleaning alone cannot fix systemic issues of food waste and insecurity. Beyranevand calls it a reactive solution, dependent on surplus or rejected crops. "Ultimately, wouldn't it be wonderful if we didn't need gleaning at all?" she asked. Some organizations, like Boston Area Gleaners in the U.S., are exploring proactive approaches, such as acquiring farmland to grow crops specifically for food banks. But scaling such initiatives requires significant investment and structural support.

Still, gleaning is about more than just rescuing food — it's about rediscovering the value of what we've overlooked. For Kelly LeBlanc, vice president of nutrition programming at Oldways, a nonprofit that inspires people to embrace the healthy and sustainable joys of the old ways of eating, the significance goes beyond food itself. "We're starting to recognize that diets better for people are better for the planet as well," she said. "The simple act of turning discarded crops into nourishment bridges so many divides — between nutrition and sustainability, between waste and renewal."

Perhaps that's gleaning's greatest gift: its ability to remind us that even in a world of abundance, there is beauty in what's left behind. Jean-François Millet's painting "The Gleaners" immortalized this truth nearly two centuries ago, and today, it's no less poignant.

toolTips(‘.classtoolTips3′,’A powerful greenhouse gas that accounts for about 11% of global emissions, methane is the primary component of natural gas and is emitted into the atmosphere by landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, and wastewater treatment, among other pathways. Over a 20-year period, it is roughly 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.‘);

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/food-and-agriculture/gleaning-the-ancient-practice-fighting-modern-food-waste/.

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

How long till the next big crash? Because it’s definitely coming

The year 2008 seems an eternity ago, but given what is going on today in Washington, what happened that year is coming into sharp relief. There was a massive stock market crash. A major investment bank, which had been around for more than a century and a half, imploded. The U.S. government, then run by the Democratic president Barack Obama, came to the rescue of an economy in free fall.

New guardrails were put in place to prevent such a thing from ever happening again. Banks that had been massively over-leveraged were required to maintain larger cash reserves. Restrictions were placed on what bankers could do with depositors’ money. 

But even with all the corrections put into place, there has been a lingering question ever since that disastrous year: Could it happen again?

In the midst of Donald Trump’s blizzard of executive orders, directed at  everything from rounding up undocumented immigrants to ending government DEI programs to firing or reassigning government employees to stripping U.S. agencies of the protections provided by independent inspectors general, our new president gave his answer when he ordered a complete overhaul of government policy on cryptocurrencies. The answer is yes. In brief, Trump gave every indication that he’s going to let crypto be crypto, freeing the already free-for-all market in imaginary money to do whatever it wants to do. 

The first and most important thing Trump’s order did was to protect banking services for crypto enterprises and markets. This will allow crypto exchanges and marketers to use regular banking services to store their real money while they scheme to create new kinds of fake money to sell to those who have fallen for the libertarian dream of a system of payments for goods and services that’s free from the highly regulated American dollar. 

Trump also ordered the creation of a handpicked crypto “working group” to study the feasibility of creating what, on the campaign trail, he called a “strategic reserve” of cryptocurrency. The notion of a strategic reserve is not a new one. The U.S. maintains such a reserve of petroleum created after the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo to calm the oil market and ensure that the country has enough oil to face shortages or to use during a national emergency such as a war.

The strategic petroleum reserve is a real thing: Hundreds of millions of barrels of crude oil are  stored in a series of underground caves along the Gulf of Mexico (er, ah … the Gulf of America). But what would a crypto reserve look like? Talk among Trump’s crypto-bro supporters, who backed his campaign to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, is that the reserve would begin with as many as 200,000 bitcoins which have been seized as part of law enforcement action against crypto fraud. Right now, those bitcoins are held, if a crypto token can be “held,” by the Department of Justice. The bitcoins seized by the DOJ are worth about $21 billion at current market value, and would be supplemented, it is thought, by the government buying more bitcoins on the open market.

Aha! Now we begin to see the outlines of what is going on in Trump’s crypto-addled brain only days into his rule. Bitcoins would increase in value simply because that the U.S. government has decided they are a viable investment, and cryptocurrencies in general would no doubt gain value and prestige even more when the government goes into the market and buys more of it.

What’s really going on here with Donald Trump’s dive into the world of crypto? First of all, he is lending legitimacy to the entire idea of this imaginary digital currency.

But while you can actually visit the strategic petroleum reserve, or at least its surface access point, cryptocurrency is not a financial commodity backed by something real, like oil or coffee or soybeans. It is said that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin exist in the digital ones and zeroes of  “blockchain” storage and are accessible, in effect, only through passwords. There are crypto storage facilities of sorts out there, actual buildings where blockchain storage consumes massive quantities of electricity to run the machines that maintain the blockchains. You may own a bitcoin, which is worth something like $102,000 in today’s crypto market, but it doesn’t exist except on faith that you can trade it or sell it in exchange for its cash value, denominated in dollars (or euros or some other actual currency), which you can then deposit in an actual bank and use however you see fit.  

So what’s really going on here with Trump’s dive into the world of crypto? First of all, he is lending legitimacy to the entire idea of this imaginary digital currency. Before Trump’s order allowing cryptocurrencies access to the banking system, the crypto marketplace has existed, for the most part, off to the side of conventional banking and investment vehicles such as stocks and bonds. While there are well-established exchanges through which stocks and bonds can be traded and exchanged for dollars, crypto exchanges are unregulated marketplaces that exist because someone says so, as with Sam Bankman-Fried and his high-flying FTX crypto exchange. But what happened to FTX? It was there, and then it wasn’t there. Bankman-Fried was there too, hobnobbing with world leaders and living in the Bahamas. But now he’s in prison and his exchange is in bankruptcy.

The entire world of crypto, along with its “coins” and “exchanges,” has existed apart from the real world of banking and the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ and the commodity markets. It was designed that way by the libertarian masterminds who came up with cryptocurrencies to set themselves free from what they considered government interference in their business.

The market they created was basically a bunch of guys trading stuff and trying to make money by outwitting each other in their private marketplace. But there was a problem: For the most part, they didn’t have access to the enormous pool of money maintained by banks and the other investment marketplaces. 

Now Donald Trump wants to open up that pool of trillions of dollars to the crypto lords who supported him. As with everything else he’s ever done, he’s paying off his loyalists for their huge donations that helped put him in office.

Like everything associated with Trump since he first put his name on a building in Manhattan and began selling Trump-branded garbage of every description, it’s all about greed. Money is why Donald Trump rode down that golden Trump Tower escalator and threw his hat into the presidential ring in 2015. Money is why his daughter and son-in-law did whatever they did in the White House for four years: Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump collected billions from Saudi Arabia after Trump left office, and have continued to profit ever since. The same goes for Trump’s adult sons, who are out there announcing new deals to build Trump-branded hotels and golf courses and whatever else they’re selling. They will do everything through the Trump Organization. Who owns the Trump Organization? Donald Trump does. They have also established a crypto company called World Liberty Financial, which sells crypto tokens branded as $WLFI. Trump is an owner of that company too, along with his children, including his youngest son, Barron, who now bears the title of “DeFi Visionary” in Trump’s latest scam to suck dollars from the pockets of people who love him.

Trump and his crypto-lords want to force the rest of us to join their scams by allowing banks to use our money to buy stuff we don’t want and do not understand. They want to “invest” our real money in their imaginary currencies.

For Donald Trump, politics has never been about policy or fixing problems or building stuff like roads and bridges with federal dollars. Remember “infrastructure week,” his four-year promise that tomorrow, or the next day, or next month, he would get  a big infrastructure bill and build things all across America? Who actually passed the infrastructure bill? Joe Biden and the Democrats. And what has Trump done? Issued an order shutting down all federal grants and loans, which is how those federal dollars were spent to build things like roads and bridges under Biden’s infrastructure law.

Trump’s Silicon Valley “broverse” — Elon Musk and Peter Thiel and the rest of them — already have their hands in the immensely lucrative  world of defense contracts up to their armpits. But is that enough for them? Is it enough for Trump, with his World Liberty Financial scheme?


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


Of course not. They want the banks to do more than hold the real dollars they accrue though their crypto schemes. They want the big money. They want the banks to invest in their crypto schemes. They want banks and financial markets to trade crypto-backed securities. 

Basically, Trump and his crypto-lords want to force the rest of us to join their scams by allowing banks to use our money to buy stuff we don’t want and do not understand, the crypto equivalent of credit default swaps. They want to “invest” our real money in their imaginary currencies. 

If you thought the housing market of the early 2000s was a bubble, backed as it was by worthless subprime mortgages, wait until you see the crypto bubble. At least mortgages were tied to real property that human beings could live in or rebuild or sell, even at a prodigious loss. What is crypto backed by? Literally nothing, except the misguided faith that there’s a “there” there.

This could well be 2008 all over again, or worse. World markets that depend on the U.S. banking system will be crippled. The whole house of digital bits and bytes will come crashing down. The strategic crypto reserve will be empty, or worthless.

Four years of “look over here! A trans person!” distraction and disinformation and lies will have paid off. All the real money will flow toward Donald Trump and his crypto lords, who will almost certainly have gotten out when the getting was good.

Donald Trump’s America will be great again, all right. For the few, not the many. The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer. We’ve seen it before and we’re about to see it again. 

 

Martha Stewart says parole officer nixed her chance to host “SNL”

Shortly after Martha Stewart's release from prison in 2005, she received a call from "Saturday Night Live's" head honcho, Lorne Michaels, inviting her to host the sketch comedy show. But to Stewart's disappointment, she had to turn down the offer, for legal reasons. 

During an appearance on “The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon” on Monday, Stewart spoke of the letdown, saying, “I wanted to, and they asked me as I was coming out of Alderson, that camp I was in for a while . . . and my parole officer wouldn’t give me the time to do it … That b****rd! I still have his name and his number.”

The missed "SNL" opportunity came shortly after Stewart had served five months at the Federal Prison Camp in West Virginia for fraud and conspiracy in an insider trading case in 2004. After her 2005 release, Stewart spent five months in home confinement and two years of supervised probation.

Under parole, Stewart says she was only allowed to be out of her house eight hours a day, which would have made it next to impossible to navigate the comedy series' demanding hosting duties and rigorous schedule. 

"I’m so pissed," Stewart told Fallon, reflecting on the offer. "But maybe someday.”

Numerous "SNL" cast members like Amy Poehler, David Spade, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Chloe Fineman have impersonated Stewart for sketches throughout past seasons, and the chance to see Stewart appear in one herself in an upcoming episode is something fans would love, including Fallon.  

“You’d be a fantastic host,” Fallon said.

“Oh, I would,” Stewart agreed. “I would be amazing. Start a campaign.”

In her recent Netflix documentary, "Martha," Stewart opens up about her experiences with her high-profile fraud case and her subsequent prison sentence, which included a day stint in solidarity confinement.

“It was so horrifying to me that I had to go through that to be a trophy for these idiots in the U.S. attorney's office. Those prosecutors should’ve been put in a Cuisinart and turned on high,” she says in the documentary.

Wigs, masks and the Black Eyed Peas: How Timothée Chalamet is making Oscar campaigning fun again

On a regular Monday afternoon last December, Timothée Chalamet went live on Instagram. That’s not exactly unusual for a normal 28-year-old, but for Chalamet, whose posts on social media have somewhat diminished as his star has risen, a livestream was a peculiar event.

It was December 23, two days before the Christmas holiday release of Chalamet’s latest film, the Bob Dylan biopic “A Complete Unknown.” The livestream and the film were connected, no doubt. But would Chalamet be jumping on Instagram to chat with his fans about the movie? Would he be performing Dylan songs live and have to battle with a choppy internet connection? 

Chalamet’s chances of Oscar glory have never looked better, and that’s all thanks to an ingenious campaign strategy that prioritizes artistic creativity over customary canvassing. 

As it turns out, Chalamet had much stranger plans in store. The livestream opened with Chalamet sitting on an office chair in the middle of a sparse warehouse space. In front of him stood a giant LED screen projecting floor-to-ceiling video footage of Dylan while his song “Blind Willie McTell” blared throughout the room. Toward the end of the six-minute song, Chalamet strode into the shadows and reemerged with an acoustic guitar in hand, strumming it for a moment before smashing it to bits as Dylan’s song concluded. Seconds later, the unmistakable sound of the Black Eyed Peas’ perennial party anthem “I Got a Feelin’” filled the room. The massive screen began to flash with benign phrases of praise for Chalamet — “Congratulations Timothée”; “We are so proud of you”; “You did it”; “Impressive to say the least” — while he danced around the room. Chalamet exploded confetti cannons and ripped off his shirt as the song finished, after which the camera followed him out of the building and into the street before he walked out of frame, a star growing smaller in the distance.

Chalamet never disclosed the meaning behind the event. But he did post the entire video to his Instagram page, where it sits among photos from his December 2024 Rolling Stone cover story. That editorial was shot by photographer Aidan Zamiri, who co-conceived and directed Chalamet’s puzzling livestream. For the Rolling Stone profile, Zamiri designed 3D-printed masks with phrases from Dylan’s songs, most notably “Subterranean Homesick Blues,” etched onto them. Chalamet sported the masks and a cardboard cutout of Dylan’s face around New York City, where both Dylan and Chalamet rose to prominence. The masks were Dylan disguises by way of Chalamet’s high-concept sartorial flair, a far more unique and intriguing way of stressing the work it took to become Dylan for “A Complete Unknown” than the more traditional talk show appearances or red carpet reporter schmoozing.

But as much as these antics have emphasized the connections between Chalamet and Dylan, they’ve also highlighted the chasm between the two stars’ public personas, making Chalamet’s performance in “A Complete Unknown” seem all the more transformative. For Chalamet — who was nominated for an Oscar for his role just last week — getting audiences, critics and Academy voters to understand how chameleonic his performance is could be the key to bagging his first big win. While hosting “Saturday Night Live” over the weekend, Chalamet poked fun at the fact that he’s continuously lost at every major awards show since the start of his career. “I just keep losing!” Chalamet said during his monologue. Though this bit got big laughs from the audience, Chalamet’s chances of Oscar glory have never looked better, and that’s all thanks to an ingenious campaign strategy that prioritizes artistic creativity over customary canvassing. 

Before the lengthy promotional tour for “A Complete Unknown” had begun, Chalamet was already making headlines when a New York City Timothée Chalamet lookalike contest went massively viral online. Hundreds of people showed up to the unsanctioned event in October 2024, which didn’t just become the talk of the daily news, but created an ongoing celebrity lookalike phenomenon. Chalamet himself showed up at the event just long enough to pose for a few snaps with the top-voted doppelgangers before fleeing the chaos. 

Whether the contest was some clever grassroots conspiracy or just divine intervention, Chalamet’s awards campaign is partially indebted to the explosion of celebrity lookalike competitions. The events were silly, sure. But they were an opportunity for everyday people who don’t necessarily keep up with upcoming film releases to read about Chalamet’s next project, and a chance for Chalamet to keep that goodwill going as awards season carried on. Chalamet even brought the contest winner to this month’s Golden Globes. Ultimately, he collected another loss, this time to Adrien Brody for “The Brutalist.” 

But in the weeks leading up to the Oscars, anything can change. Academy members still have to get around to watching all of the nominated performances, and dozens of outside factors could affect voters’ perception of any given actor. While Chalamet’s campaign kicked off early, his has been far more consistently entertaining than any of the competitors within his category: Brody, Ralph Fiennes, Colman Domingo and Sebastian Stan

Each nominated actor has a unique story to spin this year. Brody is back in the prestige lane with “The Brutalist,” a timely film, shot on a relatively shoestring budget, in which he holds his own amid the movie’s massive scale; Sebastian Stan is an underdog for playing Donald Trump in “The Apprentice,” a film that has already proven controversial within the industry; Domingo’s mighty turn in “Sing Sing” is nicely complemented by the actor’s fount of charm; and Fiennes’ face dominated last fall’s meme scene, with his performance as a doubtful Catholic cardinal in “Conclave” scoring his third nomination. Despite Chalamet mastering Dylan’s voice and learning the guitar and harmonica to sing and play live during production, Chalamet’s competition is stiff. Yet, for his part, the actor seems undaunted. And this uncomplicated chill isn’t just his personality, it’s part of his campaign strategy. 

In the weeks leading up to the theatrical release of “A Complete Unknown,” Chalamet traveled to Minnesota, where Dylan was born and raised, for a three-day press tour. He visited the University of Minnesota, took photos with the college’s marching band, sat for several interviews with local news stations and hosted an early film screening for the Minnesotans in Hibbing, where Dylan spent most of his early life. Chalamet cited the bond he had forged with Minnesota while researching the role as part of his reason for returning to promote the film, but the micro-tour also positioned Chalamet as the kind of salt-of-the-earth guy that Dylan always prided himself on being, a world-famous everyman for the contemporary age. More importantly: Chalamet genuinely looked like he was having fun doing it.

Joy is the essential ingredient that distinguishes Chalamet's Oscar campaign from his competitors. (Except for Domingo, whose conversation with Kieran Culkin on “Actors on Actors” was exhilarating to watch.) As “A Complete Unknown” continues to premiere globally, Chalamet has forgone the stuffy Oscar luncheons and industry events, where actors chat with select reporters and mingle with Academy members and their fellow cinematic elite. Instead, he’s taken a different route to ingratiate himself to the watchful eyes of voters, pulling practical jokes and fascinating hijinks similar to his Instagram livestream at different premieres. Chalamet showed up to the red carpet in London on a Lime bike, and received a small fine in return for not docking the bike correctly after he was finished. In New York, he arrived dressed as Dylan in an iconic look from the Sundance Film Festival in 2003, sporting a blonde wig, stocking cap, leather jacket and scarf. Chalamet’s caterpillar mustache, which he grew for his upcoming film “Marty Supreme,” made the perfect finishing touch to complete the look. Suddenly, Chalamet was no longer the subject of a lookalike contest, he was competing in one.

The tour positioned Chalamet as the kind of salt-of-the-earth guy that Dylan always prided himself on being, a world-famous everyman for the contemporary age. More importantly: Chalamet genuinely looked like he was having fun doing it.

Last weekend, Chalamet capped off this series of shenanigans by showing that, as much as he’s enjoying himself, it’s entirely in earnest. He pulled double-duty as host and musical guest on “SNL,” fashioning modern covers of his favorite Dylan songs, “Tomorrow Is a Long Time” and a medley of “Outlaw Blues” and “Three Angels,” for millions of viewers to hear. Chalamet abandoned the Bob Dylan impression heard in the film but still strummed away at the guitar. The songs might’ve been Dylan covers, but the performances — down to the trendy streetwear he sported onstage — were all Chalamet.

The renditions were charming and disarming, exactly what Academy members are looking for as the industry attempts to diversify the conventional idea of Oscar-winning films and performances. The last few years have seen an uptick in wildcards that, even a decade ago, would’ve seemed out of place at the Oscars; “Everything Everywhere All At Once,” "Barbie” and this year’s most-nominated film, “Emilia Pérez,” to name a few. “A Complete Unknown,” in comparison, is much more in line with the standard Oscar fare we’re used to seeing. But with Chalamet in the lead role of a biopic, it might be the perfect marriage between cinema’s new guard and its old style, an ideal that lets voters move the needle, but not too much.

While that doesn’t mean the Oscars would be headed anywhere particularly progressive if Chalamet wins, it’s difficult to fault him for trying. He’s made it abundantly clear that this role means a great deal to him, and given that the film’s production was stalled for years due to the pandemic, having it released into the world must feel like both an honor and a relief. Chalamet’s confetti-filled livestream suggests as much, perfectly distilling the similarities and differences between the Bard and the actor playing him. Dylan is a musician who has always lived for his art and resisted commercial ideas about how a great performer should act as they rise to the top. 

Now, Chalamet has ripped a page from that book. He’s conducted this campaign entirely in his own way, and like Dylan, charmed the world with his individuality in the process. Even after this awards season is over, I can’t imagine anyone would want to see less of him.

Perhaps that was all part of the plan. As the December livestream drew to a close and Chalamet headed toward the door, two more messages flashed across the screen behind him. “Good luck with your future,” one said. And the second: “We’ll be seeing your other films.”

Bookshop.org enters the e-book arena, giving indie stores a new way to compete with Amazon

Bookshop.org founder and CEO Andy Hunter joked that the e-books question has been the bane of his business’ social media manager’s existence for a while now. “Every day she has people ask her, ‘When are e-books coming? When are e-books coming?’”

Now Bookshop has an answer. On Tuesday, it launched a new digital platform enabling your favorite independently owned bookstores to sell digital books, granting them a foothold in a marketplace long dominated by Amazon.

At launch, Bookshop’s platform offers a catalog of more than three million e-books available online via any web browser and through its apps on Apple and Android. It is not yet available for Kindle users, but Hunter says that’s the company’s next step – a necessary one given that Amazon’s e-reader is the preferred device of three-quarters of digital bibliophiles.

For the time being, indie bookstore customers still have a compelling reason to switch to buying their e-books through Bookshop’s platform. One hundred percent of the profits generated by sales through those brick-and-mortar stores funnel directly back to them.

Customers who don’t specify a store to support when purchasing e-books on Bookshop.org support indie shops anyway, since a third of the profit from those sales goes into a profit-sharing pool benefiting all of Bookshop’s partners. (Salon.com is a Bookshop.org affiliate.)

“I think around 15 years ago, when e-books first came into the scene, many bookstores were anti-e-book. They were threatened by it, and didn't want e-books to take over the publishing industry,” Hunter told Salon in a recent interview. “But now e-books have stayed at about 20% of book sales for 15 years. They're not going to undermine physical books, so there's no reason for independent local bookstore customers not to be able to buy them from their local bookstore. We're just making that possible.”

The goal is to unlock new income streams for authors and booksellers that partner with Bookshop along with its central mission of providing an alternative to corporations that have long-threatened local bookstores’ existence — primarily Amazon.

This was especially crucial when the COVID-19 pandemic forced many businesses to limit customer traffic or close their doors shortly after Bookshop launched in January 2020. Large-scale delivery-based corporations like Amazon saw their sales balloon while independently owned and operated businesses struggled. Bookshop gave indie bookstores a fighting chance, and has since generated nearly $35.8 million to support the literary businesses that have signed up as partners.

"Independent bookstores are extremely important to a healthy culture around books."

With its new e-book platform, Bookshop positions itself as a champion of what Hunter calls “book culture” at a time when, if Donald Trump’s administration follows through on his campaign promises, funding for public libraries and public education is under extreme threat.

Since Amazon controls most of the e-book market, and with its founder Jeff Bezos joining other tech billionaires in cozying up to the administration, this should raise important questions among information consumers. Hunter offers a few to consider: How do you hear about certain books? When you awaken your Kindle lock screen, which ones are being served to you, and who controls that selection?

”I think as you go into this phase of American history where there's a true danger of an oligarchy. . . you don't want to have those people control our culture,” he offered in our wide-ranging conversation on the importance of Bookshop.org as one alternative to Amazon's literary marketplace dominance. “It is all part of the same resistance that we're trying to accomplish right now, and we're just really in the nascent period of setting these systems up . . . Hopefully they'll find ways for us to preserve freedom of thought and speech and discourse.”

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

We are unfortunately living in a time when books are being banned at the state level. If the current administration follows the policy suggestions spelled out in Project 2025, there will be a decrease in funding for libraries that will adversely impact literacy programs. And I'm wondering, as part of this expansion into e-books, whether any of that has been accounted for in your plans to make Bookshop an alternative to Amazon.

Absolutely. I'm a big fan of the idea of the mechanisms behind book culture being decentralized and controlled by writers, readers and publishers — and not one giant mega-retailer. So the more we diversify how people get books and how people hear about books, the better chance we have of not having some kind of authoritarian control over what people read.

That means strengthening independent bookstores in general. Independent local bookstores are really advocates and activists for the importance of reading and diverse reading in their communities. They have an enormous impact on the literacy and embrace of books and reading by young people, organizations, and businesses in those communities. So strengthen them, and then you have a decentralized environment for reading that can hold up, I hope, against more kinds of authoritarian control.

And so far, the cases that seemed to put independent booksellers at risk — like in Texas, where laws stated that if they sold a book, or if they sold a book to a library and it was considered inappropriate for young people, the bookstore could be punished — have not held up in the courts.

So I think the chances of reading truly being restricted and people not being able to read the books that they would want to read, or not even hear about the books that could change the way they thought about something, it's much less of a risk if we support independent local bookstores.

E-Book E-Reader with books and potted plantWoman takes an e-reader from a shelf with books and a small potted plant (Getty Images/Veni vidi…shoot)

Can you explain how e-book sales help independent bookstores? And is what you're doing with this launch different from what you've been doing with Bookshop as its own sales and publishing platform?

Well, in general, no matter how much you love your local bookstore, if you read e-books, you had no way to buy them from them. One out of every six books sold in the United States is an e-book. So [independently-owned] bookstores were completely shut out of this incredibly important part of the publishing industry, and they didn't get the revenue from it. And their customers, even their most loyal customers, would then have to go to Amazon when they had to read an e-book.

If an independent bookstore sells an e-book to a customer, they get the full profit from the sale. Bookshop does not take a cut at all.

We need your help to stay independent

You know, we're a benefit corporation. We're a mission-based company. Our mission is to keep independent bookstores alive and thriving in the age of E-commerce, and that includes selling digital products like e-books, so they get the full profit. We do not take a cut.

If Salon.com links to an e-book as an affiliate, in that case, we'll get a third of the profit. Salon.com will get a third of the profit, and independent bookstores will get a third of the profit. So in those cases of affiliate sales, we split up the sale, and that helps support the platform.

"I can tell you that our sales went up 20% as soon as Trump won the election."

Also, if somebody goes directly to Bookshop.org, does not select an independent bookstore to support and has not come to us through an independent bookstore and just does a direct sale, then we'll keep two-thirds of the profit, and a third of the profit will go to a profit-sharing pool, which we share with all the bookstores.

So that means that if an independent bookstore sells a book directly to you, they get the whole profit. But we still have enough money to pay for the platform, and keeping the platform going is going to cost over a million dollars a year. We need to pay for that somehow. So direct sales is how we're going to pay for that.

Let me for a moment adopt the mercenary perspective that I think dominates a lot of discourse about capitalist profit: What makes this worthwhile for you?

First of all, our mission, and the only reason the customers are buying from Bookshop.org, is because you're supporting independent bookstores. If we were keeping the money or just giving a small fraction to independent bookstores, it would not be anywhere as meaningful. So in a way, we're in this because that's our pitch: you're going to support your independent bookstore when you buy a book from us. So that has to be true. If it wasn't true, the booksellers would be the first people to let people know that it wasn't true. The success of our business requires us to stay honest about that.

Second of all, in the beginning, we knew that it would be tempting and that people might want to buy the business. I knew that when companies like Grubhub showed up. They were so beneficial to local restaurants that they all embraced it, and then gradually, as the venture capitalists require higher returns, then they gradually make it worse and worse of a deal.

. . . In the beginning, we made the decision that we weren't going to take venture capital and we were going to try to grow through word of mouth. And it's been much harder, because for e-books, for example, Scribd has raised $200 million to do e-books. Fable raised $40 million to do e-books. We managed to raise $2 million to do e-books.

So we are literally working with 1/100 of the funding that some of our competitors are, because we're foregoing venture capital. But if we accepted venture capital, then we would suddenly be under this pressure to earn profits or flip the company and sell the company in a way that could be predatory.

We also, in the beginning, put in our shareholder agreement for any investors that we weren't allowed to sell to Amazon or any major retailer, because that's another thing that would have been a temptation. If Amazon offers you $100 million for the business, investors might want to take that. So we’ve built in protections.

"One out of every six books sold in the United States is an e-book. So bookstores were completely shut out of this incredibly important part of the publishing industry."

Now, why is it worth it? Honestly, I just am a sentimental person who loves books, who feels like books have enriched my life and changed my understanding of the world, and kept me alive. And I care about them a lot, and I understand that independent bookstores are extremely important to a healthy culture around books. And after being in the publishing industry for 15 years and watching half of the bookstores in the country go out of business, as Amazon grew to over 50% of book sales, I kept waiting for somebody else to do something about it, and nobody would do anything about it.

. . . Honestly, there's something in that question, which is about critiquing, like, what do people get out of selling out their culture and selling out their lives? What do they get out of that? How much do we really need? Do we really need billionaires? What are they all doing it for? In the end, I feel like they're all doing it just to impress their narrow peer group and out of some kind of competitive instinct, etcetera.

And I think, what does everybody get out of living a balanced life, where they feel good about what they're doing every day and they have real community? That's what you really want to get out of life, and that's what I think everybody at Bookshop is getting at . . . So by staying away from venture capital, by saying we'll never sell the company, and by attracting a group of people who are in this for the right reasons, that's what keeps us going.


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


I'm wondering what you've noticed, in terms of both what you might be hearing from independent bookstores but also from consumers, about how political headwinds might be changing the state of publishing and how you’re taking those into account in terms of moving Bookshop forward and expanding its reach.

We know that there are a lot of people who are like, “I don't want to buy from Amazon anymore, but I love reading e-books,” or, “I'm a self-published author, and I depend on Amazon's Kindle platform.” And so, we knew that we needed to counteract that. You can't ask a customer, “Stop buying books on Amazon,” with an asterisk: “Except when you need to buy an e-book, in which case, you're out of luck.”

We want to have feature parity with Amazon. Everything Amazon can do, we want to do as well or better. Eventually, we want Bookshop to be the best place to buy books on the internet. Any reader who cares about books should feel that shared love of books when they go to Bookshop — in a way that they don't feel when they go to Amazon.

Now, in terms of the overall vibe shift of the new administration, I can tell you that our sales went up 20% as soon as Trump won the election. I think a lot of people were suddenly feeling a little bit more motivated to stay off Amazon when they saw Jeff Bezos post this congratulatory tweet to Trump and shut down some political cartoonists and things like that at the Washington Post. That kind of fealty that the Amazon Empire seemed to be willing to pledge to the new administration turned people off.

And I think it makes them realize, “Oh, I really cannot, in good conscience, support this anymore.” So I hope that’s not just a ripple; I hope it’s the butterfly wings that start the tempest, leading more and more people to behave like socially conscious consumers. I hope they opt out of the things that are destructive to our society and start living and shopping in a way that’s ethical and sustainable — one that supports local businesses, like local bookstores.